Ouroboros Posted September 26, 2007 Share Posted September 26, 2007 The article is getting 700 views a day. There is a counter at the bottom of the article. And you succeeded in making a truckload of us go there too now. Damn! We're too easy target! No wonder you get so many hits if you go out and entice people to go there. Btw, the number of visitors doesn't show any support for this being a large issue that's being discussed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted September 26, 2007 Share Posted September 26, 2007 If there are any grammatical mistakes I would remind you that style over substance is a logical fallacy: http://onegoodmove.org/fallacy/style.htmTry to be more logical. Lastly, please refute the atheist and charitable giving matter in relation to theist in terms of per capita giving cited in the article (both in moral depravity footnote and in another section). Which religion does Bill Gates belong to? Just thinking loud here... And another thought, what kinds of charities? I have to go back to the article and take deeper look. If building-a-new-church-fund or help-elderely-play-bingo-in-church-fund are considered charities, well then yeah, of course Christians give more to those. Or to other organizations that have 90% overhead, and barely only 10% go to the needy... Which religion does the Red Cross support, and who gives to it? Is the numbers the same in Europe where the majority is not Christians? Still just thinking loud... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted September 26, 2007 Share Posted September 26, 2007 You see relevance and substance has a lot more importance at Conservapedia than "balance". We do not have to give inane atheist argumentation affirmative action. Okay... so that's how Conservapedia is telling the "truth", by unbalanced material? -edit- So what is the purpose of that website? Is it to give honest and truthful information, or is it to spread propaganda to the already converted believers, or is it to make new converts? It seems to fail at the first option, and the third option is very unlikely since it pretty much infuriates those who it would be directed to for conversion to the point that they don't want to get involved at all, so the only option left is the middle one. Propaganda has never had the purpose of telling the truth, but only to tell the things that supports an already established idea or belief. So what is there really to discuss about the page? I guess it would be to discuss the lies, and to point out the errors, but it would be to no avail since the authors didn't have truth in mind, but the purpose of the article was to elicit a reaction. So really, why then even bother discussing it? There's no gain for us, only for the authors, because they can claim "look how many are discussing this issue". And that's all they want. To claim "truth" because the topic is discussed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest petermoore Posted September 27, 2007 Share Posted September 27, 2007 There is going to be some additions to the article today. Any feedback would be welcome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted September 27, 2007 Share Posted September 27, 2007 Step one: remove personal opinions from the article, and make it more objective. It's very opinionated and is more of religious propaganda against atheism rather than how atheists see themselves or describe themselves. Basically, rewrite the whole thing and make it like an independent, outsider view, of it. Right now it's non-atheists arguments against atheism, and nothing else. So what is this consservapedia? Some kind of cult? Step two: add good quotes from atheists, not only the negative ones. You don't want Encyclopedia Britannica to pick the worst Christian quotes to present as the view of Christianity, do you? For instance, would you like Christianity presented as antisemitic because Martin Luther hated Jews and was outspoken about it? Probably not. So be reasonable, open, and honest. Tell the facts, and from a third party view, and it will get better. For instance, atheist DO have explanations to where "we came from". So when you say things like "atheists don't have any explanation to where we came from", it's just opinionated lies from an antagonist, and not the truth. So why do Christians lie, when they claim the Bible and God makes them honest and moral? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mythra Posted September 27, 2007 Share Posted September 27, 2007 There is going to be some additions to the article today. Any feedback would be welcome. Trust me on this one, dude. The feedback I want to give you would not be welcomed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueGiant Posted September 27, 2007 Share Posted September 27, 2007 Feedback, eh? Take a long walk off a short pier, shill. To be more specific, stop wasting the air or *real* conservatives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlerman Posted September 27, 2007 Share Posted September 27, 2007 "Miller seemed unimpressed with any of the current proposals on the origin of life, referring to them as “nonsense†or “paper chemistry.â€"[87] In addition, in 1996, John Horgan wrote the following in Scientific American: Scientists are not yet able to thoroughly explain the origins of life???? Well, that settles it. Jesus must be God. OMG!!! You're right! If science doesn't haven't an explanation yet, it must be the carpenter's son Jesus in his pre-incarnate deity form as a co-equal god with Daddy Yahweh!! Fuck me silly, why didn't I make that connection before? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted September 27, 2007 Share Posted September 27, 2007 TROLL WARNING!!! Peter is most likely just another annoying troll. Probably an incarnation of JP Holding etc. Don't expect real or honest responses to any serious question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mythra Posted September 27, 2007 Share Posted September 27, 2007 Hey Robert Turkel - surely you must have something better to do with your time? Well, judging by your track record, maybe not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mythra Posted September 27, 2007 Share Posted September 27, 2007 Oh, by the way, Turkel - I saw you on the YouTube blasphemy challenge. You might want to take a look at the scriptures condemning gluttony. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted September 27, 2007 Share Posted September 27, 2007 Yeah. Turkel is his real name... unless it was Sheila, or ...? Here's some other people's opinions about Turkel: He has a arrogant opinion of his own intelligence that is just nausiating. Holding writes off anyone who seems to disagree with him as being stupid. Holding is always insulting people who seem to disagree with him. It's bad enough that he insults fellow skeptics like John, Ed Babinski, Steven Carr, and Farrell Till, but he's sunken to an all new low by insulting scholars like Richard Carrier, Robert M Price, and Bart Ehrman and showing nothing but arrogant contempt for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordofGondor Posted September 28, 2007 Share Posted September 28, 2007 I'm dumbfounded. I muddled through most of it (it's the longest article I've ever seen in Conservapedia). I'd be half tempted to walk through and rebut it's numerous flawed and outright false points, but I'm not up to spending the next several hours doing so and turning out a post too long for people to want to read. Therefore, I'll just pick out one of my favorite tidbits: There is a book by Richard H. Harvey, entitled "70 Years of Miracles." In it Harvey relates his experience in a Chemistry class at Allegheny College in Meadville, Pennsylvania in the 1920's. According to Harvey, his professor Dr. Lee was a deist who for many years had spent time with each freshman class lecturing against prayer. After a couple of sessions discussing the power of natural laws and the lack of evidence that any god interferes with those laws, Lee would announce that he would drop a flask to the floor and challenged anyone to pray that the flask would remain whole. Harvey then related that one year, a student finally found the courage to stand up and volunteer to pray. Lee dropped the flask and it rolled off his shoe to the floor without damage. The class cheered and Lee no longer delivered his annual lectures against prayer. They actually USED this hackneyed urban myth in their article! WTH...I thought it was a pen that was dropped, and I thought it was a lecture hall the pen was dropped in, and I thought the man's name was 'Professor Godless.' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gusdafa Posted September 28, 2007 Share Posted September 28, 2007 The "Reasonable Explanations for Atheism" should read "Christian Explanations For Atheism". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordofGondor Posted September 28, 2007 Share Posted September 28, 2007 The Barna Group also found that atheists/agnostics in America were more likely, than theists in America, to form their own judgements of what is right or wrong by reasoning under circumstance rather than by blind adherence to the supposed will of a cosmic entity whose black and white view of what constitutes good and evil has been the source of much sexual prudery and opposition to the legislation of civil liberties. Fixed. I regret not being able to make a few more suggestions, but I've already read more than I can stomach from this travesty of an encyclopedia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted September 28, 2007 Share Posted September 28, 2007 Oh, wait, I checked again, correction, JP Holding is his real name... no, Turkel... eh, one or the other. He was born Holding, but changed name to Turkel, and use Holding as a writing pseudo, but then...??? What's worse than a Christian apologist? A schizophrenic (MPD, DPD) christian apologist! Because it's twice as bad. (He seems to run in the same category as Hovind, Ham and Troy. Now we're just waiting for some tax evasion or fraud charges in the news...) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spoomonkey Posted September 28, 2007 Share Posted September 28, 2007 I am not an apologist by any stretch, but I do have one area of expertise that this article makes a complete mess of. The Barna Group also found that atheists/agnostics in America were more likely, than theists in America, to look upon as morally acceptable: sexual relationships outside of marriage This is complete bullshit and doesn't come close to reflecting reality. The majority of swingers are, in fact, Christian. While there are certainly pagans, atheists, agnostics, apathists, etc. involved - Christians out number them quite strongly. Granted, I have never seen an orgy turn into a Bible study, but I have gotten into some deep conversations at parties - and Christianity comes up all the time. From pastors to Sunday school teachers to choir memebers - I've met them all, shared a beer and a bed with a few... Anecdotal advice not good enough? There are studies and surveys that line up with my experience. If desired, I will track them down and post links. It is also interesting to consider that a survey in "New Man" magazine (the one with Mr. T on the cover) - which is a Christian publication - found that Christians are more likely to struggle with pornography, while clergy struggle at a higher percentage than any surveyed group... Yeah - Christians corner the market on morality, I'll tell ya... Spoomonkey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted September 28, 2007 Share Posted September 28, 2007 The article is obviously reflecting the opinion of a group of people, and can only be considered propaganda and intentionally deceitful. It's an unreliable source of information, and it also make sure to scare away atheists from the conservative party. If the atheist community grows in this country, the conservatives will have to work really hard to gain back the trust. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trashy Posted September 28, 2007 Share Posted September 28, 2007 Oh, wait, I checked again, correction, JP Holding is his real name... no, Turkel... eh, one or the other. He was born Holding, but changed name to Turkel, and use Holding as a writing pseudo, but then...??? What's worse than a Christian apologist? A schizophrenic (MPD, DPD) christian apologist! Because it's twice as bad. (He seems to run in the same category as Hovind, Ham and Troy. Now we're just waiting for some tax evasion or fraud charges in the news...) I notice there is no Wikipedia entry for him yet..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spoomonkey Posted September 28, 2007 Share Posted September 28, 2007 Oh, wait, I checked again, correction, JP Holding is his real name... He has a Master's in Library Science... So if you argue with him, he'll misfile your book. Be very, very careful with this guy. Trust no one armed with an intimate knowledge of the Dewey Decimal System... Spoomonkey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueGiant Posted September 28, 2007 Share Posted September 28, 2007 Screw the Dewey Decimal system. It's all about LC, baby! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest petermoore Posted October 3, 2007 Share Posted October 3, 2007 I just wanted to let you know that there was some feedback from atheists taken into consideration and the article was updated. Secondly, there will be some additional material put in the article in the near future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mythra Posted October 3, 2007 Share Posted October 3, 2007 there will be some additional material put in the article in the near future. You do know this site is EX-christian.net. right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R. S. Martin Posted October 3, 2007 Share Posted October 3, 2007 Oh yes but this is the Lions den so he is allowed to evangelize and that his what he is doing in his own way by enticing (so he thinks) us to read his stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mythra Posted October 3, 2007 Share Posted October 3, 2007 Oh yes but this is the Lions den so he is allowed to evangelize and that his what he is doing in his own way by enticing (so he thinks) us to read his stuff. Like that would happen. Two sentences into the atheism article, it was clear that it was a dishonest, totally biased diatribe from an egomaniac who thinks Jesus is his assistant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts