Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Parthian shot

2012-05-25T19:58:11Z

Bdor24:

And disastrously so, I might add. Some kind historian, please fix! [[User:Human|Human]] 02:37, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

I wonder, is it wise to list examples of people pointing out Conservapedia's (percieved) flaws? Additionally, links 2, 3, and 4 are broken because they have been deleted. Lastly, why is this protected? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:19, 27 December 2007 (EST)
:First, It ''is'' appropriate to list examples of Conservapedia editors using the Parthian shot; Second, the links are fixed; Third, the article is now unprotected. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 00:53, 28 December 2007 (EST)
::Maybe we should ask Ed Poor about the appropriateness of the examples:
:::"Ed Poor doesn't know the first thing about Meteorology or Atmospheric Science. I suggest he go back and start from the basics; Lesson 1) Those white things in the sky? They're called ''clouds''. Can you say ''clouds''?"
::If someone had said that about me I would want it deleted, not put on display. The same goes for Graham's "shot". I can ''maybe'' (and that's a big maybe) understand keeping deragatory remarks about Conservapedia, but keeping personal insults?
::I think we should get rid of all of the examples, lest this page become a focus point for anyone who wants to find out what others think are wrong with Conservapedia.
::Thanks for fixing the links and unprotecting. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 14:16, 28 December 2007 (EST)

First of all, I would like to renew my plea from above. I really think that the examples do nothing but harm Conservapedia and certain sysops.

And now, at the risk of being blocked, wasn't it the Parthion shooters on this page who did the "swift-boating" (of themselves) and not the CP sysops? Additionally, I think the shooters would make the case that they were doing a form of "coservative swift-boating" of Conservapedia. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 18:25, 6 March 2008 (EST)

The irony on the list of 'parthian shots' done on conservapedia is that it seems when you read them, the liberal comes out on top with the smarter argument.
:It may well seem so to Liberals, with whom the characteristic of denial is very strong. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:57, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

Exactly my point.

== My Parthian Shot ==

Hello, contributors of Conservapedia. I have been here for some time now, observing the various arguments for your worldview and reading your articles. I scantly contributed, instead preferring to be a follower. However, the seeds of doubt were sewn in my mind, and I do not believe that I can continue to be an active user here without complaint. I have decided to move on to better climes. And before I go, this is my Parthian shot. It is my hope that you read this in its entirety and learn from it.

I have read many an article here, and I am sorry to say that many have left me with just as many questions as answers. I asked questions, whether in the articles' talk pages or my own, but they have all been deleted without answer, as though the current leadership is unable to answer them. So I began to search for the answers myself. My questions have taken me to many a website, with a wide range of political and religious views, from AnswersinGenesis to the infamous Wikipedia.

In light of the answers I've found, I have slid from a KJV reading Baptist to an Agnostic. Many of the questions I've asked ('Why doesn't God just destroy Satan now, instead of allowing him to corrupt more people', for example) have no adequate answer from the Christian side, yet many a sensible answer from atheists. It doesn't help that many of your articles seem to misrepresent the state of science (Your article on [[evolution]], for example).

And then there are politics. Gentlemen, '[[liberal]]' and 'evil' are not the same word, by any stretch of the imagination. No one is purely evil or purely good in this world. Instead, there are many shades of gray. Many of your articles are little more than slander against anyone who isn't conservative. Slander is not a valid argument (Barack Obama has his very many faults, but it's a pretty well known fact that he is not a Muslim). And every conservative politician isn't exactly sunshine and daisies, either. There have been plenty of scandals on both sides of the coin.

To sum up: I found many of your arguments flawed. When I questioned those arguments, my queries were deleted, meaning you are unwilling or unable to answer them (I expect this to be deleted as well, as you all seem to rely on censorship to keep your ideas intact, but hey, maybe you'll prove me wrong, that'd be a pleasant surprise). The answers I've found from other, more reliable sources do not align with the answers here. Do what you will with my account, I will no longer be needing it. I hope you've learned a thing or two from this Parthian Shot, and may you all live happy and pleasant lives. Goodbye. --[[User:Bdor24|Bdor24]] 20:43, 23 May 2012 (EDT)

:At least you posted your [[Parthian Shot]] on its talk page! Thank you!

