Is it right?

On the tenth anniversary of 9/11, the religious-laden sentiment is free-flowing.

As an atheist, I do not compose these sentiments myself, but their, as I see it, mythological references, are peculiar. In most circumstances, I would protest. If it was a religious reference on a public building, or religious reference in a legal decision, I would protest. Today I’m less certain.

The error in religious mythology is not what impedes my conviction. What impedes my conviction is the purpose of the sentiment itself: Does a grieving father, who lost his young child ten years ago and expresses his remorse with Biblical citation, really need correcting in that moment? How important is his cognition of the religious error in a time of grief?

Would you correct them, in that moment? Is it right?

Conservapedia.com’s treatment of atheism

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).

Continue reading…