Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Atheism and belief

2009-12-15T01:47:18Z

Bilbobogens: /* Atheism and lack of knowledge */

In the [[Western world]], the most common assertion used by [[militant atheism|militant and proselytizing atheists]] to support their position and discredit religion, [[Christian|Christianity]] or otherwise, is that [[atheism]] is ''factual'' or a ''knowledge system'', supported by evidence, whilst [[religion]]s are ''beliefs.’’ In asserting this, atheists attempt to tie atheism to verifiable [[science]]. In fact, rather than knowledge, '''''atheism is a belief,''''' a fact which has been acknowledged for centuries.

== Atheism and Belief - Belief and Knowledge ==
In order to fully comprehend the issues surrounding atheism and belief, a fundamental understanding of the terms "belief" and "knowledge" is necessary to understanding atheists’ claims, and how they fail.

Within [[epistemology]], [[knowledge]] is understood to be [[propositions]] that are backed up by [[data]].<ref>Fred I. Dretske, Perception, Knowledge, and Belief, 18.</ref>

'''For example:''' the proposition of [[gravity|universal gravitation]], that all bodies accelerate towards each other, is backed up by endless amounts of data and experience.

What’s more, the proposition makes predictions that are testable: if an apple is held above the ground and released, it will fall. Thus, the knowledge is understood to be [[scientific]].

[[belief|Beliefs]] within the realm of Christian faith are understood to propositions which are supported sufficiently but not exhaustively. [[Christian apologetics|Christian apologist]] Dr. [[William Lane Craig]] contends the for the reasonableness of the Christian faith in his classic work ''Reasonable Faith''. <ref>http://www.bethinking.org/resurrection-miracles/intermediate/the-evidence-for-christianity-reasonable-faith-lecture-all-souls-church-london-.htm</ref> [[Christian apologetics|Christian apologists]] assert there are multiple lines of evidence pointing the validity of the Christian faith. For example, the [[Apostle]]s of Christ appealed to being eyewitnesses of his resurrection.<ref>http://www.tektonics.org/guest/truthfulness.htm</ref> Also, Christian apologists contend that Christian faith not contradicted by evidence.<ref>http://books.google.com/books?id=bTwhLq9Xzm8C&pg=PA72&lpg=PA72&dq=christian+faith+and+law+of+non+contradiction&source=web&ots=9VefHmucvQ&sig=KbuFlFmRO2IqNH363pI5BYxNqH8&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=4&ct=result</ref>

The above criteria can apply to any number of social, political, or even economic beliefs, but is very important in Christian religion. There is no ''absolute'' method of proving or disproving the existence of the Christian God, and Christianity relies on faith itself for salvation.<ref>Acts 16:30-31</ref> (Note, however, the existence of powerful evidence of biblical truth, unearthed by [[biblical archaeology]] plus Christian legal scholars have effectively argued that [[Christian legal apologetics|Western legal standards point to the resurrection of Christ when one examines the historical evidence]]. )

== Atheism and lack of knowledge ==
The position commonly shared by the majority of atheists, is that of agnostic atheism, which accepts the possibility of god. Richard Dawkins, one of the most well known advocates for atheism, is an agnostic atheist.

Agnostic and atheist philosophers have acknowledged for centuries the impossibility of disproving God’s existence. Ex-atheist Alister McGrath, in Beyond Opinion, states that "all atheist philosophers concede that the nonexistence of God cannot be proved."<ref>Alister McGrath, "Challenges from Atheism," in Beyond Opinion: Living the Faith we Defend, 97.</ref>

Even [[T. H. Huxley]], one of [[Darwin]]’s chief supporters, acknowledged this. Huxley invented the term [[agnosticism]], literally meaning "without knowledge." While Huxley was utterly without Christian faith, the term agnosticism was indicative of the impossibility of proving or disproving God, as he noted “In matters of the intellect, do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable. That I take to be the agnostic faith…"<ref>Bernard Lightman, ''The Origins of Agnosticism: Victorian Unbelief and the Limits of Knowledge,'' 47.</ref> Thus any view of the universe, be it theism, atheism, or fence-sitting agnosticism entailed a sort of belief.