:As to your question, "Why doesn't God just destroy Satan now, instead of allowing him to corrupt more people?" the answer is simple: man is created in the image of God. If God were to destroy Satan, then that would require ending free will, and then this world ceases to be of interest. It would become akin to a sports league where one's favorite team won every game. That's no sports league at all.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:09, 23 May 2012 (EDT)

::You just deleted my response for no apparent reason without warning. THIS is the sort of thing I was pointing out before. Your entire worldview relies on censorship to be perceived as accurate. But Andy, no matter how many times you delete an answer, you can never delete the point it makes. If God loved us, then He would end the suffering right now, thus allowing far more people to escape the horrors of hell, free will or no. Also, a conceivably omnipotent being would no doubt be able to find a way to have free will WITHOUT evil. Omnipotent beings have no restrictions, even in the laws of physics and philosophy. Yet another hole in your argument. In all honesty, Andy, I'm beginning to wonder if you actually believe what you say. This is the kind of thing a parodist or Internet troll would say, a weak argument that overall undermines the cause they claim to support. Parodist or not, that argument was ridiculously weak, and if that's the best the theists can do, then the atheists are probably right. As I said above, good bye and live a happy and pleasant life. --[[User:Bdor24|Bdor24]] 18:21, 24 May 2012 (EDT)

:::I went over the prior edits and could not find anything I deleted. If it happened, it was an accident.

:::What's your "yes" or "no" answer to this: Would you take away [[free will]] from everyone if you were God? As a matter of simple logic, suffering is inevitable if there is free will.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:10, 24 May 2012 (EDT)

::::Destroying Satan wouldn't destroy humanity's ability to do evil, it would only destroy evil's greatest mascot. Evil would still be there, lurking in the shadows, but no one's giving you the temptation to use it. And if evil WERE connected to free will, then yes, I would destroy free will, because that mean's no one suffers in hell, and everyone goes to heaven, which a loving God would want, free will or no.

::::And in turn, I ask you this, Andy. What is the point of free will? God wants everyone to worship him, but at the same time wants us to have the ability NOT to worship him, unintentionally dooming ourselves. And for what? God detests evil and doesn't want us to do it, so why does he allow us to? --[[User:Bdor24|Bdor24]] 15:58, 25 May 2012 (EDT)

Talk:Parthian shot

2012-05-24T22:21:32Z

Bdor24:

Talk:Parthian shot

2012-05-24T01:57:31Z

Bdor24:

And disastrously so, I might add. Some kind historian, please fix! [[User:Human|Human]] 02:37, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

I wonder, is it wise to list examples of people pointing out Conservapedia's (percieved) flaws? Additionally, links 2, 3, and 4 are broken because they have been deleted. Lastly, why is this protected? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:19, 27 December 2007 (EST)
:First, It ''is'' appropriate to list examples of Conservapedia editors using the Parthian shot; Second, the links are fixed; Third, the article is now unprotected. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 00:53, 28 December 2007 (EST)
::Maybe we should ask Ed Poor about the appropriateness of the examples:
:::"Ed Poor doesn't know the first thing about Meteorology or Atmospheric Science. I suggest he go back and start from the basics; Lesson 1) Those white things in the sky? They're called ''clouds''. Can you say ''clouds''?"
::If someone had said that about me I would want it deleted, not put on display. The same goes for Graham's "shot". I can ''maybe'' (and that's a big maybe) understand keeping deragatory remarks about Conservapedia, but keeping personal insults?
::I think we should get rid of all of the examples, lest this page become a focus point for anyone who wants to find out what others think are wrong with Conservapedia.
::Thanks for fixing the links and unprotecting. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 14:16, 28 December 2007 (EST)

First of all, I would like to renew my plea from above. I really think that the examples do nothing but harm Conservapedia and certain sysops.

