PDA

View Full Version : conservapedia



Bilbo Baggins
16 Dec 2009, 02:07pm
I'm not sure if this technically falls under politics but I found this website conservapedia and I'm shocked that people actual take this at face value. Take this article for instance Atheism and Evolution (http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism_and_Evolution)
Sure, I suppose that some of that could be true, but what does this have to do with anything:
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.[6] Furthermore, per capita atheists and agnostics in America give significantly less to charity than theists even when church giving is not counted for theists.[7][8][9]

How does suggesting atheists are bad people relate to evolution? I'm truly shocked if people actually use this a real source of information. Looking at the "article" on atheism I'm even more shocked. This wouldn't bother me if they were open about their craziness, yes they admit to write from a conservative viewpoint, but I think most conservatives would disagree with this stuff.

PotshotPolka
16 Dec 2009, 02:13pm
http://liberapedia.wikia.com/wiki/Conservative_Intellectualism

You can't escape stupidity no matter what flag it flies under.

Bilbo Baggins
16 Dec 2009, 02:17pm
http://liberapedia.wikia.com/wiki/Conservative_Intellectualism

You can't escape stupidity no matter what flag it flies under.

While I do agree with you, this website you provide isn't a good example as right on the front page it says: "Some of the articles are serious. Other articles are satirical and shouldn’t be taken too seriously" Link (http://liberapedia.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page), whilst on conservapedia they expect to be taken completely seriously.

PotshotPolka
16 Dec 2009, 02:19pm
While I do agree with you, this website you provide isn't a good example as right on the front page it says: "Some of the articles are serious. Other articles are satirical and shouldn’t be taken too seriously" Link (http://liberapedia.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page), whilst on conservapedia they expect to be taken completely seriously.

I find conservapedia funny like I find train wrecks funny. I bet you they probably raid each other so much you don't who is posting what, so it's all moot. This goes back to the whole WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A FUCKING SCHOLARLY SOURCE point.

Bilbo Baggins
16 Dec 2009, 02:21pm
I find conservapedia funny like I find train wrecks funny. I bet you they probably raid each other so much you don't who is posting what, so it's all moot. This goes back to the whole WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A FUCKING SCHOLARLY SOURCE point.

how very right you are!

But there is the fact that people take this stuff seriously, and believe which is the issue I have with conservapedia.

PotshotPolka
16 Dec 2009, 02:44pm
how very right you are!

But there is the fact that people take this stuff seriously, and believe which is the issue I have with conservapedia.

And I know liberal professors that bully students into adopting their viewpoints by holding their grades hostage. I came from catholic education that attempted to shove their dribble down my throat for the better of a decade, and essentially filled every mundane lesson with some sort of spin. This doesn't make me a centrist. The things we know as left and right political ideological bases are actually baseless conglomerates of interest groups that often fight for the same thing, for different reasons (radical feminists against pornography, christian/conservative groups against pornography; ACLU siding with anyone and everyone when it's in their interest)

I could go on about why this clusterfuck of polarization between two party bases exists because of WTASMD (Winner-Take-All-Single-Member-District) Congressional elections, but I'd rather not.

Red
16 Dec 2009, 03:30pm
Except that most of what you quoted from that is true.

Don't see what's so shocking.

I'm an agnostic, and I know that religious folk DO give more to charities, a lot of which are run by religious organizations.

Also a lot of non-religious folk, most, don't give a shit about what people do to themselves or with other consenting adults.

So what is so shocking about the statement you quoted?

Bilbo Baggins
16 Dec 2009, 03:48pm
Its that they're trying to suggest that all of that has something to do with the theory of evolution, it doesn't. How many websites which claim to provide encyclopedic information practice this?

PotshotPolka
16 Dec 2009, 03:48pm
Except that most of what you quoted from that is true.

Don't see what's so shocking.

I'm an agnostic, and I know that religious folk DO give more to charities, a lot of which are run by religious organizations.

Also a lot of non-religious folk, most, don't give a shit about what people do to themselves or with other consenting adults.

So what is so shocking about the statement you quoted?

I'd assume the implied negative connotation.

Bilbo Baggins
16 Dec 2009, 03:49pm
I'd assume the implied negative connotation.

^^ what he said^^

ReGIONALS
16 Dec 2009, 11:49pm
bilbo you dont even know what that means.

Kuro
17 Dec 2009, 01:25am
conservatives need to wiped out

tank40175
17 Dec 2009, 06:01am
Its that they're trying to suggest that all of that has something to do with the theory of evolution, it doesn't. How many websites which claim to provide encyclopedic information practice this?

The title being "Atheism and Evolution" implies that they are dealing with both subjets, and then maybe linking the two. TBH, I did not even goto link because it is obviously a one-sided and biased site. I am Christian and Conservative, but to argue ANY point in this manner usually just amplifies some peoples ignorance. So wasting my time there would just piss me off how some peeps can damage a valid point with stupidity.

tank40175
17 Dec 2009, 06:06am
conservatives need to wiped out

Please read this if you are going to post here:

http://www.steamgamers.com/forum/showthread.php?t=15907

Red
17 Dec 2009, 10:11am
conservatives need to wiped out

Too bad they're the ones with the guns.

Dracula
17 Dec 2009, 10:33am
conservatives need to wiped out

I have a fire, but its not for them.

Kuro
17 Dec 2009, 02:06pm
I am Christian and Conservative

that's an oxy moron is i ever heard one

Regards to tank.. it was a joke... i kinda didnt take the thread seriously. what rule did i break?

Bilbo Baggins
17 Dec 2009, 02:09pm
bilbo you dont even know what that means.

Connotation refers to the implied meaning of a word (Atheism, in this case)based on context not the dictionary definition of the word, which for atheism doesn't have anything to do with not being generous enough, and what not.

Lordcrazy
19 Dec 2009, 06:03pm
maybe because God hates aethiests so much he posts bad stuff about them on the inter-webz?

Shadowex3
23 Dec 2009, 04:08pm
Relevant to this topic, Conservapedia is rewriting the bible to remove all "Liberal" influences: http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservative_Bible_Project

A few highlights:

1. Framework against Liberal Bias: providing a strong framework that enables a thought-for-thought translation without corruption by liberal bias
2. Not Emasculated: avoiding unisex, "gender inclusive" language, and other feminist distortions; preserve many references to the unborn child (the NIV deletes these)
......
7. Express Free Market Parables; explaining the numerous economic parables with their full free-market meaning
8. Exclude Later-Inserted Inauthentic Passages: excluding the interpolated passages that liberals commonly put their own spin on, such as the adulteress story

Combine this with "Messianic Judaism", any number of Feminist Bibles, a couple of extremist clerics interpreting the quran, and there is PLENTY of stupid to go around to all three abrahamic religions.

Kuro
23 Dec 2009, 10:59pm
which bible are they editing?

Italian Jew
23 Dec 2009, 11:28pm
which bible are they editing?

The one with Jesus.

Kuro
25 Dec 2009, 03:06pm
The one with Jesus.

that was just ignorant

Italian Jew
25 Dec 2009, 11:16pm
that was just ignorant

You sure about that? Jesus totally PM'd me saying "LOL!" and even gave me + rep.

It was a joke and nobody is really interested in this thread anymore, so chill out brospeh.