Slashdot Mirror

I had never heard of Conservapedia before. Now I really wish I hadn't.

I had never heard of Conservapedia before. Now I really wish I hadn't.

Christians and Catholics are not the same religion. Christians believe astrology is an abomination Catholics invented a religion

You obviously didn't read the wiki article on Christianity and astrology. It was the Catholic church who persecuted those who believed in astrology, not the other way around. Not your version, are you letting your hatred of Catholics show? That would explain your not reading, or totally ignoring, the wiki article.

Catholics invented a religion that incorporated all of their pagan beliefs under the guise of Christianity because Christianity was becoming a popular religion and Emperor Constantine was try to stay ahead of the game.

You don 't know much about history either, or you're making things up. Constantine only changed his beliefs after he had a dream in which a Christian figure told him his troops would be victorious in a battle with the Eastern Orthodox Church. When they won he became a believer. Now whether it was a real change of heart or was politically motivated I don't know. And neither do you.

Also where do you get this 4000 years?

Do you really not know there are Young earthers? Okay some believe it's 6000 years old. We've even had threads here on slashdot about Christian museums saying dinosaurs and humans lived together. And those are not Catholics. At least before he died Pope John Paul II said "God" created the universe with the Big Bang and that life evolved. Those Creationist Young Earthers you don't know about, unless you're lying, criticized the Pope over that. Like you they showed their hatred.

Falcon

Oh man! (Or should I say "Oh, Jesus?") - even better is : http://www.conservapedia.com/Evolution_syndrome "Sufferers of evolution syndrome tend to be college students or graduates who wanted to excel in math or physics, but lacked the ability or work ethic to do so." Are some of these articles written by trolls?

At least one "educator" has a beef with relativity, citing that Jesus acted faster than the speed of light in performing miracles.

Wow! A place better even than "Talk" page on wikipedia! Eg: "Theories [like relativity] that don't produce anything useful are often a waste of time, or simply false. I realize that liberals tend to downplay accountability -- a conservative insight, but theories should be accountable by what value they yield, particularly when taxpayer dollars are spent (wasted) on the theory." What a class-A moron!

What's next?

At least one "educator" has a beef with relativity, citing that Jesus acted faster than the speed of light in performing miracles.

For the Bible, that's happening now. http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservative_Bible_Project

just see conservapedia's page on "professor values" to see how different they can be...

Also see Conservapedia's Bible Retranslation Project (setting new standards for blashphemy) and Political Aspects of the Theory of Relativity (setting new standards for stupidity).

Seriously, don't quote Conservapedia. Even by conservative standards, that site is batshit insane.

just see conservapedia's page on "professor values" to see how different they can be...

Also see Conservapedia's Bible Retranslation Project (setting new standards for blashphemy) and Political Aspects of the Theory of Relativity (setting new standards for stupidity).

Seriously, don't quote Conservapedia. Even by conservative standards, that site is batshit insane.

Nothing he did or said, based on what we know, pointed to redistribution through government or collective means.

Of course not. Instead, it all points into whatever you want it to point to, through as many layers of reinterpretation as is necessary to achieve that. See also Bible Retranslation Project.

As far as profit goes, which do you think (either) Jesus would have preferred? A guy that makes a million dollars and chooses to give 10% (or more) to good causes that help build other people up or a guy that is not allowed to make a million dollars because it's not fair?

Can you give some examples of the latter guy, just to clarify what you mean? Because as far as I can tell, there are quite a few guys who've made billions, and it appears that nobody has stopped them.

Or is this yet another rant about how hard Bill Gates has it?

I often find it ironic how conservative talking heads bash the ACLU as defending "commies and left wing nuts", but when *they* want free expression they're happy to get the ACLU involved to help.

You forgot "atheist" which is, somehow, an insult.

I love how conservapedia makes sure to label most atheists as such, even when mentioning them in passing, just to make sure we know how evil they are.

From Linux:
"The GNU project was started by atheist programmer Richard Stallman..."

From Ubuntu Christian Edition:
"This edition may also serve as an alternative who don't want an atheistic Linux distribution, which might leave out Bible software, parental controls, and other moral features. (Richard Stallman, one of the major Linux programmers, is an atheist and suspected communist.)"
Heaven forbid your computer should have an atheist operating system!

"Mao Zedong, (1893-1976) was the leader of Chinese Communism and a ruthless atheist dictator..."

From Theory of Evolution:
"A notable case of a scientists using fraudulent materials to promote the theory of evolution was the work of German scientist and atheist Ernst Haeckel."

I often find it ironic how conservative talking heads bash the ACLU as defending "commies and left wing nuts", but when *they* want free expression they're happy to get the ACLU involved to help.

You forgot "atheist" which is, somehow, an insult.

I love how conservapedia makes sure to label most atheists as such, even when mentioning them in passing, just to make sure we know how evil they are.

From Linux:
"The GNU project was started by atheist programmer Richard Stallman..."

From Ubuntu Christian Edition:
"This edition may also serve as an alternative who don't want an atheistic Linux distribution, which might leave out Bible software, parental controls, and other moral features. (Richard Stallman, one of the major Linux programmers, is an atheist and suspected communist.)"
Heaven forbid your computer should have an atheist operating system!

"Mao Zedong, (1893-1976) was the leader of Chinese Communism and a ruthless atheist dictator..."

From Theory of Evolution:
"A notable case of a scientists using fraudulent materials to promote the theory of evolution was the work of German scientist and atheist Ernst Haeckel."

I often find it ironic how conservative talking heads bash the ACLU as defending "commies and left wing nuts", but when *they* want free expression they're happy to get the ACLU involved to help.

You forgot "atheist" which is, somehow, an insult.

I love how conservapedia makes sure to label most atheists as such, even when mentioning them in passing, just to make sure we know how evil they are.

From Linux:
"The GNU project was started by atheist programmer Richard Stallman..."

From Ubuntu Christian Edition:
"This edition may also serve as an alternative who don't want an atheistic Linux distribution, which might leave out Bible software, parental controls, and other moral features. (Richard Stallman, one of the major Linux programmers, is an atheist and suspected communist.)"
Heaven forbid your computer should have an atheist operating system!

"Mao Zedong, (1893-1976) was the leader of Chinese Communism and a ruthless atheist dictator..."

From Theory of Evolution:
"A notable case of a scientists using fraudulent materials to promote the theory of evolution was the work of German scientist and atheist Ernst Haeckel."

I often find it ironic how conservative talking heads bash the ACLU as defending "commies and left wing nuts", but when *they* want free expression they're happy to get the ACLU involved to help.

You forgot "atheist" which is, somehow, an insult.

I love how conservapedia makes sure to label most atheists as such, even when mentioning them in passing, just to make sure we know how evil they are.

From Linux:
"The GNU project was started by atheist programmer Richard Stallman..."

From Ubuntu Christian Edition:
"This edition may also serve as an alternative who don't want an atheistic Linux distribution, which might leave out Bible software, parental controls, and other moral features. (Richard Stallman, one of the major Linux programmers, is an atheist and suspected communist.)"
Heaven forbid your computer should have an atheist operating system!

"Mao Zedong, (1893-1976) was the leader of Chinese Communism and a ruthless atheist dictator..."

From Theory of Evolution:
"A notable case of a scientists using fraudulent materials to promote the theory of evolution was the work of German scientist and atheist Ernst Haeckel."

For all our sakes, please nobody point that thing at Conservapedia.

First link for "atheism" points to Conservapedia, which says:

Unlike Christianity, which is supported by a large body of sound evidence (see: Christian apologetics), atheism has no proof and evidence supporting its ideology.

If you were a comedian, you couldn't come up with something better than that. Are these people really that stupid?

Yes.

Ant of course it is vital that those who aren't that stupid don't see anything other than conservapedia and church articles ...

First link for "atheism" points to Conservapedia, which says:

Unlike Christianity, which is supported by a large body of sound evidence (see: Christian apologetics), atheism has no proof and evidence supporting its ideology.

If you were a comedian, you couldn't come up with something better than that. Are these people really that stupid?

