Conservapedia.com’s treatment of atheism

Written by Dalton McGee in Opinion at May 31, 2010

I don’t know how many of you are familiar with Conservapedia.com, the Wikipedia-like religious Christian-minded website that puts a rightward spin on the information we all take for granted over at Wikipedia, and specifically their page about atheism.

Let start off your introduction to Conservapedia with a quote from their rules page.

This page and the pages listed below are the only rule pages on Conservapedia. These guidelines are kept simple in order to avoid the arbitrary and biased enforcement that is rampant on Wikipedia.

Also take note of their slogan:

The Trustworthy Encyclopedia.

I read the bulk of the article regarding atheism and have come to one conclusion: it’s downright wrong and intentionally deceitful as to the true information regarding godlessness. Here are a few comments on certain sections (but feel free to read the rest of the page yourself).

• Atheism and Communism - This page attempts to attribute all atrocities done by Communist governments to the tenants of atheism (and also Darwinistic Evolution). The article extensively goes on about China’s treatment of Christians, for instance, owners of Bibles being jailed, churches being shut down, etc. First off, I’m not saying this is right or good, but this isn’t necessarily pro-atheism, is it? Where are the Buddhists being jailed for owning pro-Buddhism documents; where are the Taoists being jailed?; where are the mosques being shut down? Why doesn’t Conservapedia talk about that at all? Well, because they’re not talking anti-religion here, they’re talking anti-Christian. That’s their beef; that’s their problem. And just for statistics sake, there are between 40,000,000 and 130,000,000 Christians in China, or between 3 and 9% of the population. They also don’t consider that because a person is an atheist doesn’t necessarily mean they’re committing acts in the name of atheism. I’d go as far as to say, 99% of the time, those people aren’t doing what they do “in the name of atheism” but because they are terrible people in general. Correlation doesn’t imply causation, does it?
• Atheism in America and Charity - The main issue I have with this section is that it claims that the per capita donation to charity by godless people is significantly lower than of the religious folk these days (Atheist/agnostic - $200; religious - $1500). While they may be totally correct in this instance, what they don’t take into effect here is that the average faithless person is significantly younger and therefore less likely to have the funds available to donate. 55% of atheists are under 35 and only 20% are over 50. Of course they aren’t donating as much, they simply don’t have excess capital.
• Atheism and Immoral Views - Here is the biggest problem I have with this page. First of all it doesn’t have any positive connotations. Atheism and IMMORAL views… it doesn’t say Atheism and Morality or anything remotely neutral. The Trustworthy Encyclopedia, indeed. What are these “immoral” views they claim we atheists have?

The Barna Group found regarding atheism and morality that those who hold to the worldviews of atheism or agnosticism in America were more likely, than theists in America, to look upon the following behaviors as morally acceptable: illegal drug use; excessive drinking; sexual relationships outside of marriage; abortion; cohabitating with someone of opposite sex outside of marriage; obscene language; gambling; pornography and obscene sexual behavior; and engaging in homosexuality/bisexuality.

Who says these are immoral? Why aren’t these morally acceptable? Do I really have to take these one by one and dismantle them? No. But I will point out the more ridiculous ones.

• “Cohabiting with someone of opposite sex outside of marriage.” Really? That’s immoral?
• “Obscene language.” That basically comes down to using words that some people don’t like, that can range from Dammit to Crap to blasphemy. Words.
• “Engaging in homosexuality/bisexuality.” I’m nearly positive that the only people who have moral issues with this are the religious. What other reasons would one have to discriminate over?

So there we have it. Three sections of a vast entry from our friends at Conservapedia regarding atheism and godlessness, and three examples of blatant religious Christian bias.

Have opinions on other sections? Feel free to comment below. Think I’m dead wrong? I’d love to know why. Agree with me? Well good, let me know.

edit: took out poll image because it was pointed out to me that it really has nothing to do with anything.

Related posts:

1. Why atheism will replace religion/primitive atheism
2. Unequal treatment for secular event at Fort Bragg
3. The broader impact of atheism