Agreed!
But some things are value & desire driven.
Subjective premises should not be confused with a singular reality.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Conservapedia: Your New Source for "facts."
- Thread starter Skwim
- Start date
But some things are value & desire driven.
Subjective premises should not be confused with a singular reality.
Well aren't you just special !
Jeremiahcp
Well-Known Jerk
Try conversing with people instead of insulting.No one will listen to me.
You'd be more interesting.
Jeremiahcp
Well-Known Jerk
Meanie cry baby liberals, boo hoo. I need my alternative facts.
leibowde84
Veteran Member
Not that there aren't plenty of members of RF that resort to the tired "cry-baby liberals" and "fake news" stupidity. But, Revoltingest is usually pretty decent. In the words of Tommy Boy, "he seems like a nice guy".
But I do tend to rub some people the wrong way.
But not @columbus ....I don't rub him at all.
(Too tempting.)
Jeremiahcp
Well-Known Jerk
This was done today and he has other post very similar to this one. He is not above pulling the cry baby liberal card.
Jeremiahcp
Well-Known Jerk
I have no problem with a little spice, what I picking at is how often you act in the same manner as you criticize. It is almost as if that is normal human behavior and it has nothing to do with "Left" or "Right."
Conservapedia, to put it simply and directly, is a joke trying very hard to be mistaken for something serious.
leibowde84
Veteran Member
But, he did explain himself there. Again, I don't agree with him, but that isn't the same as the old "sour grapes" pathetic insult.
So you agree with Colbert?
Your attentions are getting creepy.
Last edited:
You got that from my post?
Jeremiahcp
Well-Known Jerk
Pfff. . . I was in this tread first.
Sha'irullah
رسول الآلهة
I always thought that Conservapedia was some sort of weird fanfiction site. Never knew it actually claimed legitimacy, but then again is no different than other literature like the BIble which is fanfic. . . I mean "historically accurate representations of historical people and events that were led by the almighty mind of God."
Skwim
Veteran Member
Ah yes, the Conservative Bible Project, alluded to by its initial letters (CBP), in my OP.
As Conservapedia explains:
"The Conservative Bible Project is a project utilizing the "best of the public" to render God's word into modern English without archaic language and liberal translation distortions."
source
source
And what is this "best of the public" method that outshines all the scholarly attempts to properly relate the message of the Bible?
Fortunately, Conservapedia is happy to tell us:
"The "best of the public" is a successful approach to education, scholarship, art, science, and biblical translation that was coined during an interview with Andy Schlafly, the founder of Conservapedia, that was published on December 3, 2009: this concept is that "extraordinary achievements are attained by ordinary people."
Note that this is a successful approach to education, scholarship, art, science, and biblical translation. Although don't expect any examples of this success. Conservapedia doesn't operate that way.
So forget those experts schooled in the languages of the Bible and all the history and biblical scholars whose combined expertise spans centuries and thousands of hours of individual study.
In any case, Conservapedia continues:
"Some confusion may exist over the difference between an "expert" and the "best of the public." The primary difference lies in the manner in which expertise is obtained. Most "experts" undergo highly specialized training, and in the process, become immersed in a sub-culture of like experts. This always carries the danger of groupthink and the pressure to conform. Also, academic credentialing consists almost entirely of repeating what professors say, rather than criticizing their errors.
