What 'Conservapedia' fails to mention is that this implies that 52.4% of American society are of the opposite persuasion, but then 'Conservapedia' has never been an organisation which lets facts stand in the way of its propaganda and Xtian dogma.
A couple of examples quoted from them will suffice to demonstrate the totally fallacious claims made by this sorry excuse for an encyclopaedia - hardly surprising, however, since it's real purpose is simply to propagate fundie Xtian claims:-
- "As noted earlier, a majority of the most prominent and vocal defenders of the naturalistic evolutionary position since World War II have been atheists.Creation scientists tend to win the Creation-Evolution debates and many debates have been held since the 1970's particularly in the United States". (accessed 20/12/07, here.)
"According to the origins theory model used by young earth creation scientists, modern kangaroos are the descendants of the two founding members of the modern kangaroo baramin that were taken aboard Noah's Ark prior to the Great Flood. It has not yet been determined by baraminologists whether kangaroos form a holobaramin with the wallaby, tree-kangaroo, wallaroo, pademelon and quokka, or if all these species are in fact apobaraminic or polybaraminic.
After the Flood, these kangaroos bred from the Ark passengers migrated to Australia. There is debate whether this migration happened over land with lower sea levels during the post-flood ice age, or before the supercontinent of Pangea broke apart The idea that God simply generated kangaroos into existence there is considered by most creation researchers to be contra-Biblical".(accessed 20/12/07 here).
In the article, Is Atheism Presumptuous?, atheist Jeffery Jay Lowder, a founder of Internet Infidels which is one of the principle websites for atheists, agnostics and skeptics on the internet, states that "I agree [with Copan] that anyone who claims, "God does not exist," must shoulder a burden of proof just as much as anyone who claims, "God exists."Well, I'm sorry to have to disagree with Lowder, Copan, and the scribes at 'Conservapedia', but neither this atheist nor any other atheist is obliged to assume the mantle of disproving that which theists initiated de novo.
Theists invented the concept of 'gods' ab initio, so your lot have to prove your case. Your attempt to divert the onus onto atheists by quoting that the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy define 'atheism' as 'the denial of the existence of any God or gods' is completely irrelevant and thoroughly spurious. After all, the Oxford English Dictionary (arguably the most definitive dictionary in the world) defines 'atheism' as: "Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a God".
In other words, the word 'atheism' encompasses the simple state of someone who acknowledges that there is no credible evidence to support the claims made by theists that this 'god' they refer to exists; or, as philosophers and psychologists have it, that theism is not a 'justified true belief', so there is absolutely no onus on those who do not accept theism to disprove the claims made by theists that their particular 'god' exists, or even to disprove that there are any other so-called 'gods'.
Au contriare, as Voltaire would have it - and you do like quoting him when it suits you, don't you - the onus is not only on you to prove that this particular 'god' whom you refer to as 'God' exists, but that you must also prove all the other specious claims you make for this entity - such as that it is the 'First Cause but itself Uncaused', or that it is actually any more credible than any of the thousands of other 'creator-gods' that mankind has deluded itself into believing over the millennia.
Oh, and pointing out that your 'God' tells you in his 'Holy Bible' to eschew all other 'gods' is not sufficient proof of anything other than the collective delusional psychopathology of those who wrote and subsequently those who claim to believe in those fairy-tales in the first place.
Next, some other theistic loonie will be telling me that Cthulhu really exists, and that the 'Necronomicron' of the Seer and Prophet Abdul Al-hazred is really 'holy scripture' and that it is up to me to disprove their claims.
On second thoughts, let the Xtian apologists who contribute their drivel to 'Consevapedia' disprove it for, according to their own arguments, the onus is on them to do so, since the 'Necronomicron' states that Cthulhu is THE 'Elder One' and therefore it must, by definition, have existed prior to the 'God' of Xtians; the corollary to this is that unless Xtians can disprove the claims made for Cthulhu, then they are unable to demonstrate that their 'God' is the 'First Cause' or THE 'Elder One'.
Delusional psychotics, the lot of them.