Skwim
Veteran Member
In a recent OP "The Downfall And Lies Of A Biased Liberal And Atheist Websource -- Wikipedia" ***Mod edit*** extols Conservapedia, an information source he contends "balance out the lies, errors and censorship of Wikipedia."
According to Wikipedia,
Okay, so just how reliable is Conservapedia?
I went there and looked around and found the following under the listing "Biblical scientific foreknowledge," which is explained as "Biblical scientific foreknowledge is how the Bible shows a comprehension of science far ahead of its time" where one finds Cosmology: Spherical Sun and Earth. Clicking on Spherical Sun and Earth one reads
Interesting, because I've never seen the earth referred to as a sphere in the Bible before. Fortunately, there's a link attached to Isaiah 40:22 so as to correct my misunderstanding. Reading it we find;
Hmmm, no sphere mentioned at all. But following the scripture we read under the column titled Proposed Conservative Translation
So that's it!! Cute isn't it how a self-serving proposal turns into a statement of fact:
"The Book of Isaiah establishes that the true shape of the earth is a sphere" by just a click of conservapedia's mouse.
Looking into Conservapedia a bit further, under Atheism is a Religion we read:
Then there's this truly inane and irrelevant remark:
which is also true of Homosexuality.
and of totalitarianism, or fill in whatever system of government or belief you choose.
So, while Conservapedia calls itself "The Trustworthy Encyclopedia," in no way whatsoever does it match the veracity and trustworthiness of Wikipedia, or, for that matter, even
.
According to Wikipedia,
"Conservapedia /kənˈsɜːrvəˈpidiə/, "is an English-language wiki encyclopedia project written from an American conservative point of view. The website was started in 2006 by American homeschool teacher and attorney Andrew Schlafly, son of conservative activist Phyllis Schlafly, to counter what he perceived as a liberal bias present in Wikipedia. It uses editorials and a wiki-based system to generate content."
I went there and looked around and found the following under the listing "Biblical scientific foreknowledge," which is explained as "Biblical scientific foreknowledge is how the Bible shows a comprehension of science far ahead of its time" where one finds Cosmology: Spherical Sun and Earth. Clicking on Spherical Sun and Earth one reads
"The Book of Isaiah establishes that the true shape of the earth is a sphere:
“He sits above the sphere of the earth, and its inhabitants look to him like grasshoppers. He stretches out the galaxies like a curtain, spreading them out like a tent to live under: - Isaiah 40:22
(CBP)
(CBP)
Isaiah 40:22
"It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:"
"It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:"
"He sits above the sphere of the earth, and its inhabitants look to him like grasshoppers. He stretches out the galaxies like a curtain, spreading them out like a tent to live under."
"The Book of Isaiah establishes that the true shape of the earth is a sphere" by just a click of conservapedia's mouse.
Looking into Conservapedia a bit further, under Atheism is a Religion we read:
"Atheism is a religion and this has implications in terms of the disciplines of religion, philosophy, Christian apologetics and law. In addition, although many atheists deny that atheism is a worldview, atheists commonly share a number of beliefs such as naturalism, belief in evolution and abiogenesis.
If the view that there is no God (or are no gods) is a religion, it is argued its expression is constitutionally protected in the United States. The government cannot force atheists to recant and adopt the opposite belief."
Call me crazy, but when including something in a category---the category being religion in this case--- one first defines or at least explains that category. But not conservapedia. Why bother explaining why atheism qualifies as a religion when it's much easier to just barrel ahead with . . .If the view that there is no God (or are no gods) is a religion, it is argued its expression is constitutionally protected in the United States. The government cannot force atheists to recant and adopt the opposite belief."
In his BBC documentary The Trouble with Atheism the award-winning journalist Rod Liddle indicates:
"Some atheists have become rather dogmatic. Terribly certain in their conviction that there is no God and anyone who thinks there is is a deluded and dangerous fool. ,,,atheists are becoming as intransigent about their own views as the people they so despise.
Atheism is becoming a religion of its own. It already has its gurus and its revered sacred texts... It has its magnificent temples within which lie mysteries and unknowable truths.
Note the qualification of becoming a religion. Plus the silly mention of "revered sacred texts" and the ridiculous "It has its magnificent temples within which lie mysteries and unknowable truths." All without a single example. But how can there be? There are no such things. Conservapedia just makes up c*** as it goes along, knowing the undiscerning reader will swallow whatever it prints."Some atheists have become rather dogmatic. Terribly certain in their conviction that there is no God and anyone who thinks there is is a deluded and dangerous fool. ,,,atheists are becoming as intransigent about their own views as the people they so despise.
Atheism is becoming a religion of its own. It already has its gurus and its revered sacred texts... It has its magnificent temples within which lie mysteries and unknowable truths.
Then there's this truly inane and irrelevant remark:
"If atheism is not a religion, then the expression of atheistic ideas is still covered by the First Amendment, but only by the free speech and free press clauses."
which is also true of Homosexuality.
If homosexuality is not a religion, then the expression of homosexual ideas is still covered by the First Amendment, but only by the free speech and free press clauses.
and of totalitarianism, or fill in whatever system of government or belief you choose.
"If totalitarianism is not a religion, then the expression of totalitarian ideas is still covered by the First Amendment, but only by the free speech and free press clauses."
"If lycanthropy is not a religion, then the expression of lycanthropic ideas is still covered by the First Amendment, but only by the free speech and free press clauses."
Conservapedia's arrogant stupidity continues, telling the reader that IF atheism is or is not a religion this or that will befall it. No kidding Sherlock."If lycanthropy is not a religion, then the expression of lycanthropic ideas is still covered by the First Amendment, but only by the free speech and free press clauses."
So, while Conservapedia calls itself "The Trustworthy Encyclopedia," in no way whatsoever does it match the veracity and trustworthiness of Wikipedia, or, for that matter, even
.
Last edited by a moderator:
