Conservapedia: Your New Source for "facts."

[Skwim]

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:"

It's nice to see you imply that what Conservapedia says isn't factual. And except for a few lapses of truth I agree that it isn't; however, you might be interested in the following:

"Gun facts" Conservapedia page

"Abortion facts" Conservapedia page

"Hillary Rodham Clinton facts" Conservapedia page
​

Among others.



.

 

[Nietzsche]

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

I should consider doing my replies like you do yours; not actually address anything put forward and parrot what I've said in the past to give the impression I'm making an argument when in fact I'm just repeating things that have been repeatedly shot down.

By the by, you've still not said a word about your feelings on Conservapedia rejecting General Relativity.

 

[james bond]

Thank you for taking the time to start this thread. It is greatly appreciated. I tried to combat James Bond, but it was a bit too frustrating to debate with someone who only thinks that conservative sources are unbiased.

Atheists are wrong again. Just where did I say that Conservapedia was unbiased? I said Wikipedia had liberal and atheist bias. To balance it out, I said to look up the same topic under Conservapedia.

 

[james bond]

I should consider doing my replies like you do yours; not actually address anything put forward and parrot what I've said in the past to give the impression I'm making an argument when in fact I'm just repeating things that have been repeatedly shot down.

By the by, you've still not said a word about your feelings on Conservapedia rejecting General Relativity.

Give me a link.

 

[james bond]

It's nice to see you imply that what Conservapedia says isn't factual. And except for a few lapses of truth I agree that it isn't; however, you might be interested in the following:

"Gun facts" Conservapedia page

"Abortion facts" Conservapedia page

"Hillary Rodham Clinton facts" Conservapedia page
​

Among others.



.

I haven't seen those before, but like the Gun facts. However, it isn't complete. Just goes to another website which I'm not sure is part of CP.

 

[Nietzsche]

Give me a link.

Right here;

Counterexamples to Relativity - Conservapedia

 

[Skwim]

Right here;

Counterexamples to Relativity - Conservapedia

My god what an abysmal list of ignorance, although there are moments of humor in it, the best of all being.

"The theory of relativity is disproved by numerous counterexamples, but is promoted by liberals who like its encouragement of [moral] relativism and its tendency to pull people away from the Bible"
​

Others, such as #5 "The Sun is a perfect sphere - "the solar flattening is ... too small to agree with that predicted from its surface rotation." are non sequiturs, not even mentioning relativity. Included I suspect to help fill out the 50. So sad. So very sad.

.

.​

 

[Kapalika]

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

How the hell are facts separate from truth?

 

[Kapalika]

My god what an abysmal list of ignorance, although there are moments of humor in it, the best of all being:.

"The theory of relativity is disproved by numerous counterexamples, but is promoted by liberals who like its encouragement of [moral] relativism and its tendency to pull people away from the Bible"

.​

They obviously don't understand anything about relativity then. I'm not sure how gravity, light, space, time and motion behaves has anything to do with morality.

 

[Father Heathen]

Like I said, the conservative may not like certain stuff, but would easily live with it,

And like I said, conservatives have long pushed a religious agenda aiming to curtail rights, freedoms, and equality, to undermine how science is taught in schools, and to censor anything they consider an affront to their prudish sensitivities. Sorry, but defecating on the chessboard isn't a checkmate. People see it for what it is.

 

[LuisDantas]

You got that from my post?

That would be the logical conclusion.

Of course, I have been warned. So no, I did not get that from your post. That is why I ask.

It would have been nice if you had actually answered, too.

 

[leibowde84]

Atheists are wrong again. Just where did I say that Conservapedia was unbiased? I said Wikipedia had liberal and atheist bias. To balance it out, I said to look up the same topic under Conservapedia.

I said "conservative sources", not conservapedia. Conservative sources are more biased than the mainstream media (which can be biased either way, but tends to be more in the middle).

 

[Altfish]

I think that Conservapedia is based on Bertrand Russell's famous quote...

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts."

 

[Revoltingest]

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."

It is legitimate....from a special perspective (not mine).
Still, I help where I can. It's been a long time, but I recall improving their information about atheists.
They allowed me.
Boowahahhahahahahahhahah, etc!

 

[Kilgore Trout]

When somebody doesn't see things as a conservative sees things, the conservative shrugs. No big deal.
However, when the leftist runs into somebody who isn't a leftist...

Hence your need to jump into every one of these threads each time you get triggered.

To be fair, all you ideologues (whether liberal or conservative) seem just as transparent to me, and have more in common psychologically and emotionally than you think.

 

[Revoltingest]

That would be the logical conclusion.

No, it wouldn't.

 

[LuisDantas]

No, it wouldn't.

You must be kidding.

 

[Revoltingest]

You must be kidding.

No.
Are you?

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Fortunately I am not dependent upon what strangers 'think' of what I know and write. There are many who recognize wisdom when they encounter it, just as there are always many who never will. There's a great and arcane secret to using the internet and actually getting anything from it:
The realization that it's not only you reading it.

You need to calm down.

 

[LuisDantas]

No.
Are you?

I am definitely not.

Sometimes you are scary.