Oh yeah? There is evidence for Christ in every bedside table in every hotel and motel room. Where's your precious atheist evidence now?

First link for "atheism" points to Conservapedia, which says:

Unlike Christianity, which is supported by a large body of sound evidence (see: Christian apologetics), atheism has no proof and evidence supporting its ideology.

If you were a comedian, you couldn't come up with something better than that. Are these people really that stupid?

You think that's bad? The loons behind Conservapedia are working on their own translation of the Bible from the conservative perspective:

http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservative_Bible_Project

You may want to read a bit about denialism so you can recognize it when you see it.

They're no more anti-scientist than the conservatives who are skeptical of the theory of relativity. Oh, I see. I guess you do have a point. I wonder what they'll be "skeptical" of next...

It is not my fault that your Founding Fathers never decided to give your country a name...

Meanwhile the rest of us Americans in the thirty-four countries that do have names are just supposed to "put up with it"?

Let's see what the world has to say about this, no?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America

Mhmm, this sends us to a disambiguation page... lets click on the second option...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States

Ah! There you are! So it is United States and not just "America" after all!

But wait! I forgot! Wikipedia is part of the fag-euro, United Nations, Communist conspiracy! Let's try Conservapedia:

http://www.conservapedia.com/America

Nope! Another disambiguation page!

http://www.conservapedia.com/United_States_of_America

Ah, there you are! The US of A again, not America

It is not my fault that your Founding Fathers never decided to give your country a name...

Meanwhile the rest of us Americans in the thirty-four countries that do have names are just supposed to "put up with it"?

Let's see what the world has to say about this, no?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America

Mhmm, this sends us to a disambiguation page... lets click on the second option...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States

Ah! There you are! So it is United States and not just "America" after all!

But wait! I forgot! Wikipedia is part of the fag-euro, United Nations, Communist conspiracy! Let's try Conservapedia:

http://www.conservapedia.com/America

Nope! Another disambiguation page!

http://www.conservapedia.com/United_States_of_America

Ah, there you are! The US of A again, not America

For an online encyclopedia with no political bias, see: http://www.conservapedia.com/

Global warming denial is like creationism, it's based on blind faith and its supporters will never give up.

No it's not, it's based on other research that says man's contribution to a natural process is mostly insignificant.

You mean like how creationism is based on other research that says there must have been a creator? Of course it's real science, they even have their own institute!

Global warming denial is like creationism, it's based on blind faith and its supporters will never give up.

No it's not, it's based on other research that says man's contribution to a natural process is mostly insignificant.

You mean like how creationism is based on other research that says there must have been a creator? Of course it's real science, they even have their own institute!

The US constitution does say something about slaves being 3/5 people (correct me if I'm wrong -- I'm not an American). Having said that, it looks like a boilerplate warning that that the publisher would attach to reprinted historical documents that some people might find offensive and that might require a bit of historical context to fully understand. And who's linking to Fox for this story? Is anyone other than Fox and Conservapedia upset?

You DO know the SAME argument applies to MSFT and Intel, yes? After all there was BeOS, Linux, BSD, and OS9 at the time MSFT got busted. You also have AMD, Via, and ARM CPUs, but that certainly isn't stopping the EU from investigating Intel and considering they gave AMD 1.25 billion (with a b) you just know there are some skeletons in THAT closet.

I would suggest you read up on antitrust law and I would note the FIRST sentence of the page "Antitrust laws are federal and state statutes to protect trade and commerce from unlawful restraints, price discrimination, price fixing, and monopolies.

Now if Apple can set the terms a competitor, in this case Amazon, gets access to music I'd like to hear you explain how exactly that doesn't fall under antitrust? It certainly seems like a pretty open and shut case to me, if apple can simply make a phone call and get product taken away from Amazon, just as MSFT making a phone call and having Netscape removed from OEM images was blatant antitrust. I don't care how awesome you think Steve's iStuff is, no company should be allowed to use their power to block a market from competition.

