Conservapedia's section on Objectivism and Atheism.

[fletch]

I'm involved in a debate about atheism on one of the large conservative websites now. As I'm not familiar with the Bible, would any of you be able to provide me with some arguments against the following claims? They allegedly prove that the Bible includes predictions that have been proved historically accurate.

Just because the Bible contains many historical facts does not mean that the supernatural occurances related therein are also accurate. In fact, the inclusion of supernatural events in the Bible render it useless as a historical document. Once you mix fact with fantasy, it becomes impossible to know where one begins and the other ends. So in reality, you cant believe any of it unless it can be independently verified elsewhere. There may have in fact been a Herod and a Pontius Pilot, even a Jesus. So what? That does not prove either the existence of God or the truth of the Bible as a whole.

[AMirvish]

http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism

http://www.conservapedia.com/Objectivism

The entry wasn't perfect, but I thought it generally accurate. It identified the main points of the philosophy correctly, with relatively minor editorial comments, and while noting that Branden had been Rand's closest associate for many years also identified his criticisms as criticisms, not as statements from someone claiming to be a spokesman for Objectivism. Certainly, far worse has been written about Rand by the conservative movement.