Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Nihilism

2007-07-02T16:06:06Z

Crzydimnd: Need to cite the association with Moral Relativism. They are not one in the same, but if there is a source that claims such, please cite it.

'''Nihilism''' is the belief in nothing. A true nihilist would have no loyalties, and no purpose other than, perhaps, an impulse to destroy everything of value in society. [[Friedrich Nietzsche]] argued that nihilism's corrosive effects would eventually destroy all moral, religious, and metaphysical convictions; cause the collapse of meaning, relevance, purpose, and precipitate the greatest crisis in human history.<ref>http://www.iep.utm.edu/n/nihilism.htm</ref> German political philosopher [[Leo Strauss]] argued that modern [[liberal]]ism has within it a tendency towards nihilism. And because of this view, some philosophers (as far back as [[Plato]]) have argued that political leaders should invent inspiring myths in order to unite citizens of modern liberal democratic society behind a common purpose, the concept of [[natural rights]] as formulated in the [[Declaration of Independence]] is often cited as an example of an inspiring myth.

Major types of nihilism include:
*'''epistemological nihilism''' which denies the possibility of knowledge and truth; this form of nihilism is identified with [[postmodernism]]. One famous example of epistemological nihilism is the words [[Socrates]] said before his death: "''I am the wisest man alive, for I know one thing, and that is that I know nothing.''"

*'''Political Nihilism''' is the belief that the destruction of all existing political, social, and religious order is a prerequisite for any future improvement; this form of nihilism is identified with [[anarchism]].

*'''Moral nihilism''' rejects all moral or ethical values; this form of nihilism is identified with [[moral relativity|moral relativism]].<includeonly>[[Category:Articles with unsourced statements]]</includeonly>[[Conservapedia:Commandments|[Citation Needed]]]

*'''Existential nihilism''' is the notion that life has no meaning or purpose.<ref>http://www.iep.utm.edu/n/nihilism.htm</ref>

*'''Mereological nihilism''' is the view that objects with parts do not exist, it's a human illusion; this view has been identified with some aspects of [[Buddhist philosophy]] and [[Immanuel Kant]]'s [[transcendental idealism]].

In his book, ''The Decline of the West'', German philosopher Oswald Spengler observes that pattern of nihilism was a feature shared by all civilizations on the verge of collapse.

==Beyond Nihilism==
Friedrich Nietzsche saw two kinds of nihilism in the world; pessimistic and joyous. Pessimistic nihilism was that created by the death of God in the minds of men, and corresponds to the idea that life is without meaning or value. Joyous nihilism was that experienced by those few who, like him, experienced the loss of an externally created and imposed moral structure as a liberation and not a great loss, and was the seed that let the herald Nietzsche proclaim the coming of the Übermensch.
What Nietzsche truly meant by this is much debated even today, and Nietzsche himself would be disgusted with moral relativists.

==References==
<references/>

==See Also==
[http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/hutchison/070307 Liberalism and the two roads to nihilism: how liberalism can collapse into nihilism through materialism or false idealism] by Fred Hutchison, March 7, 2007.

[[category:philosophy]]

Comic relief

2007-07-02T15:25:38Z

Crzydimnd:

Comic relief is the use of moments of comedy to interrupt tension in a dramatic narrative. The natural human tendency to break extended periods of tension by the making of jokes can ruin a dramatic effect before a mass audience by causing audience members to jeer at the production. Also, long periods of uninterrupted emotional tension can become deadening during the course of a show. To counter these effects, playwrights and scriptwriters often interject brief moments of comedy into [[tragedies]], [[drama]]s, [[melodrama]]s and [[adventure]] dramas in order to "cleanse the palate" of the audience before continuing with the main plot.

==See Also==
[[Conservapedia]]

Evolutionism

2007-06-29T17:35:42Z

Crzydimnd: /* Theistic Evolution */ - incomplete

'''Evolutionism''', as opposed to [[Creationism]], is the ''advocacy of or belief in biological evolution''.<ref>"evolutionism." The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, 2004. 20 Mar. 2007. <Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/evolutionism>.</ref> Therefore one who ''believes in or supports a theory of evolution''<ref>"evolutionist." Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Random House, Inc. 21 Mar. 2007. <Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/evolutionist>.</ref> would be referred to as an ''evolutionist''. Evolutionism, used in a general sense, encompasses ''any'' type of biological evolutionist. Broken down into two categories, "Evolutionism" and "Evolutionists" usually involve Atheistic/Agnostic Evolutionists (evolution without God) and Theistic Evolutionists (evolution with God). Those categories can be further broken down, but they are the main two.

The word is used differently in different circles of thought. Generally [[Young Earth Creationism|Young Earth Creationists]] use it as a reference to what they believe is the [[world view]] or [[presupposition]] aspect of the scientific theory of evolution. The term is not necessarily used as a world view unto itself, but is more based off of and is possibly an extension of a variety of other world views including [[Materialism]], [[Naturalism]]<ref>[http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA601.html CA601: Evolution and Naturalism] - TalkOrigins Archive</ref>, and [[Humanism]] in its broadest sense. Many that hold to the theory of evolution have been known to be [[Atheism|atheists]] as well, but this does not represent the entirety or whole.
{{cquote|''Evolutionism is a '''world-view''', which seeks to explain every aspect of this world in which we live. It encompasses a wide variety of topics, from astronomy to chemistry to biology. At its core, it teaches that there were different stages in the evolution of our universe...''<ref>[http://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/evolutionism.htm Evolutionism - AllAboutPhilosophy] - Accessed on March 22, 2007.</ref>}}

==Foundational question/starting point==
All the viewpoints take a ''step of faith'' as some might refer to it. In other words, there is a common starting point or foundational question (it's a God-related question) that each one asks, and then forms their conclusions around.

===According to biblical Creationists (Young Earth)===
:<code>'''God exists (world view) > Therefore we need to explain everything based on that "fact" > Thus science is altered based on the "God exists" idea ''Creationism'' comes before the ''Scientific Theory of Creation''. The science is based on the world view.'''</code>

===According to biblical Theistic Evolutionists (Old Earth)===
There is disagreement among Theistic Evolutionists, as not all hold that God is not involved presently in His creation.

