Oh Dear

[crazy-tiger]

Conservapedia

 

 

 

[Lycorth]

And I'm sure it'll be thoroughly discredited and ridiculed in Wikipedia, in due time

 

Yeah, Wikipedia is anti-American. Right. Just because they are not far-right and don't suck up to Xian mythology, they are anti-American. And the Right is different from the Nazis and Communists how?

 

Xianity is anti-American. Scumbags.

 

Xian credit for the Renaissance? There wouldn't have been one if it weren't for Xianity - because human society would've progressed just fine without the Xian Dark Ages and the social and spiritual retardation that Xianity caused. I wonder how advanced we'd be if Xianity never happened to begin with

 

The even whine about non-xians refusing to use "AD." They must be fuming that they cannot force their religion on people at the end of a sword or a rope, like in the "good old days"

 

I could stay up for hours refuting every single one of those moronic statements on their "Examples of Wikipedia bias" page, but I actually have a job now and have to be up at 4am. At least I got my chuckle for the evening

[YDOAPS]

I'm thinking satire.

[BlueGiant]

Nope, this site is quite real, and heartfelt from what I've been able to find out.

[BlueGiant]

And it looks like it's under the slashdot-effect.

[hatepirate]

OMG. Not only is the premise stupid, the article suck balls. In one of their criticisms of Wikipedia, they complain that Wikipedia doesn't mention Bacon's Rebellion (probably because Nathaniel Bacon wasn't even an indentured servant; he was a fucking plantation owner). Take a look at their article on indentured servitude: http://www.conservapedia.com/Indentured_Servitude and Wikipedia's article on the same: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indentured_servitude

 

Motherfucking retards, they are!

 

OMFG, look at their article on evolution: http://www.conservapedia.com/Evolution

I hope the site gets hacked and erased. It's spoiling the precious internet with all of its stupidity.

[Thurisaz]

trueorigins.org, conservapity-a, gawd-tube-up-your-arse. A logical pattern. Everything they can do to keep their cultists from encountering that horrible thing called reality.

[Kelli]

Ah, and don't forget, Wiki sounds like Wicca, so Wikipedia must be bad.

 

Seriously, I read shit like that and I know 5 years ago I would have jumped on the conservapedia bandwagon, but today it's just so obviously stupid.

 

One thing that just strikes me -- christians have always talked about how much the US is going to hell in a handbasket, yet according to conservapedia...

 

3. # Polls show that about twice as many Americans identify themselves as "conservative" compared with "liberal", and that ratio has been increasing for two decades.[1] But on Wikipedia, about three times as many editors identify themselves as "liberal" compared with "conservative".[2] That suggests Wikipedia is six times more liberal than the American public.

 

Sigh.

[Thurisaz]

Speak along with me Celt Cat...

 

Doub-le-think! Doub-le-think!

[Barnacle Bill]

3. # Polls show that about twice as many Americans identify themselves as "conservative" compared with "liberal", and that ratio has been increasing for two decades.[1] But on Wikipedia, about three times as many editors identify themselves as "liberal" compared with "conservative".[2] That suggests Wikipedia is six times more liberal than the American public.

 

If this is "true"...then how did Bill Clinton get elected to 2 terms and why didn't 'ole GW win both of his terms by a landslide? Pffffffffft

 

 

The name Jesus is simply the name "Joshua" translated first into Greek, then English. In Christian discourse, the name Jesus almost always refers specifically to Jesus of Nazareth, believed by Christian followers to be God's dad, who came to earth as a human c 2 AD. However, God has recently revealed on His blog that Jesus is actually His nephew, not His son. [1] The life of Jesus is recorded in the Bible in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. According to the Gospels, Jesus died on the cross for our sins, and three days later he rose from the dead.

 

The first time John saw Jesus, he said, "Behold the Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world!" [2]

 

Other people in the Bible named "Jesus"

 

The author of Ecclesiastius, a book which Catholics include in the Douay Bible, but Protestants place in the Apocrypha, is known as Jesus of Sira.

 

The Historical Jesus

Occasionally someone denies the existence of Jesus, but few scholars take this seriously. Tacitus, the Roman historian, wrote about Jesus in A.D. 115[3], and Josephus, a Jewish historian who did not believe in Jesus' divinity, wrote about Him. [4].

 

Many of the descriptions in the Gospels have been proven true with modern archeology. Skeptics challenged the existence of Pontius Pilate, for example, about whom there is almost no historical evidence outside of the Gospels. But in 1961, the only known inscription of Pontius Pilate was discovered, confirming his existence.[5]

 

References

 

1. ↑ http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?searc...amp;version=31;

2. ↑ http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?searc...amp;version=31;

3. ↑ http://www.digisys.net/users/ddalton/evide...e_the_bible.htm

4. ↑ http://www.christian-thinktank.com/jesusref.html

5. ↑ http://www.bible-history.com/empires/pilate.html

 

 

 

[sarcasm] This "factual" definition can be found HERE. (This is Wikipedia's entry)

 

 

Gee...I did not know that jesus was god's dad? Yep, THIS is definitely some factual content here for sure! ...and this entry is so well referenced and it's such an in depth review that I was having a difficult time contemplating the shear magnitude of it all!

 

Conservative christians should be beside themselves with pride after viewing this first rate offering of unbiased reporting of the facts! I know that I'll certainly sleep better knowing that "Truth, Justice and the American way" are FINALLY being well served on the internet! [/sarcasm]

[Valgeir]

It seems obvious to me that people are already editing the articles to parody the bizarre nature of the site. If, as I believe, that is not the intention, editing privileges will soon, no doubt, be restricted. However, with no one to add to the encyclopedia, it will soon fall out of use and die. So, no worries.