Contemporary atheist philosopher Kai Nielsen noted "All the proofs of God's existence may fail, but it still may be the case that God exists." <ref>Alister McGrath, “Challenges from Atheism,” in Beyond Opinion: Living the Faith we Defend, 97.</ref>

== Unscientific nature of atheism ==
[[Image:Newton.png|right|thumb|Newton could not explain gravity without an appeal to God]]

Atheists claim that scientific knowledge has replaced the need for appeals to God to explain the universe. This is easily demonstrated to be false, as countless legendary scientists found it necessary to invoke God to explain [[First cause|First Causes]] in the universe. [[Isaac Newton]] could explain what gravity ''did'' but not what ''caused it,'' and believed God kept the universe in motion.<ref>Ayval Leshem, ''Newton on Mathematics and Spiritual Purity,'' 2.</ref> While [[Albert Einstein]]'s theistic views were complex, he too could not explain the universe without God, and famously derided chaos in the universe by stating "God does not play dice."<ref>Hans Urs von Balthasar, ''Science, Religion and Christianity,'' 215.</ref> Even in the 21st century, no scientific theory attempts to replace appeals to God in explaining the universe's existence.

Indeed, atheists have merely usurped the mantle of "science" to disguise unevidenced assertions. They claim that [[evolution]] has been proven as scientific valid, that evolution necessarily proves [[abiogenesis]], and that abiogenesis precludes God and [[intelligent design|design]].<ref>For example, Dawkins, ''The God Delusion,'' 134.</ref> The first claim is refuted by numerous theistic scientists, the second is a belief, and the third is a philosophical absurdity. Atheists ''believe'' the universe can be explained without recourse to God, but have no actual evidence to back up their assertions.

== Belief and atheistic arguments ==
More militant atheists have denied that their belief system is just that, belief, and instead have attempted to paint atheism as logical and evidence based. However, their arguments invariably on [[axioms]] and [[assumptions]] which they cannot prove.

Belief in some of the simplest and most common atheist arguments follow:

=== Argument from ignorance ===
# We have no absolute evidence of God’s existence.
# [[Occam’s razor]] tells us that a Godless universe, being simpler than a universe with God, must be true.
# Therefore, God does not exist.

'''Problems:''' This argument relies on an [[Argument_from_ignorance#Argument_from_silence|appeal to ignorance]] (also known as an appeal from silence), a logical fallacy which states that since we do not have evidence of something, it must be false. It also misuses Occam’s Razor, which states that the argument with fewest ‘’assumptions’’ is most likely to be true. In truth, a designed universe only assumes a creator, while an atheistic universe assumes countless perfect items of blind natural forces improbabilistically occurring. (see: [[Origin of life]] and [[universal constants]] ).

=== Problem of evil ===
Responding to perhaps the oldest theological question, atheists claim that the existence of evil proves that if God existed, he would not allow suffering. As suffering exists, God must not. <ref>Barbara Omolade, “Faith Confronts Evil,” in Christian Faith and the Problem of Evil, 278-9.</ref>

'''Problems:''' This argument relies on an atheist ''belief'' that God cannot allow suffering, though Christian theologians and apologists have addressed the question for centuries. [[C. S. Lewis]] pointed out that suffering is a necessary result of human [[free will]], which God granted out of love, that humans might reach their full potential for virtue.<ref>C. S. Lewis, The Problem of Pain, 574.</ref>

See [[Atheism and the Problem of Evil]] for a larger discussion.

=== Paradox of omnipotence ===
Atheists bring up the [[paradox of omnipotence]], which asks if God can create a stone so large he cannot lift in, in attempt to portray the notion of God as contradictory and thus absurd.

'''Problems:''' This argument relies on atheists’ ''belief'' that if God exists, his power is comprehensible to human reason, and is limited by our laws of logic and ideas of paradoxes.

== See also ==
* [[Atheism and beliefs]] for a list of commonly held beliefs of [[Western World]] atheists
* [[History of Atheism]]
* [[Epistemology]]
* [[Atheism and the Problem of Evil]]
* [[Agnosticism]]

{{Nb_Atheism}}

== Reference ==
<references />

[[category: atheism]]
[[category: philosophy]]
[[category: religion]]

Talk:Atheism and belief

2009-12-15T01:42:40Z

Bilbobogens: Blanked the page

Talk:Atheism and belief

2009-12-15T01:40:09Z

Bilbobogens: Created page with '"Less militant agnostic and atheist philosophers have acknowledged for centuries the impossibility of disproving God’s existence." This should be taken out, considering it impl...'

"Less militant agnostic and atheist philosophers have acknowledged for centuries the impossibility of disproving God’s existence." This should be taken out, considering it implies a requirement to be "less militant" in order to be an agnostic atheist, which simply isn't true. Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens are considered some of the most militant atheists and are all agnostic-atheists.

A separation between agnostic-atheism and gnostic-atheism should also be included.

Talk:Stephen Colbert

2009-12-15T00:46:17Z

Bilbobogens:

Considering the obvious relevance it has to Conservapedia, a mentioning of the interview of Andrew Schafly on the Colbert Report should be included in this article.

Stephen Colbert's name has a French pronunciation -- that's not very American. I say this article should be removed.--[[User:Jesus_H_Christ|Jesus_H_Christ]] 23:18, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Jesus H. Christ, Les Francais sont tres bon![[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 23:20, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Any reason why the part about the Correspondents' Dinner was removed? Also the statement about Colbert's intention with the Wikipedia vandalizing is speculative at best and should probably be removed.--[[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 18:59, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Here's a link to the Correspondents' Dinner speech on Google Video: [http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-869183917758574879&q=colbert+white+house Colbert Roasts President Bush - 2006 White House Correspondents Dinner]

The Sunday school teacher remark needs a cite--I know it's true, but it really should be cited. Here's a good website, I'd edit if I could. (http://www.tvsquad.com/2006/07/13/ask-tv-squad-stephen-colbert-teaches-sundayschool/) Also, the Correspondent's dinner should be added. As much as I hate what he did, it is our duty to tell the truth on this site. --[[User:Splark|Splark]] 21:30, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Why would you hate what he did? He's the greatest American ever! Stephen Colbert is a champion of truth and justice. Come on, he got Captain America's shield!!--[[User:Dialecticftw|Dialecticftw]] 06:24, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

== Truthiness ==

Instead of "The Trustworthy Encyclopedia," shouldn't Conservapedia's slogan be "The Encyclopedia of Trustiness"? It just feels right.

:hmm, Or maybe, ''Conservapedia: your daily recommended allowance of '''truthiness'''''?[[User:Rob Pommer| Cracker]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]]

::'''''Conservapedia: The Truthy Encyclopedia''''' Notice that to make this, we remove the letters STWOR - an acronym for WORST [[User:Human|Human]] 02:42, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

== "right wing" removed? ==

Without explanation, his act was reduced to "extreme commentator". He plays an extreme ''right wing'' commentator, specifically. That's the whole point of the show. Can anyone explain, please? [[User:Human|Human]] 18:27, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
:He plays what in his view and others is a "right-wing" commentator; but that does not mean the so-called right-wing fits those stereotypes. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:04, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
::OK, I'll buy that. Can the article say that? It would sort of be a double-parody - explaining that he does not, in the view of those he think she is parodying, accurately portray their positions? How about "[he plays] an extreme left wing stereotype of an extreme right wing commentator"? Pretty fair and balanced, and accurate in that it mentions that his "extreme" parody or attempt at it is politically charged. It's up to you, I have no axe to grind here. [[User:Human|Human]] 22:25, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
:::Give it a try. Sounds like it couild be humourous. Nothing wrong with that to make the point. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:36, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
That sounds like a fair compromise, given that Colbert specifically refuses to share his personal political beliefs. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 22:46, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
:Personally, Colbert is a democrat; he's said it several times, at speeches at colleges and what not. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 22:57, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
::I don't care what he is, it just has to be disclaimed properly. We can't have any bigotry here. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:05, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

Hey RobS, I just realized I can't "give it a try" - the page is locked. Can we try this sentence:

"He plays the role of an extreme left wing stereotype of an extreme right wing commentator." I forget if you're a sysop, but obviously Hoji is. By the way Hoji, nice addition with the ursaphobia. I do think that articles on lighter subjects can have a lighter tone, even using the tone of their subjects, carefully (cf some [[Monty Python]] pages).

By the way, yes, he's a Democrat, Catholic, and Sunday School teacher. I don't know if you guys have ever seen him rip scripture (you gotta call it that if you've seen it) on people, but it's amazing. He's got that "Catholic School" recitation at full speed with full articulation thing deep in him.

And, to his minor credit (on this site), if a liberal screws up in an interview, he <s>rips them a new one</s> tears them apart like a hungry eagle, and leaves them gasping for air. [[User:Human|Human]] 23:13, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
:It's unlocked. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:19, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
::Thanks, I added that sentence above, and that he is a Catholic. If it stays unlocked I'll be on the eye for vandalism, but I don't check in until after noon most days. [[User:Human|Human]] 23:31, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

==Picture==

Maybe I have a bit of a dirty mind, but I really don't think this is the best picture. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 22:23, 1 June 2007 (EDT)

::There probably are better pictures. I know he has a lot of good ones with his arms folded across his chest giving a serious look. Perhaps one of those.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 22:26, 1 June 2007 (EDT)

*Hey! I liked it! Back off! :p (most were copyrighted) --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 22:57, 1 June 2007 (EDT)

Why are any pages locked at all?? How can i "lock" my contributions?

== Misspelling ==

In the last sentence ("Wikipedia responded by reverting and locking down the pages to pervent further editing"), the word ''prevent'' is spelled ''pervent'' and I cannot correct it.

Who wrote this?!

[[User:Fairn|Fairn]]
:See the page's history to see who wrote it, but I've fixed the spelling error, thanks. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:56, 7 July 2007 (EDT)

== Deceit? ==

So how exactly is Wikipedia locking articles to prevent vandalism an example of their deceit? Isn't that what you do here, including this article? --[[User:Colest|Colest]] 10:16, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

::Fair enough. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 13:35, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

==Stephen Colbert the character versus Stephen Colbert the person==

This article presents everything Colbert has said on his show, [[The Colbert Report]], as his actual views.

I know you folks aren't big on seperating fact from fiction, but he's a left-leaning guy off the set. Maybe the article should be changed to reflect that. [[User:Kazumaru|Kazumaru]] 20:44, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

: Isn't that clear that he's a liberal playing a liberal stereotype of a conservative? If you feel you want to make that clearer, then please suggest something with a citation to his real views. Thanks. In Christ--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:54, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

== Factual error ==

The "Wikiality" incident occurred in July 2006, not August 2006. --[[Special:Contributions/AutoFire|trans]][[User:AutoFire|Resident Transfan]][[User Talk:Autofire|form!]] 19:50, 24 October 2007 (EDT)

*Citation, please? --[[User:TK|şŷŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 19:59, 24 October 2007 (EDT)

::Actually, forget it. The word "wikiality" was introduced on July 31, and the corresponding wave of vandalism occurred in August. My mistake. --[[Special:Contributions/AutoFire|trans]][[User:AutoFire|Resident Transfan]][[User Talk:Autofire|form!]] 21:14, 24 October 2007 (EDT)
::*It is important to keep a record of when you do those things! :P --[[User:TK|şŷŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 22:46, 24 October 2007 (EDT)

== typo ==

There's a typo at the end of the first paragraph. It should say "and 'he is' a self-proclaimed democrat." or something along those lines. Small, but it probably should be fixed anyway. --[[User:BillOhannity|BillOhannity]] 19:20, 31 October 2007 (EDT)

== why is this article protected? ==
I have much to add to article, (not to mention I can find a better picture, if only I had upload rights.... Sysops get to work on that), It's a pretty tame subject, so why is it locked?