And now, at the risk of being blocked, wasn't it the Parthion shooters on this page who did the "swift-boating" (of themselves) and not the CP sysops? Additionally, I think the shooters would make the case that they were doing a form of "coservative swift-boating" of Conservapedia. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 18:25, 6 March 2008 (EST)

The irony on the list of 'parthian shots' done on conservapedia is that it seems when you read them, the liberal comes out on top with the smarter argument.
:It may well seem so to Liberals, with whom the characteristic of denial is very strong. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:57, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

Exactly my point.

== My Parthian Shot ==

Hello, contributors of Conservapedia. I have been here for some time now, observing the various arguments for your worldview and reading your articles. I scantly contributed, instead preferring to be a follower. However, the seeds of doubt were sewn in my mind, and I do not believe that I can continue to be an active user here without complaint. I have decided to move on to better climes. And before I go, this is my Parthian shot. It is my hope that you read this in its entirety and learn from it.

I have read many an article here, and I am sorry to say that many have left me with just as many questions as answers. I asked questions, whether in the articles' talk pages or my own, but they have all been deleted without answer, as though the current leadership is unable to answer them. So I began to search for the answers myself. My questions have taken me to many a website, with a wide range of political and religious views, from AnswersinGenesis to the infamous Wikipedia.

In light of the answers I've found, I have slid from a KJV reading Baptist to an Agnostic. Many of the questions I've asked ('Why doesn't God just destroy Satan now, instead of allowing him to corrupt more people', for example) have no adequate answer from the Christian side, yet many a sensible answer from atheists. It doesn't help that many of your articles seem to misrepresent the state of science (Your article on [[evolution]], for example).

And then there are politics. Gentlemen, '[[liberal]]' and 'evil' are not the same word, by any stretch of the imagination. No one is purely evil or purely good in this world. Instead, there are many shades of gray. Many of your articles are little more than slander against anyone who isn't conservative. Slander is not a valid argument (Barack Obama has his very many faults, but it's a pretty well known fact that he is not a Muslim). And every conservative politician isn't exactly sunshine and daisies, either. There have been plenty of scandals on both sides of the coin.

To sum up: I found many of your arguments flawed. When I questioned those arguments, my queries were deleted, meaning you are unwilling or unable to answer them (I expect this to be deleted as well, as you all seem to rely on censorship to keep your ideas intact, but hey, maybe you'll prove me wrong, that'd be a pleasant surprise). The answers I've found from other, more reliable sources do not align with the answers here. Do what you will with my account, I will no longer be needing it. I hope you've learned a thing or two from this Parthian Shot, and may you all live happy and pleasant lives. Goodbye. --[[User:Bdor24|Bdor24]] 20:43, 23 May 2012 (EDT)

:At least you posted your [[Parthian Shot]] on its talk page! Thank you!

:As to your question, "Why doesn't God just destroy Satan now, instead of allowing him to corrupt more people?" the answer is simple: man is created in the image of God. If God were to destroy Satan, then that would require ending free will, and then this world ceases to be of interest. It would become akin to a sports league where one's favorite team won every game. That's no sports league at all.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:09, 23 May 2012 (EDT)

::Meaning that God regards us as little more than playthings, like an interesting television program. It seems akin to the Hunger Games, the book/movie where 24 children were put into an arena to fight to the death purely for the amusement of a dystopian government. If God truly loves us, then he wouldn't allow Satan to continue to pull millions of people down into hell because he thinks it's amusing. Besides, wouldn't God know what's going to happen anyway, as He is omniscient and can thus see the future? It's not an argument that can easily hold up to scrutiny. --[[User:Bdor24|Bdor24]] 21:57, 23 May 2012 (EDT)

Talk:Parthian shot

2012-05-24T00:43:51Z

Bdor24:

Talk:Obama's Religion

2012-04-20T00:34:55Z

Bdor24:

Is it not necessary to delete this talkpage? '''R7''' ~ [[User talk:R7|''Talk'']] 16:06, 4 August 2011 (EDT)
:Why do you say that? [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 16:13, 4 August 2011 (EDT)
::Sorry for the late reaction, but this is an empty talkpage. Normally these things, without content, so far as I saw, are being deleted, or am I wrong? [[User:R7|R7]] 15:44, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

