Skip to main content

The causes of atheism

Conservapedia explains the causes of atheism... in my case it was moral depravity rather than an absent or abusive father.


jeremy said…
Thanks so much Stephen - this is the funniest thing I've seen in weeks!!

Also, Bible exegesis points to the moral depravity of atheists. Therefore, moral depravity is certainly one of the prime causes of atheism.


But don't take it from them - God Himself says he hates atheists.
Doug Indeap said…
This silly list might have been shortened to: "Lack of evidence of god(s)."
Jit said…
Surely atheism is supposed to lead to moral depravity - not the other way around, for that would imply that morally depraved theists become atheists.

I wonder if there is any awareness at all by the clowns at conservapedia of the way this list reads like a parody?
Unknown said…
I was surprised how much attention Conservapedia pays to atheism. The main article is awfully long, and there are also separate articles about topic such as “Atheism and Mass Murder”, “Atheism and Uncharitableness” and the like.

I'm surprised they have “Atheism and Morality”. It should be “Atheism and Immorality”, shouldn't it?
Twazzi said…
Conservapedia: Does anyone other than fundies use this
laughable site? It was designed by people like Ben Stein to combat Wikapedia because it holds too many non- xtian views.
jeremy said…
Yes, it reminds me of Stephen Colbert's quip that "reality has a well-known liberal bias."

Samuel Skinner said…
The number on cause of atheism- the free cookies!
David B. Ellis said…
Abusive fathers seem to be a popular excuse to dismiss the reasoning of religious skeptics.

My sister, for example, is convinced I'm now a nonbeliever because our father was a jerk.

Never mind that I'm the only one of four siblings raised in the same environment who deconverted....nor the fact that I'm also the only one of those four who had a strong early interest in science---which tends to introduce one to the idea that critical thinking skills are vitally important.

No, it must have been something Freudian.
Tony Lloyd said…
Well I just got banned from the site!

The owner of the site, Andrew Schlafly, has been in correspondence with a Prof. Lenski who has had some interesting results in a long term experiment on evolution. Schlafly and others on Conservapedia have questioned Lenski's professionalism and honesty. The correspondence resulted in Schlafly looking like a pratt, but Schlafly still wont let it lie. I suggested that he should act like a man and apologise. Result? Permanent exclusion for "Insulting behaviour".

Rationalwiki has the Schlafly/Lenski correspondence. (Lenski's second letter is almost up there with Alan Sokal) here

(The entry that got me banned is on the "talk page" - f that's insulting goodness knows what would happen to someone who threw around the type of stuff Rev. Sam has to put up with!)

(For those who do not worship the ground Alan Sokal walks on read this: )
Stephen Law said…
Well congratulations - now I want to be banned too...would be a badge of honour. Like being criticized by Melanie Phillips, which I have still not managed despite spending much of a book rubbishing her ideas....

Popular posts from this blog


(Published in Faith and Philosophy 2011. Volume 28, Issue 2, April 2011. Stephen Law. Pages 129-151) EVIDENCE, MIRACLES AND THE EXISTENCE OF JESUS Stephen Law Abstract The vast majority of Biblical historians believe there is evidence sufficient to place Jesus’ existence beyond reasonable doubt. Many believe the New Testament documents alone suffice firmly to establish Jesus as an actual, historical figure. I question these views. In particular, I argue (i) that the three most popular criteria by which various non-miraculous New Testament claims made about Jesus are supposedly corroborated are not sufficient, either singly or jointly, to place his existence beyond reasonable doubt, and (ii) that a prima facie plausible principle concerning how evidence should be assessed – a principle I call the contamination principle – entails that, given the large proportion of uncorroborated miracle claims made about Jesus in the New Testament documents, we should, in the absence of indepen

What is Humanism?

What is Humanism? “Humanism” is a word that has had and continues to have a number of meanings. The focus here is on kind of atheistic world-view espoused by those who organize and campaign under that banner in the UK and abroad. We should acknowledge that there remain other uses of term. In one of the loosest senses of the expression, a “Humanist” is someone whose world-view gives special importance to human concerns, values and dignity. If that is what a Humanist is, then of course most of us qualify as Humanists, including many religious theists. But the fact remains that, around the world, those who organize under the label “Humanism” tend to sign up to a narrower, atheistic view. What does Humanism, understood in this narrower way, involve? The boundaries of the concept remain somewhat vague and ambiguous. However, most of those who organize under the banner of Humanism would accept the following minimal seven-point characterization of their world-view.

Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism refuted

Here's my central criticism of Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism (EAAN). It's novel and was published in Analysis last year. Here's the gist. Plantinga argues that if naturalism and evolution are true, then semantic epiphenomenalism is very probably true - that's to say, the content of our beliefs does not causally impinge on our behaviour. And if semantic properties such as having such-and-such content or being true cannot causally impinge on behaviour, then they cannot be selected for by unguided evolution. Plantinga's argument requires, crucially, that there be no conceptual links between belief content and behaviour of a sort that it's actually very plausible to suppose exist (note that to suppose there are such conceptual links is not necessarily to suppose that content can be exhaustively captured in terms of behaviour or functional role, etc. in the way logical behaviourists or functionalists suppose). It turns o