On that note: why is the "see also" a link to [[Conservative Links]], JM, Colbert plays a conservative on television! [[User:DLerner|The user formerly known as DLerner]] 08:20, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

:Unprotected. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:24, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

== Nixon ==

I don't think that source is reliable enough to say that Nixon is his hero There are 2 colberts, the character and the real guy. The character likes Nixon, but the person is a Democrat. His comment that Nixon was one of his heroes was meant to be taken as humorous. Im going to remove it [[User:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]] 10:52, 24 March 2008 (EDT)
:No, he was serious. Believe me, I know that there is the real Colbert and a character. Here in a rolling stone interview (out of character) he describes Nixon as [http://www.rollingstone.com/news/coverstory/jon_stewart_stephen_colbert_americas_anchors/page/4 "the last liberal president".] I'm reverting it, but since part of the MTP interview was in character, I'm putting the RS interview as the ref. '''[[user:DLerner|D L e r n e r]]''' [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:DLerner Articulate] 11:00, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

:OK thanks, I just wasn't convinced by the previous source [[User:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]] 11:09, 24 March 2008 (EDT)
::No prob -- '''[[user:DLerner|D L e r n e r]]''' [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:DLerner Articulate] 11:15, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

== Time to re-protect? ==

I hate to say it, but given the recent and persistent vandalism, it may be time to re-protect this article, at least until the liberal vandals' limited attention spans are exhausted and they're distracted by something new and shiny.

Hmm. Should the article include a section on Colbert openly soliciting vandalism of Conservapedia? It certainly highlights the sort of tactics he favors, but might also be seen as rewarding bad behavior with acknowledgement. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 00:13, 12 October 2009 (EDT)

:Better they mess with his page then the Bible pages. The page is officially a mouse trap. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 00:16, 12 October 2009 (EDT)
::[[User:Benp|Benp]], I [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Stephen_Colbert&diff=709452&oldid=709444 added a "Relationship with Conservapedia" section]. I hope that there isn't anyone who minds. --[[User:Michaeldsuarez|Michaeldsuarez]] 14:37, 12 October 2009 (EDT)

== Cleanup ==

The page is currently locked (probably for good reason as it'll receive some attention after tonight), however, I'd really like to make some quality additions to the page and clean it up a bit, if it's OK with some administrators. Would it be alright if I update the article? [[User:DerekE|DerekE]] 14:08, 8 December 2009 (EST)
:It's nothing urgent, so I don't mind waiting until it becomes unlocked in the future. Just wanted to offer some help if needed! :-) [[User:DerekE|DerekE]] 14:15, 8 December 2009 (EST)

== "claims to be" Catholic ==

I think it should say ''is'' a Roman Catholic.
I mean, in [[Glenn Beck]]'s article it says "Beck is a Mormon," not "Beck ''claims to be'' a Mormon."

I think saying "claims to be" Catholic implies that he's lying, of which there is no evidence. [[User:Ololwut|Ololwut]] 16:08, 9 December 2009 (EST)

Talk:Stephen Colbert

2009-12-15T00:45:59Z

Bilbobogens:

Considering the obvious relevance it has to Conservapedia, A mentioning of the interview of Andrew Schafly on the Colbert Report should be included in this article.

Stephen Colbert's name has a French pronunciation -- that's not very American. I say this article should be removed.--[[User:Jesus_H_Christ|Jesus_H_Christ]] 23:18, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Jesus H. Christ, Les Francais sont tres bon![[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 23:20, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Any reason why the part about the Correspondents' Dinner was removed? Also the statement about Colbert's intention with the Wikipedia vandalizing is speculative at best and should probably be removed.--[[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 18:59, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Here's a link to the Correspondents' Dinner speech on Google Video: [http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-869183917758574879&q=colbert+white+house Colbert Roasts President Bush - 2006 White House Correspondents Dinner]

The Sunday school teacher remark needs a cite--I know it's true, but it really should be cited. Here's a good website, I'd edit if I could. (http://www.tvsquad.com/2006/07/13/ask-tv-squad-stephen-colbert-teaches-sundayschool/) Also, the Correspondent's dinner should be added. As much as I hate what he did, it is our duty to tell the truth on this site. --[[User:Splark|Splark]] 21:30, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Why would you hate what he did? He's the greatest American ever! Stephen Colbert is a champion of truth and justice. Come on, he got Captain America's shield!!--[[User:Dialecticftw|Dialecticftw]] 06:24, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

== Truthiness ==

Instead of "The Trustworthy Encyclopedia," shouldn't Conservapedia's slogan be "The Encyclopedia of Trustiness"? It just feels right.

