Conservapedia on Atheism...

Elliemental

I was wondering how people here would react to this artice I recently stumbled accross....

http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism


As an Atheist myself, I found the whole thing completely laughable, especially the bit about Nietzsche`s insanity being caused by his Atheism.
But now i`m concerned that this is generally representative of how Christians view Atheists.:eek:

Thank you.

cavedave

Barack Hussein Obama II (allegedly[1][2][3][4][5] born in Honolulu Aug. 4, 1961)

There follows a discussion on how Obama is secretly a Muslim.

I'm not entirely sure conservapedia is not a satire on conservative views. A sort of Alf Garnett 2.0.

This is what they wrote on evolution:

Since World War II a majority of the most prominent and vocal defenders of the evolutionary position which employs methodological naturalism have been atheists.[4] Although the defenders of the evolutionary position contend there is evidence supporting it, there is a multitude of serious problems with the theory of evolution which will be discussed shortly.
...
The theory of evolution posits a process of transformation from simple life forms to more complex life forms, which has never been observed or duplicated in a laboratory.[12][13] Although not a creation scientist, Swedish geneticist Dr. Heribert Nilsson, Professor of Botany at the University of Lund in Sweden, stated: "My attempts to demonstrate Evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed. At least, I should hardly be accused of having started from a preconceived antievolutionary standpoint

Hmm...
Does it matter what those people think?? ;o

I hope the site is a satire

Dades

Elliemental wrote: »

But now i`m concerned that this is generally representative of how Christians view Atheists.:eek:

The logo gives a clue as to where in the world their views would be most accepted.

The Mad Hatter

Conservapedia is not satire. It was set up because of the 'left-wing bias' of Wikipedia and sites like it (because we all know reality has a liberal bias).

cavedave

The Mad Hatter

Conservapedia is not satire. It was set up because of the 'left-wing bias' of Wikipedia and sites like it (because we all know reality has a liberal bias).

That was the claim to why it was set up. The reality may be a different matter. I wouldnt be shocked if in a few years Perez Hilton, Naomi Klien and Chomsky reveal it a giant piece of performance art to see what American conservatives are willing to swallow.

Dont forget Ed Anger from the weekely world news. I'm sure hes a satire. He came out as against gay marriage because no man should have to have two mother in laws.

the Irish are the craziest people on earth, next to the Paleostynians and those nutcase A-rabs. The Irish are basically just Mexicans who speak English.

Elliemental

It`s usually pretty obvious to me, if it`s meant satyrically. This is a bit too subtle.

And i`m sure Richard Dawkins wouldn`t see the funny side of this:

Implication in the death of Jesse Kilgore

Dawkins' book "The God Delusion" along with a community college biology class, have been linked to the tragic suicide of Jesse Kilgore.[15] Kilgore had several discussions with friends and relatives in which he made it clear Dawkins' book had destroyed his belief in God. This loss of faith is considered the cause of his suicide which is not surprising given that there is evidence which suggest that atheism can be a causal factor for suicide for some individuals.[16][17][18][19]
Jesse's father is quoted as saying "If my son was a professing homosexual, and a professor challenged him to read [a book called] 'Preventing Homosexuality'… If my son was gay and [the book] made him feel bad, hopeless, and he killed himself, and that came out in the press, there would be an outcry. He would have been a victim of a hate crime and the professor would have been forced to undergo sensitivity training, and there may have even been a wrongful death lawsuit. But because he's a Christian, I don't even get a return telephone call."
Jesse's blog remains online after his death. [20]

(From Conservapedia`s entry on Richard dawkins http://www.conservapedia.com/Richard_Dawkins#Implication_in_the_death_of_Jesse_Kilgore

marco_polo

Elliemental wrote: »

It`s usually pretty obvious to me, if it`s meant satyrically. This is a bit too subtle.

And i`m sure Richard Dawkins wouldn`t see the funny side of this:





(From Conservapedia`s entry on Richard dawkins http://www.conservapedia.com/Richard_Dawkins#Implication_in_the_death_of_Jesse_Kilgore

For your own sake I urge you to stop clicking links on Conservapedia before it is too late.

The Mad Hatter

cavedave wrote: »

That was the claim to why it was set up. The reality may be a different matter. I wouldnt be shocked if in a few years Perez Hilton, Naomi Klien and Chomsky reveal it a giant piece of performance art to see what American conservatives are willing to swallow.

Well, yes, but you'd need an awful lot of people putting in time and effort in order to keep something like this working. It's not like Uncyclopedia or something like that.

marco_polo

Couldn't take my own advice

http://www.conservapedia.com/Flat_earth

The Flat Earth theory was mostly invented and promoted by evolutionists for the purpose of slandering Christians.:rolleyes:

cavedave

You could very well be right. A bit of googling makes it looks like the sites founders really do believe this stuff. Maybe the best take is to treat it as a satire anyway. Something so silly no one could take seriously. Sort of like the "Release Roderick" scene in the life of Brian. Being a laughing stock is a much worse fate then being hated for a political group.

Elliemental

marco_polo wrote: »

For your own sake I urge you to stop clicking links on Conservapedia before it is too late.

I better had, it`s not doing my blood pressure any good!