'''Impersonal Evolutionist God'''
:<code>'''There is no personal/involved God (world view) > Therefore we need to explain everything based on that "fact" > Thus science is altered based on the "no personal God" idea ''Theistic Evolutionism'' comes before the ''Scientific Theory of Evolution''. The science is based on the world view.'''</code>
'''Personal Evolutionist God'''
:<code>'''There is a personal/involved God (world view) > Therefore we need to explain everything based on that "fact" > Thus science is altered based on the "personal God" idea ''Theistic Evolutionism'' comes before the ''Scientific Theory of Evolution''. The science is based on the world view.'''</code>

===According to Atheistic Evolutionists===
Some proponents of the scientific theory of evolution reject the idea of a philosophy or world view that guides their conclusions in scientific experimentation.
:<code>'''There is no God (world view) > Therefore we need to explain everything based on that "fact" > Thus science is altered based on the "no God" idea ''Evolutionism'' comes before the ''Scientific Theory of Evolution''. The science is based on the world view.'''</code>

===Comparison===
The various viewpoints can be compared in general ways as they all have some sort of starting point. The general Creationist starting point is God, which then all the universe is based on including that of science. Some ''Theistic Evolutionists'' hold to a similar God idea, yet emphasize a somewhat secondary origin<ref>Some Theistic Evolutionists believe that God created the universe and yet He is no longer involved in it. Therefore "secondary origin" is referring to the idea that God is the origin of the universe, but not necessarily ''You and Me''.</ref> in the evolutionary process. Atheistic evolutionists say that we must prove God by science, therefore their intellectual starting point is science itself.

==Controversy==
===Usage of Terminology===
The terms ''evolutionist'' and ''evolutionism'' use the suffix ''-ism'', which is commonly used to designate varieties of philosophical opinion, and some people who use scientific grounds to support evolution prefer to use other terms. Others are happy to call themselves evolutionist, and the terms have been in common use for a century. There seems to be no such objection to the term ''anti-evolutionism''. This is all part of the controversy over evolution itself (see [[Origins debate]]).

Some Atheistic/Agnostic Evolutionists say that the term ''Evolutionism'' is simply a false Creationist perception, {{fact-political}}
or pejorative assertion that science represents merely another religion. They disagree that the theory of evolution is based on a [[philosophy]] or [[world view]]. They say that the perception finds no grounding in reality, other than as a rhetorical dramatization. However, according to creationists, this disagreement arises from a misunderstanding of terms. Biblical [[Young Earth Creationism|Young Earth Creationists]] hold both terms in philosophically equal light, up to a certain point. They would say that the term "Evolutionism" has the same or very similar meaning to "Creationism" as it relates to a supposed philosophical/foundational starting point or question (does God exist?). They say the term "Evolutionism" refers to a subset of a combination of world views, while the scientific theory of evolution is the result of the ''Evolutionist'' presupposition. In other words, they say that Evolutionism is the collective world view behind the scientific theory of evolution. However, that's where the similarities end with Creationism.

===Religion and Evolutionism===
Some Creationists point out that they see various religious aspects, not in the theory of evolution itself (although they don't exclude that necessarily), but in the Evolutionists themselves. Some will say how Evolutionists have a ''religious fervor'' over what Creationists believe is false science. Some Evolutionists have historically misunderstood this for Creationists labeling science itself as a religion. M. Green, a Creationist, put it this way in his ''Faith of Darwinism'' (emphasis added).
{{cquote|''Today the tables are turned. The modified, but still characteristically Darwinian theory has itself become an orthodoxy, preached by its adherents with '''religious fervor''', and doubted, they feel, only by a few muddlers imperfect in scientific faith.<ref name="mgreen" />''}}

Evolution has been a recent source of controversy in the [[United States]]{{fact}}. Some prominent Americans seriously question evolution{{fact}}, based on a feeling that it conflicts with religious beliefs. However, according to Evolutionists, at least one aspect of religion and evolution is not mutually exclusive. Some deeply religious evolutionists believe that God set evolution into effect, which is no detraction to His majesty. This is referring to the theory of [[Theistic Evolution]].

===Biblical Young Earth Creationist's problem with a Biblical Old Earth===

Taking the bible literally, there are no gaps permitting an undocumented period of time between the creation week and the fall of the temple in Jerusalem in 587 BC <ref>http://web.newsguy.com/rubyredinger/age.html</ref>, which is well established by archaeology and secular history. Accordingly, the birth of Adam can be placed at approximately 4,163 BC and the initial creation of the universe six days prior.

==Quotes==
'''''Evolutionism requires faith'' quotes (by Evolutionists)''':
{{cquote|'''Michael Ruse''' Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a [[secular religion]] -- a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint -- and Mr. Gish is but one of many to make it -- the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.<ref>MICHAEL RUSE [http://www.omniology.com/HowEvolutionBecameReligion.html HOW EVOLUTION BECAME A RELIGION]</ref>}}
'''''Evolutionism requires faith'' quotes (by Creationists)''':<ref>[http://www.nwcreation.net/evolutionism.html Evolutionism - Is Evolution a Religion?] - Northwest Creation Network</ref>
{{cquote|'''L.N. Matthews''' ''The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved theory - is it then a science or faith? <ref>L.N. Matthews, "Introduction" to Charles Darwin, Origin of the Species, pp. x, xi (1971 edition)</ref>''}}
{{cquote|'''J.W.N. Sullivan''' ''The hypothesis that life has developed from inorganic matter is, at present, still an article of faith. <ref>J.W.N. Sullivan, Limitations of Science (1933), p95.</ref>''}}
{{cquote|'''R.L. Wysong''' ''Evolution requires plenty of faith; a faith in L-proteins that defy chance formation; a faith in the formation of DNA codes which, if generated spontaneously, would spell only pandemonium; a faith in a primitive environment that, in reality, would fiendishly devour any chemical precursors to life; a faith in experiments that prove nothing but the need for intelligence in the beginning; a faith in a primitive ocean that would not thicken, but would only haplessly dilute chemicals; a faith in natural laws of thermodynamics and biogenesis that actually deny the possibility for the spontaneous generation of life; a faith in future scientific revelations that, when realized, always seem to present more dilemmas to the evolutionists; faith in improbabilities that treasonously tell two stories—one denying evolution, the other confirming the Creator; faith in transformations that remain fixed; faith in mutations and natural selection that add to a double negative for evolution; faith in fossils that embarrassingly show fixity through time, regular absence of transitional forms and striking testimony to a worldwide water deluge; a faith in time which proves to only promote degradation in the absence of mind; and faith in reductionism that ends up reducing the materialist's arguments to zero and forcing the need to invoke a supernatural Creator. <ref>R.L. Wysong, The Creation-Evolution Controversy (1981), p. 455.</ref>''}}
{{cquote|'''T. Lessl''' ''"By calling evolution fact, the process of evolution is removed from dispute; it is no longer merely a scientific construct, but now stands apart from humankind and its perceptual frailties. Sagan apparently wishes to accomplish what Peter Berger calls `objectification,' the attribution of objective reality to a humanly produced concept . . With evolution no longer regarded as a mere human construct, but now as a part of the natural order of the cosmos, evolution becomes a sacred archetype against which human actions can be weighed. Evolution is a sacred object or process in that it becomes endowed with mysterious and awesome power." <ref>T. Lessl, Science and the Sacred Cosmos: The Ideological Rhetoric of Carl Sagan," Quarterly Journal of Speech, 71:178 (1985).</ref>''}}
{{cquote|'''M. Grene''' ''"Today the tables are turned. The modified, but still characteristically Darwinian theory has itself become an orthodoxy, preached by its adherents with religious fervor, and doubted, they feel, only by a few muddlers imperfect in scientific faith." <ref name="mgreen">M. Grene, Faith of Darwinism," Encounter, November (1959), p49.</ref>''}}

==See also==
*[[Creationism]]
*[[Faith]]
*[[Humanism]]
*[[Naturalistic religions]]
*[[Religion]]
*[[Theism]]

==References==
<references/>

==External links==
'''Notes'''
:'''''Affirmative''' articles that rebuttal the faith claim of creationists.''
:'''''Critical''' articles that claim evolutionism involves faith.''

{| class="wikitable" width="100%"
! Affirmative !! Critical
|-
| valign="top" width="50%"|
'''TalkOrigins'''
*[http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA612.html CA612: Evolution requiring faith]
**[http://creationwiki.org/%28Talk.Origins%29_Evolution_requires_as_much_faith_as_creationism CreationWiki response]
*[http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA610.html CA610: Evolution religious]
**[http://creationwiki.org/%28Talk.Origins%29_Evolution_is_a_religion CreationWiki response]
*[http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA001.html CA001: Evolution is the foundation of an immoral world view]
**[http://creationwiki.org/%28Talk.Origins%29_Evolution_is_the_foundation_of_an_immoral_worldview CreationWiki response]
*[http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/metaphysics.html Evolution and Philosophy: Metaphysics]
'''EvoWiki'''
*[http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Evolution_is_the_foundation_of_an_immoral_worldview Evolution is the foundation of an immoral world view]

| valign="top" width="50%"|
'''DrDino'''
* [http://www.drdino.com/articles.php?spec=25 Evolution Is Based On Modern Myths]
'''Creationists.org'''
* [http://www.creationists.org/evolutionisreligion.html Evolution is a Religion]
'''Northwest Creation Network'''
* [http://www.nwcreation.net/evolutionism.html Evolutionism - Is Evolution a religion?]
'''Creation Ministries International'''
* [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1491/ Evolution as religion]
* [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4139 Leading anti-creationist philosopher admits that evolution is a religion]
'''Answers in Genesis'''
* [http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0930religion.asp The Religion of Evolution]
* [http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/the-lie/chapter2.asp Evolution is Religion]
'''CreationWiki'''
*[http://creationwiki.org/%28Talk.Origins%29_Evolution_requires_as_much_faith_as_creationism Evolution requires as much faith as creationism] - Rebuttal of TalkOrigins Archive
*[http://creationwiki.org/%28Talk.Origins%29_Evolution_is_a_religion Evolution is a religion] - Rebuttal of TalkOrigins Archive
'''Institute for Creation Research'''
* [http://www.icr.org/article/201/ Evolution is Religion, not Science (1)], [http://www.icr.org/article/455/ (2)]
|}

[[Category:Materialism]]
[[Category:Naturalism]]
[[Category:Humanism]]

Evolutionism

2007-06-29T17:35:15Z

Crzydimnd: Removed "refutation" of evolution - not properly cited.

'''Evolutionism''', as opposed to [[Creationism]], is the ''advocacy of or belief in biological evolution''.<ref>"evolutionism." The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, 2004. 20 Mar. 2007. <Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/evolutionism>.</ref> Therefore one who ''believes in or supports a theory of evolution''<ref>"evolutionist." Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Random House, Inc. 21 Mar. 2007. <Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/evolutionist>.</ref> would be referred to as an ''evolutionist''. Evolutionism, used in a general sense, encompasses ''any'' type of biological evolutionist. Broken down into two categories, "Evolutionism" and "Evolutionists" usually involve Atheistic/Agnostic Evolutionists (evolution without God) and Theistic Evolutionists (evolution with God). Those categories can be further broken down, but they are the main two.

The word is used differently in different circles of thought. Generally [[Young Earth Creationism|Young Earth Creationists]] use it as a reference to what they believe is the [[world view]] or [[presupposition]] aspect of the scientific theory of evolution. The term is not necessarily used as a world view unto itself, but is more based off of and is possibly an extension of a variety of other world views including [[Materialism]], [[Naturalism]]<ref>[http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA601.html CA601: Evolution and Naturalism] - TalkOrigins Archive</ref>, and [[Humanism]] in its broadest sense. Many that hold to the theory of evolution have been known to be [[Atheism|atheists]] as well, but this does not represent the entirety or whole.
{{cquote|''Evolutionism is a '''world-view''', which seeks to explain every aspect of this world in which we live. It encompasses a wide variety of topics, from astronomy to chemistry to biology. At its core, it teaches that there were different stages in the evolution of our universe...''<ref>[http://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/evolutionism.htm Evolutionism - AllAboutPhilosophy] - Accessed on March 22, 2007.</ref>}}

==Theistic Evolution==
[[Theistic Evolution|Theistic Evolutionists]] believe that God created the universe and did not intervene directly in the evolutionary process. In general, theistic evolutionists accept the

==Foundational question/starting point==
All the viewpoints take a ''step of faith'' as some might refer to it. In other words, there is a common starting point or foundational question (it's a God-related question) that each one asks, and then forms their conclusions around.

===According to biblical Creationists (Young Earth)===
:<code>'''God exists (world view) > Therefore we need to explain everything based on that "fact" > Thus science is altered based on the "God exists" idea ''Creationism'' comes before the ''Scientific Theory of Creation''. The science is based on the world view.'''</code>

===According to biblical Theistic Evolutionists (Old Earth)===
There is disagreement among Theistic Evolutionists, as not all hold that God is not involved presently in His creation.

'''Impersonal Evolutionist God'''
:<code>'''There is no personal/involved God (world view) > Therefore we need to explain everything based on that "fact" > Thus science is altered based on the "no personal God" idea ''Theistic Evolutionism'' comes before the ''Scientific Theory of Evolution''. The science is based on the world view.'''</code>
'''Personal Evolutionist God'''
:<code>'''There is a personal/involved God (world view) > Therefore we need to explain everything based on that "fact" > Thus science is altered based on the "personal God" idea ''Theistic Evolutionism'' comes before the ''Scientific Theory of Evolution''. The science is based on the world view.'''</code>

===According to Atheistic Evolutionists===
Some proponents of the scientific theory of evolution reject the idea of a philosophy or world view that guides their conclusions in scientific experimentation.
:<code>'''There is no God (world view) > Therefore we need to explain everything based on that "fact" > Thus science is altered based on the "no God" idea ''Evolutionism'' comes before the ''Scientific Theory of Evolution''. The science is based on the world view.'''</code>

===Comparison===
The various viewpoints can be compared in general ways as they all have some sort of starting point. The general Creationist starting point is God, which then all the universe is based on including that of science. Some ''Theistic Evolutionists'' hold to a similar God idea, yet emphasize a somewhat secondary origin<ref>Some Theistic Evolutionists believe that God created the universe and yet He is no longer involved in it. Therefore "secondary origin" is referring to the idea that God is the origin of the universe, but not necessarily ''You and Me''.</ref> in the evolutionary process. Atheistic evolutionists say that we must prove God by science, therefore their intellectual starting point is science itself.

==Controversy==
===Usage of Terminology===
The terms ''evolutionist'' and ''evolutionism'' use the suffix ''-ism'', which is commonly used to designate varieties of philosophical opinion, and some people who use scientific grounds to support evolution prefer to use other terms. Others are happy to call themselves evolutionist, and the terms have been in common use for a century. There seems to be no such objection to the term ''anti-evolutionism''. This is all part of the controversy over evolution itself (see [[Origins debate]]).

Some Atheistic/Agnostic Evolutionists say that the term ''Evolutionism'' is simply a false Creationist perception, {{fact-political}}
or pejorative assertion that science represents merely another religion. They disagree that the theory of evolution is based on a [[philosophy]] or [[world view]]. They say that the perception finds no grounding in reality, other than as a rhetorical dramatization. However, according to creationists, this disagreement arises from a misunderstanding of terms. Biblical [[Young Earth Creationism|Young Earth Creationists]] hold both terms in philosophically equal light, up to a certain point. They would say that the term "Evolutionism" has the same or very similar meaning to "Creationism" as it relates to a supposed philosophical/foundational starting point or question (does God exist?). They say the term "Evolutionism" refers to a subset of a combination of world views, while the scientific theory of evolution is the result of the ''Evolutionist'' presupposition. In other words, they say that Evolutionism is the collective world view behind the scientific theory of evolution. However, that's where the similarities end with Creationism.

===Religion and Evolutionism===
Some Creationists point out that they see various religious aspects, not in the theory of evolution itself (although they don't exclude that necessarily), but in the Evolutionists themselves. Some will say how Evolutionists have a ''religious fervor'' over what Creationists believe is false science. Some Evolutionists have historically misunderstood this for Creationists labeling science itself as a religion. M. Green, a Creationist, put it this way in his ''Faith of Darwinism'' (emphasis added).
{{cquote|''Today the tables are turned. The modified, but still characteristically Darwinian theory has itself become an orthodoxy, preached by its adherents with '''religious fervor''', and doubted, they feel, only by a few muddlers imperfect in scientific faith.<ref name="mgreen" />''}}

Evolution has been a recent source of controversy in the [[United States]]{{fact}}. Some prominent Americans seriously question evolution{{fact}}, based on a feeling that it conflicts with religious beliefs. However, according to Evolutionists, at least one aspect of religion and evolution is not mutually exclusive. Some deeply religious evolutionists believe that God set evolution into effect, which is no detraction to His majesty. This is referring to the theory of [[Theistic Evolution]].

===Biblical Young Earth Creationist's problem with a Biblical Old Earth===

Taking the bible literally, there are no gaps permitting an undocumented period of time between the creation week and the fall of the temple in Jerusalem in 587 BC <ref>http://web.newsguy.com/rubyredinger/age.html</ref>, which is well established by archaeology and secular history. Accordingly, the birth of Adam can be placed at approximately 4,163 BC and the initial creation of the universe six days prior.

==Quotes==
'''''Evolutionism requires faith'' quotes (by Evolutionists)''':
{{cquote|'''Michael Ruse''' Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a [[secular religion]] -- a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint -- and Mr. Gish is but one of many to make it -- the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.<ref>MICHAEL RUSE [http://www.omniology.com/HowEvolutionBecameReligion.html HOW EVOLUTION BECAME A RELIGION]</ref>}}
'''''Evolutionism requires faith'' quotes (by Creationists)''':<ref>[http://www.nwcreation.net/evolutionism.html Evolutionism - Is Evolution a Religion?] - Northwest Creation Network</ref>
{{cquote|'''L.N. Matthews''' ''The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved theory - is it then a science or faith? <ref>L.N. Matthews, "Introduction" to Charles Darwin, Origin of the Species, pp. x, xi (1971 edition)</ref>''}}
{{cquote|'''J.W.N. Sullivan''' ''The hypothesis that life has developed from inorganic matter is, at present, still an article of faith. <ref>J.W.N. Sullivan, Limitations of Science (1933), p95.</ref>''}}
{{cquote|'''R.L. Wysong''' ''Evolution requires plenty of faith; a faith in L-proteins that defy chance formation; a faith in the formation of DNA codes which, if generated spontaneously, would spell only pandemonium; a faith in a primitive environment that, in reality, would fiendishly devour any chemical precursors to life; a faith in experiments that prove nothing but the need for intelligence in the beginning; a faith in a primitive ocean that would not thicken, but would only haplessly dilute chemicals; a faith in natural laws of thermodynamics and biogenesis that actually deny the possibility for the spontaneous generation of life; a faith in future scientific revelations that, when realized, always seem to present more dilemmas to the evolutionists; faith in improbabilities that treasonously tell two stories—one denying evolution, the other confirming the Creator; faith in transformations that remain fixed; faith in mutations and natural selection that add to a double negative for evolution; faith in fossils that embarrassingly show fixity through time, regular absence of transitional forms and striking testimony to a worldwide water deluge; a faith in time which proves to only promote degradation in the absence of mind; and faith in reductionism that ends up reducing the materialist's arguments to zero and forcing the need to invoke a supernatural Creator. <ref>R.L. Wysong, The Creation-Evolution Controversy (1981), p. 455.</ref>''}}
{{cquote|'''T. Lessl''' ''"By calling evolution fact, the process of evolution is removed from dispute; it is no longer merely a scientific construct, but now stands apart from humankind and its perceptual frailties. Sagan apparently wishes to accomplish what Peter Berger calls `objectification,' the attribution of objective reality to a humanly produced concept . . With evolution no longer regarded as a mere human construct, but now as a part of the natural order of the cosmos, evolution becomes a sacred archetype against which human actions can be weighed. Evolution is a sacred object or process in that it becomes endowed with mysterious and awesome power." <ref>T. Lessl, Science and the Sacred Cosmos: The Ideological Rhetoric of Carl Sagan," Quarterly Journal of Speech, 71:178 (1985).</ref>''}}
{{cquote|'''M. Grene''' ''"Today the tables are turned. The modified, but still characteristically Darwinian theory has itself become an orthodoxy, preached by its adherents with religious fervor, and doubted, they feel, only by a few muddlers imperfect in scientific faith." <ref name="mgreen">M. Grene, Faith of Darwinism," Encounter, November (1959), p49.</ref>''}}

==See also==
*[[Creationism]]
*[[Faith]]
*[[Humanism]]
*[[Naturalistic religions]]
*[[Religion]]
*[[Theism]]

==References==
<references/>

==External links==
'''Notes'''
:'''''Affirmative''' articles that rebuttal the faith claim of creationists.''
:'''''Critical''' articles that claim evolutionism involves faith.''

{| class="wikitable" width="100%"
! Affirmative !! Critical
|-
| valign="top" width="50%"|
'''TalkOrigins'''
*[http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA612.html CA612: Evolution requiring faith]
**[http://creationwiki.org/%28Talk.Origins%29_Evolution_requires_as_much_faith_as_creationism CreationWiki response]
*[http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA610.html CA610: Evolution religious]
**[http://creationwiki.org/%28Talk.Origins%29_Evolution_is_a_religion CreationWiki response]
*[http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA001.html CA001: Evolution is the foundation of an immoral world view]
**[http://creationwiki.org/%28Talk.Origins%29_Evolution_is_the_foundation_of_an_immoral_worldview CreationWiki response]
*[http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/metaphysics.html Evolution and Philosophy: Metaphysics]
'''EvoWiki'''
*[http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Evolution_is_the_foundation_of_an_immoral_worldview Evolution is the foundation of an immoral world view]

| valign="top" width="50%"|
'''DrDino'''
* [http://www.drdino.com/articles.php?spec=25 Evolution Is Based On Modern Myths]
'''Creationists.org'''
* [http://www.creationists.org/evolutionisreligion.html Evolution is a Religion]
'''Northwest Creation Network'''
* [http://www.nwcreation.net/evolutionism.html Evolutionism - Is Evolution a religion?]
'''Creation Ministries International'''
* [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1491/ Evolution as religion]
* [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4139 Leading anti-creationist philosopher admits that evolution is a religion]
'''Answers in Genesis'''
* [http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0930religion.asp The Religion of Evolution]
* [http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/the-lie/chapter2.asp Evolution is Religion]
'''CreationWiki'''
*[http://creationwiki.org/%28Talk.Origins%29_Evolution_requires_as_much_faith_as_creationism Evolution requires as much faith as creationism] - Rebuttal of TalkOrigins Archive
*[http://creationwiki.org/%28Talk.Origins%29_Evolution_is_a_religion Evolution is a religion] - Rebuttal of TalkOrigins Archive
'''Institute for Creation Research'''
* [http://www.icr.org/article/201/ Evolution is Religion, not Science (1)], [http://www.icr.org/article/455/ (2)]
|}

[[Category:Materialism]]
[[Category:Naturalism]]
[[Category:Humanism]]

Talk:Essay:Liberal Behavior on Conservapedia

2007-06-29T17:22:37Z

Crzydimnd:

What I really can't understand is why is there so much focus here on Conservapedia slamming liberals? This website is advertised as conservative - why not focus more on furthering your own arguments and agendas as opposed to ridiculing others? The [[Deceit]] article is a prime example of this. You present that article as if liberals are the only people capable of deceit. How is this socially responsible?

It would seem that [[Mockery]] is just as much a part of some Conservatives arsenals as it is the Liberals. As both a Christian and a Conservative, I despise deceit and mockery as being the tools of a weak mind. Opinion is just that but facts are golden. [[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 19:29, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

Granted, I'm sure you could point out websites where liberals in turn do the same things to conservatives. I am not trying to say conservatives are bad people. I just don't think you advance your point of view very effectively by slinging mud - bolster your own viewpoints instead. --[[User:Colest|Colest]] 19:27, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

:I agree, this site has a clear agenda to ridicule liberals. Perhaps you should rename this site to www.antiliberalpedia.com--[[User:Sm355|Sm355]] 19:31, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

Even as a sysop, I'm a little uncomfortable with implying that all liberals are deceitful, given that my mother is liberal. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 19:32, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

::Dan, I feel that you are far from alone in your concerns about the direction this site is taking. Your mother's liberalism notwithstanding, the unsourced, extreme and unnecessary criticisms of liberalism do seem to be a case of the lady protesting too much. I suggest that you resign your status until the owner and panel are more clear about what they want this place to '''be'''.--[[User:Olly|Olly]] 19:39, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

:I'm liberal, and I find it quite amusing, reminiscent of our old friend Richard. As for the second point brought up in this article; for commandment 3 to be enforced, we would have to delete [[Homosexuality]], [[Heterosexuality]], [[Procreation]], [[Fornication]], and [[Bisexuality]]. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 19:34, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

Looks like someone beat you to it to [[Bisexuality]] ; ) [[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 19:36, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
:That wasn't me, it was [[User:Ed Poor|Ed]] ;-). --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 19:38, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

And there goes Fornication! Two down, three to go. [[User:Erasmus|Erasmus]] 17:58, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

I dunno...seems a whole lot lot of discussion (and articles) that say liberals believe this, and they are stupid for doing so. Let's face it, a lot of times political discussion disolves into personal name calling. In your article you generalize about liberals, but take this into consideration: the liberals on here who don't break commandments, contribute to articles, show intelligence, and help make this a better site probably aren't noticed (or at least singled out as liberals). It's easy to take the lowest common denominator and say it's representative of the whole. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 14:20, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

== Sir... ==

Do you see neither the danger in, nor basic wrong-headedness of, sweeping generalisations re. a particular group's character and "typical" behaviours?

The historical precedents for such modes of talk are unfortunate, to say the least. The Jew, the Negro, the Bourgeoisie.....all have been fastened with a similarly reductionist pin at one time or another. Whilst I'm sure you would wish to join with me in condemning this ignoble tradition, your words have a resonance that does you no credit.

If this site attracts ridicule, then you must ''at least consider the possibility'' that this is because it ''deserves'' it. You have an opportunity here to shape how the wider world perceives your particular branch of Christianity. Unless your intent was to create a general impression of mean-spirited and contrary<ref>''kuhn-'''trair'''-ee'' - perverse; stubbornly opposed or willful. http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=contrary</ref> zealotry, then it is one you have singularly failed to grasp.

<references/>

--[[User:Robledo|Robledo]] 13:15, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

----
I put what I've put at another place on CP, with some additions:

Wouldn't it be nice if we started from the assumption that all people are good-natured and mean well, rather than starting from our preconceived notions of what we expect people to act like? After all, there is a political spectrum, there are people who don't consider themselves as "strongly liberal" or "strongly conservative," and who remove themselves from the political system because of the bickering between the extremes on both sides. Furthermore there are anti-abortion anti-gun law folks out there. In the words of Barack Obama: "The pundits, the pundits like to slice and dice our country into red states and blue States: red states for Republicans, blue States for Democrats. But I've got news for them, too. We worship an awesome God in the blue states, and we don't like federal agents poking around our libraries in the red states. We coach little league in the blue states and, yes, we've got some gay friends in the red states." Not every person neatly fits into one category or another. That we start out with an assumption that person will act or believe because of a label is truly sad (shame on all of us), and worse, if we start with a label on ourselves and create our belief system with no internal introspection, that is far more sad. God or nature wouldn't haven't given us brains if we weren't to use them.

And continuing: This should be required reading for all new contributors here. Let all the newcomers, of whatever political persuation, decide whether they really want to be a part of this project. [[User:Sterile|Sterile]] 21:40, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

: I can't imagine the content page genuinely offending anyone. But offense or not, behavior can and should be scientifically studied. We have hundreds of journals publishing papers on behavior about every aspect of society. What's wrong with studying liberal behavior? I wouldn't object to a study of conservative behavior, styles of arguing, conduct on a website, etc. In fact, I'd welcome it, because we can all learn from it and improve.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:51, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

::Since this is a scientific study, I’d like to know a bit about your methodology.
::How did you identify which users were liberal? What was your classification system? How many posts did a user have to make before being included in the study? Did you compare liberal users to conservative users? How many users had to exhibit a behavior before it was classified as a liberal behavior? What percentage of all users did your study include?--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 09:13, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

*If it looks, walks like a duck, and quacks like one, I know it is a duck. Same for Conservative's and Liberal's. It is a pretty common sense deal, no? --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 09:21, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
::I’m going to go with “no”. There is a much larger political spectrum than liberal or conservative, and, aside from the problems inherent in trying to confine a multiplicity of views to a bipolar spectrum, people can and do hide their true political leanings. --[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 09:40, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

Who said anything about criticizing anyone? I'm just saying that it's obvious to me that the management has already judged the editors on this site, not by their edits, but by their political persuations. I'm embarrased for Conservapedia that this essay even exists. If you can't see the problem with this essay, then you are blinded by your own views. (And sure, go ahead, block me. At this point I don't know why any person--conservative or liberal--would truly want to continue to edit here, if the management is this biased. Conservapedia is doomed if it isolates its volunteer editors.) [[User:Sterile|Sterile]] 08:34, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

== The 6-times criticism ==

Well, I would say it's because Wikipedia isn't supposed to be biased. However, I won't start an argument. --[[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbohacker]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 22:10, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

== Wow ==

What an extraordinary essay. I realise that everybody is ideologically blinded to a certain extent, but I've seen it on Conservapedia to an eye-opening extent. Frequently 'Liberals' are accused of things that the accusor themselves has done, or has tacitly approved others doing. I could go through the whole list and provide instances of Conservatives doing exactly the same things as Liberals have been accused of doing, but that would be tedious. So I'll just concentrate on a few instances.

* Are Liberals more aggressive than Conservatives (point 1)? Increasingly I've seen sysops using veiled threats along the lines of 'Don't post here again if you know what's good for you'.

* Point 11 states that Liberals cite authorities to support their point of view rather than citing evidence. However, all of the articles regarding matters relating to YEC cite almost exclusively from websites such as creationwiki or answersingenesis. Only this morning I objected to a reference in the Wombat article which didn't at all address the issue it was supposed to be supporting; this has now been changed, and now the citation is for an essay which says that a land bridge ''might'' have existed between Europe and Australia without providing any evidence. Although I suppose in accordance with point 4, these editors who are claiming to be Conservative and making these dodgy links are probably actually just Liberals.

* Point 6 appears to be suggesting that Liberals are frequently deceitful, without noting that Conservatives are often deceitful themselves, for example in the case of point 7 which claims that Liberals are objecting to the banning of obscenity rather than objecting to the rather arbitrary notions of what constitues obscenity here.

* The claim that this was a scientific study is either deceitful (point 6) or an inability to provide citations and proper methodology for the study (possibly violating point 11) or maybe even a failure to rely on logic (point 5)

[[User:Chrysogonus|Chrysogonus]] 17:06, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

*

== Almost no liberal admits he's a liberal. ==

"Almost no liberal admits he's liberal, or that he holds a liberal belief, or that he is using a liberal argument. More often a liberal will claim to be a conservative, and try to make a liberal argument sound better with the preface, "Well, I'm a conservative, but I support gun control!" But why are so many people embarrassed to admit they are liberal???" Maybe that is why americans ''self identify'' (read: admit to being) as conservative 2:1 over liberal, but vote within a few percent every election. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim (CPAdmin1)]][[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] 23:47, 12 May 2007 (EDT)
:I'm a liberal, and not embarrassed to "admit" it. "Almost no liberal"? I guess you don't read the [[Nation (magazine)|Nation]]. And I certainly would not try to make a point by "pretending to be a conseravative"! Back up your claims! [[User:Human|Human]] 00:17, 13 May 2007 (EDT)
::I was just making another point against the wikipedia 6 times as liberal thing. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim (CPAdmin1)]][[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] 00:18, 13 May 2007 (EDT)
:::Let's just get real here, and realize that since most liberals are scared to say they izz one, the 3:1 ratio at Wp '''really''' means a 12:1 ratio, and Wp is 57 times as liberal as the American public. But ''[[scared|afraid]]'' to admit it! [[User:Human|Human]] 00:51, 13 May 2007 (EDT)
:::I also see your point, Tim, the trouble is one could argue that it's the moderates who even out the election. If one wanted to ignore the unpopularity of the term "liberal" (I think many started using "progressive" when "liberal" was at its nadir.) [[User:Human|Human]] 16:33, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

==Denial==
The latest entry is very good, and there's no end to examples. My favorite: liberals claim right and wrong cannot be defined, yet never cease to accuse people of hypocrisy. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:43, 24 May 2007 (EDT)
:Yet hypocrisy is simply saying one thing and doing another[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypocrisy] - so where do right and wrong figure in?