== Question ==

Hey guys! I'm sure this has been discussed before but I can't seem to find the discussion... maybe someone here could point me in the right direction? This article shows pretty conclusively that Obama is a Muslim, I'm not arguing that but... why does it matter? Isn't he entitled to his freedom of religion just like the rest of us? I mean, I disagree totally with his policies bordering on socialistic but this is something I've never understood. (Unless of course he claims to be christian, that would be different). Thanks! [[User:GregorySKroeger|Gregory]] [[Special:Contributions/GregorySKroeger|S.]] [[User talk:GregorySKroeger|Kroeger]] 13:43, 11 August 2011 (EDT)Greg

Hello all! Now I am not trying to disagree with this article but I just found a great Q&A from a trustworthy conservitive Christian website that seems to actually paint Obama as a Christian. What are your thoughts on the article? (The link is below)

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2008/januaryweb-only/104-32.0.html?start=2

== Fewer than 1% muslims leave the faith applies globally, not in the usa ==

Fewer than 1% muslims leave the Muslims faith applies globally, not in the usa. In the USA people switch religions more frequently than in many places. Plus, what matters is the evidence for Obama in particular and the historical context of the evidence. For example, not many people rise from the dead in history, but the evidence for the resurrection of [[Jesus Christ]] is very good. I do not know enough about Obama's history to know if he was ever a Muslim. If he was a Muslim, I would like to know at what age. It does seem odd that he attended Wright's church and had his daughter baptised if he was a Muslim. Plus, Obama eats pork and drinks alcohol. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:29, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
:::Also, this sentence is too broad: "Obama's background, education, and outlook are Muslim." It clearly ignores his black liberation theology church attendance, his atheist mother, Columbia and Harvard education and his secular progressive like stances on social issues (homosexuality, etc.). Obama fits a heretical liberal Christianity outlook far more than a Muslim outlook. Historical evidence [http://books.google.com/books?id=7_G2UumJCEQC&pg=PR19&lpg=PR19&dq=Historians%27+fallacies:+toward+a+logic+of+historical+thought+rules&source=bl&ots=uG5YbjPDO9&sig=o166eo168lp9fXU20YnBW_T-s1I&hl=en&ei=XzFETtiDN4ng0QGkpIjzCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9&ved=0CFoQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q&f=false is weighed in context] and not through cherry picking. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:42, 11 August 2011 (EDT)