:hmm, Or maybe, ''Conservapedia: your daily recommended allowance of '''truthiness'''''?[[User:Rob Pommer| Cracker]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]]

::'''''Conservapedia: The Truthy Encyclopedia''''' Notice that to make this, we remove the letters STWOR - an acronym for WORST [[User:Human|Human]] 02:42, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

== "right wing" removed? ==

Without explanation, his act was reduced to "extreme commentator". He plays an extreme ''right wing'' commentator, specifically. That's the whole point of the show. Can anyone explain, please? [[User:Human|Human]] 18:27, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
:He plays what in his view and others is a "right-wing" commentator; but that does not mean the so-called right-wing fits those stereotypes. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:04, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
::OK, I'll buy that. Can the article say that? It would sort of be a double-parody - explaining that he does not, in the view of those he think she is parodying, accurately portray their positions? How about "[he plays] an extreme left wing stereotype of an extreme right wing commentator"? Pretty fair and balanced, and accurate in that it mentions that his "extreme" parody or attempt at it is politically charged. It's up to you, I have no axe to grind here. [[User:Human|Human]] 22:25, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
:::Give it a try. Sounds like it couild be humourous. Nothing wrong with that to make the point. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:36, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
That sounds like a fair compromise, given that Colbert specifically refuses to share his personal political beliefs. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 22:46, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
:Personally, Colbert is a democrat; he's said it several times, at speeches at colleges and what not. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 22:57, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
::I don't care what he is, it just has to be disclaimed properly. We can't have any bigotry here. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:05, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

Hey RobS, I just realized I can't "give it a try" - the page is locked. Can we try this sentence:

"He plays the role of an extreme left wing stereotype of an extreme right wing commentator." I forget if you're a sysop, but obviously Hoji is. By the way Hoji, nice addition with the ursaphobia. I do think that articles on lighter subjects can have a lighter tone, even using the tone of their subjects, carefully (cf some [[Monty Python]] pages).

By the way, yes, he's a Democrat, Catholic, and Sunday School teacher. I don't know if you guys have ever seen him rip scripture (you gotta call it that if you've seen it) on people, but it's amazing. He's got that "Catholic School" recitation at full speed with full articulation thing deep in him.

And, to his minor credit (on this site), if a liberal screws up in an interview, he <s>rips them a new one</s> tears them apart like a hungry eagle, and leaves them gasping for air. [[User:Human|Human]] 23:13, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
:It's unlocked. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:19, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
::Thanks, I added that sentence above, and that he is a Catholic. If it stays unlocked I'll be on the eye for vandalism, but I don't check in until after noon most days. [[User:Human|Human]] 23:31, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

==Picture==

Maybe I have a bit of a dirty mind, but I really don't think this is the best picture. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 22:23, 1 June 2007 (EDT)

::There probably are better pictures. I know he has a lot of good ones with his arms folded across his chest giving a serious look. Perhaps one of those.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 22:26, 1 June 2007 (EDT)

*Hey! I liked it! Back off! :p (most were copyrighted) --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 22:57, 1 June 2007 (EDT)

Why are any pages locked at all?? How can i "lock" my contributions?

== Misspelling ==

In the last sentence ("Wikipedia responded by reverting and locking down the pages to pervent further editing"), the word ''prevent'' is spelled ''pervent'' and I cannot correct it.

Who wrote this?!

[[User:Fairn|Fairn]]
:See the page's history to see who wrote it, but I've fixed the spelling error, thanks. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:56, 7 July 2007 (EDT)

== Deceit? ==

So how exactly is Wikipedia locking articles to prevent vandalism an example of their deceit? Isn't that what you do here, including this article? --[[User:Colest|Colest]] 10:16, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

::Fair enough. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 13:35, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

==Stephen Colbert the character versus Stephen Colbert the person==

This article presents everything Colbert has said on his show, [[The Colbert Report]], as his actual views.