Pullman is the devil to these guys...

http://www.conservapedia.com/Philip_Pullman

Goduznt Xzst

Has to be satire. I mean look at the image they have next to their description of liberalism



EDIT: The site link embedded in the image is a satirical site also.

marco_polo

I think it says alot about Conservapedia that even our resident creationists on the BC&P thread don't use it as a source.

Elliemental

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

Has to be satire. I mean look at the image they have next to their description of liberalism

I`m still not convinced, they have these little jokes on most of thier pages. I mean, serious resources, time, effort, teams of people have obviously been used to get this thing up and running.




I`d feel rather silly if i was wrong though!

Ciaran500

http://www.conservapedia.com/Evolution_syndrome

Sound familiar?

robindch

Conservapedia, amazingly, is not a satire, at least not according to Andy Schlafy, the bespectacled man who set it up. Schlafy objects to Wikipedia's "left-wing bias", its use of non-american spellings for certain words, its use of "CE" instead of "AD", its position on evolution, and in broad terms, its open embrace of reality at the expense of Schlafy's own personal religious beliefs.

Goduznt Xzst

robindch wrote: »

Schlafy objects to Wikipedia's "left-wing bias"

It's like a car crash, I can't stop looking at it: Conservapedia: Examples of bias in Wikipedia

lol, reminds me of this strip:

MackDeToaster

Conservapedia is actually for real..

http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Conservapedia

If you look around you'll even find sites documenting all the errors/editing/banning etc done by Conservapedia.

On the other hand, this is a poe.. www.landoverbaptist.net

AtomicHorror

They're for real. When the Lenski paper showing the emergence of new traits by natural selection in a laboratory was published, they basically accused the guy of fraud and, of all things, demanded samples of the cultures the group used. This all took place on the talk page for Evolution I think and it features a wonderful response by Lenski that could basically be summarised as /facepalm.

Classic demonstration of the extent some people will go to convince themselves they're correct about everything they believed in the first place. America split 50:50 on some major issue? Redefine the Real America as being half that agrees with you. Science doesn't agree with you? Invent your own part of the world or internet where it does!

Elliemental

I've been checking out the founder of Conservapedia, he's definately for real, i'm afraid.
I can't stop looking at it now, it's almost as funny as the Rapture Ready forums.

Naz_st

Wow. Where's the facepalm smilie when you need it!

"Creation scientists tend to win the Creation-Evolution debates"

Maybe on the the creationist homeworld, back here on Earth creationists say things like "there's no evidence of the crocoduck, therefore Evolution is wrong"!

liah

It gets more and more convoluted as you scroll down, tbh.

I like how they bring out the single debate Dawkins lost (if he actually did, I haven't seen the debate myself) and completely ignore the hundreds he's won.

I also like how they bring up Stalin as their only reference under the "Atheism and Mass Murder" heading, despite the thousands upon thousands of years of oppression and murder due to religion.

Their "Arguments against Atheism" were completely weak and not even worth being on that website, hell I've heard better (although still unbelievable) arguments here.

They cite what, 3? famous Atheists who converted to theism, despite the many times that who have done the opposite. It's also on the heading "Notable Atheists who Rejected their Faith," in such away that implies Atheism is a Faith rather than a lack thereof, proving that they completely do not understand a word of what they're writing in that ridiculous entry.

Bloody idiots.

Rev Hellfire

I prefer the uncyclopedias definition: Atheism

vinchick

I quite liked the page on feminism. They shun bakers you know....

They also seemed to take issue with vegetarians, I mean why???

The pill also causes breast cancer. As does abortion. And having breasts.

vinchick

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

I prefer the uncyclopedias definition: Atheism

I like it!

pts

Reminds me a bit of a recent Stephen Colbert clip:
http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/226151/april-29-2009/i-s-on-edjukashun---textbooks--americorps---strip-search

Galvasean

Over half of the Conservapedia article on dinosaurs is from the Creationis perspective.
SICK.

On the very same page they make a lame attempt to debunk evolution yammering on about 'the eye'.

pts

Galvasean wrote: »

On the very same page they make a lame attempt to debunk evolution yammering on about 'the eye'.

The one which sees everything, punishes those who go against his wishes and wages war on those who do not want to be ruled by him or are you talking about Sauron?

Undergod

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Conservapedia is not satire. It was set up because of the 'left-wing bias' of Wikipedia and sites like it (because we all know reality has a liberal bias).

Liberals have a reality bias?

ChocolateSauce

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

I prefer the uncyclopedias definition: Atheism

Uncyclopedia is written by and for B-tards, and I can only take so much before I wish I were dead...

Rev Hellfire

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

Uncyclopedia is written by and for B-tards, and I can only take so much before I wish I were dead...

Your opinion is valued by us, please call again.

ChocolateSauce

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Your opinion is valued by us, please call again.

I just find it harrowing after too many articles...and that's all it is, my opinion. I certainly didn't mean to imply people who laugh at it are B-tards, btw.

Rev Hellfire

Ohh I totally agree that it wears thin after a while, but articles taken in isolation can be quite good.

ChocolateSauce

Sorry, that's all I meant! And I was actually mistaken about uncyclopedia; it's encyclopedia dramatica that's mostly japanese rape porn and pedophile references, not uncyclopedia.