==This article is more harmful than good for this project==

The text clearly says that Barak may be the first Islamic president, there follows a list of mostly straw grasping and "synthesis" of assetions based on certain evidence. I am no fan of Obama, but the ecmaples is SO flawed I'm beginning to think it was started by a troll as '''a parody to debase the authority of this encyclopedia'''. I have only taken the comments below but the whole article, being based on the premise that Obam is Islamic, is on very unstable ground, in fact much of it seems an errand in silliness, but let's disucss it:
*Obama declared in prepared remarks, "The United States has been enriched by '''Muslim Americans'''. Many other Americans have Muslims in their families or have lived in a Muslim-majority country - I know, because '''I am one of them'''
:Synthesis: shows that he has a positive opinion of the input of muslims, and proves that he has either or both lived in muslim countries and had muslims in his family. Does not provide evidence of being Islamic
*Obama's wife Michelle does not accompany him to Muslim nations because [[Sharia law]] would apply to her there; on a presidential trip she was with him until France, but then returned home.
:Synthesis again – many men visiting muslim countries would be less than likely to want their wives there to be subject to their customs. If anything it maybe evidence counter to the point
*Obama's background, education, and outlook are [[Muslim]], and fewer than 1% of Muslims convert to Christianity
:So? 1% do (if we assume the statistic is correct to start with in a western country which I doubt)
*During the third and fourth grades, Obama learned about Islam for two hours each week in religion class, according to the LATimes.
:I learned about it for three years as part of general Social and Religious Studies in High School. I am a Christian and not a muslim. If I had muslims in my family, I would perhaps be even more curious from an accademic point of view.
*Obama's middle name (Hussein) references '''Husayn''',
:Hussein is an Arabic name. Changing a name on conversion is common in Islam but less common in christisanity so nothing can be inferred , especially as his father had that name so he is likely to retain it for family reasons
::This one always amuses me. My father's family was from Germany, and my great-grandfather shared first names with Hitler. My father was named after his grandfather, and is about as far from a Nazi as can be. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 09:25, 12 September 2011 (EDT)
:: Indeed - my aunt was born a Christian, then married my Jewish uncle and converted. But she didn't change her name from Christina. And that's hardly a Jewish name. Of course, now she's divorced from my uncle and I don't know if she went back to Christianity or not, but she's still named Christina. And there's also a convert in my synagogue named "Christian". That's about as un-Jewish a name as you can get right there. For that matter, my grandmother made a big deal about how I had the same name as a former Pope, although given that she named one of her sons Mark, I'm guessing that's just because she was mad my parents didn't name me after her late husband. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 08:27, 21 February 2012 (EST)
*Obama mentioned his religion as "[[my Muslim faith]]."
:Out of context – past tense
*He has said that "Islam can be compatible with the modern world."
:Empathy and a positive opinion do not make you part of the club.
*Obama said the Muslim call to prayer is "one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset," and recited "with a first-class [[Arabic]] accent" the opening lines: Allah is Supreme! ... I witness that there is no god but Allah ...."
:See above
*Obama stated that the autobiography of Malcolm X, a Nation of Islam leader who became a Muslim, inspired him in his youth
:I was inspired and still am by Gandhi – he was not a Christian, I am.
*Obama uses the Muslim Pakistani pronunciation for "Pakistan" rather than the common American one. Obama repeatedly pronounced "Pakistan" as "Pokiston" in the first presidential debate.
:Dimplomatic lingusitc trait from someone with experience of a culture?
*Obama was thoroughly exposed to Christianity as an adult in Chicago prior to attending law school, yet no one at law school saw him display any interest in converting.
:Like lots of young people, it is often hard to get them interested.
*Obama has chosen the [[Secret Service]] code name "Renegade". "Renegade" conventionally describes someone who goes against normal conventions of behavior, but its first usage was to describe someone who has turned from their religion. It is a word derived from the [[Spanish]] ''renegado'', which originally meant "Christian turned Muslim."<
:Golly it gets even more tenuous. Do we really always think of the derivations of words when we use them?
[[User:DavidMilton|DavidMilton]] 14:08, 8 September 2011 (EDT)

:Ok, then I will edit the article without deviating from its title. [[User:DavidMilton|DavidMilton]] 09:13, 12 September 2011 (EDT)

== "Prepared remarks" ==

Obama referenced Jesus as "a" Son of God in a speech given at a formal event. He reads his remarks from [[teleprompter]]s at such events. This should be distinguished from an interview, where words are chosen less carefully.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:06, 7 April 2012 (EDT)

== Blatant Slander ==

Conservapedia is going downhill. Virtually every piece of evidence on this page is either taken out of context or entirely irrelevant. Obama read a book written from a Muslim point of view. How does that prove he's a Muslim. Does reading the book of Exodus make me Jewish because it's from Moses's point of view?

Obama's been doing a poor job, but you can point that out pretty easily without having to resort to a smear campaign. Don't sink to the liberal level. You guys are better than that--[[User:Bdor24|Bdor24]] 20:34, 19 April 2012 (EDT)

User talk:Bdor24

2012-03-28T18:52:40Z

Bdor24:

Why did you guys delete my query? I wasn't rude, was I?--[[User:Bdor24|Bdor24]] 14:52, 28 March 2012 (EDT)

User talk:Bdor24

2012-03-28T18:52:08Z

Bdor24: Created page with "Why did you guys delete my query? I wasn't rude, was I?"

Why did you guys delete my query? I wasn't rude, was I?

Talk:Richard Dawkins

2012-02-19T17:15:28Z

Bdor24:

*[[Talk:Richard Dawkins/Archive 1|Archive #1]]| *[[Talk:Richard Dawkins/Archive 5|Archive #5]]
*[[Talk:Richard Dawkins/Archive 2|Archive #2]]| *[[Talk:Richard Dawkins/Archive 6|Archive #6]]
*[[Talk:Richard Dawkins/Archive 3|Archive #3]]| *[[Talk:Richard Dawkins/Archive 7|Archive #7]]
*[[Talk:Richard Dawkins/Archive 4|Archive #4]]| *[[Talk:Richard Dawkins/Archive 8|Archive #8]]
*[[Talk:Richard Dawkins/Archive 9|Archive #9]]


== Elevatorgate ==

Develop [[Elevatorgate]] article and incorporate it into the Richard Dawkins article. Mention the atheist Rebecca Watson is no longer going to recommend his books, etc. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 05:34, 13 July 2011 (EDT)

http://www.salon.com/life/feature/2011/07/08/atheist_flirting

http://gawker.com/5818993/richard-dawkins-torn-limb-from-limbby-atheists

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david-allen-green/2011/07/richard-dawkins-chewing-gum

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2011/07/richard-dawkins-draws-feminist-wrath-over-sexual-harassment-comments/39637/

http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/not-your-average-read/2011/jul/16/sexism-atheism-Dawkins-Watson-feminists-Skepchick/

http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/atheologies/4978/does_atheism_have_a_misogyny_problem/

http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/story/2011-09-15/atheist-sexism-women/50416454/1

:I've been reading up on Elevatorgate and I'm going to start drafting an article on it. One thing though - he now has ten books out and I can't change it. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 09:13, 18 August 2011 (EDT)
Please be more specific about book addition. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:23, 18 August 2011 (EDT)
:There's certainly one called ''Evolution: The Greatest Show on Earth'' (or similar) that's been out for a while, and that would seem reasonably relevant to the overall tenor of this article.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:36, 18 August 2011 (EDT)
:::CPalmer, Done. Plus, I included a book which refutes that book. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:50, 18 August 2011 (EDT)
=== Consider mentioning that Wikipedia Richard Dawkins article does not mention Elevatorgate ===

Consider mentioning that Wikipedia Richard Dawkins article does not mention Elevatorgate even though it caused quite a bit of additional damage to his already damaged reputation [http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david-allen-green/2011/07/richard-dawkins-chewing-gum] (see also: [[Atheism and cowardice]], [[Richard Dawkins and pseudoscience]], etc.).[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 06:03, 9 September 2011 (EDT)

== False dichotomy ==

"Dawkins has repeatedly likened religious faith to a mental defect despite the fact that atheists are more likely to commit suicide than believers in the existence of God and the plentitude of studies associating theism with better mental and physical health."

Why "despite"? The use of this word suggests that the two assertions - religious faith being a mental defect and atheists being more likely to commit suicide than believers - are mutually exclusive. That is obviously not true. Christians may be crazy while at the same time atheists may be a bunch of suicidal pessimists. [[User:Baobab|Baobab]] 16:55, 6 September 2011 (EDT)
::I can see your jealous of the mental fitness of fervent Christians. Given the madness of atheism and Christian charitableness, no doubt Christians have built a lot of hospitals containing mental wards [[Atheism and suicide|often frequented by suicidal atheists.]] Of course, the mental toughness of Christian creationists this year on the creation vs. evolution battlefield is going to make the [[Question evolution! campaign]] very successful in 2012![http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xqt5i2Hn7Jo] It may cause a lot of atheists to have nervous breakdowns. Onward Christian soldiers! :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:39, 8 January 2012 (EST)
:::Unfortunately, I think we have to worry more about scientists in general than atheists in the QE! campaign. It's not just the atheist scientists who have been brainwashed. Either way, let's hope for the best! [[User:RedGoliath|RedGoliath]] 18:33, 8 January 2012 (GMT)
:::Conservative, what makes you think I am "jealous of the mental fitness of fervent Christians"? I merely signaled a logical flaw in the article text, without attacking Christians or praising atheists. By the way, is your spelling prowess ("I can see ''your'' jealous") testimony of the mental fitness of fervent Christians? [[User:Baobab|Baobab]] 11:44, 5 February 2012 (EST)

== Another book ==

Richard Dawkins is publishing another book. A children's book, this time, called ''The Magic of Reality: How We Know What's Really True''. See [http://www.amazon.co.uk/Magic-Reality-know-whats-really/dp/059306612X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1318250314&sr=8-1 here]. I think this should be added to the list of books.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 08:39, 10 October 2011 (EDT)

:I have added it to the list myself. (For some reason I thought the page was protected, but it isn't.)--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 08:39, 12 October 2011 (EDT)

== Dawkins - intellectual fraud: in interview could not name the full title of On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. ==

Dawkins - intellectual fraud: in interview could not name the full title of On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. [http://voxday.blogspot.com/2012/02/richard-dawkins-sans-pants.html] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 03:40, 18 February 2012 (EST)

Wow, the full title of On the Origin of Species? That's important, since that book is pretty much all there is to evolution. There hasn't been much progress or growth for a century and a half, so it's very important that people remember the full title of that book, and not just the shortened title that everyone else uses. Dawkins' inability to remember the full title of the book is a death blow against evolutionary theory, which requires that famous atheists know the full titles of famous books on evolution in order for god to not exist. I am personally disappointed with Dawkins, who should have found a way to balance his writing work, his numerous speaking engagements, his family and the need to memorize the title of Darwin's magnum opus, but has failed to do so. I think it is shameful that a scientist can call himself a scientist without knowing the full, unabridged title of this vital book, which is the center of a large amount of current research and not simply of work of historical interest, superseded by current research. Thank you, Vox Day, for bringing this vial issue to our attention, and thank you, Conservative, for providing us with vital information, the full title of the book, in your post above. No doubt the world is a better place for you two having pointed out these obvious flaws in Richard Dawkins' memory/evolution. I can only hope that scientists can jump out of the way soon enough when the big, scary train of the Question Evolution campaign comes barreling down the tracks, headed for Truthville, and cuts right through Atheism Village and sets it all on fire and everyone dies. [[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 10:39, 18 February 2012 (EST)

:Wouldn't this be an example of [[gotcha journalism]]? [[User:Ayzmo|Ayzmo :)]] 11:35, 18 February 2012 (EST)
:::Vox Day wrote: "It's bad enough that Dawkins couldn't come up with the name of what he considers to be the most important book ever written immediately after claiming he could do so, but in addition to stumbling a little on the subtitle, he even forgot the rather important part of the title that refers to the actual mechanism supposedly responsible!"[http://voxday.blogspot.com/2012/02/richard-dawkins-sans-pants.html] Second, the [http://creation.com/15-questions 15 for evolutionist] show that no progress has been made advancing credible evidence for Darwinism. Third, the atheist population is chock-full of corrupt people who are often clearly second stringers and Richard Dawkins is a prime example of this. See: [[Richard Dawkins and pseudoscience]] and [[Richard Dawkins, atheist atrocities, and historical revisionism]] and [[Richard Dawkins' commentary on Adolf Hitler]] and [[Atheism and cowardice]]. Plus, see: [[Richard Dawkins and Creation Ministries International]] and [[Atheism and mass murder]] and [[Atheism and morality]] and [[Atheism and deception]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:20, 19 February 2012 (EST)

::::Well, Conservative, first of all thank you so much for that very relevant and intelligent response. How could I forget the 15 questions for evolutionists, which we were totally talking about and are not irrelevant to this subject? I was under the impression that evolutionary biology had been improving and advancing for the last century and a half, I guess it's a good thing I have CMI around to set the record straight! And of course, even if there were some progress made, it can be safely ignored because atheists are "second stringers," which is totally a word people use outside of football. Tell me, Conservative, what other pieces of relevant wisdom do you have to share with us? Care to shoehorn feminism or obesity into the argument as well? Why not replace Dawkins' picture with a matador? Or a hundred matadors? ¡Ole ole ole! [[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 08:15, 19 February 2012 (EST)

