User:Pink/Kenversation

Your Atheism Articles
I hate to point this out, but unlike Christianity atheism is not an organised religion with recognised leaders and lacks any form of accepted dogma, therefore articles such as "Atheism and Inconsistencies" are going to be redundant. Also, having a few quotes from "prominent atheists" is the equivalent to using quotes from Osama bin Laden to justify an article on, the people you are quoting have no standing within the broader atheist community and do not represent atheism as a concept. 23:37, 20 June 2008 (EDT)
 * Here are 3 prominent atheist website's which state there are atheist leaders: http://www.atheists.org/Atheism/roots/ and http://atheism.about.com/library/glossary/general/bldef_ohairmm.htm and http://friendlyatheist.com/2008/01/20/could-we-hold-the-ultimate-atheist-conference/

Conservative 23:42, 20 June 2008 (EDT)


 * Uhu, I can state now that I am the leader of Australia, but that doesn't mean that I am. There is no organisation or group of organisations which represent atheism as a whole. If you read the sites you linked to only a few hundred people attend the conferences run by these groups, and only a few thousand are subscribers, compared to the few million atheists in America and the millions more around the world. Again, stating that these prominent organisations are representative of atheism is akin to stating Osama bin Laden is representative of Islam. 23:49, 20 June 2008 (EDT)
 * Please blather on someone else's talk page. Thank you. Conservative 23:51, 20 June 2008 (EDT)

<-Um no, I didn't lose this debate, I respected your wishes and raised my concerns off your talk page. It is you who has failed to respond to my latest points. 00:59, 22 June 2008 (EDT)
 * StatsMsn, I believe Infidels.org is the most popular atheist website in the whole world or at least the second most popular website (They rank #2 for the search atheism in the whole world for Google in English speaking countries. However, I do realize that the internet is quite popular in China) and you will see that they have frequently used the term "atheist leaders" as can be seen  here. So there is a degree of leadership in atheism. Also, atheism is illogical and as the atheism article is enhanced this will be made even clearer that it already is and this brings me to the next issue.  While it is true that not many atheists attend conferences, perhaps that is  and partly because their atheism is so tenuous.  Given the illogical nature of atheism and the  emptiness of the arguments of atheists, it is not hard to understand why the atheism is quite tenuous in some atheists.  Now the amount of leadership that exist in the realm of atheism is debatable.  In the Conservapedia atheism article Professor Vitz does mention that he found that prominent atheist are very  proud, which is not surprising given the moral depravity of the atheist community.  Now given that pride is certainly part of moral depravity and given that many prideful people often cannot countenance having a leader, the amount of leadership that exist in the atheist community is debatable although Infidels.org is extremely popular in the English speaking internet world and the New Atheism author's books are apparently quite popular among some atheists as they have achieved many book sales.  Conservative 10:01, 22 June 2008 (EDT)


 * Just because a website or organisation is popular doesn't mean that it is representative of the group of people it claims to lead. There are not elected and do not have the open support of a majority (or even a large minority) of atheists, there is no justification in assuming they are leaders.


 * If it hasn't been said here it has been stated on other sites that one of the principle reasons atheists appear to give less money to charity is because donations to religious organisations are listed as charitable donations. I am sure that you wouldn't criticise someone for helping to pay for a place of worship when they do not have any intention of worshiping there (my Church recently spent $37,000 on a new AV system, all of the donations that led to that were classified as being donations to charity and I would not expect atheists to by paying for it).


 * Again, a few prominent figures do not represent atheists, in many cases they hold views which a majority of atheists do not support. You will also find that prominent figures in general are proud, it is simply something that stems from (or leads to) fame and success, it is not isolated to atheists.


 * Do you have anything other than popularity or self labeling to show that one or more individuals/organisations are true atheists leaders? 10:14, 22 June 2008 (EDT)


 * Oh and next time you may want to check your google links. The first hit was a thread of atheists denying that there are atheist leaders. 10:15, 22 June 2008 (EDT)
 * StatsMsn, you remind of a certain character in a movie I once saw. Conservative 10:22, 22 June 2008 (EDT)

Ok, an example. Let's just say that I claim to be the leader of people who wear scarves. I make a website and put this claim on it. I then spam blogs and forums with links to my website and boost its ranking and popularity, even though the people who come to it do not necessarily agree with my content. Somebody such as you sees that I have [insert your favourite form of moral depravity]. Does this mean that I am really the leader and representative of everyone (or even just a majority of people) who like to wear scarves, and that my actions are an indication that everyone who wears scarves is morally depraved?

Of course not. Now replace "people who wear scarves" with "atheists" and spot the flaw in your argument.

And I sincerely hope that your above comments were not intended as a personal attack, which are strictly forbidden by Conservapedia commandments. 10:24, 22 June 2008 (EDT)
 * StatsMsn, you are being illogical. That was merely one out of the many citations.  Logicians would call that a slothful inductive fallacy. Please check here again. Conservative 10:26, 22 June 2008 (EDT)


 * Fine, I concede that my "argument" relating to the top google hit proclaiming there were no atheist leaders was a fallacy, now if you'll care to address the rest of my points... 10:28, 22 June 2008 (EDT)
 * StatsMsn, perhaps someone at Conservapedia might be interested in refuting one of the many black knights of atheism, but I certainly do not. Conservative 10:38, 22 June 2008 (EDT)

<- That's nice, if I was prone to logical fallacies on a frequent basis I may take your silence as a sign that I had won the debate and then proclaim it on various talk pages, but I will not. In my mind your failure to refute my points is not because you are not interested in doing so but because you are unable to, there is simply nothing to justify your claim that atheists have defined leaders whose actions are representative of the broader community. Instead you have fallen victim to the fallacies that popularity and self claims indicate authority. If you want to show otherwise, then I await your response. 10:42, 22 June 2008 (EDT)