How much of an "accident" this story could have been anyway, considering views probably dear to many FOX faithfull? (just search for "porn" on those pages; too much to link to specifically or there are no article sublinks)

How much of an "accident" this story could have been anyway, considering views probably dear to many FOX faithfull? (just search for "porn" on those pages; too much to link to specifically or there are no article sublinks)

How much of an "accident" this story could have been anyway, considering views probably dear to many FOX faithfull? (just search for "porn" on those pages; too much to link to specifically or there are no article sublinks)

Republican Jesus would shoot your commie ass for saying that.

Incidentally, though, some, er.. fine conservative minds have taken up the challenge of eradicating the taint of liberalism from the bible...

Absolutely. I have no problem with bias, as long as it's admitted.

I beg to differ

Wikipedia can't be the solution to every information-gathering problem. And despite some slogans to the contrary, it clearly doesn't want to be. It has policies of Notabiliy, No Original Research, and Neutral Point of View that effectively make it unsuitable for certain information. If you want in-depth, exhaustive information about other topics, you consult a more specialized resource, such as drum and bugle corps, Star Wars, Star Trek, garden flowers, movies, Pokémon, Peter Pan, travel, alternate realities, etc. Wikipedia even has a mechanism for interwiki linking to many of these resources, recognizing them as independent specialty resources.

It almost reads like Uncyclopedia:

"A liberal (also leftist) is someone who rejects logical and biblical standards"

These people are their own parody :)

He's not the only one.

Thanks for that comment. It inspired me to post a snippet of a similar conversation I had months ago, with your links and some others added:

Is it right, however, to lump together those who are skeptical of evolution with those who are skeptical of AGW, particularly CO2-driven AGW ?

Creationists confuse religious faith with falsifiable science. Among the general public, climate-change contrarians (and your average Greenpeace/PETA loony) confuse political affiliation with falsifiable science. In both cases, scientists are much less likely to agree with either claim, and that likelihood decreases with increasing relevance of the scientist's field. That's probably why both groups tend to accuse the scientific community of conspiracy and/or widespread incompetence.

At my blog, the following statement is both legible and has popup titles describing why that link was chosen. Here it is without the links first: "And, in my experience there's a significant overlap between the two groups. Most of their arguments seem to be at similar intellectual and educational levels."

And, in my experience there's a significant overlap between the two groups. Most of their arguments seem to be at similar intellectual and educational lev els.

Thanks for that comment. It inspired me to post a snippet of a similar conversation I had months ago, with your links and some others added:

Is it right, however, to lump together those who are skeptical of evolution with those who are skeptical of AGW, particularly CO2-driven AGW ?

Creationists confuse religious faith with falsifiable science. Among the general public, climate-change contrarians (and your average Greenpeace/PETA loony) confuse political affiliation with falsifiable science. In both cases, scientists are much less likely to agree with either claim, and that likelihood decreases with increasing relevance of the scientist's field. That's probably why both groups tend to accuse the scientific community of conspiracy and/or widespread incompetence.

At my blog, the following statement is both legible and has popup titles describing why that link was chosen. Here it is without the links first: "And, in my experience there's a significant overlap between the two groups. Most of their arguments seem to be at similar intellectual and educational levels."

And, in my experience there's a significant overlap between the two groups. Most of their arguments seem to be at similar intellectual and educational lev els.

If 99% of the people are idiots and 1% of them ask a question you cannot immediately answer; congratulations: you just got 1% smarter and 1% is a HUGE gain in any endeavour worth earnestly chasing.

That sounds very good until you have to deal with that 99% who are trying to discredit you and ruin your career. You should read to get a little taste for the kind of "questions" you usually get: http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Lenski_dialog The whole question is a little bit mute anyway as a mechanism for dealing with this, any many other problems, is already used: replication of results. Published results are generally not widely accepted until they can be replicated in a different lab. This overcomes any coding errors, but more importantly, equipment errors, user errors, random chance, and even active data manipulation. I think what most people who are not actively involved in research fail to realize is what an iterative process science is. Early results are often, maybe even usually, error ridden. This can come from bad code or anything else. But as more people work on it and improve it the errors are removed and the final product is something very close to ground truth, and the longer it is discussed the closer it gets to that goal. If you don't believe me I would ask you where you think computers, automobiles, pain killers, vaccines, rockets, cameras, genetically modified mice, and skyscrapers come from. All of those required an incredible detailed, and accurate, knowledge of how the working components function. Science, it works bitches.

And for those that think the above poster is kidding? Well here is the conservative bible project. I don't know which is worse, a group deciding the bible is too nice, or that they are using a Wiki to condense the hate down to nuclear bomb proportions.

And OT, but WTF was /. editors thinking when they came up with Idle? This has got to be the most fucked up web page and comment box I've ever seen, and I used to hang out at Geocities.

Thank you.

Please also cf. http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Essay:Conservapedia's_Law&oldid=734800

which I found today, and which reads much like circletimesquare's arguments about the inevitability of the two party system. Only unintentionally funnier.

Did you check out their newspeak dictionary? It's both hilarious and scary. Who knew the word algorithm meant 'an efficient and consistent step-by-step methodology for achieving a goal, the opposite of liberal style' or that altruism is in fact 'a counterexample to evolution'? It's fascinating. Did you know environmentalism is 'a mixture of pseudoscience and neo-paganism used to justify the imposition of socialistic controls'? Amazing. I never knew.

Oh and ladies, I believe there's lots of single guys over there! They're really committed to marriage too, I mean really! Who wouldn't want a husband that does such wonderful things as 'the pushing and prodding, analogous to what a supervisor, coach or sergeant does, that encourages and compels people in marriage to achieve their best' or 'a division of labor that enables each spouse to work on what he or she does best'! It'll be the BEST!

Did you check out their newspeak dictionary? It's both hilarious and scary. Who knew the word algorithm meant 'an efficient and consistent step-by-step methodology for achieving a goal, the opposite of liberal style' or that altruism is in fact 'a counterexample to evolution'? It's fascinating. Did you know environmentalism is 'a mixture of pseudoscience and neo-paganism used to justify the imposition of socialistic controls'? Amazing. I never knew.

Oh and ladies, I believe there's lots of single guys over there! They're really committed to marriage too, I mean really! Who wouldn't want a husband that does such wonderful things as 'the pushing and prodding, analogous to what a supervisor, coach or sergeant does, that encourages and compels people in marriage to achieve their best' or 'a division of labor that enables each spouse to work on what he or she does best'! It'll be the BEST!

I suggest you tell that to these guys

More likely, Fox would sue, whining that Google is discriminating against a conservative viewpoint.

Not grounds for a lawsuit. Google is a private entity and can be as conservative as Conservapedia if it likes. (Of course, if it did that, Google's stockholders might have grounds for a lawsuit, but not Fox.)

Conservapedia is down right now, but here is the link to the Conservapedia-Lenski dialog. His first response is very polite, but when Schafly pigheadedly and insultingly keeps at him, Lenski rips him a new asshole with this powerful thing called "facts" (which naturally have a liberal bias). The exchange is on Conservapedia since Lenski basically threatened to put it all over the web if they didn't include the entire exchange unedited.

Of course, if you are an American WASP... you can look and look and look at the wikipedia all day and not see the problem with NPOV. :-))

Obviously you've never seen Conservapedia. ;)

http://www.conservapedia.com/Main_Page

There is nothing "Funny" about The Evangelical War On Science Look the Wikipedia gestapo may step in and stop me from explaining my very serious awareness of things like 'the back of my hand' but at least they aren't mixing pictures of Adolf Hitler and Charles Darwin as if they'd planned the Holocaust together! Conservapedia - The Trustworthy Encyclopedia must in some way just be a sick joke, a flexing of freedom of speech muscles, or as someone else said here already if a scientific person makes a non-scientific person feel silly of less informed the just might go insane and band together into an army of the living undead. Which is GREAT NEWS because we need Christian soldiers to go to Iran and get blasted to pieces thus avoiding the spread of their seed to the general god fearing population. You see people Evolution in action! (Darwin rolls in grave next to Dinosaur bones)

I'm not sure if there's specifically a list of wikis anywhere, but there is a wiki for Conservatives. Most articles seem to be mostly fixated on debunking Abortion, Evolution, and Homosexuality.