I wonder where the creationist responses to the Evolutionist arguments are on the 15 Questions debate page... Seems they're still missing. User:Conservative, with your seemingly and suspiciously constant essays and commentary on evolution and atheism, I assume that you can easily respond to the Evolutionist answers personally - that means no quotes! - and if not, then it is you, sir, who is the inept fraud. I have given you plenty of time and my own patience, but you insist on either ignoring me or changing the subject. Prove to us that Evolution is the fraud that you so want us to believe. --[[User:RedGoliath|RedGoliath]] 13:54, 19 February 2012 (GMT)
:::Richard Dawkins was called a clown in the press in 2010 and the [[Question evolution! campaign]] will further demonstrate the man is a clown. I do find it telling that Dawkins said "Oh, God" during the debate exchange (a debate exchange that he clearly lost and made a fool of himself in). It is not surprising Richard Dawkins ducked his debate with [[William Lane Craig]] (see: [[Atheism and cowardice]]. Plus, he initially denied debating Rabbi Boteach which is a videotaped debate the audience felt he lost. Plus, Dawkins claimed Boteach shrieked like Adolf Hitler during the debate. How could you possibly forget debating a rabbi who supposedly shrieked like Adolf Hitler which leads me to the conclusion that Richard Dawkins is a fraud and a liar. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:15, 19 February 2012 (EST)

Finally! Proof that Dawkins has no idea what he's talking about! I find it amazing that people still support him after all his blunders. --[[User:Bdor24|Bdor24]] 12:15, 19 February 2012 (EST)

Great Barrier Reef

2012-02-18T20:01:11Z

Bdor24:

The '''Great Barrier Reef''' is the world's longest coral reef system, stretching around 1,430 miles (2,200 km) along the east coast of [[Australia]]. It is made up of 2,900 separate reefs, each made up of [[limestone]] deposited from the [[calcareous]] [[skeleton]]s of countless tiny sea creatures. It provides a rich environment for aquatic life; six out of seven of the world’s marine turtles, 1,500 out of 13,000 species of fish, 500 types of seaweed, 360 varieties of coral and 125 species of sharks and rays live in the waters of the reef.

The Great Barrier Reef is home to a wide variety of sea life. Among them are some of the most dangerous creatures in [[God's]] creation, such as Chironex fleckeri, the infamous box jellyfish. There are so many dangerous creatures in the reef, that the Australian government places nets along their beaches to protect swimmers from the sea life.

Scientific investigation has shown that the reef could have grown to its present extent in the time since [[Abraham]] was alive<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v14/i1/coral_reef.asp</ref>. Growth rate analysis has shown that the oldest reef on earth is 4,200 years old. <ref>http://www.aftac21.com/Answering_Evolutionist.doc</ref>

A very interesting fact is that the Great Barrier Reef can be seen from space, it being so large.

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Biology]]
[[Category:Australia]]
[[Category:World Heritage Sites]]

Harry Potter Witchcraft Repackaged

2012-02-17T20:03:07Z

Bdor24: Created page with "Harry Potter: Witchcraft Repackaged is an enlightening documentary on the Harry Potter series by J.K. Rowling, which is infamous for the main characters' use of magic, which is f..."

Harry Potter: Witchcraft Repackaged is an enlightening documentary on the Harry Potter series by J.K. Rowling, which is infamous for the main characters' use of magic, which is forbidden by the Bible. It was published in 2002 and is narrated by Caryl Matrisciana.

It touches on issues such as the satanic rituals, occult symbols, and other heresy in the novels. It also raises the controversy of how these books have infiltrated public schools and libraries. It was created solely to expose the Harry Potter series as a recruitment tool for various cults.

This documentary has been heavily criticized by the [[liberal media]], calling it "crazy" and "insane".

User:Bdor24

2012-02-17T02:52:15Z

Bdor24: Created page with "I am a conservative Christian that lives on the coast of New Hampshire. I live in an area that seems to be full of liberals and atheists, all wishing to impose their foolish beli..."

I am a conservative Christian that lives on the coast of New Hampshire. I live in an area that seems to be full of liberals and atheists, all wishing to impose their foolish beliefs on me. I hope to find fellowship here in this island of common sense that resides in the stormy seas of the Internet.