Nihilism

2007-06-29T16:59:00Z

Crzydimnd: /* See Also */

'''Nihilism''' is the belief in nothing. A true nihilist would have no loyalties, and no purpose other than, perhaps, an impulse to destroy everything of value in society. [[Friedrich Nietzsche]] argued that nihilism's corrosive effects would eventually destroy all moral, religious, and metaphysical convictions; cause the collapse of meaning, relevance, purpose, and precipitate the greatest crisis in human history.<ref>http://www.iep.utm.edu/n/nihilism.htm</ref> German political philosopher [[Leo Strauss]] argued that modern [[liberal]]ism has within it a tendency towards nihilism. And because of this view, some philosophers (as far back as [[Plato]]) have argued that political leaders should invent inspiring myths in order to unite citizens of modern liberal democratic society behind a common purpose, the concept of [[natural rights]] as formulated in the [[Declaration of Independence]] is often cited as an example of an inspiring myth.

Major types of nihilism include:
*'''epistemological nihilism''' which denies the possibility of knowledge and truth; this form of nihilism is identified with [[postmodernism]]. One famous example of epistemological nihilism is the words [[Socrates]] said before his death: "''I am the wisest man alive, for I know one thing, and that is that I know nothing.''"

*'''Political Nihilism''' is the belief that the destruction of all existing political, social, and religious order is a prerequisite for any future improvement; this form of nihilism is identified with [[anarchism]].

*'''Moral nihilism''' rejects all moral or ethical values.

*'''Existential nihilism''' is the notion that life has no meaning or purpose.<ref>http://www.iep.utm.edu/n/nihilism.htm</ref>

*'''Mereological nihilism''' is the view that objects with parts do not exist, it's a human illusion; this view has been identified with some aspects of [[Buddhist philosophy]] and [[Immanuel Kant]]'s [[transcendental idealism]].

In his book, ''The Decline of the West'', German philosopher Oswald Spengler observes that pattern of nihilism was a feature shared by all civilizations on the verge of collapse.

==Beyond Nihilism==
Friedrich Nietzsche saw two kinds of nihilism in the world; pessimistic and joyous. Pessimistic nihilism was that created by the death of God in the minds of men, and corresponds to the idea that life is without meaning or value. Joyous nihilism was that experienced by those few who, like him, experienced the loss of an externally created and imposed moral structure as a liberation and not a great loss, and was the seed that let the herald Nietzsche proclaim the coming of the Übermensch.
What Nietzsche truly meant by this is much debated even today, and Nietzsche himself would be disgusted with moral relativists.

==References==
<references/>

==See Also==
[[Morality]]

[[category:philosophy]]

Nihilism

2007-06-29T16:54:29Z

Crzydimnd: Removed relation of moral nihilism to moral relativism - they are not the same.

'''Nihilism''' is the belief in nothing. A true nihilist would have no loyalties, and no purpose other than, perhaps, an impulse to destroy everything of value in society. [[Friedrich Nietzsche]] argued that nihilism's corrosive effects would eventually destroy all moral, religious, and metaphysical convictions; cause the collapse of meaning, relevance, purpose, and precipitate the greatest crisis in human history.<ref>http://www.iep.utm.edu/n/nihilism.htm</ref> German political philosopher [[Leo Strauss]] argued that modern [[liberal]]ism has within it a tendency towards nihilism. And because of this view, some philosophers (as far back as [[Plato]]) have argued that political leaders should invent inspiring myths in order to unite citizens of modern liberal democratic society behind a common purpose, the concept of [[natural rights]] as formulated in the [[Declaration of Independence]] is often cited as an example of an inspiring myth.

Major types of nihilism include:
*'''epistemological nihilism''' which denies the possibility of knowledge and truth; this form of nihilism is identified with [[postmodernism]]. One famous example of epistemological nihilism is the words [[Socrates]] said before his death: "''I am the wisest man alive, for I know one thing, and that is that I know nothing.''"

*'''Political Nihilism''' is the belief that the destruction of all existing political, social, and religious order is a prerequisite for any future improvement; this form of nihilism is identified with [[anarchism]].

*'''Moral nihilism''' rejects all moral or ethical values.

*'''Existential nihilism''' is the notion that life has no meaning or purpose.<ref>http://www.iep.utm.edu/n/nihilism.htm</ref>

*'''Mereological nihilism''' is the view that objects with parts do not exist, it's a human illusion; this view has been identified with some aspects of [[Buddhist philosophy]] and [[Immanuel Kant]]'s [[transcendental idealism]].

In his book, ''The Decline of the West'', German philosopher Oswald Spengler observes that pattern of nihilism was a feature shared by all civilizations on the verge of collapse.

==Beyond Nihilism==
Friedrich Nietzsche saw two kinds of nihilism in the world; pessimistic and joyous. Pessimistic nihilism was that created by the death of God in the minds of men, and corresponds to the idea that life is without meaning or value. Joyous nihilism was that experienced by those few who, like him, experienced the loss of an externally created and imposed moral structure as a liberation and not a great loss, and was the seed that let the herald Nietzsche proclaim the coming of the Übermensch.
What Nietzsche truly meant by this is much debated even today, and Nietzsche himself would be disgusted with moral relativists.

==References==
<references/>

==See Also==
[http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/hutchison/070307 Liberalism and the two roads to nihilism: how liberalism can collapse into nihilism through materialism or false idealism] by Fred Hutchison, March 7, 2007.