I know you folks aren't big on seperating fact from fiction, but he's a left-leaning guy off the set. Maybe the article should be changed to reflect that. [[User:Kazumaru|Kazumaru]] 20:44, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

: Isn't that clear that he's a liberal playing a liberal stereotype of a conservative? If you feel you want to make that clearer, then please suggest something with a citation to his real views. Thanks. In Christ--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:54, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

== Factual error ==

The "Wikiality" incident occurred in July 2006, not August 2006. --[[Special:Contributions/AutoFire|trans]][[User:AutoFire|Resident Transfan]][[User Talk:Autofire|form!]] 19:50, 24 October 2007 (EDT)

*Citation, please? --[[User:TK|şŷŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 19:59, 24 October 2007 (EDT)

::Actually, forget it. The word "wikiality" was introduced on July 31, and the corresponding wave of vandalism occurred in August. My mistake. --[[Special:Contributions/AutoFire|trans]][[User:AutoFire|Resident Transfan]][[User Talk:Autofire|form!]] 21:14, 24 October 2007 (EDT)
::*It is important to keep a record of when you do those things! :P --[[User:TK|şŷŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 22:46, 24 October 2007 (EDT)

== typo ==

There's a typo at the end of the first paragraph. It should say "and 'he is' a self-proclaimed democrat." or something along those lines. Small, but it probably should be fixed anyway. --[[User:BillOhannity|BillOhannity]] 19:20, 31 October 2007 (EDT)

== why is this article protected? ==
I have much to add to article, (not to mention I can find a better picture, if only I had upload rights.... Sysops get to work on that), It's a pretty tame subject, so why is it locked?

On that note: why is the "see also" a link to [[Conservative Links]], JM, Colbert plays a conservative on television! [[User:DLerner|The user formerly known as DLerner]] 08:20, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

:Unprotected. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:24, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

== Nixon ==

I don't think that source is reliable enough to say that Nixon is his hero There are 2 colberts, the character and the real guy. The character likes Nixon, but the person is a Democrat. His comment that Nixon was one of his heroes was meant to be taken as humorous. Im going to remove it [[User:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]] 10:52, 24 March 2008 (EDT)
:No, he was serious. Believe me, I know that there is the real Colbert and a character. Here in a rolling stone interview (out of character) he describes Nixon as [http://www.rollingstone.com/news/coverstory/jon_stewart_stephen_colbert_americas_anchors/page/4 "the last liberal president".] I'm reverting it, but since part of the MTP interview was in character, I'm putting the RS interview as the ref. '''[[user:DLerner|D L e r n e r]]''' [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:DLerner Articulate] 11:00, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

:OK thanks, I just wasn't convinced by the previous source [[User:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]] 11:09, 24 March 2008 (EDT)
::No prob -- '''[[user:DLerner|D L e r n e r]]''' [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:DLerner Articulate] 11:15, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

== Time to re-protect? ==

I hate to say it, but given the recent and persistent vandalism, it may be time to re-protect this article, at least until the liberal vandals' limited attention spans are exhausted and they're distracted by something new and shiny.

Hmm. Should the article include a section on Colbert openly soliciting vandalism of Conservapedia? It certainly highlights the sort of tactics he favors, but might also be seen as rewarding bad behavior with acknowledgement. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 00:13, 12 October 2009 (EDT)

:Better they mess with his page then the Bible pages. The page is officially a mouse trap. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 00:16, 12 October 2009 (EDT)
::[[User:Benp|Benp]], I [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Stephen_Colbert&diff=709452&oldid=709444 added a "Relationship with Conservapedia" section]. I hope that there isn't anyone who minds. --[[User:Michaeldsuarez|Michaeldsuarez]] 14:37, 12 October 2009 (EDT)

== Cleanup ==

The page is currently locked (probably for good reason as it'll receive some attention after tonight), however, I'd really like to make some quality additions to the page and clean it up a bit, if it's OK with some administrators. Would it be alright if I update the article? [[User:DerekE|DerekE]] 14:08, 8 December 2009 (EST)
:It's nothing urgent, so I don't mind waiting until it becomes unlocked in the future. Just wanted to offer some help if needed! :-) [[User:DerekE|DerekE]] 14:15, 8 December 2009 (EST)

== "claims to be" Catholic ==

I think it should say ''is'' a Roman Catholic.
I mean, in [[Glenn Beck]]'s article it says "Beck is a Mormon," not "Beck ''claims to be'' a Mormon."

I think saying "claims to be" Catholic implies that he's lying, of which there is no evidence. [[User:Ololwut|Ololwut]] 16:08, 9 December 2009 (EST)