Response to "Atheistic Style"

Here I am responding to Atheistic Style on Conservapedia.

Conservapedia is the play toy of Andy Schlafly.[1]  Note that the atheists I know hold a naturalistic worldview and generally accept the findings of science.  Quite often in his article Andy makes claims about what atheists believe or how they act where the argument seems more likely to apply to scientists.  I do not intend to equate atheists with scientists or the other way around, however, when the argument Andy presents relates to science, I will use scientists as the examples for my response.

More after the break:

He starts:

There is a style common to many atheists, including:

a refusal to recognize how democracy, first practiced in pre-Christ Greece, relies on Christianity, and how no atheistic culture has ever managed to sustain a lasting democracy

I would ask which examples of democracy which rely on Christianity he would offer up as examples of  lasting democracies. The United States is still quite young as nations go, and early in its existence the leaders of the fledgling nation provided assurances to the rest of the world that the United States is not a Christian Nation. [2]

a refusal to credit the role played by faith in great contributions of many people, such as Isaac Newton

Since when do atheists refuse to acknowledge the religiosity of Isaac Newton? It is quite well documented that Isaac Newton was very religious and no one denies it.[3] He had several other odd beliefs, should we show case these as well? He was an alchemist, too, and probably died a virgin.[4][5] None of which takes away from his mathematical and physics genius.  The same is true for the genius of Galileo, Mozart, or Beethoven.

a general disbelief of unseen and unquantifiable concepts, such as love, intrinsic beauty and fidelity a belief that atheists are somehow smarter than those having faith, downplaying contributions by Christians

I know of no atheists that disbelieve in love, intrinsic beauty or fidelity. Did you know that atheists are as faithful to their spouses as Christians?[6] Did you know there are atheist artists?[7]

a belief that humans are smarter today than 100, 1,000 or 6,000 years ago

No atheists I know hold such a belief. In fact, the evidence shows that the first fully modern humans of 100,000 to 60,000 (possibly earlier) years ago were as intelligent as humans are now.[8] The advantage we have today is a database of knowledge unavailable to those ancient peoples.

a view that most of science is known and understood, in contrast to Isaac Newton's view that little is understood

Again, I know of no atheists who have such a belief, that most of science is known and understood. Most atheists, and scientists, are excited by the knowledge that we are at the very beginning of understanding the universe and that there is so much more to know.[9] The one thing scientists do not do is to insert God where our understanding is lacking (and obviously, an atheist would never insert gods anywhere). We have discovered over time that these gaps eventually fill in and that the role of a creator god becomes less and less.

a focus on materialism, and a devotion to relativism in many forms a generally pessimistic, worthless and depressing view of life

A focus on materialism and relativism do not in any way lead to a generally pessimistic, worthless or depressing view of life. Which atheist authors have you been reading, Andy? The atheists I read zero in on just how precious our lives are, how indescribably beautiful and valuable all of life is. Atheists do have a realistic world-view and so do acknowledge there are dangers and challenges we have not yet overcome, but the vast majority believes we are capable of doing so.[9]

among scientists, an unshakeable faith in never-detected gravitons, dark matter, black holes, super strings and life in outer space

This unshakable faith you speak of has been known to turn on a dime and go the other way the moment the evidence shows it is wrong (when has theology willingly done so rather than be dragged kicking and screaming into the new understanding?).[10]

Scientists have experiments they hope will detect gravitons and thus validate certain portions of modern theory. No faith required. And should the experiments show no such things exist, the modern theories will be replaced by better theories that do not require gravitons to explain gravity. You call this unshakable?[11]

Scientists use dark matter (and dark energy) to explain a current lack of knowledge (hence the use of the term dark) about certain aspects of the universe. They believe dark energy and matter must exist because our measurements of space and time tell us it must. A great many scientists are working to explain the measurements of the universe without resorting to dark matter and dark energy. Currently, however, we expect to find that dark matter and energy are reality. You call this unshakable?[12]

Super string can't rightly even be called a theory. It's more a conjecture. You call this unshakable?[13]

You obviously need a lesson in what the word unshakable means. You keep using this word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Regarding life in outer space... What the people that talk about exobiology mean is that the foundations for life are so obvious and likely that if there exist other earths in space, then the likelihood of other life is very high.[14] This is far from a sure thing, but it is as likely as finding living microbes in Antarctica or at the bottom of the Challenger Deep.[15][16]

belief in the Nobel Prize, universities, newspapers and magazines as oracles of truths

I don't think I understand your point. The Nobel Prize is given out for achievements in various fields. The award neither changes the truth or validity of the achievement, nor our acceptance or denial of the same.

University is where we send our children to prepare for their careers. Do you deny the educational value of the seminary? Of Law schools? Of any other higher institutions of learning? If you do so, then you are a fool, especially given your history of participation in the system.

However, as a fount of truth, we harbor no illusions as to the ability of Universities to be wrong. We hardly hold newspapers and magazines to be sources of truth. We know all too well how often they get the science wrong. Only a very few magazines are accepted as authoritative sources, and even then, we take any individual article as provisional.

overreliance on hearsay, a perception (often wrong) of what most people think, and a dependance on often outdated texts.

You are going to have to provide examples. Real scientists are working from the latest and most current data they can. Reliance on 2000 year old texts is left to historians and theologians. This is not a dig at historians or theologians, but a comment that science is forward looking and cannot rely on old knowledge that does not provide insight or foundational value.

an insistence on censoring prayer from the classroom[1]

Your example is not of censoring of prayer. It is an example of the theocracy forcing non-believers to participate in ritual and prayer. That you see this as anything else is a powerful example of your bias against non-theists.

A rejection of the teleological view of history that Mankind is increasingly moviing towards an absolute perfect state thanks to Christianity.

Please provide an example of your absolute perfect state emerging as a result of Christianity. If you mean that Christians are creating tensions in the world that will eventually result in complete and total annihilation of the human race (and most other animals and plant species) resulting in nirvana, then perhaps you are correct. (This is as close to pessimism as I will go, I expect that reality will eventually prevail and people will realize the farce that is organized religion.) If you mean that every person in the world will worship your god, you have a twisted sense of perfection.

Follow this link to better understand Andy: http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:About

Before you ask why I don't just go to his conservapedia and correct it wiki style, the link above will explain why.  No liberal bias will be tolerated.  Now, I don't consider myself liberal, however Andy will, and thus nothing I add will be tolerated (meaning it will be deleted as soon as I post it, no doubt).

For a group that cries about being censored so much (so why do we hear their rants so often if they are being censored), they are certainly willing to censor anyone with whom they disagree.

References:
1. user:Aschlfaly - Conservapedia
2. Avalon Project - The Barbary Treaties 1786-1816
Treaty of Peace and Friendship, Signed at Tripoli November 4, 1796
3. Isaac Newton's Life
4. No. 967: Isaac Newton: Alchemist
5. The Straight Dope: Was Isaac Newton A Virgin
6. Epiphenom: Religion and marital infidelity
7. List of nontheists - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
8. Discovery Health :: HealthDay :: Music Had Charms to Soothe Prehistoric Man
9. Carl Sagan "Can We Know the Universe?" 1979
10. Nick Sagan Online: Barack Obama for President
11. Do gravitons exist? - Bad Astronomy and Universe Today Forum
12. Martin White: Dark Matter
13. Higgs, Dark Matter and Supersymmetry: what the LHC will tell us « Not Even Wrong
14. Ames Exobiology
15. Antarctic Microbes Colonize under Mars-like Conditions
16. Life Is Found Thriving at Ocean's Deepest Point