[[category:philosophy]]

Talk:God

2007-06-29T16:49:47Z

Crzydimnd: /* Capitalization Concerns */

I think the "God" page of ALL pages should have just a LITTLE bit longer page --[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 03:51, 12 March 2007 (EDT)--[[Elamdri|Elamdri]]

Fixed a vandal.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 03:51, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

==Neutrality==

Made this page talk about God as a deistic being as well as the Christian PoV.[[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 15:49, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
:Conservapedia is not about neutrality. Conservapedia favors factual information over "neutral" information, and is written from a Christian point of view. Thus, the article on God should accurately say that God is the creator of the universe, not "neutrally" imply the Christians invented God's status as the creator of the universe. --[[User:NVConservative|NVConservative]] 16:00, 12 March 2007
::Prove your "God" exists, then we'll talk. [[User:Opacic|Opacic]] 09:42, 22 March 2007

::Actually, nowhere in the Conservapedia Commandments does it mention a Christian PoV. In fact its called '''Conserv'''apedia and I'm fairly confident that not all Conservatives are Christians. Your reversion to the old very biased page is very strange to me. [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 16:04, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
:::The definition of liberal is one who chooses right from wrong for themselves instead of accepting the objective right and wrong. Since Christianity is right, denial of that is liberalism. --[[User:Luke-Jr|Luke-Jr]] 16:06, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
::::you have a source for that definition? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:42, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

::::As a sociologist, I challenge you to definitively explain the "objective" right and wrong. I would also ask you to support your argument that "Christianity is right" with at least one academic source. --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 22:38, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

::::I agree to the necessary explanation of right and wrong. Many different religions have many different views on god. Some have very different views on creation. An example of this would be [[Bumba]]. We need to make sure that all religions are encompassed.--[[User:Liberal|Liberal]] 14:16, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:Hmm, reads here that "Everything you post must be true and verifiable". How about the existence of God? or merely his nature? That goes unnoticed?

::''Thou hast heard, see all this; and will not ye declare it?'' Is 48:6
::''For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made'' Rm 1:20 [[User:RobS|RobS]] 10:41, 15 June 2007 (EDT)

First of all, Luke-Jr, your statement that Christianity is right is a perfect example of begging the question. Why is Christianity right? Because Christianity says so. Right? Secondly, You've got the definition of liberal wrong: A liberal is someone who favors personal freedom of choice for all individuals, as opposed to oppression of the people by a minority of individuals. Given that the entire core of Christianity is predicated on the notion of a person choosing whether or not to believe in God, whether or not to be saved, ot seems to me that a good Christian should BE a liberal: Why would you want to deny anyone the joy of choosing to have a relationship with God of their own accord, as opposed to using fear or coercion to make them? If you believe that using your mind to make decisions for yourself is evil, then by all means, don't do it, but with that choice you also forfeit the right to tell other people how to think or behave, because THINKING about why they're wrong would be wrong for you.
Also, the word "deitic" in the opening paragraph of this entry is not even a word. This is yet another Conservapedia article that I would give to a third-grade english class with the assignment of pointing out the mistakes. --[[GarbageMan|GarbageMan]] 10:45, 5 April 2007 (CST)

==Many are skeptical of ''which'' idea?==
"However, many are skeptical of this idea." -- The idea of it being the same god, or that it's a Muslim plot? [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 18:42, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

==Note==
Excuse me, but is that really a fair assumption? I'm also pretty sure that Judaism is the source of both Islam and Christianity, but those two aren't actually connected to each other. But I could be wrong. Either way, it also seems to paint Islam in some sort of satanic light. They're just different and probably wrong, not evil.--[[User:Ronnyreg|Ronnyreg]] 22:45, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

==Errors==
I appreciate the conclusion that the article needs to be locked in view of the high volume of vandalism, but I hope it's only temporary - especially as it prevents fine-tuning, and doesn't allow even alternative ''Christian'' views a look-in. For example, the article speaks of 'God' as a given, and without defining ''which'' God (as a previous version helpfully did). The expression 'fourth century' should in fact read 'second century' (I should know - I wrote it!). And the Bible doesn't require belief in a ''personal'' lord and saviour, whatever other kind of lord and saviour it may require belief in, and whatever additional ideas evangelicals might prefer to read into the Messianic texts. --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 06:38, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

==Omnibenevolence==
Is god omnibenevolent? [[User:Zed|Zed]] 06:21, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

==Conservapedia is not open==

How can you claim to have a communally edited encyclopedia if some pages are locked. What a sham! I would think the article on God would be one that quite a lot of people would like to contribute to.--[[User:Golden|Golden]]

==Conservatives==

I think, Golden, that you will find, in general, that only by preventing freedom and the right of free speech can any Conservative system of power maintain it's rule. This very website is an excellent example of such a system. This is why many essential pages such as "[[god|god]]" and "[[jesus|jesus]]" tend to be locked- thus also heavily reducing their usefulness.

==Attributes of God==
These are contradictory - consider that if God is omnipotent, omniscient and also that "God is love" (1 John 4:8). If God loves unconditionally, and is all-powerful and all knowing - why is there needless suffering. eg. disease, infant death, natural disasters etc. - if he KNOWS how to remove suffering (omniscience), has the POWER to relieve suffering (omnipotence), and loves us UNCONDITIONALLY, then there should be no suffering in the world. By deduction, one can assume that either God does not either a) have the power b) have the knowledge required or c) care enough. His abilities should not be listed like superpowers as this article does. [[User:Zed|Zed]] 03:37, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

Also, "Jealousy" is left off the list. Its the first commandment: "Thou shalt have no gods before me, for I am a jealous god." Striking omission. --[[User:RexMundane|RexMundane]] 11:29, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

"not "neutrally" imply the Christians invented God's status as the creator of the universe" They did, actually. It's there in your bible.

== Bad sentence ==

In "notes" the phrase ''a ritualized 'adoption' ritual'' appears. What would a non-ritualised ritual be like, I wonder? [[User:Totnesmartin|Totnesmartin]] 17:25, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

Well, I dont believe in god.

== Capitalization Concerns ==

If referring to the Creator of the Universe, then the word 'creator' should be capitalized.
Also, when referring to THE Cross, or the actual place of 'Cavalry' (and not mounted soldiers) or THE Ressurection, the words 'cross', 'cavalry' and 'ressurection' should all be capitalized.
<ref>http://www.pvc.maricopa.edu/lsc/faq/eng/enggrawhen.htm#terms</ref>
:Just a note, the PLACE is Calvary, the military unit is cavalry. Note the difference in the location of the 'l'.

Debate:How should Conservapedia work to avoid having a conservative bias

2007-06-29T15:43:02Z

Crzydimnd: New page: Naming the website conservapedia kind of makes this debate moot, does it not? It's a '''Conservative''' alternative to the "Liberal" Wikipedia. By its very nature it is Conservatively bi...

Naming the website conservapedia kind of makes this debate moot, does it not? It's a '''Conservative''' alternative to the "Liberal" Wikipedia. By its very nature it is Conservatively biased. End of Debate.