A traditional, expert-dominated inquiry would dismiss the contributions of Student B, since he has not an "expert" - he has not received the official approval of the gatekeepers. A "best of the public" approach would accept the contributions of both Student A and Student B, since they are both members of the public. However, it would not place Student A's contributions on a pedestal and make them sacrosanct and immune to questioning. Student B would be free to bring in HIS expertise as well; as a result, the ensuing discussion would be much less one-sided and more comprehensive, and thus far more likely to result in accurate and truthful insights. Perhaps many ideas coming from people like Student B would be wrong, unprofitable, and therefore rightly rejected; the "best of the public" approach recognizes that not all ideas from the public are better than those of experts. However, it is very likely that some ideas from people like Student B will be true and helpful. This is the difference between the two approaches: such ideas will be heard under the "best of the public" method.
source
A traditional, expert-dominated inquiry would dismiss the contributions of Student B, since he has not an "expert" - he has not received the official approval of the gatekeepers. A "best of the public" approach would accept the contributions of both Student A and Student B, since they are both members of the public. However, it would not place Student A's contributions on a pedestal and make them sacrosanct and immune to questioning. Student B would be free to bring in HIS expertise as well; as a result, the ensuing discussion would be much less one-sided and more comprehensive, and thus far more likely to result in accurate and truthful insights. Perhaps many ideas coming from people like Student B would be wrong, unprofitable, and therefore rightly rejected; the "best of the public" approach recognizes that not all ideas from the public are better than those of experts. However, it is very likely that some ideas from people like Student B will be true and helpful. This is the difference between the two approaches: such ideas will be heard under the "best of the public" method.
source
In other words, Conservapedia is rewriting the Bible based on what ordinary people like firefighters, mommies, and bag boys may happen to decided is right---all under the watchful eye of conservapedia's ultra right, founder and watchdog Andy Schlafly of course. After all, one can't let the Bible stray too far from the party line.
.
Last edited:
james bond
Well-Known Member
In a recent OP "The Downfall And Lies Of A Biased Liberal And Atheist Websource -- Wikipedia" created by james bond, he rails against Wikipedia and 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?"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
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;"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)
Hmmm, no sphere mentioned at all. But following the scripture we read under the column titled Proposed Conservative TranslationIsaiah 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:"
So that's it!! Cute isn't it how a self-serving proposal turns into a statement of fact:"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.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: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."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
.
Ha ha. Atheists are wrong again. For one, Conservapedia doesn't claim to be a source of facts. It states, "Conservapedia is a clean and concise resource for those seeking the truth. We do not allow liberal bias to deceive and distort here. Founded initially in November 2006 as a way to educate advanced, college-bound homeschoolers, this resource has grown into a marvelous source of information for students, adults and teachers alike. Our courses are ongoing and open to all here:"
As an example, facts are what's listed in the article on Wikipedia and creepy founder Jimmy Wales in the Natural News article.
10 shocking facts you never knew about Wikipedia and Jimmy Wales
10 shocking facts you never knew about Wikipedia and Jimmy Wales
james bond
Well-Known Member
Did you notice "a way to educate advanced, college-bound homeschoolers?"
Where are Wikipeida user bound for ha ha?
"Several Wikipedians have criticized Wikipedia's large and growing regulation, which includes over 50 policies and nearly 150,000 words as of 2014.[150][151]
Critics have stated that Wikipedia exhibits systemic bias. Columnist and journalist Edwin Black criticizes Wikipedia for being a mixture of "truth, half truth, and some falsehoods".[20] Articles in The Chronicle of Higher Education and The Journal of Academic Librarianship have criticized Wikipedia's Undue Weight policy, concluding that the fact that Wikipedia explicitly is not designed to provide correct information about a subject, but rather focus on all the major viewpoints on the subject and give less attention to minor ones, creates omissions that can lead to false beliefs based on incomplete information.[152][153][154]
Journalists Oliver Kamm and Edwin Black noted how articles are dominated by the loudest and most persistent voices, usually by a group with an "ax to grind" on the topic.[20][155] An article in Education Next Journal concluded that as a resource about controversial topics, Wikipedia is notoriously subject to manipulation and spin.[21]
In 2006, the Wikipedia Watch criticism website listed dozens of examples of plagiarism in the English Wikipedia.[156]"
There are more criticisms. Besides plagiarism, one of the worst I think is where they steal what you write as original material and claim it is under their copyright once it is accepted.
Last edited: