Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Deceit

2015-05-27T17:59:37Z

Darwon: removed a misattributed quote and a redundancy

'''Deceit''' means to deliberately misrepresent or deny truths, or [[lie]], with the intent to fool or trick others. <ref>In law, deceit is the fraudulent representation of a material fact, made intentionally or recklessly or without reasonable basis and with the intent to induce reliance on the falsehood. In tort law, if someone does justifiably rely on the deceit to his detriment, then he has a cause of action for recovery of his injury.</ref> See also [[Self-deception]].

Deceit helps promote various [[belief system]]s with the public, as illustrated by the examples below. Nearly all of these examples consist of [[deceit]] that was [[embraced deceit|embraced]] by many people in order to advance an [[ideological]] goal. Most prominent modern examples are of [[liberal]]s hoping to mislead the public through [[propaganda]].

'''Embraced deceit''' is [[deceit]] that is knowingly allowed, defended or even promoted for ideological purposes. Not only did the perpetrators of the [[deceit]] promote it, but their allies were complicit also.
'''Embraced deceit''' is common.

==Examples==

#For over 50 years many [[liberals]] denied that [[Julius Rosenberg]] had spied for the [[communist]] [[Soviet Union]]. Then, in September 2008, a co-conspirator finally admitted the truth in "Figure in Rosenberg Case Admits to Soviet Spying."<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/12/nyregion/12spy.html?_r=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&oref=slogin</ref>
#In 1997 the National Coalition of Abortion Providers' executive director Ron Fitzsimmons admitted, "I lied through my teeth" about the facts in order to defeat a ban on [[partial birth abortion]].<ref>http://www.slate.com/id/2086/</ref>
#Gun control advocate [[Michael Bellesiles]] wrote a book entitled ''Arming America, The Origins of a National Gun Culture'' (2000). Gary Wills gave it a glowing review in ''[[The New York Times]]'', but admitted later that "I was took. The book is a fraud."<ref>Jonah Goldberg, [http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/opinion/columnists/guests/s_501644.html ''Reports of the [[Second Amendment]]'s death have been greatly exaggerated ...''] Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, Apr. 8, 2007.</ref> Bellesiles resigned from his position as Professor of History at [[Emory University]] in Atlanta when an independent committee of scholars examined his work and concluded that "his scholarly integrity is seriously in question."<ref>http://hnn.us/articles/1069.html</ref>
#The [[Piltdown Man]] was a fraudulent [[missing link]] taught to an entire generation of students worldwide from 1912 to 1953 as "proof" that man had evolved from an ape-like species. [[Evolution]]ists declared the Piltdown Man to be authentic and gave it a formal name, ''Eoanthropus dawsoni,'' in honor of the person who claimed to have found it, Charles Dawson. The British scientific establishment largely supported the validity of Piltdown Man.<ref>http://www.bradburyac.mistral.co.uk/tenness5.html</ref> But the Piltdown Man was actually a [[medieval]] skull combined with a lower jaw from an [[orangutan]] and teeth from a [[chimpanzee]], which were then placed in a gravel pit in the village of Piltdown, England. There are reports that as early as 1914 someone at the British Museum privately admitted that "a negro skull and a broken ape jaw" had been "artificially fossilized."<ref>http://www.clarku.edu/~piltdown/map_prim_suspects/KEITH/Keith_prosecution/piltdown_unmasked.html</ref> Yet promoters of evolution perpetrated this fraud for decades, in textbooks (e.g., the text at issue in the [[Scopes trial]] in 1925) as well as in popular books and magazines (e.g., a 1922 book for the general market illustrated the daily life of the Piltdown Man). <ref>[http://books.google.com/books?vid=OCLC02561355&id=L0sDgL6sPh4C&pg=RA1-PR51 ''Everyday Life in the Old Stone Age''], Charles Henry Bourne Quennell, 1922, p. 51.</ref>
#[[Alger Hiss]] was a [[communist]] spy who worked at high levels in the U.S. government. He was convicted of two counts of perjury relating to his denials of his [[treason]]. His verdict was upheld at the [[Court of Appeals]] and the [[Supreme Court]]. Hiss was sentenced to five years on Jan. 25 and served 44 months in Lewisburg Federal Prison before being released in November 1954. Yet he continued to claim he was innocent afterwards. Documents released from [[Soviet]] files after the communist Soviet Union collapsed proved that Hiss had been a spy, and the 1997 [[Moynihan Commission on Government Secrecy]] concluded that he was a spy in its report. <ref>[http://www.fas.org/sgp/library/moynihan/appa6.html Moynihan Commission on Government Secrecy, Appendix A 6. The Experience of The Bomb]</ref>
#American Vice President [[Joe Biden]] is listed on famousplagiarists.com for his widely publicized copying from British liberal [[Neil Kinnock]] and then pawning it off as his own, and then initially denying he had done anything wrong. The resultant exposure of his unacknowledged appropriation of Kinnock's work forced Biden out of the 1988 presidential race,<ref>http://www.famousplagiarists.com/politics.htm</ref> but [[liberals]] have continued to support him as a U.S. Senator and do not seem to mind his prior deceit one bit.
#[[Liberals]] popularized the [[Scopes trial]] with the 1955 play [[Inherit the Wind]], which is often taught in schools, and the 1960 Hollywood motion picture by the same name. Both completely lied about the facts in order to harm [[Christianity]], misleading students who read or enact the play and everyone who saw the movie. As recently as April 17, 2007, the ''[[Village Voice]]'' described the play as though it were factually true,<ref>http://www.villagevoice.com/theater/0716,feingold,76394,11.html</ref> thereby misleading all of its readers.
#''[[Doe v. Bolton]]''<ref>410 U.S. 179, 192 (1973).</ref> was the decision in 1973 by the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] which created [[abortion]] on demand based on the theory that Ms. "Doe" wanted an abortion for her health. Sandra Cano was the "Doe" of ''Doe v. Bolton'', and she later proved in sworn testimony that at "NO TIME did I ever have an abortion. I did not seek an abortion nor do I believe in abortion."<ref>http://judiciary.senate.gov/testimony.cfm?id=1553&wit_id=4393</ref> She filed a brief with the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] in 2006 asserting that "fraud was perpetrated on the Court" in the original ''Doe v. Bolton'' case brought in her name. In April 2007, the Supreme Court cited approvingly her brief for the general principle that abortion might harm the women who have them.<ref>http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=05-380</ref>
#[[Democrat]] Durham District Attorney [[Mike Nifong]] admitted that there was "no credible evidence" that three Duke lacrosse players committed any of the crimes he charged them with in 2006.<ref>http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-07-26-nifong-court_N.htm?csp=34</ref> A three-member panel of a state commission "ruled that Nifong willfully lied during his prosecution of the three lacrosse players."<ref>http://www.newsobserver.com/news/story/661674.html</ref> "The committee ruled in June [2007] that Nifong knowingly withheld DNA evidence that was beneficial to the three charged in the case. ... The state attorney general later exonerated the players and declared the three men innocent of all charges."<ref>''Id.''</ref> But 88 Duke professors -- more than 10 percent of the [[liberal]] Duke professorial faculty - endorsed and published an ad hurtful to the innocent students, which "helped create the lynch-mob atmosphere."<ref>http://www.nypost.com/seven/03232007/postopinion/opedcolumnists/duke__who_wont_pay_opedcolumnists_john_podhoretz.htm</ref> Ultimately "Nifong was sentenced ... to a single day in jail, having been held in criminal contempt of court for lying to a judge during his pursuit of rape charges against the three falsely accused lacrosse players."<ref>http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8RCITJ00&show_article=1</ref>
#In relation to the [[theory of evolution]] evolutionist [[Stephen Jay Gould]] wrote in May of 2000 the following: "[[Ernst Haeckel|Haeckel]]'s forceful, eminently comprehensible, if not always accurate, books appeared in all major languages and surely exerted more influence than the works of any other scientist, including Darwin ... in convincing people throughout the world about the validity of evolution .... Haeckel had exaggerated the similarities [between embryos of different species] by idealizations and omissions. He also, in some cases — in a procedure that can only be called fraudulent — simply copied the same figure over and over again."<ref>http://www.creationism.org/caesar/haeckel.htm</ref> The [[New York Times]] reported that "drawings were reproduced in textbook after textbook for more than a century" which "biologists discovered ... were fraudulent" but "some textbooks still contain them."<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2001/04/08/science/08EVOL.html?ex=1187064000&en=c9bdc4e4fa58256b&ei=5070</ref> Known as the [[Haeckel drawings]], these fake drawings remained in textbooks for more than 100 years until exposed as fake by the [[New York Times]] in 2001. As of Aug. 12, 2007, [[Wikipedia]] continued to present these drawings as generally true while omitting any reference to the [[New York Times]] exposing of the fraud.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embryo_drawing</ref>
# Several Climatic Research Unit scientists at the University of East Anglia have been scrutinized for deceitful behavior revealed from [[Climategate]]. If it is true that the CRU scientists deliberately falsified climate science data, and then then used the results of the falsification to obtain additional research funding, then it is deceit.
#[[Adolf Hitler]] described the "Big Lie" technique in Mein Kampf and used it many times to justify invading Austria, Czechoslovakia, Poland and other countries. He blamed Jews for the big lie, and for starting World War II, but was unconvincing.
#Extremist, hyper-liberal regimes such as the [[Soviet Union]] under [[Joseph Stalin]], [[Communist]] [[China]], and [[North Korea]] elevate deceit into an instrument of political statecraft. Systematic [[liberal lies]] are the basic currency of daily governance, and [[propaganda]] delivered through state organs is as essential to these regimes as a [[free press]] to the [[United States]].
#[[Jayson Blair]], disgraced former ''[[New York Times]]'' reporter, was forced to resign after it was discovered he had plagiarized and fabricated large amounts of material for several stories
#[[Democratic]] Presidential candidate [[Barack Obama]] repeatedly pledged to close the [[Guantanamo]] Detention facility housing [[terrorist]]s in order to "regain America's moral stature in the world." <ref>[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQXZoM__vU0 60 Minutes: Obama Reiterates Promise To Close Guantanamo Bay]</ref> As president, the ''Washington Post'' reported in June 2009 Obama was considering an [[Executive Order]] to hold Guantanamo detainees indefinitely. <ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/26/AR2009062603361.html ''White House Weighs Order on Detention Officials: Move Would Reassert Power To Hold Terror Suspects Indefinitely''], [[Washington Post]], June 27, 2009.</ref>
#In July 2009, Al Gore was interviewed by a reporter from the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. During the interview, he was asked about a 2007 British court ruling regarding his "[[An Inconvenient Truth]]" film being shown in public schools. The question was specifically about nine significant scientific errors in the film that were noted by the judge. Gore did not address the issue of the errors, simply stating, "[T]he ruling was in my favour."<ref>http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2009/s2624723.htm</ref> However, the judge had unequivocally stated in 2007 after the ruling, "I conclude that the claimant substantially won this case by virtue of my finding that, but for the new guidance note, the film would have been distributed in breach of sections 406 and 407 of the 1996 Education Act."<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/7037671.stm</ref>
#In the earliest example of deceit, the serpent in the [[Garden of Eden]] persuaded [[Eve]] to eat the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge, claiming it would make her like [[God]]. In truth, it caused the [[fall of man]], exiling [[Adam and Eve]] from [[Eden]]. See John 8:44.
#Two prominent men in a community arranged to have their church raise $850 in donations to purchase books for a local school. In sworn testimony during depositions, both men denied knowledge of the source of the donations.
#[[James O'Keefe]] and his conspirators pleaded guilty to entering a federal building under false pretenses when they posed as telephone workers to enter Sen. [[Mary Landrieu]]'s office to confront her about phone calls from constituents that the senator allegedly ignored.<ref>http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2010/05/james_okeefe_and_friends_plead.html</ref>

==Quotes on Deceit==
[[George Orwell]] wrote:
* {{orwell-politics-lies}}
* "Do remember that dishonesty and [[cowardice]] always have to be paid for. Don’t imagine that for years on end you can make yourself the boot-licking [[propaganda|propagandist]] of the [[Soviet]] regime, or any other regime, and then suddenly return to mental decency. Once a whore, always a whore." [http://pages.interlog.com/~girbe/fonda.html]

==Deceit in Religion==
Deceit is prohibited by [[God]] in the [[Ten Commandments]]; [[Revelation]] 21:8 states that all liars will go to [[hell]]. [[Satan]] is described in many [[religion]]s as the Father of Lies.

===Biblical References===
[[Book of Psalms|Psalm]] 119:118
<blockquote>
Thou hast trodden down all them that err from thy statutes: for their deceit is falsehood.
</blockquote>
Psalm 5:6
<blockquote>
Thou shalt destroy them that speak leasing: the LORD will abhor the bloody and deceitful man.
</blockquote>
[[Proverbs]] 26:24
<blockquote>He that hateth dissembleth with his lips, and layeth up deceit within him</blockquote>
Job 27:4
<blockquote>
My lips will not speak wickedness, and my tongue will utter no deceit.
</blockquote>

===Deceit in Buddhism===
In [[Buddhist]] [[morality]], the [[Five Precepts]], which are required to receive as a formal [[oath]] or [[vow]] in order to be a Buddhist (unlike many [[liberal]]s who call themselves Buddhists while ignoring [[morality]]), specifically forbid deceit or [[lie|lying]] in the Fourth Precept which also forbids [[gossip]] or "divisive speech", lewd or lascivious speech ([[profanity]]) and [[anger|harsh speech]].

==See Also==
* [[Abortion deceit]]
* [[Flattery]]
* [[Fraud]]
* [[Previous Breaking News/Liberal deceit|Examples of '''liberal deceit''' from previous "Breaking News" articles]]
* [[Intellectual dishonesty]]
* Michael Reagan, [http://www.townhall.com/columnists/MichaelReagan/2007/10/05/people_of_deceit People of Deceit]
* [http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/27429.html Politically Correct Terrorism] ''The Conservative Voice'', August 21, 2007
* [[List of military strategies and concepts]]
* [[Cherry picking]]
* [[Half-truth]]

==Further reading==
*[http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=22725 People of Deceit], by [[Michael Reagan]], ''Human Events'', 10/05/2007.
*''People of the Lie'', by psychiatrist [[M. Scott Peck]]

== References ==
{{reflist|2}}

{{Liberalism}}
[[Category:Sin]]
[[Category:Deceit]]
[[Category:Liberal Traits]]
[[Category:Political Terms]]
[[Category:Ethics]]
[[Category:Morality]]
[[Category:Military Strategies and Concepts]]

Krakatoa

2015-05-18T21:52:45Z

Darwon: Created page with "'''Krakatoa''' is an island in Indonesia. It is notable for its powerful explosion in 1883, which destroyed most of the island. It is a good example of a [[catastrophism|geologic..."

'''Krakatoa''' is an island in Indonesia. It is notable for its powerful explosion in 1883, which destroyed most of the island. It is a good example of a [[catastrophism|geologically catastrophic]] event.

Lie

2015-05-16T21:35:06Z

Darwon: Ironically, this quote is also a lie. No source is ever given.

A '''lie''' is the deliberate fabrication or misrepresentation of the truth.

==Lie by Omission==
A '''lie by omission''' is a statement in which everything that is said may be factually true, but that is still deceptive because material information is omitted.<ref>[http://www.fedupusa.org/2012/03/lie-by-omission-bernanke/ Lie by Omission (Bernanke)]</ref> For example, if a murderer who stabbed his victim denies his crime by saying he "did not shoot the victim", then this is technically truthful, because he stabbed the victim. However, it implies that he did not kill the victim, which is untrue.

==Lying in Religion==
Lying is prohibited by [[God]] in the [[Ten Commandments]]; [[Revelation]] 21:8 states that all liars will go to [[hell]]. [[Satan]] is described in many [[religion]]s as the Father of Lies.

===Lying in Buddhism===
In [[Buddhist]] [[morality]], the [[Five Precepts]], which are required to receive as a formal [[oath]] or [[vow]] in order to be a Buddhist (unlike many [[liberal]]s who call themselves Buddhists while ignoring [[morality]]), specifically forbid [[deceit|lying]][ in the Fourth Precept which also forbids [[gossip]] or "divisive speech", lewd or lascivious speech ([[profanity]]) and [[anger|harsh speech]].

==See Also==
* [[Cherry picking]]
* [[Deceit]]
* [[Half-truth]]

==References==
<references/>

{{Ten Commandments}}

[[Category:Deceit]]
[[Category:Ethics]]
[[Category:Morality]]

Antimatter

2015-05-16T17:45:54Z

Darwon: /* Artificial Antimatter */

'''Antimatter''' is composed of fundamental particles that have the opposite electric charge and quantum spin as those of matter.

[[Matter]], and therefore everything seen, is made out of fundamental particles of nature. These fundamental particles are hadrons and leptons, the hadrons being further subdivided into baryons and mesons. Hadrons include the proton and neutron and leptons include the electron, [[muon]] and tau as well as the corresponding neutrinos. For simplicity, the overwhelming majority of matter in the universe is comprised of protons, neutrons and electrons. Antimatter is matter formed from antiparticles, which have the same mass but opposite [[charge]] and quantum spin to their corresponding particles. When antimatter is brought into contact with normal matter, both particles are destroyed, resulting in an explosion that is, in terms of mass to explosive power, the most powerful known to mankind.

== Discovery ==

In the late 19 and early 20th century antimatter had been the cause of much speculation within the scientific community, With William Hicks, Karl Pearson and Arthur Schuster discussing the idea. The current theory of antimatter was set down in a paper by [[Paul Dirac]] in 1928, when he realized his version of the schrödinger wave equation for electrons also raised the possibility for the existence of anti-electrons, electrons that had the same mass but opposite charge and spin. Naturally all the other particles of matter would also have their opposites.

The anti-electron was first observed by Dmitri Skobeltsyn in 1929, using a wilson cloud chamber, and again by Chung-Yao Chao in the same year. But they were first discovered (meaning in this case observed and ''labeled'') by Carl Anderson when he separated the electrons from other types of high energy particles present in cosmic rays based on there mass-to-charge ratio. He found some particles with the same ratio as electrons that moved in the opposite direction when under the influence of a magnet. He had found the anti-electron, which he called the positron.

The anti-proton was first discovered in 1955, by physicists Emilio Segrè and Owen Chamberlain. The first anti-neutron was discovered shortly thereafter in 1956, by Bruce Cork.

== Artificial Antimatter ==

Antimatter is made in supercolliders such as the [[Large Hadron Collider]] by smashing beams of highly charged particles together. This results in pair production, the creation of a particle and its antiparticle. One of the aims of modern physics is the creation of larger and more complex forms of antimatter. In 1995 CERN announced that it had produced 9 antihydrogen atoms. Antihelium was created in 2003. Physicists are now working on the creation of 'cooler' antiatoms, as the ones produced so far are more energetic than atoms on the surface of the sun, and this makes them extremely hard to study. Another issue being studied is that of containment: since antimatter explodes on contact with normal matter, it is difficult to hold it for study. Smaller particles are held in place by carefully managed magnetic fields, but the larger antiatoms, being magnetically neutral, are much harder to contain.

== Natural Antimatter ==

Antimatter is naturally produced by both (β+) decay and by high energy collisions between particles. Antimatter makes up a very small percentage of cosmic rays, and is occasionally produced when those rays collide with the earth's atmosphere. Antimatter has also been spotted in the Van Allen belts and forming above thunderstorms.

Potassium 40 will (very) occasionally undergo beta decay, producing an antielectron. As such, the average banana (rich in potassium) will produce a small particle of antimatter every 75 minutes.<ref>http://tertiarysource.net/ts.cgi/anti-banana</ref>

<references/>

[[Category:Physics]]

Talk:Atheist hypocrisy

2015-03-09T22:29:24Z

Darwon: /* Quickness to hate God */

Hey Conservative, I think the page/article could do with a bit better formatting. I think that maybe each of the individual section/areas in which you wrote about Atheist Hypocrisy could/should be a separate section. I also believe having the HERE, HERE and HERE isn't really something that should be in an article as it looks a wee bit unprofessional. Nice article though. In Jesus, PennyS [[User:PennyS|PennyS]] 08:00, 6 August 2013 (EDT)
:Thanks for the input on the formatting. I took your suggestion. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 12:02, 6 August 2013 (EDT)
:: Nice article but I think a new title would suit it better, perhaps atheism and poor lifestyle choices. An obese or sexist atheist is not so much a hypocrite but more of a product of his poor lifestyle as a result of his atheism. What do you think?--[[User:JerryCa|JerryCa]] 15:18, 6 January 2014 (EST)
:::JerryCA, you are incorrect. Atheists often say their ideology is more scientific and that they think more scientifically (see also: [[Scientism]]). Science indicates that excess weight/obesity is unhealthy. Furthermore, science provides best practices for losing weight (low calorie, low fat diet (good omega fats and a proper omega 3 vs. omega 6 diet is healthy) and plenty of exercise.

:::Secondly, the Bible condemns sloth/gluttony, while atheism has no condemnation of these practices within its ideology. Moses, Elijah, Jesus, Mary, Joseph, Peter and Paul - all slim! See also: [[Jesus Christ, the apostles and the Mediterranean diet/Mosaic diet]]. 3 out of 5 of the [[New Atheism|New Atheists]] have had excess weight issues! See: [[Atheism and obesity]]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:26, 9 March 2015 (EDT)

== Quickness to hate God ==

I removed the following section:
:In [[Atheism and debate|debates with atheists]], the popular YouTube video maker [[Shockofgod]] often asks atheists, "Is God evil?". Invariably, so-called atheists quickly say yes. Then Shockofgod informs the "atheist" that they admitted that God exists. Shockofgod also declares that he never heard anyone accuse leprechauns of being evil.
My reasoning, as stated in the edit summary, was "leprechauns aren't evil, but Voldemort is, and he doesn't exist", the point being that something doesn't need to exist for you to describe it. Why, then, was my edit undone?
:Voldemort cannot be evil because he doesn't exist. "Nothing" cannot be evil. The fictional character Voldemort can only be portrayed as evil.

:By the way, if a main justification for your worldview is the [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBrgJoWfq7k "leprechaun objection"], it is time to abandon your worldview. Atheism is madness! [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:05, 8 March 2015 (EDT)
::But if the question is being asked to an atheist, obviously they will answer under their assumption that God does not exist. Their opponent is expected to understand this.
::The point of the leprechaun argument is that the burden of proof lies with the person making the claim. You need to remember that Christianity isn't the only religion in the world. What's so special about ''your'' book saying that your own guy in the cloud is real? This isn't ''proof'' against Christianity, but it does prove that the Bible isn't sufficient evidence for Christianity. In the language of pure mathematics and probability theory, absence of evidence is evidence of absence. Therefore atheism (the ''absence'' of a god) is the default worldview until there is more evidence.
:::"Obviously they will answer under their assumption that God does not exist?" You didn't show it was obvious. See: [[Atheists doubting the validity of atheism]] and [[Denials that atheists exist]]

:::Secondly, I am aware that Christianity isn't the only religion in the world. See: [[Atheism is a religion]]. However, unlike the religion of atheism which has a total lack of proof and evidence that it is true, Christianity has an abundance of proof and evidence that it is true. See: [[Christian apologetics websites|Evidence for Christianity]].

:::Thirdly, using the definition of atheism that encyclopedias of philosophy use for the word atheism (see: [[Attempts to dilute the definition of atheism]]), please provide us proof and evidence that atheism is true.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:39, 8 March 2015 (EDT)
::::Religious people can doubt their faith, but I wouldn't call them atheists. Why would an atheist doubting atheism make them not an atheist?
::::Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. What's the '''best''' evidence you have? If your evidence is less than extraordinary, then the lack of extraordinary evidence is evidence for atheism. [[User:Darwon|Darwon]] 18:29, 9 March 2015 (EDT)

Talk:Atheist hypocrisy

2015-03-08T21:40:59Z

Darwon: /* Quickness to hate God */

Talk:Atheist hypocrisy

2015-03-08T17:30:01Z

Darwon: /* Quickness to hate God */ new section

Atheist hypocrisy

2015-03-08T14:35:45Z

Darwon: /* Quickness to hate God */ leprechauns aren't evil, but Voldemort is, and he doesn't exist.

[[File:Atheist hypocrisy.jpg|thumbnail|right|320px|A popular graphic used to illustrate atheist [[hypocrisy]].]]
There are a number of areas where [[Atheism|atheists]] are [[hypocrisy|hypocritical]]. Below are some of those areas.

== Atheism and morality ==
[[Image:115523-004-FA619CA3.jpg|thumb|right|251px| The perverse and cruel atheist [[Marquis de Sade]] in prison, 18th century line engraving.]]
''See also:'' [[Atheism and morality]] and [[Moral failures of the atheist community|List of the moral failures of the atheist community]]

Atheists will bring up the misdeeds of the adherents of other worldviews, despite the fact that atheists have been the biggest mass murders in history (see: [[Atheism and mass murder]]). In addition, there is a large list of atheist moral failures which the atheist community has not addressed (see: [[Moral failures of the atheist community]]).

Also, atheism provides no basis for objective moral standards (see: [[Atheism and morality]]).<ref>
*[http://www.paulcopan.com/articles/pdf/God-naturalism-morality.pdf God, Naturalism, and the Foundations of Morality] by
Paul Copan
*[http://www.bethinking.org/morality/can-moral-objectivism-do-without-god Can Moral Objectivism Do Without God?] by Peter S. Williams
*[http://www.equip.org/articles/atheists-and-the-quest-for-objective-morality/ Atheists and the Quest for Objective Morality] by Chad Meister
*[http://carm.org/failure-of-atheism-to-account-for-morality The failure of atheism to account for morality]</ref>

=== University of Kentucky study by Will M. Gervais helps demonstrate atheist hypocrisy about being good without God ===

The American Humanist Association has the motto "Good without a God" and other atheists promote this same errant notion. Yet, many atheists know they are not good and they all know their fellow atheists are not good also.

For example, in 2014, a University of Kentucky study was published by Will M. Gervais, which was entitled ''Everything Is Permitted? People Intuitively Judge Immorality as Representative of Atheists'', and the study indicated that "even atheist participants viewed immorality as significantly more representative of atheists than of other people."<ref>[''Everything Is Permitted? People Intuitively Judge Immorality as Representative of Atheists''], Will M. Gervais, Journal: PlOS ONE, Published: April 09, 2014, DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.009230</ref>

=== Jesus and the Bible on human nature ===

[[Jesus Christ]] and the [[Old Testament]] prophets taught that human nature is evil. Jesus said, "If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your heavenly Father give the [[Holy Spirit]] to those who ask Him?" (Luke 11: 13). The prophet [[Jeremiah]] said, "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?" (Jeremiah 17:9). In addition, [[Jesus Christ]] and the Bible teach that men are in need of redemption and the power of God to reform. See: [http://www.openbible.info/topics/redemption Bible verses about redemption] and [http://www.openbible.info/topics/transformation Bible verses on transformation].

Human [[history]] with its many injustices and atrocities shows that the testimony of Jesus and the Old Testament prophets is true concerning the wickedness of mankind. In addition, when the Christian evangelist [[Ray Comfort]] asks atheists if they have ever lied, hated another person, stolen, lusted after the opposite sex and engaged in other immoralities, they invariably indicate they have done these things and still commit various acts of immorality.<ref>[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2iYHEgrdD-Y Ray Comfort Debates an Atheist]</ref> If person [[repentance|repents]] of their sins, accepts Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior, God regenerates them and their enslavement to sin is broken (see: [http://creation.com/good-news Good news])<ref>[http://carm.org/questions/about-doctrine/if-we-accept-jesus-savior-can-we-then-sin-all-we-want If we accept Jesus as Savior, can we then sin all we want?] by [[CARM]]</ref>

Furthermore, there are preliminary studies which indicate that ex-Christians tend to feel worse about themselves and not better (See: [[Atheism and self-esteem]]).<ref>http://atheistwatch.blogspot.com/2010/10/rejection-of-christianity-and-self.html</ref><ref>http://atheistwatch.blogspot.com/2010/10/atheists-and-self-esteem-part-2.html</ref> There are also studies indicating that lower self-esteem is associated with suicidality.<ref>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21190929</ref><ref>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20602903</ref>
Atheists have [[Atheism and suicide|higher rates of suicide than the general population.]]<ref>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20602903</ref><ref>http://www.adherents.com/misc/religion_suicide.html</ref><ref>http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/abstract/161/12/2303</ref> At the same time, there is a significant portion of the atheist population who suffer from excess self-esteem/[[pride]] issues (see: [[Atheism and arrogance]] and [[Causes of atheism]]).

=== Richard Carrier, adultery, divorce, polyamory and being good without God ===
[[File:Richard Carrier.jpg|thumbnail|200px|right|[[Richard Carrier]] ]]
[[Richard Carrier]] is an advocate of [[Naturalism (philosophy)|metaphysical naturalism]]. He wrote a book entitled ''Sense and Goodness without [[God]]''.

He is a prominent [[atheist]] in the [[Atheist Population|atheist community]] in the [[US]]. Carrier, who has a doctorate in history, asserts that one can be good without God despite the fact that atheist regimes have been the [[Atheism and Mass Murder|biggest mass murders in history]]

Richard Carrier divorced his wife and now practices [[polyamory]].<ref>[http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/6737 Coming Out Poly + A Change of Life Venue]</ref> Before divorcing his wife, he was involved in adulterous affairs.<ref>[http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/6737 Coming Out Poly + A Change of Life Venue]</ref>

The Christtian apologist Jason Engwar at the Christian blog Triablogue wrote:
{{cquote|Richard Carrier has [http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/6737 a post up announcing that he's "polyamorous"], which he calls his "sexual orientation". He's been adulterous in his relationship with his wife, and they decided to get a divorce after having tried [[polyamory]] for a while. In the thread, he refers to how he has "sympathy for people who cheat on their spouses", how he's come across "many" polyamorists, and how he's become more convinced that "monogamy is the actual problem". So far, most of the responses at his blog are positive.<ref>[http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2015/02/atheism-adultery-polyamory-and-shifting.html Atheism, Adultery, Polyamory, And Shifting Morals]</ref>}}

See also:

*[[Atheism, polyamory and other immoral relationships]]

* [[Atheist marriages]]

* [[Atheism and marriage]]

== Atheism and the treatment of women ==

Most atheists in the Western World are [[leftist]]s (see: [[Atheism and politics]]). Leftists commonly advocate [[feminism]].

=== Deplorable treatment of many Muslim women decried. High amount of domestic abuse by the irreligious ===
[[File:Ayaan-Hirsi-Ali.JPG|thumbnail|right|130px|[[Ayaan Hirsi Ali]] ]]
In recent times, atheists have put in a lot of effort and focus into decrying the deplorable treatment of many [[Islam|Muslim]] women by Muslim men, yet the same degree of attention about the high amount of physical abuse atheist women endure at the hands of atheist men via domestic abuse and the other forms of abuse is not given nearly the same amount of import by many in the atheist community. See: [[Irreligion and domestic violence]] and [[Secular Europe and domestic violence]] and [[Atheism and women]] and [[Elevatorgate]]

For example, [[Ayaan Hirsi Ali]] was chosen to be the keynote speaker of the [[American Atheists]] convention in 2014 and in 2005 the secular left leaning ''Time'' magazine named her one of the most 100 influential people in the world.<ref>
*[http://atheists.org/convention2015 2015 American Atheists National Convention]
*[http://wwsg.com/ayaan-hirsi-ali Ayaan Hirsi Ali - Time magazine's 100 most influential people in the world]</ref> Yet, the women who point out misogyny in [[Western World]] atheism receive torrents of abuse (see: [[Atheism and women]]) and are not highly lauded by the atheist community to nearly the same degree.

==== Irreligion and domestic abuse ====
''See also:'' [[Irreligion and domestic violence]]

The abstract for the 2007 article in the journal ''Violence Against Women'' entitled ''Race/Ethnicity, Religious Involvement, and Domestic Violence'' indicated:
{{cquote|The authors explored the relationship between religious involvement and intimate partner violence by analyzing data from the first wave of the National Survey of Families and Households. They found that: (a) religious involvement is correlated with reduced levels of domestic violence; (b) levels of domestic violence vary by race/ethnicity; (c) the effects of religious involvement on domestic violence vary by race/ethnicity; and (d) religious involvement, specifically church attendance, protects against domestic violence, and this protective effect is stronger for African American men and women and for Hispanic men, groups that, for a variety of reasons, experience elevated risk for this type of violence.<ref>doi: 10.1177/1077801207308259 [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17951587 ''Violence Against Women'', ''Race/Ethnicity, Religious Involvement, and Domestic Violence''], November 2007 vol. 13 no. 11 1094-1112</ref>}}

A higher rate of domestic violence exists among cohabiting couples as compared with married couples<ref>[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16579211 Demography. 2006 Feb;43(1):127-40. Why are cohabiting relationships more violent than marriages?. Kenney CT1, McLanahan SS.]</ref> Atheists have lower marriage rates than [[theism|theists]] (see: [[Atheism and marriage]]).

A September 9, 2012 article at ''Atlantic Wire'' wrote about the noted atheist [[John Lennon]]:
{{cquote|But people have mostly forgotten that Lennon was also physically abusive towards women. "I used to be cruel to my woman," he said, citing the lyrics to "Getting Better" in a Playboy interview near the end of his life. "Physically—any woman. I was a hitter. I couldn't express myself and I hit. I fought men and I hit women." In his biography The Lives of John Lennon, Albert Goldman also maintains that Lennon was guilty of spousal abuse.<ref>[http://www.theatlanticwire.com/entertainment/2012/09/john-lennon-and-chris-brown-have-something-common/57040/ John Lennon and Chris Brown Have Something in Common]</ref>}}

For more information, please see: [[Irreligion and domestic violence]]

==== Secular Europe and domestic violence ====

''See also:'' [[Secular Europe and domestic violence]]

[[File:Flag of Sweden.png|thumbnail|280px|right|Sweden is one of the most atheistic countries in the world.<ref>[http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_atheist.html Top 50 Countries With Highest Proportion of Atheists / Agnostics(Zuckerman, 2005)]</ref> In Sweden, 81 percent of women said they had been harassed at some point after the age of 15 - compared to the EU average of 55 percent.<ref>[http://www.thelocal.se/20140305/sweden-out-top-in-eu-domestic-violence-league Sweden stands out in domestic violence study] Published: 05 Mar 2014 08:3</ref>]]

In March of 2014, the [[Sweden|Swedish]] news website ''The Local'' published an article entitled ''Sweden stands out in domestic violence study'' which declared:
{{cquote|A new EU review of violence against women has revealed that one in three European women has been assaulted, and one in twenty has been raped, with the Scandinavian countries at the top of the league tables.

In the Scandinavian countries, in contrast, around half of the women reported physical or sexual violence, which researchers at the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights said could have several explanations...

In Sweden, 81 percent of women said they had been harassed at some point after the age of 15 - compared to the EU average of 55 percent. After Sweden, which had the highest rate, Denmark, France, the Netherland and Finland all saw rates above 70 percent. The EU member state with the lowest rate - 24 percent - was Bulgaria.<ref>[http://www.thelocal.se/20140305/sweden-out-top-in-eu-domestic-violence-league Sweden stands out in domestic violence study] Published: 05 Mar 2014 08:3</ref>}}

[[Sweden]] is one of the most atheistic countries in the world and the website adherents.com reported that in 2005 46 - 85% of Swedes were agnostics/atheists/non-believers in God.<ref>[http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_atheist.html Top 50 Countries With Highest Proportion of Atheists / Agnostics(Zuckerman, 2005)]</ref> Sweden also has the 3rd highest rate of belief in evolution as far as [[Western World]] nations.<ref>[http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/bigphotos/21329204.html Photo: Evolution Less Accepted in U.S. Than Other Western Countries, Study Finds]</ref>

See also: [[Sexual immorality and Sweden]]

For more information, please see: [[Irreligion and domestic violence]]

=== Most prominent atheist leaders are men ===

The leadership of the [[New Atheism]] movement consists solely of white males. Furthermore, atheist leadership in the West is predominately made up of men who have poor leadership skills (See: [[Atheism and women]] and [[Atheism and leadership]]}.<ref>[http://www.salon.com/2013/07/29/five_reasons_there_arent_more_women_in_atheism/ 5 reasons there aren't more women in atheism - Salon]</ref>

[[File:Richard Dawkins pic.jpg|alt=Richard Dawkins|thumbnail|[[Richard Dawkins]] ]]
In 2011, Beliefnetnews reported concerning the race and gender of American atheists:
{{cquote|From the smallest local meetings to the largest conferences, the vast majority of speakers and attendees are almost always white men. Leading figures of the atheist movement - [[Richard Dawkins]], [[Sam Harris]], [[Christopher Hitchens]] and [[Daniel Dennett]] -- are all white men.

But making atheism more diverse is proving to be no easy task.

Surveys suggest most atheists are white men. A recent survey of 4,000 members of the Freedom from Religion Foundation found that 95 percent were white, and men comprised a majority.<ref>http://blog.beliefnet.com/news/2011/01/atheists-diversity-woes-have-n.php</ref>}}

=== Elevatorgate and rape threats ===

[[Elevatorgate]] is a term commonly used to describe a scandal involving [[Atheism|atheist]] [[Richard Dawkins]]' inappropriate comments made to fellow atheist [[Rebecca Watson]]. In July of 2011, Richard Dawkins was widely criticized within the atheist community and in various press outlets for his insensitive comments made to atheist Rebecca Watson about an incident which occurred in an elevator (see: [[Richard Dawkins' Elevatorgate comments]]).<ref>
*[http://www.salon.com/life/feature/2011/07/08/atheist_flirting Richard Dawkins: Skeptic of women? - Salon, July 8, 2011]
*[http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david-allen-green/2011/07/richard-dawkins-chewing-gum Sharing a lift with Richard Dawkins by David Allen Green - New Stateman - 06 July 2011]
*[http://gawker.com/5818993/richard-dawkins-torn-limb-from-limbby-atheists Richard Dawkins Torn Limb From Limb—By Atheists - Gawker]
*[http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/story/2011-09-15/atheist-sexism-women/50416454/1 Atheists address sexism issues - USA Today]</ref> Specifically, Watson was invited for coffee and a conversation late at night by a man who was a fellow atheist. Watson was upset by this and subsequently blogged about it. Following this, Richard Dawkins wrote an open letter to a fictitious Muslim woman, satirically equating Rebecca's plight with that of abused Muslim women. Watson has written about perceived widespread [[misogny]] within the atheist community and she has received threats of rape (see also: [[Atheism and women]] and [[Atheism and rape]]).<ref>[http://skepchick.org/2011/07/the-privilege-delusion/ The Privilege Delusion by Rebecca Watson - Skepchick]</ref>.
[[File:Rebecca-watson.jpg|thumbnail|200px|Atheist [[Rebecca Watson]]
 
 
(photo obtained from [http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Rebecca_watson_geek.jpg Wikimedia commons], see: [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/deed.en license agreement])]]
Post Elevatorgate controversy, at an atheist convention, [[Rebecca Watson]] claimed:
{{cquote|Hundreds of atheists have informed me that either they wanted to rape me, someone should rape me so that I will loosen up or that no one would ever rape me because I am so ugly".<ref>[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o1mLHdTsmPc PZ Myers and the Art of Shameless Dishonesty]</ref>}}

In July of 2012, Watson declared: "It get regular rape threats. I get regular rape and murder threats".<ref>[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=96FtpDLi_Vw FreeThoughtBlogs and PZ Myers]</ref> Furthermore, in August of 2013, [[Rebecca Watson]] said that post [[Elevatorgate]] she received a flood of rape threats and she continues to receive rape threats (see: [[Atheism and rape]]).<ref>[http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2013/08/06/sikivu-ophelia-and-rebecca-who-says-atheism-lacks-women-stars/ Sikivu, Ophelia, and Rebecca — who says atheism lacks women stars?]</ref>

According to Rebecca Watson atheist women are often punished for being outspoken - particularly when they speak about [[feminism]].<ref>[http://live.huffingtonpost.com/r/segment/women-are-afraid-of-atheism/51fae2acfe344467f2000596 Calling All Female Atheists - Huffington Post - video]</ref> In August of 2013, Watson said the harassment she received from male atheists skyrocketed after Elevatorgate. <ref>[http://live.huffingtonpost.com/r/segment/women-are-afraid-of-atheism/51fae2acfe344467f2000596 Calling All Female Atheists - Huffington Post - video]</ref> Furthermore, she said she still receives harassment from male fans of Richard Dawkins.<ref>[http://live.huffingtonpost.com/r/segment/women-are-afraid-of-atheism/51fae2acfe344467f2000596 Calling All Female Atheists - Huffington Post - video]</ref> The atheist feminist Dr. Sikivu Hutchinson concurs with Watson and says that sexual harassment has been institutionalized within the atheist movement and that atheist men have an investment in censoring, controlling and policing women and also have an investment in "male privilege".<ref>[http://live.huffingtonpost.com/r/segment/women-are-afraid-of-atheism/51fae2acfe344467f2000596 Calling All Female Atheists - Huffington Post - video]</ref>

=== New Statesman reporter and skeptic David Allen said Richard Dawkins is a misoginist ===

The ''New Statesman'' reporter and fellow [[Philosophical skepticism|skeptic]] [[David Allen Green]] said he believed Dawkins was a [[sexism|mysoginist]] and a racist.<ref>[http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david-allen-green/2011/07/richard-dawkins-chewing-gum Sharing a lift with Richard Dawkins by David Allen Green - New Stateman - 06 July 2011]</ref> In addition, Green wrote: "Can Richard Dawkins still credibly pose as a champion of rational thinking and an evidence-based approach? In my opinion, he certainly cannot, at least not in the way he did before."<ref>[http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david-allen-green/2011/07/richard-dawkins-chewing-gum Sharing a lift with Richard Dawkins by David Allen Green - New Stateman - 06 July 2011]</ref>

== Western atheism and race ==
[[File:PZ Myers3.jpg|thumbnail|right|285px|The [[atheism|atheist]] and [[evolution|evolutionist]] [[PZ Myers]] giving a presentation to a group that is likely largely made up of white males.<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/16/us/16beliefs.html?_r=1</ref><ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/Racial_demographics_of_the_Richard_Dawkins%27_audience</ref><ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism_appears_to_be_significantly_less_appealing_to_women</ref> In June of 2010, [[PZ Myers]] commented that atheist meetings tend to be significantly more attended by males.<ref>http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/06/the_woman_problem.php</ref>
 
 
(photo obtained from [http://www.flickr.com/photos/22427429@N00/3019515778/ Flickr], see: [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/deed.en license agreement])]]
''See also:'' [[Western atheism and race]]

In 2011, Beliefnetnews reported concerning the race and gender of American atheists:
{{cquote|From the smallest local meetings to the largest conferences, the vast majority of speakers and attendees are almost always white men. Leading figures of the atheist movement - [[Richard Dawkins]], [[Sam Harris]], [[Christopher Hitchens]] and [[Daniel Dennett]] -- are all white men.

But making atheism more diverse is proving to be no easy task.

Surveys suggest most atheists are white men. A recent survey of 4,000 members of the Freedom from Religion Foundation found that 95 percent were white, and men comprised a majority.<ref>http://blog.beliefnet.com/news/2011/01/atheists-diversity-woes-have-n.php</ref>}}

Secular leftists in the West often decry [[racism]], yet the atheist leadership is made up predominantly of white males and racial minorities are underreprentated in atheist community in the Western World (see: [[Western atheism and race]]).

In addition, since WWII atheists/agnostics have been the most vocal proponents of Darwinism.<ref>
* Dr. Don Batten, [http://creation.com/a-whos-who-of-evolutionists A ''Who’s Who'' of evolutionists] ''Creation'' 20(1):32, December 1997.
* [[Jonathan Sarfati]], Ph.D.,F.M., [http://www.creation.com/content/view/3830 ''Refuting Evolution'', Chapter 1, Facts and Bias]
</ref> [[Evolutionary racism]] may partly explain the lack of atheists in minority populations in the West (see: [[Western atheism and race]]).

== Atheism and the sexual abuse of children ==

See also: [[Atheism and child pornography]]

Throughout the 1970s and 1980s, the American [[Roman Catholic Church|Roman Catholic]] bishops and the Vatican had noted a growing problem with clerical sexual abuse of children in the U.S. which involved minors/children.<ref>http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=26940</ref> In addition, Ireland and other European countries have experienced problems relating to instances of Roman Catholic priests sexually abusing children.<ref>http://australianconservative.com/2010/04/preparing-for-richard-dawkins%E2%80%99-crocodile-tears/</ref><ref>http://www.daily49er.com/opinion/our-view-catholic-church-needs-administrative-reform-1.2200659</ref> See also: [http://www.conservapedia.com/Homosexuality_and_pederasty#Roman_Catholic_Church.2C_Homosexuality_and_pederasty Roman Catholic Church, homosexuality and pederasty]

Prominent atheists and other atheists/agnostics frequently bring up this Roman Catholic church scandal.<ref>[http://www.ew.com/article/2010/03/27/bill-maher-hitchens-pope-child-abuse Bill Maher and Christopher Hitchens 'gloat' about Catholic Church child-abuse scandals] by Ken Tucker at ''Entertainment Weekly''</ref><ref>http://australianconservative.com/2010/04/preparing-for-richard-dawkins%E2%80%99-crocodile-tears/</ref><ref>[http://bigthink.com/daylight-atheism/todays-reasons-to-quit-the-catholic-church Today's Reasons to Quit the Catholic Church by the atheist Adam Lee</ref><ref>[http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2013/06/critic-of-sexual-abuse-forced-to-resign-for-sexual-messages Atheist Who Blamed Faith for Sexual Abuse Forced to Resign for Sexual Messages] by Matthew Schmitz, posted 6-13-2013</ref>

Yet, historically the atheist population has had a significant problem when it comes to the sexual abuse of children (see: [[Atheism and child pornography]]).

In addition, atheists have been prominently involved in the sexual exploitation of women via pornography (see: [[Atheism and pornography]]).

=== Atheistic Denmark and child pornography ===

See also: [[Atheistic Denmark and child pornography]]

[[File:Flag of Denmark.png|right|200px|thumbnail|[[Denmark]] is the third most atheistic country in the world and the website adherents.com reports that 43 - 80% of Danes are [[agnosticism|agnostics]]/atheists/non-believers in God.<ref>[http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_atheist.html Top 50 Countries With Highest Proportion of Atheists / Agnostics(Zuckerman, 2005)]</ref>
 
The child pornography material produced in [[Denmark]] (and Holland) still constitutes the largest part of child pornography that is currently available, having been transferred into digital format and uploaded onto the internet.<ref>''Child Pornography and Sexual Grooming: Legal and Societal Responses'' by Suzanne Ost, Cambridge University Press, 2009</ref>]]

In 2005, [[Denmark]] was ranked the third most atheistic country in the world and the website adherents.com reported that in 2005 43 - 80% of Danes are [[agnosticism|agnostics]]/atheists/non-believers in God.<ref>[http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_atheist.html Top 50 Countries With Highest Proportion of Atheists / Agnostics(Zuckerman, 2005)]</ref> Denmark has the highest rate of belief in [[evolution]] in the [[Western World]].<ref>[http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/bigphotos/21329204.html Photo: Evolution Less Accepted in U.S. Than Other Western Countries, Study Finds]</ref>

The 2003 book entitled ''Overcoming Violence Against Women and Girls: The International Campaign to Eradicate a Worldwide Problem '' written by authors Rahel Nardos; Mary K. Radpour; William S. Hatcher and Michael L. Penn, declared:
{{cquote|The largest source of commercial child pornography is Denmark. Denmark became the world's leading producer of child pornography when, in 1969, it removed all restrictions on the production and sale of any type of pornographic material. "The result," notes Tim Tate, "was a short-lived explosion in adult pornography, and the birth of commercial child pornography. In his work, Tate links the global spread of child pornography to two men: Willy Strauss, founder of Bambina Sex, the world's first child-pornography magazine, founded in 1971; and Peter Theander, founder of Colour Climax Corporation and the producer of a short, professionally made pornographic film series entitled Lolita. Lolita depicts the sexual abuse of prepubescent boys and girls. Although Danish law at the time rendered the work of Strauss and Theander legal, by 1979 when Denmark finally banned the production and sale of child pornography it had already become such a financial success on the international market that it has proven to be nearly impossible to bring its spread under control.<ref>''Overcoming Violence Against Women and Girls: The International Campaign to Eradicate a Worldwide Problem '' written by authors Rahel Nardos; Mary K. Radpour; William S. Hatcher and Michael L. Penn, page 59, 2003, page 29.</ref>}}

Suzanne Ost, in her 2009 book ''Child Pornography and Sexual Grooming: Legal and Societal Responses'' published by Cambridge University Press, wrote about the child pornography created by Denmark/Holland during this period:
{{cquote|Taylor and Quayle note that the material produced during this period still constitutes the largest part of child pornography that is currently available, having been transferred into digital format and uploaded onto the internet.<ref>''Child Pornography and Sexual Grooming: Legal and Societal Responses'' by Suzanne Ost, Cambridge University Press, 2009</ref>}}

=== Other atheistic countries, child pornography/prostitution and miscellaneous ===

*[[Netherlands and child pornography]]

*[[Atheistic Japan and child pornography]]

*[[Atheistic Czech Republic and child pornography]]

*[[Atheistic Sweden and child pornography]]

*[[Atheistic Thailand and child prostitution]]

*[[Atheism, pederasty and NAMBLA]]

=== Atheist professor brought up on sex charges after criticizing the Roman Catholic church ===

In 2013, the website ''First Things'' featured an article about the noted atheist philosopher Colin McGinn who blamed religious faith for sexual abuse and was later forced to resign his professorship due to sexual messages sent to a student.<ref>[http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2013/06/critic-of-sexual-abuse-forced-to-resign-for-sexual-messages Atheist Who Blamed Faith for Sexual Abuse Forced to Resign for Sexual Messages] by Matthew Schmitz, posted 6-13-2013</ref> See also: [[Professor values|Academia and moral values]]

=== New Atheist Richard Dawkins on child molestation and so called "gentle pedophiles" ===

''See also:'' [[Richard Dawkins on child molestation and so called "gentle pedophiles"]]

In 2010, the ''Australian Conservative'' published an article by Ben-Peter Terpstra entitled ''Preparing for [[Richard Dawkins]]’ crocodile tears'' which charges that Richard Dawkins exhibits selective outrage on the issue of child molestation. <ref>http://australianconservative.com/2010/04/preparing-for-richard-dawkins%E2%80%99-crocodile-tears/</ref> In the article Terpstra cites Bendan Oneill who wrote:
{{cquote|The [[New Atheism|New Atheist]] campaign to have Pope Benedict XVI arrested when he visits Britain later this year exposes the deeply disturbing, authoritarian and even Inquisitorial side to today’s campaigning secularism...

In 2006, Dawkins criticised ‘hysteria about paedophilia’ and said that, even though he was the victim of sexual abuse at boarding school, he would defend his abusive former teachers if ‘50 years on they had been hounded by vigilantes or lawyers as no better than child murderers’. Yet now he wants to put abusive priests on a par with genocidaires.<ref>http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/article/8526/</ref>}}

Ben-Peter Terpstra writes: "In all truth, Britain’s clean-shaven atheists aren’t serious about children’s rights, or they’d be launching venomous attacks against the [[United Nations]], in light of their more recent sex abuse scandals."<ref>http://australianconservative.com/2010/04/preparing-for-richard-dawkins%E2%80%99-crocodile-tears/</ref>

== Atheism, leftism and social justice ==

Historically, the [[secular left]] has been dominant within the atheist community (see: [[Atheism and politics]]). Yet, the atheist/evolutionist community gives less to charity per capita than Christians even when church giving is not counted (see: [[Atheism and charity|Atheism and uncharitableness]]).

Also, atheists rarely focuses on the issue of [[social Darwinism]] in their communities past and often takes offense when biblical [[creationism|creationists]] bring this matter up.<ref>[http://creation.com/herbert-spencer Herbert Spencer and social Darwinism]</ref><ref>[http://creation.com/darwinism-and-world-war-one Darwinism and World War I]</ref>

== Evidential standards ==

''See also:'' [[Atheism and irrationality]]

Atheists demand proof and evidence for other worldviews, yet there is [[Attempts to dilute the definition of atheism|no proof and evidence]] that atheism is true. Also, despite the abundant [[Christian apologetics|evidence for Christianity]] and the lack of proof and evidence for atheism, atheist reject the truth of [[Christianity]]. Atheists refuse to go where the evidence clearly leads.

In addition, when atheist make claims related to [[Naturalism (philosophy)|naturalism]], make personal claims or make accusations against [[theism|theists]], they often employ lax evidential standards instead of employing rigorous evidential standards.

=== Atheist community requested to provide proof and evidence that atheism is true ===
[[File:Zero scale.jpg|thumbnail|right|200px|The popular YouTube Christian [[Shockofgod]] asked for proof and evidence that atheism is true. When atheism is weighed on the proof and evidence scale, it lacks evidential weight that it is a valid worldview. [[Christian apologetics website resources|Unlike Christianity]], there is no proof and evidence that atheism is true.]]
The popular Christian [[YouTube]] Christian [[Shockofgod]] likened atheism to a clown due to its hypocritical and foolish evidential standards.<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjS__cWr0Y0</ref> Shockofgod repeatedly asked the YouTube atheist community, "What proof and evidence do you have that atheism is accurate and correct?".

The YouTube atheist community became flustered and upset by his question.<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjS__cWr0Y0</ref> Shockofgod declared concerning their reaction to his question: "The hostility I am getting over this question is unbelievable...It's like..picture this...Atheism is a clown and it didn't know it. And then I got the clown and I walked it over...I forced it to look itself in the mirror. And it sees itself in all its red hair, big nose, big shoes, polka dot glory."<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjS__cWr0Y0</ref>

=== Atheism and extraordinary claims ===

Western Atheists often claim that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", yet they have no proof and evidence that the extraordinary claim of non-life becoming the first life solely through natural processes is true (See: [[Origin of life]]).<ref>[http://carm.org/extraordinary-claims-require-extraordinary-evidence Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence]</ref><ref>[http://theosophical.wordpress.com/2011/05/17/2830/ Do Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence?]</ref><ref>[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bRvJ-4WmJwk William Lane Craig debunks the atheist's "Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence?]</ref>

== Atheists and the denial that Jesus existed ==
[[Image:David Christ on the Cross.jpg|right|150px|thumb|[[Jesus Christ|Christ]] on the Cross by [[Jacques Louis David]].]]
''See also:'' [[Historicity of Jesus]] and [[Atheists and historical illiteracy]]

Despite their being an abundance of historical evidence for [[Jesus Christ]] living in the first century, many atheists embarrassingly claim the Jesus never existed (see: [[Historicity of Jesus]]).

In an article entitled ''Scholarly opinions on the Jesus Myth'', Christopher Price wrote concerning individuals who insist that Jesus Christ was merely a mythical figure:
{{cquote|I have often been asked why more academics do not take the time to respond to the Jesus Myth theory. After looking into this question, I discovered that most historians and New Testament scholars relevant to the topic have concluded that Jesus Mythers are beyond reason and therefore decide that they have better things to do with their time.<ref>[http://www.bede.org.uk/price1.htm ''Scholarly opinions on the Jesus Myth'' by Christopher Price</ref>}}

=== Atheists and selective use of academic consensus ===

An irony of atheists asserting that Jesus never existed is that atheists often appeal to the academic consensus when it comes to pseudoscience such [[evolution]]. And [[secular left|secular leftists]] often appeal to the academic consensus when engaging in [[global warming]] alarmism.

==== John Lennox's discussion with New Atheist Richard Dawkins about the historicity of Christ ====

[[John Lennox]] pointed out to [[New Atheism|New Atheist]] [[Richard Dawkins]] that Dawkins claimed in his book ''The God Delusion'' that Jesus may have never existed and that Dawkins errantly claimed that ancient historians have some disagreement on whether Jesus existed or not. After some additional discussion with Dawkins, Dawkins conceded that Jesus existed and said, "I take that back. Jesus existed".<ref>[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ant5HS01tBQ Richard Dawkins admits Jesus existed]</ref>

== Freethinker moniker ==
[[File:Freethinkers.jpg|thumbnail|270px|right|Dr. [[Jonathan Sarfati]] is a staff member of [[Creation Ministries International]]. ]]
''See also:'' [[Atheism and irrationality]] and [[Atheism and arrogance]] and [[Rebuttals to atheist arguments]]

[[Freethought|Freethinker]] moniker - Atheists go by the self-gratulatory moniker of freethinker. Yet, [[militant atheism|militant atheists]] commonly have stifled the free speech [[theism|theists]] whenever they have had the power to do so - especially the free speech of [[Christianity|Christians]] (See: [[Militant atheism]] and [[Atheism and communism]] and [[Suppression of alternatives to evolution]] and [[Atheist bullying]]).

[[Dinesh D'Souza]] has pointed out that atheists have focused considerable efforts on the public schools in order to indoctrinate young people into atheistic beliefs.<ref>[http://townhall.com/columnists/dineshdsouza/2007/10/22/the_atheist_indoctrination_project/page/full The atheist indoctrination project]</ref> In addition, [[Judaism|Jewish]] columnist [[Dennis Prager]] has stated that a [[Causes of atheism|causal factor of atheism]] is the "secular indoctrination of a generation."<ref>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?pageId=43734</ref> Prager stated that "From elementary school through graduate school, only one way of looking at the world – the secular – is presented. The typical individual in the [[Western World|Western world]] receives as secular an indoctrination as the typical European received a religious one in the [[Middle Ages]]." <ref>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?pageId=4373</ref> Also, in [[communism|communist]] countries (such as the former [[Soviet Union]]) atheistic indoctrination occurred in the educational system through such venues as schools, atheist museums, and clubs.<ref>[http://books.google.com/books?id=BGJtDwJ7aPwC&pg=PA325&lpg=PA325&dq=atheistic+upbringing+and+atheism&source=bl&ots=eQlq1dZfMj&sig=Xm__18YZpV5L0O8VVzgAc9YiSCc&hl=en&ei=yOy1S76CGcWAlAedg5FR&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CBIQ6AEwBDgK#v=onepage&q=atheistic%20upbringing%20and%20atheism&f=false Marxist-Leninist 'Scientific Atheism' and the Study of Religion and Atheism By James Thrower, page 325]</ref><ref>[http://www.lituanus.org/1963/63_1_01.htm Communism's Struggle with Religion in Lithuania]</ref> Atheistic communist countries are known to be among the most repressive countries in the world.

In addition, atheist Darwinists actively censor more accurate explanations of origins (see: [[Suppression of alternatives to evolution]]) in order to keep their false [[pseudoscience]] from being more actively rebutted in the public square.

== Humanist moniker ==

The American Humanist Association defines [[humanism]] thusly: "Humanism is a progressive lifestance that, without supernaturalism, affirms our ability and responsibility to lead meaningful, ethical lives capable of adding to the greater good of humanity."<ref>[http://americanhumanist.org/Humanism/Definitions_of_Humanism Definition of humanism], American Humanist Assocation</ref> The American Humanist Association's slogan is "Good without God".<ref>[http://americanhumanist.org/Humanism/Definitions_of_Humanism Definition of humanism], American Humanist Assocation</ref>

In 2011, the atheist [[PZ Myers]] won the International Humanist Award from the International Humanist and Ethical Union.<ref name=IHEU>{{cite web|title=IHEU Awards for 2011|url=http://iheu.org/story/iheu-awards-2011|publisher=Internation Humanist and Ethical Union|accessdate=16 August 2013}}</ref> Prior to that in 2009, Myers won the Humanist of the Year award from the American Humanist Association.<ref>[http://americanhumanist.org/AHA/Humanists_of_the_Year American Humanist Association: Humanist of the year]. American Humanist Association.</ref>

In 2008, Myers rejoiced at the death of a Brazilian Roman Catholic priest who died a premature accidental death and then Myers fantasized about personally killing other priests.<ref>[http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2014/08/13/p-z-myers-is-surprise-unmoved-by-suicide-of-wealthy-white-robin-williams/ P.Z. Myers is (Surprise!) Unmoved By Suicide of “Wealthy White” Robin Williams], Friendly Atheist blog</ref><ref>[http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/04/21/it-must-have-been-an-act-of-go/ It must have been an act of god], Posted by PZ Myers on April 21, 2008</ref>

== Atheism, medicine and health ==

Atheist often champion mainstream medicine and disparage [[osteopathy]], [[integrative medicine]], [[chiropractic]] healthcare and other [[alternative medicine]] approaches.<ref>[http://atheism.about.com/b/2006/08/08/medicine-vs-quackery.htm Medicine vs. quackery by Atheist Austin Cline]</ref><ref>[http://freethoughtblogs.com/amilliongods/tag/quacks/ Freethoughtblogs.com - A million gods - tags: medicine, quackery]</ref>

=== Atheism and obesity ===
[[File:PzMyers2.jpg|thumbnail|300px|right|[[PZ Myers]]
 
 
(photo obtained from [http://www.flickr.com/photos/reuvenim/4426093513/ Flickr], see [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.0/deed.en license agreement]) ]]

''See also:'' [[Atheism and obesity]] and [[Atheism and the fat acceptance movement]]

Yet, despite [[Physical and mental health related problems associated with obesity|the health risks]] of [[obesity]] and despite the fact that [[exercise science]], [[nutritional science]] and [[medical science]] have a number of effective treatments for obesity, a significant amount of prominent atheists are obese/overweight (see: [[Atheism and obesity]]). For example, 3 out of 5 of these leaders of the [[New Atheism]] movement have had issues with being overweight as can be seen [http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_3UXl0oMYPLs/SXgxH_-MgFI/AAAAAAAAAF4/EU-wzxEjOmc/s1600-h/atheist-reason.jpg HERE] and [http://www.flickr.com/photos/7230309@N05/3708479160/ HERE] and [http://news.softpedia.com/newsImage/Quantum-Mechanics-Could-Link-Humans-with-the-Universe-2.jpg/ HERE] (see: [[New Atheism leadership's problem with excess weight]]). In addition, most atheists champion the [[Pseudoscience|pseudoscientific]] notions of [[evolution]] and [[Origin of life|abiogenesis]].

[[PZ Myers]] is also a leader within the New Atheism movement and Myers has had problems with being overweight and experienced health problems as a result.<ref>[http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/08/23/thats-not-a-heart-its-a-flaili/ That’s not a heart! It’s a flailing Engine of Destruction!]</ref> A 2009 picture of a significantly overweight PZ Myers can be found [http://www.flickr.com/photos/cfimi/5244769742/ HERE]. As of August 2013, [[Richard Dawkins]] and [[Sam Harris]] have not publicly commented on the significant problems the New Atheism leadership has experienced in terms of overweight members.

According to the [[Gallup poll|Gallup Inc.]], "Very religious Americans are more likely to practice healthy behaviors than those who are moderately religious or nonreligious."<ref>http://www.gallup.com/poll/145379/Religious-Americans-Lead-Healthier-Lives.aspx</ref> In the journal article ''Religion, self-regulation, and self-control: Associations, explanations, and implications'', psychologists McCullough and Willoughby theorize that many of the positive links of religiousness with health and social behavior may be caused by religion's beneficial influences on [[self-control]]/self-regulation.<ref>[http://www.psy.miami.edu/faculty/mmccullough/Papers/Relig_self_control_bulletin.pdf Religion, Self-Regulation, and Self-Control: Associations, Explanations, and Implications]</ref><ref>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19210054</ref> In terms of their geographic location, a large majority of Christians live in the Eastern World where individuals tend to be slimmer and practice healthier lifestyles (see: [[Global Christianity]]).<ref>
*[http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=30077 Is Christianity taking over the planet?]
*[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21167850 Western diet consumption and cognitive impairment: links to hippocampal dysfunction and obesity.]
*[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16539965 Health-risks associated with Western diet and sedentariness: the obesity epidemia]]
*[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21139122 Traditional non-Western diets]</ref>

If the atheist community truly believed in [[Evidence-based medicine|evidence-based medicine]], a significant amount of prominent atheists would not be overweight. There is no historical evidence suggesting that [[Jesus]] or his disciples were overweight. See: [[Jesus Christ, the apostles and the Mediterranean diet/Mosaic diet]]
[[File:African open air Christian meeting.jpg|thumbnail|right|320px|[[Africa]]n Christians clapping at an open air meeting.
 
 
In 2005, there were four times as many non-[[Western World]] Christians as there were Western World Christians.<ref>[http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=30077 Is Christianity taking over the planet?]</ref>
 
The traditional [[Africa]]n diet is healthier than many Western World invividuals' diets and Africa has some of the lowest obesity rates in the world.<ref>[http://www.forbes.com/2007/02/07/worlds-fattest-countries-forbeslife-cx_ls_0208worldfat.html World's fattest countries]</ref><ref>[http://www.todaysdietitian.com/newarchives/030612p26.shtml Traditional African diets are healthier than Western diets], Today's Nutrition</ref> In recent years, Christianity has seen a rapid growth in Africa.<ref>[http://gratefultothedead.wordpress.com/2009/12/16/the-african-apostles-how-christianity-exploded-in-20th-century-africa/ The African apostles: How Christianity exploded in 20th-century Africa]</ref> See: [[Global atheism]] and [[Atheist Population|Atheist population]] ]]
The traditional [[Africa]]n diet is healthier than many Western World peoples' diets and Africa has some of the lowest obesity rates in the world.<ref>[http://www.forbes.com/2007/02/07/worlds-fattest-countries-forbeslife-cx_ls_0208worldfat.html World's fattest countries]</ref><ref>[http://www.todaysdietitian.com/newarchives/030612p26.shtml Traditional African diets are healthier than Western diets], Today's Nutrition</ref> In recent years, Christianity has seen a rapid growth in Africa.<ref>[http://gratefultothedead.wordpress.com/2009/12/16/the-african-apostles-how-christianity-exploded-in-20th-century-africa/ The African apostles: How Christianity exploded in 20th-century Africa]</ref> [[Secular Europe]] has a higher obesity rate than Africa (See: [[Secular Europe and obesity]]). In addition, religious Africa has a lower obesity rate than atheistic [[China]] (see: [[China and obesity]]).

In the [[United States]], the greater the degree of irreligiosity in a generation, the higher their [[obesity]] rate is. See: [[Atheism and obesity]] and [[Generation X, irreligion and obesity]] and [[Millennials, irreligion and obesity]] and [[Baby boom generation, irreligion and obesity]] According to the [[Gallup poll|Gallup Inc.]], "Very religious Americans are more likely to practice healthy behaviors than those who are moderately religious or nonreligious."<ref>http://www.gallup.com/poll/145379/Religious-Americans-Lead-Healthier-Lives.aspx</ref>

The [[Iona Institute]] reported:
{{cquote|A meta-analysis of all studies, both published and unpublished, relating to religious involvement and longevity was carried out in 2000. Forty-two studies were included, involving some 126,000 subjects. Active religious involvement increased the chance of living longer by some 29%, and participation in public religious practices, such as church attendance, increased the chance of living longer by 43%.<ref>[http://www.religiouspractice.ie/Religious_practice-2.pdf The psycho-social benefits of religious practice by Iona Institute]</ref><ref>[http://www.psy.miami.edu/faculty/mmccullough/Papers/rel_mort_meta.pdf McCullogh ME, Larson DB, Hoyt WT. et al. (2000). Religious involvement and mortality: a meta-analytic review. Health Psychology. 19, 3. 211-222]</ref>}}

For more information please see: [[Atheism and obesity]] and [[Atheism and the fat acceptance movement]] and [[Atheism and health]]

=== Atheism, evolutionism and obesity ===

The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines biology as "a branch of knowledge that deals with organisms and vital processes."<ref>http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/biology</ref> One of the most basic vital processes relating to human biology is eating. Given that overweight atheists typically champion [[evolution]]ary [[pseudoscience]], it is not surprising that many have not mastered regulating their daily food intake.

=== Atheism, alcoholism and illegal drug use ===
[[File:04656 market in Sanok.JPG|thumbnail|200px|right|[[Alcoholism]] was a serious social problem in the former atheistic [[Soviet Union]].<ref>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18245818</ref> Between 1940 and 1980, this [[atheist state]] had the largest increase of the amount of alcohol usage in the developed world.<ref>[http://isw.sagepub.com/content/35/4/441.extract Alcoholism in the Soviet Union]</ref>]]
''See also:'' [[Atheism and alcoholism]]

As noted above, American atheists are more likely to see excessive drinking as morally acceptable behavior.<ref>http://www.barna.org/barna-update/article/5-barna-update/58-practical-outcomes-replace-biblical-principles-as-the-moral-standard</ref> [[Alcoholism]] was a serious social problem in the former atheistic [[Soviet Union]].<ref>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18245818</ref> Between 1940 and 1980, the Soviet Union had the largest increase of the amount of alcohol usage in the developed world.<ref>[http://isw.sagepub.com/content/35/4/441.extract Alcoholism in the Soviet Union]</ref>

A 2012 study suggests that a habit of binge drink risks serious brain damage including increasing memory loss later in adulthood.<ref>http://alcoholism.about.com/cs/binge/a/aa000818a.htm</ref><ref>http://www.scripps.edu/newsandviews/e_20121022/koob.html</ref> There are a number of other health problems associated with excess alcohol use as well (see: [[alcoholism]]).

Also, as noted above, atheists are more likely to also find [[Illegal drugs|illegal drug use]] to be morally acceptable as well and medical science has found many instances of illegal drug use to cause health problems.

Since atheist community often champions [[evidence-based medicine]], the excess drinking and instances of harmful illegal drug use by the atheist community is another example of atheist hypocrisy.

=== Atheism, homosexuality and public health ===

''See also:'' [[Atheism and homosexuality]]

The [[conservative]] journalist [[Peter LaBarbera]] of [[Americans for Truth]] wrote: "Anyone who has researched the subject of [[homosexuality]] knows that many of the most staunch advocates of homosexuality are those who hold a decidedly secular outlook."<ref>[http://americansfortruth.com/2008/05/03/homosexuality-and-atheism/ Atheism and homosexuality]</ref>

The [[Barna Group]] found that atheists and [[agnostics]] in America were more likely, than [[theist]]s in America, to look upon the following behaviors as morally acceptable: [[Illegal drugs|illegal drug use]]; excessive drinking; [[fornication|sexual relationships outside of marriage]]; [[abortion]]; cohabitating with someone of opposite sex outside of marriage; [[Profanity|obscene language]]; [[gambling]]; [[pornography]] and obscene sexual behavior; and engaging in [[homosexuality]]/[[bisexuality]].<ref>http://www.barna.org/barna-update/article/5-barna-update/58-practical-outcomes-replace-biblical-principles-as-the-moral-standard</ref> Given the [[Homosexuality and Health|many diseases associated with homosexuality]], the [[Bible|biblical]] prohibition against homosexuality is quite arguably one of the [http://creationwiki.org/Bible_scientific_foreknowledge many examples where the Bible exhibited knowledge that was ahead of its time]. See also: [[Atheism and homosexuality]]

Given that [[Homosexuality and choice|homosexuality is a choice]], the existence many [[ex-homosexuals]] and the many health risks of homosexuality and its effect on the larger population through [[Bisexuality|bisexuals]], the continued advocacy of homosexuality by atheists is another example of atheist hypocrisy.

== Atheistic communism, the American Atheists and homosexuality ==
''
See also:'' [[Atheist actions against homosexuals]] and [[Atheism and homosexuality]]

[[Secular left|Leftist atheists]] in the [[Western World]], commonly complain about the Bible declaring [[homosexuality]] to be a [[sin]] and Christian negative attitudes against homosexuality, yet atheistic [[communism|communist]] regimes took strong measures to reduce the prevalence of homosexuality in their societies due to seeing homosexuality as a symptom of bourgeois decadence.<ref name="Chapman">{{cite book|last=Chapman|first=Thomas E.|title=Constructing the Moral Landscape Through Antidiscrimination Law: Discourse, Debate, and Dialogue of Sexual Citizenship in Three Florida Communities|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=bZE5UgNRP8cC&pg=PA142|accessdate=25 April 2014|year=2007|publisher=ProQuest|isbn=9780549469575|page=142|quote=Another element contributing to Cuba's past anti-gay policies was for a time, the government adopted the Stalinist position, practiced in the Soviet Union, that homosexuality is a form of bourgeois decadence.}}</ref> In addition, the [[American Atheists]] organization was embroiled in a controversy due to the critical comments that Dave Muscato, the Public Relations Director for American Atheists, said about homosexual activists.<ref name=Stedman>{{cite web|url=http://chrisstedman.religionnews.com/2013/12/13/american-atheists-public-relations-director/|title=Does American Atheists agree with this offensive LGBTQ comment?|last=Stedman|first=Chris|date=13 December 2013|publisher=Religion News Service|accessdate=25 April 2014}}</ref> See: [[Atheist actions against homosexuals]]

== Atheism and superstition ==
[[Image:2384975035_230a0eac30.jpg‎‎|thumb|right|170px|The [[Wall Street Journal]] reported: "A comprehensive new study released by Baylor University yesterday, shows ...that the irreligious and the members of more liberal Protestant denominations, far from being resistant to [[superstition]], tend to be much more likely to believe in the paranormal and in [[pseudoscience]] than evangelical Christians."<ref>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122178219865054585.html</ref>]]
''See also:'' [[Irreligion and superstition]] and [[Atheism and irrationality]]

Atheists often accuse Christians of holding to [[superstition]]. Yet Bible believers are less likely to believe in superstition than atheists.<ref>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122178219865054585.html</ref>

In September of 2008, the [[Wall Street Journal]] reported:
{{cquote|The reality is that the [[New Atheism|New Atheist]] campaign, by discouraging [[religion]], won't create a new group of intelligent, skeptical, enlightened beings. Far from it: It might actually encourage new levels of mass [[superstition]]. And that's not a conclusion to take on faith -- it's what the empirical data tell us.

"What Americans Really Believe," a comprehensive new study released by Baylor University yesterday, shows that [[Conservative Christianity|traditional Christian religion]] greatly decreases belief in everything from the efficacy of palm readers to the usefulness of [[astrology]]. It also shows that the irreligious and the members of more liberal Protestant denominations, far from being resistant to superstition, tend to be much more likely to believe in the paranormal and in [[pseudoscience]] than evangelical Christians....

This is not a new finding. In his 1983 book "The Whys of a Philosophical Scrivener," skeptic and science writer Martin Gardner cited the decline of traditional religious belief among the better educated as one of the causes for an increase in pseudoscience, cults and superstition. He referenced a 1980 study published in the magazine ''Skeptical Inquirer'' that showed irreligious college students to be by far the most likely to embrace paranormal beliefs, while born-again Christian college students were the least likely.<ref>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122178219865054585.html</ref>}}

== Atheism. secular left and racism ==

As note above, most atheists skew politically to the left (see: [[Atheism and politics]]).
[[Image:453px-Isaac asimov.jpg|right|200px|thumbnail|According to The [[Cryonics]] Society, the atheist [[Isaac Asimov]] said of cryonics, "Though no one can quantify the probability of cryonics working, I estimate it is at least 90%..."<ref>[http://www.cryonicssociety.org/aboutcryonics_critics.html Cryonics and critics], The Cryonics Society</ref> ]]
Historically, there has been a lack of atheist outreach to minority communities in the Western World and a lack of atheist evangelism in [[Africa]] and [[Latin America]]. Christendom has made extensive evangelism efforts in Africa and Latin America and continues to do so (see: [[Global Christianity]]). Also, according to a video posted at [[Freethoughtblogs]] storefront churches provide assistance to local residents including women and this partly explains the dearth of Hispanic and African-American women atheists in America (Atheists give less to charity than Christians. See: [[Atheism and charity|Atheism and uncharitableness]]).<ref>[http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2013/08/06/sikivu-ophelia-and-rebecca-who-says-atheism-lacks-women-stars/ Sikivu, Ophelia, and Rebecca — who says atheism lacks women stars?]</ref>

Furthermore, atheists often get prickly when the subject of [[evolutionary racism]] is brought up.

== Atheism and scientism ==

Atheist are often guilty of holding to the errant view of [[scientism]]. Yet, the claim that science is the only form of legitimate evidence is a self-refuting claim for there is no scientific evidence that this claim is true. Furthermore, atheists commonly promote the [[pseudoscience]]s of [[evolution]] and [[Origin of life|abiogenesis]].

== Atheism and mental illness ==

''See also:'' [[Atheism and suicide]] and [[Atheism and depression]] and [[Atheism and health]]).

Atheists often falsely accuse theists (particularly those who criticize atheism) of mental illness<ref>[http://voxday.blogspot.com/2012/10/mailvox-continuing-education.html Mailvos - Continuing education]</ref>, despite the fact that atheists have higher incidences of depression and suicide (see: [[Atheism and suicide]] and [[Atheism and depression]] and [[Atheism and health]]).

Dr. [[Paul Vitz]] wrote a book entitled ''Faith of the Fatherless'' in which he points out that after studying the lives of more than a dozen leading atheists he found that a large majority of them had a father who was present but weak, present but abusive, or absent.<ref>Vitz, Paul, [http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/vitz.txt The Psychology of Atheism], September 24, 1997 (lecture notes taken by an audience member).</ref><ref>Anders, Kerby, [http://www.probe.org/content/view/36/91/ Atheists and Their Fathers] (Probe Ministries)</ref> Dr. Vitz also examined the lives of prominent theists who were contemporaneous to their atheist counterparts and from the same culture and in every instance these prominent theists had a good relationship with his father.<ref>http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/vitz.txt</ref>

== Atheism and deception ==
[[File:Flip-flops.png|thumbnail|The article ''Atheism is rudderless and unseaworthy'' written by a supporter of the [[Question evolution! campaign]] wrote: "Christians should call Dawkins on his disingenuous [[Flip-flop (politics)|flip-flopping]] if his publisher continues to promote the book as a book focusing on his journey to atheism without mentioning the fact that Dawkins is presently an agnostic who has rejected atheism."<ref>[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/07/atheism-is-rudderless-and-unseaworthy.html Atheism is rudderless and unseaworthy]</ref>]]
''See also:'' [[Atheism and deception]]

Western atheists often accuse Christians of being liars or "liars for Jesus", yet the evolutionary worldview has been caught in engaging in a number of lies/frauds (see: [[Atheism and deception]] and [[Evolution and Cases of Fraud, Hoaxes and Speculation]]).

== New Atheism, Richard Dawkins and agnosticism ==

One of the ironies of the [[New Atheism]] movement (a form of [[militant atheism]]) is that one of its leading figures, [[Richard Dawkins]], is an agnostic whose public persona flip-flops between militant atheism, atheism, and [[agnosticism]]. See: [[Richard Dawkins and agnosticism]]

Richard Dawkins indicated in a 2012 meeting with the British Archbishop Dr. [[Rowan Williams]] that he is an agnostic which stunned the Dr. Williams and many in the general public.<ref>[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2105834/Career-atheist-Richard-Dawkins-admits-fact-agnostic.html Richard admits he is an agnostic - The Daily Mail]</ref><ref>[http://www.theweek.co.uk/religion/religion/45552/outspoken-atheist-dawkins-admits-he-agnostic 'Outspoken atheist' admits he is an agnostic]</ref> In an essay entitled ''Is Richard Dawkins a flip-flopper?'', an advocate of the [[Question evolution! campaign]] indicated that the public persona of Dawkins is sometimes atheistic for controversy sake in order to sell more books.<ref>[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/07/is-richard-dawkins-flipflopper.html Is Richard Dawkins a flip-flopper?]</ref>

== Atheism commonly decry religion, yet atheism is a religion ==

For thousands of years, and particularly in the post Darwinism era, atheists have decried [[religion]]. Yet, [[atheism is a religion]]. Recently, some atheists have established "atheist churches" and are demanding atheist chaplains in the U.S. military.<ref>[http://www.watoday.com.au/national/you-gotta-have-faith-the-rise-of-the-church-of-nonbelievers-20130803-2r6q3.html Atheist church service in Austalia]</ref><ref>[http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2013/06/22/church-without-god-by-design/comment-page-131/ Atheist church service - CNN]</ref><ref>[http://www.christianpost.com/news/house-gop-vote-to-ban-atheists-from-serving-as-military-chaplains-100870/ Atheist chaplains]</ref>

=== Darwinism is a religion ===

The Kitzmiller vs. Dover case which focused on the issue [[intelligent design]] being taught in public schools did not take into account arguments that evolution is religious in nature.<ref>http://creation.com/atheism-a-religion</ref><ref>http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/Kitzmiller%27s_error_summary.pdf</ref><ref>http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/Kitzmiller%27s_Error.pdf</ref>
[[File:Question-Evolution-Campaign.jpg|thumbnail|250px|right|The Question evolution! campaign by [[Creation Ministries International]] is a worldwide campaign which poses 15 questions that evolutionists cannot satisfactorily answer.<ref>http://creation.com/question-eviolution Question evolution! campaign] by [[Creation Ministries International]]</ref> The 15 questions posed to evolutionists can be found [http://creation.com/15-questions HERE] ]]

The atheist philosopher of science [[Michael Ruse]] said "Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today."<ref>Ruse, M., How evolution became a religion: creationists correct? National Post, pp. B1,B3,B7 May 13, 2000.</ref> In the their [[Question evolution! campaign]], [[Creation Ministries International]] asserts that evolution is a religion.<ref>[http://creation.com/15-questions 15 questions for evolutionists]</ref>

The Question evolution! campaign is upsetting to many atheists because although they advocate questioning other religions, when tenets of their evolutionary faith are questioned they become agitated and upset. A recent study reported at ''Live Science'' found that evolutionary belief is significantly reliant on "gut feelings".<ref>[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/02/evolutionary-gut-feelings-belief-in.html Evolutionary gut feelings, "Belief in Evolution Boils Down to a Gut Feeling"]</ref>

John Calvert, a lawyer and [[intelligent design]] proponent declared:
{{cquote|The Seventh Judicial Circuit of the Court of Appeals of the [[United States]] held that atheism is a [[religion]]. Therefore, it cannot be promoted by a public school. Currently, public schools are often unwittingly promoting atheism through a dogmatic and uncritical teaching of [[Evolution|materialistic theories of origins]].<ref>[http://shockawenow.blogspot.com/2011/08/intelligent-design-leader-john-calvert.html The effects of the Question Evolution! Campaign will be devastating to evolutionary belief and atheism]</ref>}}

=== Cult of personality surrounding Charles Darwin ===

An advocate of the Question Evolution! campaign wrote concerning the cult of personality surrounding [[Charles Darwin]]:
{{cquote|Darwinists have established a cult of personality around Charles Darwin for their religion of Darwinism. Every year they celebrate Darwin Day on February 12. The agnostic and prominent evolutionist Stephen Gould wrote: "all theories [of natural selection] cite God in their support, and ... Darwin comes close to this status among evolutionary biologists ...". In his book Rivals : Conflict as the fuel of science, Michael White similarly wrote: "Of course today, for biologists, Darwin is second only to God, and for many he may rank still higher."<ref>[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2013/01/darwinism-and-atheism-are-religions.html Darwinism and atheism are religions. Atheism is faitheism]</ref>}}

== Atheism and forced labor ==

''See also:'' [[Atheism and forced labor]]

Atheists commonly decry slavery in the Bible - particularly the Israelites owning slave and Christian slaveholders mentioned or alluded to in the [[New Testament]].<ref>[http://christianthinktank.com/qnoslave.html Does the Bible condone slavery?]</ref> Yet, they are typically silent about the forced labor under atheistic regimes which continues today in atheistic [[communism|communist]] countries (see: [[Atheism and forced labor]]). In June of 2013, reports of Christians in forced labor camps due to religious discrimination were still being reported.<ref>[http://dontletthewellrundry.blogspot.com/2013/06/modern-gulags-china-forced-labor-camps.html Modern gulags - China's forced labor camps]</ref> Also, in 2013 the Korean-American pastor Kenneth Bae was sentenced to 15 years in a atheistic communist [[North Korea]]n labor prison camps due to religious persecution.<ref>[http://blog.heritage.org/2013/07/10/american-pastor-languishing-in-north-korea-labor-camp/ American Pastor Languishing in North Korea Labor Camp]</ref> North Korea is known for its systematic persecution of Christians. <ref>[http://blog.heritage.org/2013/07/10/american-pastor-languishing-in-north-korea-labor-camp/ American Pastor Languishing in North Korea Labor Camp]</ref>
[[File:Slave auction.jpg|250px|right|thumbnail|On February 20, 2012, the British newspaper the ''Daily Mail'' reported that [[Richard Dawkins]]' "family fortune came from the slave trade".<ref>[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2103319/Campaigner-Richard-Dawkins-faces-awkward-truth-money-came-slave-trade.html Revealed: How atheist Richard Dawkins' family fortune came from the slave trade, Daily Mail, February 20, 2012]</ref>]]
=== Richard Dawkins' family fortune came from the slave trade - asked to pay reparations ===

''See also:'' [[Richard Dawkins' family fortune and the slave trade]]

On February 20, 2012, the British newspaper the ''Daily Mail'' reported that [[Richard Dawkins]]' "family fortune came from the slave trade".<ref>[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2103319/Campaigner-Richard-Dawkins-faces-awkward-truth-money-came-slave-trade.html Revealed: How atheist Richard Dawkins' family fortune came from the slave trade, Daily Mail, February 20, 2012]</ref> On February 19, 2012, ''The Daily Telegraph'' reported that Dawkins is being called to make reparations for his family's past.<ref>[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/9091007/Slaves-at-the-root-of-the-fortune-that-created-Richard-Dawkins-family-estate.html Slaves at the root of the fortune that created Richard Dawkins' family estate, The Daily Telegragh, February 19, 2012]</ref>

The ''Daily Mail'' reported:
{{cquote|Ancestors of secularist campaigner Richard Dawkins made their fortune from the slave trade, it has been revealed.

The outspoken atheist, who once branded the Catholic Church 'evil', is the direct descendent of Henry Dawkins who owned 1,013 slaves in [[Jamaica]] until he died in 1744.

The links with slavery continue down the family tree and in 1796 another ancestor, James Dawkins, voted against [[William Wilberforce]]'s plans to abolish the slave trade<ref>[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2103319/Campaigner-Richard-Dawkins-faces-awkward-truth-money-came-slave-trade.html Revealed: How atheist Richard Dawkins' family fortune came from the slave trade, Daily Mail, February 20, 2012]</ref>}}

=== Christianity and the abolitionist movement ===

[[William Wilberforce]] was a devout [[Christianity|Christian]], philanthropist,[[abolitionist]], and the leader of the campaign against the [[Slave Trade]].

[[Thomas Sowell]] wrote:
{{cquote|While [[slavery]] was common to all civilizations, as well as to peoples considered uncivilized, only one civilization developed a moral revulsion against it, very late in hits history…not even the leading moralists in other civilizations rejected slavery at all…. Moreover, within [[Western civilization]], the principle impetus for the abolition of slavery came first from very [[conservative]] religious activists – people who would today be called ‘the religious right.’…this story is not ‘[[politically correct]]’ in today’s terms. Hence it is ignored, as if it never happened.”<ref>Sowell, Thomas (2005) The real history of slavery. In Black Rednecks and White Liberals. San Francisco, CA: Encounter Books</ref>}}

== Quickness to hate God ==

''See also:'' [[Atheism and hatred of God]] and [[Atheism and anger]]

Don Batten of [[Creation Ministries International]] wrote:
{{cquote|Recently, I have had a lot of conversations with atheists. Many express a strong hatred of God. I have been at a loss to explain this. How can you hate someone you don’t believe in? Why the hostility? If God does not exist, shouldn’t atheists just relax and seek a good time before they become plant food? Why should it matter if people believe in God? Nothing matters if atheism is true<ref>[http://creation.com/atheist-god-hate Atheists hate God]</ref>}}

== Denial of objective beauty ==

Atheists/evolutionists often engage in hypocrisy on the issue of [[beauty]] in God's universe and engage in self-refuting arguments which argue that beauty is merely subjective, yet non-beauty/ugliness is an objective reality (non-beauty arose after the [[fall of man]]).<ref>[http://www.everyjoe.com/2014/07/03/politics/robbed-of-beauty-by-the-left/ How We’ve Been Robbed of Beauty by the Left]</ref><ref>[http://www.quodlibet.net/articles/williams-aesthetic.shtml Aesthetic arguments for the existence of God] by Peter Williams</ref><ref>[http://creation.com/darwins-arguments-against-god Darwin's arguments against God]</ref> See: [[Argument from beauty]]

== Hermant Mehta and his endorsement of the Brights Movement ==
[[File:Hemant Mehta.jpg|thumbnail|right|275px|[[Hemant Mehta]] 
(photo obtained from [http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hemant_Mehta.jpg Wikimedia Commons], see: [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/deed.en license agreement])]]

The atheist [[Hemant Mehta]] is an author, popular atheist blogger, and atheist activist. He also served as a chair on the Secular Student Alliance board of directors. His blog is called ''The Friendly Atheist.'' Given the [[Brights Movement]]'s reputation for smugness (see: [[Atheism and arrogance]]), his endorsement of the Brights Movement and his current listing as an "Enthusiastic Bright" on the Brights Movement website, could be seen as a matter of hypocrisy due to the attributes of "friendly" and "smug" being incompatible opposites.<ref>[http://www.the-brights.net/people/enthusiastic/index2.html "Enthusiastic Brights" at the Brights Movement website]</ref>

Unlike the skeptic [[Michael Shermer]] who had second thoughts after endorsing the Brights Movement, Hemant Menta has never publicly denounced the Bright Movement for its smugness and remains listed on on its website as an "Enthusiastic Bright".<ref>[http://www.the-brights.net/people/enthusiastic/index2.html Hemant Mehta listing - Enthusiastic Brights] at Brights Movement website</ref><ref>[http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/05-01-05.html Science and the Search for Meaning: excerpts from the Introduction to Science Friction] by Michael Shermer</ref>

=== Hemant Mehta's comments about fellow atheist Chris Stedman ===

Hemant Mehta said of fellow atheist Chris Stedman:
{{cquote|If you read the blog posts and Twitter comments about Chris, though, you’d think he was a religious man in atheist clothing. Or that he’s delegitimizing our work. Or that he’s undermining our goals. He’s not. He’s as much of an atheist activist as the rest of us. He just practices it by focusing on cooperation and conversation with people of faith instead of beating his chest with both fists and proclaiming his superiority.<ref>[http://freethoughtblogs.com/crommunist/2012/02/29/the-unfriendly-atheist/ The (un)Friendly Atheist], Crommunist blog at [[Freethoughtblogs]]</ref><ref>[http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2012/02/29/those-atheists-you-hate-arent-really-all-that-bad/ Those Atheists You Hate Aren’t Really All That Bad] by [[Hemant Mehta]]</ref>}}

See also: [[Atheism and interpersonal intelligence|Atheism and social intelligence]]

== Leonid Brezhnev ==
[[File:Leonid Brežněv.jpg|thumbnail|175px|right|[[Leonid Brezhnev]] ]]
''See also:'' [[Atheism and death]]

[[Leonid Brezhnev]] served as General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the [[Soviet Union]] which had [[state atheism]]. Under Brezhnev, religious believers received harsh treatment and the Soviet Union's anti-religious stance was maintained and there was a fundamental inequality between those with religious belief and those who subscribed to atheism.<ref>[http://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/rcl/11-1_025.pdf Soviet Religious Policy Under Brezhnev and After] by JOHN ANDERSON</ref>

In his nuclear arms negotiations with President [[Jimmy Carter]], [[Leonid Brezhnev]], the leader of the [[Soviet Union]] which had [[state atheism]], said, "God will never forgive us if we don't succeed."<ref>[http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/coldwar/interviews/episode-18/carter2.html INTERVIEW WITH PRESIDENT JIMMY CARTER]</ref>

Gary Thomas wrote in [[Christianity Today]] about Brehnev's funeral and the actions of his widow:
{{cquote|As Vice President, George Bush represented the U.S. at the funeral of former Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev. Bush was deeply moved by a silent protest carried out by Brezhnev's widow. She stood motionless by the coffin until seconds before it was closed. Then, just as the soldiers touched the lid, Brezhnev's wife performed an act of great courage and hope, a gesture that must surely rank as one of the most profound acts of civil disobedience ever committed: She reached down and made the sign of the cross on her husband's chest. There in the citadel of secular, atheistic power, the wife of the man who had run it all hoped that her husband was wrong. She hoped that there was another life, and that that life was best represented by Jesus who died on the cross, and that the same Jesus might yet have mercy on her husband.<ref>[http://www.sermonillustrations.com/a-z/a/atheism.htm ATHEISM, quoted from Gary Thomas, Christianity Today, October 3, 1994, p. 26 ], website of SermonIllustrations.com</ref>}}

== Atheism and obsession with God ==

''See also:'' [[Atheism and obsession with God]]

The Christian blog ''Words of a Fether'' declared:
{{cquote|An obsession is when something or someone dominates a person’s mind. So what else can it be called when so many [[atheism|atheists]] spend large amounts of time and effort in [[Christianity|Christian]] venues such as message boards and blogs, arguing and mocking incessantly? Who else spends more time on what they don’t believe than what they do believe? If all unprovable beliefs are the same, why don’t atheists put forth the same effort to combat belief in the tooth fairy or pink unicorns on Mars? Are Christians really any less consistent than atheists?<ref>[http://www.fether.net/index.php?page=refuting-atheism-a-quick-reference/ Refuting atheism]</ref>}}
[[File:Ophelia Benson.JPG|thumbnail|200px|right|Orphelia Benson
 
 
(photo obtained from [http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ophelia_Benson_at_CFI_WIS-May_18_2012.JPG Wikimedia Commons], see: [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/deed.en license agreement])]]

== Orphelia Benson and incivility/profanity ==

''See also:'' [[Atheism and profanity]] and [[Elevatorgate]]

Ophelia Benson is an American atheist, [[feminism|feminist]], [[author]], editor and blogger. She is known for using the word f*#@wit and she claims the word is not a vulgar word.<ref>[http://www.skepticink.com/avant-garde/2014/07/27/ophelia-benson/ The Ophelia Benson canard]</ref><ref>[http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2014/07/26/joint-statement-by-ophelia-benson-and-richard-dawkins/ Joint statement by Ophelia Benson and Richard Dawkins] (see comment section)</ref> Despite commonly using this vulgar epithet, she published a joint statement with the agnostic/[[New Atheism|New Atheist]] [[Richard Dawkins]] indicating that atheists should behave in a civil manner in disagreements with each other and not engage in uncivil behavior such as the use of vulgar epithets.<ref>[http://www.skepticink.com/avant-garde/2014/07/27/ophelia-benson/ The Ophelia Benson canard]</ref>

American society and other societies in the world see the use of profanity by women to be particularly unmannerly. Woman who engage in profanity are commonly deemed to be vulgar/uncouth individuals and this is especially the case in religious areas of the world. For example, in 2014, a mother in [[South Carolina]] who swore in front of her children in public was arrested for disorderly conduct.<ref>[http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/08/15/mom-arrested-for-swearing-in-front-of-kids-at-the-grocery-store-but-what-the-woman-who-tattled-on-her-did-afterward-is-just-as-surprising/ Mom Arrested for Swearing in Front of Kids at the Grocery Store, but What the Woman Who Tattled on Her Did Afterward Is Just as Surprising], ''The Blaze'', Aug. 15, 2014 4:41pm</ref>

== A significant portion of atheists believe things happen for a reason ==

One of the most popular arguments for God's existence is the [[teleological argument]]. Derived from the Greek word ''telos'', which refers to purpose or end, this argument hinges on the idea that the world gives evidence of being designed, and concludes that a divine designer must be posited to account for the orderly world we encounter.

In addition, through [[Jesus Christ]], [[Christianity]] does offer objective meaning and purpose to life.<ref>
*[http://carm.org/meaning-of-life What does the Bible say about the meaning/purpose of life?]
*[http://www.christianbiblereference.org/faq_MeaningLife.htm Under a Christian worldview: What is the purpose and meaning of life?]</ref>

[[Image:Cherry Blossom Japan.jpg|thumb|250px|Even in atheistic [[Japan]], researchers found that Japanese children see the world [[Intelligent design|as designed]].<ref>[http://creation.com/children-see-the-world-as-designed Children see the world as designed]</ref>]]

Logically, under an [[atheist worldview|atheistic worldview]], there would be no objective purpose to life (see: [[Atheism and meaninglessness]] and [[Hopelessness of atheism]] and [[Atheism and irrationality]]).<ref>
*[http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/can-life-have-meaning-without-god Can Life Have Meaning Without God?] by James Anderson
*[http://jwwartick.com/2011/01/03/atheism-meaningless/ Atheism’s Universe is Meaningless and Valueless] by J.W. Wartick, January 3, 2011
*[http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2014/06/03/can-atheists-have-meaning-and-purpose-in-life/ Can atheists have meaning and purpose in life?]
*[http://www.bethinking.org/atheism/reclaiming-reason-from-atheism Why atheism] by Katie Galloway, 2014
*[http://aviewfromtheright.com/2012/04/19/heat-death-and-atheist-inconsistency-or-isnt-it-ironic/ Heat Death and Atheist Inconsistency (or, Isn’t It Ironic?)]
*[http://www.oocities.org/athens/delphi/8449/atheism.html Atheism and Death: Why the atheist must face death with despair] By Dustin Shramek
*[http://pleaseconvinceme.com/2013/apathy-atheism-and-the-absurdity-of-life-without-god/ Apathy, Atheism, and the Absurdity of Life Without God] by Aaron Brake
*[http://withalliamgod.wordpress.com/2010/12/16/the-meaningless-life-of-atheism/ The Meaningless Life Of Atheism] by Daniel Prayson, 2010</ref>

However, on October 17, 2014, The New York Times published an article entitled ''Does everything happen for a reason?'' which declared:
{{cquote|But research from the Yale Mind and Development Lab, where we work, suggests that this can’t be the whole story. In one series of studies, [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010027714001358 recently published in the journal Cognition], we asked people to reflect on significant events from their own lives, such as graduations, the births of children, falling in love, the deaths of loved ones and serious illnesses. Unsurprisingly, a majority of religious believers said they thought that these events happened for a reason and that they had been purposefully designed (presumably by God). But many [[atheism|atheists]] did so as well, and a majority of atheists in a related study also said that they believed in fate — defined as the view that life events happen for a reason and that there is an underlying order to life that determines how events turn out.

These atheists’ responses weren’t just the product of living in America’s highly religious society. [http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/2153599X.2013.782888#.VGptUsn6dl6 Research done at Queen’s University in Belfast] by the psychologists Bethany Heywood and Jesse Bering found that [[British atheism|British atheists]] were just as likely as American atheists to believe that their life events had underlying purposes, even though Britain is far less religious than America.

In other studies, scheduled to be published online next week in the journal Child Development, we found that even young children show a bias to believe that life events happen for a reason — to “send a sign” or “to teach a lesson.” This belief exists regardless of how much exposure the children have had to religion at home, and even if they’ve had none at all.<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/19/opinion/sunday/does-everything-happen-for-a-reason.html ''Does everything happen for a reason?'']</ref>}}

For more information, please see: [[Atheists and belief in fate and in intelligent design]]

== Irony of atheist hypocrisy ==

The [[Satan|devil]] is the inspirer and father of atheism (see: [[Atheism and satanic deception]]). In the Book of [[Revelation]] the devil is called "the accuser of the brethren" (Revelation 12:10). Given the prevalence of militant atheists and other atheists railing at Christians and falsely accusing them of engaging in ill behavior and given the high prevalence of atheists engaging in ill behavior (for example, see: [[Atheism and morality]] and [[Atheism and mass murder]]), it is ironic that atheists engage in a high degree of hypocritical behavior.

== See also ==

*[[Atheism and deception]]
*[[Atheism and truth]]
*[[Atheists doubting the validity of atheism]]
*[[Atheism and morality]]
*[[Causes of atheism]]
*[[Liberal hypocrisy]]

== External links ==

*[http://defendingcontending.com/2012/01/09/atheist-hypocrisy-part-1/ Atheist hypocrisy - part 1]
*[http://defendingcontending.com/2012/03/25/atheist-hypocrisy-part-2/ Atheist hypocrisy - part 2]
*[http://bradsarian.com/blog/the-hypocrisy-of-atheism-morality/ Hypocrisy of atheism]
*[http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/10/email_from_athe077711.html#sthash.RJ1beZx9.dpuf Email from Atheist Public School Teacher Exposes Hypocrisy, Inconsistencies in Darwin Lobby's Legal Reasoning]

== Notes ==
{{reflist|2}}
[[Category: Atheism]]

Encryption

2014-12-17T21:37:55Z

Darwon:

'''Encryption''' is the process of changing [[data]] into a secret [[code]].<ref>http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/E/encryption.html</ref> It is usually carried out today by [[computer]]s, although in the past it was traditionally carried out by analog machines or by specialists known as [[cryptographer]]s.

The earliest known form of encryption is that known as "ROT-13", or the "[[Caesar]] cipher", because its invention was once reportedly attributed to [[Julius Caesar]].<ref>Far more likely, however, is that the Caesar cipher was invented by a [[mathematician]] in Caesar's employ, and Caesar merely took the credit, much as [[Henry VIII]] took credit for the melody of "[[Greensleeves]]", or President [[James Garfield]] claimed to have discovered a novel proof of the [[Pythagorean Theorem]].</ref> In the Caesar cipher, each letter of the message (or "plaintext") is shifted forward in the alphabet by 13 places; for example, "CIPHER" becomes "PVCURE".<ref>The lack of the letters "J", "Q", "U", and "W" in the [[Latin]] alphabet posed an impediment to the Caesar shift's widespread adoption, since the encoded ciphertext would actually have read "PVCVRE" and thus had four different possible decodings.</ref> The Caesar cipher is what is called a ''[[symmetry|symmetric]] cipher'', meaning that the method of encryption is the same as the method of decryption (rotate by 13 characters), and therefore it is just as easy to decode any message as it was to encode it. For this reason, modern cryptanalysts tend to view most symmetric encryption methods as flawed.<ref>http://www.centurionsoft.com/centurionmail/wpencryption.html</ref>

Another popular historical encryption method was the "enigma machine" developed by [[Nazi Germany]] during [[World War II]]. The enigma machine (or ''ENIGMA'' for short) worked on the plugboard principle. It had the ability to generate many different ciphertexts for the same plaintext using different "keys", which meant that Allied cryptographers could no longer rely on being able to match encoded texts with plaintexts. Prior to World War II, cryptographers had gotten used to being able to collate messages with their ciphertexts to create large "dictionaries" (for example, matching the ciphertext "PVCURE" with its plaintext "CIPHER" in the above example). These code dictionaries could then be used to launch dictionary attacks against messages whose decodings were not yet known. ''ENIGMA'' rendered this tactic hopeless. For example, while "PVCURE" might mean "CIPHER" using Monday's key, it might mean "ATTACK" using Tuesday's key. However, a letter cannot be encrypted as itself, so no key can decrypt "PVCURE" as "POISON".

The Enigma cipher was eventually cracked by homosexual<ref>http://thomasj1776.multiply.com/journal/item/69?&item_id=69</ref> British mathematician [[Alan Turing]], with the aid of an early computer. This was the beginning of modern cryptography as a science, although few advancements were made from the end of WWII until the rise of the [[Internet]] in the 1980s.

Today, encryption is used by [[hacker]]s and other anti-government types to conceal their activities from the federal government. For example, the leftist [[GNU]] organization provides a program called "[[Pretty Good Privacy]]" (PGP) for encrypting [[e-mail]]. Several forms of "strong" encryption are considered [[munitions]] under federal law, and may not be exported to belligerent countries such as [[Iran]].<ref>[http://www.stanford.edu/dept/DoR/exp_controls/encryption1.html "Encryption Export Controls"] at ''stanford.edu''</ref>

== See Also ==
* [[War on Drugs]] and the [[Police state]]
* [[Wikileaks]]
* [[Julian Assange]] - [[Australia]]n [[leftist]] [[hacker]]
* [[Bradley Manning]] - [[Traitor]] of [[State secret]]s
* [[Social media]]: Facebook, Twitter, [[Google]] Plus, [[Youtube]], [[Yahoo]]
* [[NSA]] and other [[intelligence]] [[mass surveillance]]: [[PRISM]].
* [[Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act]] of the [[Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court]]
* [[RICO]]
* [[Asset forfeiture]]
* [[SWAT]]
* [[Wiretap]] - [[Roving wiretap]]
* [[Surveillance]]
* [[Drug trafficking]] of the [[Drug cartel]]s, [[Gangs]], [[Drug dealer]]s
* [[Public school values]] [[entitlement mentality]] [[Indoctrination]] of the [[Teacup Generation]] by [[Public schools in the United States]] and [[Common Core]]
* [[Similarities between Communism, Nazism and liberalism]]
* [[Barack Obama]]
* [[Joseph Stalin]]
* [[Dictatorship]]
** [[Dictator]]
** [[List of dictators]]
** [[Adolf Hitler]] - [[Heinrich Himmler]], [[Vladimir Lenin]] - [[Leon Trotsky]] - [[Joseph Stalin]], [[Mao Zedong]] - [[Ho Chi Minh]] - [[Kim Jong-Il]] - [[Pol Pot]], [[Fidel Castro]] - [[Che Guevara]]
** [[Dictatorship of the proletariat]]: [[Class warfare]]
** [[List of Communist States]]
** [[List of Socialist States]]
** [[Death toll of communism]] via [[mass murder]] - [[genocide]] - [[concentration camp]] [[forced labor]] - [[extermination camp]] - [[firing squad]]
** [[Atheism and mass murder]]
** [[Coup d'etat]]
* [[Cult of personality]]
* [[Single-party state]]
* [[Mobocracy]], [[Social Effects of the Theory of Evolution]], [[Anti-Semitism]], [[Communist Racism]], [[Genocide]], [[Holocaust]]
* [[National Socialist German Workers Party]] ([[Nazi]])
* [[Nazism and socialism]]: [[National Socialism]] - the Nazis were elitist [[Police state]] [[liberals]] not [[conservative]]s
* [[Big government]] [[Welfare state]] leads to [[Nanny state]], leads to [[Police state]]: [[Globalist]]-[[Statist]]-[[Socialist]]-[[Communist]]
* [[Liberal totalitarianism]]

'''Contrast with:'''

* [[Unalienable rights]] of the [[Bill of Rights]]: [[First Amendment]], [[Fourth Amendment]], [[Fifth Amendment]]
* [[Right to Privacy]]
* [[Conservative values]] and [[Libertarian]] [[American values]] of [[Limited government]] and [[liberty]]
* [[Electronic Frontier Foundation]]
* [[Steganography]]
* [[Cryptography]] and data [[encryption]]: [[Public-key encryption]]
* [[Prism-break.org]] - Opt out of global data [[surveillance]] programs like [[PRISM]], [[XKeyscore]] and [[Tempora]]. Help make [[mass surveillance]] of entire populations uneconomical! We all have an [[unalienable right]] to [[privacy]], which you can exercise today by [[encrypting]] your communications and ending your reliance on proprietary products and services.
* [[Open source]] [[Free software]] not [[Microsoft]]-[[Apple]]-[[Google]]-[[Android]]
* [[Duck Duck Go]] [[search engine]] instead of [[Google]], [[Yahoo]] and [[Bing]]
* [[Hologram of Liberty - The Constitution's Shocking Alliance With Big Government]] by [[Boston T. Party]] a.k.a.[[Kenneth W. Royce]]
* [[One Nation, Under Surveillance - Privacy From the Watchful Eye]] by [[Boston T. Party]]

* [[Common law privacy rights]]
* [[Electronic Communications Privacy Act]] of 1986
* [[Privacy Act of 1974]]
* [[Edward J. Snowden]]

* [[Libertarian|Libertarian values]] and [[Conservative values]]/[[Traditional values]] are the original [[American]] [[Patriot]] values
* [[Conservative]] and [[Limited government]]
* [[American values]] and [[Small town values]] of [[Real America]]
* [[Capitalism]] and [[Free enterprise]]
* [[Family values]] and [[Parental rights]]: [[Sanctity of life]], [[Family]]-[[Marriage]], [[Homeschooling]] teaching [[Virtue]], [[Duty]], and [[Self-reliance]]

==External Links==
* https://prism-break.org/en - "Opt out of global data surveillance programs like [[PRISM]], [[XKeyscore]] and [[Tempora]]."<ref>"Help make [[mass surveillance]] of entire populations uneconomical. We all have a [[right to privacy]], which you can exercise today by [[encrypt]]ing your communications and ending your reliance on proprietary services."</ref>
* https://www.eff.org - "Leading the fight against the [[NSA]]'s illegal [[mass surveillance]] program"<ref>"Organization formed in 1990 to maintain and enhance intellectual freedom, privacy, and other values of civil liberties and democracy in networked communications. Publishes newsletters, Internet Guidebooks and other documents, provides mailing lists and other online forums, and hosts a large electronic document archive. Contact: info@eff.org. 454 Shotwell Street, San Francisco, CA 94110-1914. Tel: (415) 436-9333. Fax: (415) 436-9993. Executive Director: Sheryl Steele."</ref>
* http://justdelete.me
* http://lifehacker.com/just-delete-me-is-a-massive-list-of-links-to-close-all-1245040101
* [http://epic.org/privacy/privacy_resources_faq.html Online Guide to Privacy Resources]<ref>"EPIC was established in 1994 to focus public attention on emerging privacy issues relating to the National Information Infrastructure, such as the Clipper Chip, the Digital Telephony proposal, medical records privacy and the sale of consumer data. EPIC conducts litigation, sponsors conferences, produces reports, publishes the EPIC Alert and leads campaigns on privacy issues. For more information email: epic-info@epic.org, or contact EPIC, 1718 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 200, Washington, DC 20009. Tel: (202) 483-1140. Executive Director: Marc Rotenberg."</ref>
* http://www.nocards.org - [[Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial Email]]<ref>"CAUCE is an all volunteer, entirely web-based organization, created by Netizens to advocate for a legislative solution to the problem of UCE (spam). CAUCE began as a discussion group called SPAM-LAW, formed of members who felt that legislation was necessary to stop spam from choking the life out of the Internet. In 1997 CAUCE proposed an amendment to the Federal statute which outlaws junk "faxes" (47 USC 227) to also prohibit junk e-mail, and since then has remained a pre-eminent voice in the anti-spam community. Email: comments@cauce.org. President: Edward Cherlin."</ref>

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

==See Also==
* [[Tails (operating system)]] and [[TOR]] [[Firefox]] [[browser]] [[encryption]] for [[Internet]] [[anonymity]] to protect [[unalienable rights]]
* [[IP camera]] for [[home security]] [[surveillance]] - use encryption

[[Category:First Amendment]]
[[Category:Fourth Amendment]]
[[Category:Police State]]
[[Category:Espionage]]
[[Category:Cryptography]]
[[Category:Military]]
[[Category:Home Security]]
[[Category:Networks]]
[[Category:First Amendment]]
[[Category:Fourth Amendment]]
[[Category:Fifth Amendment]]
[[Category:Home Security]]
[[Category:Computer Security]]
[[Category:Survivalism]]

Caesar

2014-12-17T21:26:25Z

Darwon: Redirected page to Julius Caesar

#REDIRECT [[Julius Caesar]]

Arguments for the existence of God

2014-12-17T21:14:31Z

Darwon: /* Objections */

'''Arguments for the existence of God''' involve carefully crafted reasoning to force an individual to accept the undeniable truth that [[God]] exists. See also: [[List of proofs of God]]

== Overview ==

''See also:'' [[Rebuttals to atheist arguments|Common arguments against atheism]]

Also known as '''proofs''' for God's existence, these arguments have not always come with full acceptance. Those opposed to [[natural theology]] claim that God's existence cannot be proven by human reason or the natural world, and that any attempt to do so runs the risk of becoming a [[God of the Gaps]] argument. However, [[Oxford]] scholar Roger Penrose states that [[materialism]] is now the faith of the gaps (see: [[Atheism of the gaps]]).<ref>http://www.leaderu.com/ftissues/ft9511/revessay.html</ref>

Viewpoints vary, but responses tend to conclude that God can only be known by supernatural [[special revelation|revelation]] or [[Scripture alone]]. [[Karl Barth]] is a classic example of this as he believed that God is exclusively revealed in [[Jesus Christ]], and Jesus is only revealed in the [[Bible]]. Proponents of natural theology vary as well, but most conclude that the existence of God can be known through human reason although it is not salvific (not a saving knowledge of God). [[Thomas Aquinas]] is characteristic of this view, holding to the understanding that the created world reflects aspects of its creator that are apparent to all. Nonetheless, arguments for the existence of God have been formed throughout [[church history]] and continue to be used today, namely in the area of [[Christian apologetics]].

These arguments do not generally tell us much about God, and certainly not the details that is revealed in the Bible. Rather, they argue for the basics, such that God<ref>The term "God" is a reference to the ultimate being, not necessarily the Christian God. There term is here capitalised as it is a reference to ''the'' ultimate being, not a counterfeit or lesser "god-like" being.</ref> exists, although some characteristics of God can be deduced from the nature of His creation.

==Cosmological arguments==
(the "unmade maker")

===Kalam cosmological argument===
The aim of this argument is to show that the universe had a beginning in the finite past. The argument battles against the existence of an [[infinite regression]] of past events which implies a universe that has infinitely existed. This argument implies the existence of a First Cause.

The form of the argument is:
# Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
# The universe began to exist.
# Therefore, the universe has a cause.
Note that the key phrase here is "''begins'' to exist". The question is not "whatever exists".

The atheistic counter argument has traditionally been to point 2, taking the position that the universe has always existed. It should also be noted that the Kalam argument removes one of the knee jerk reactions to any discussion on creation involving God which is "Then who created God?" Since God has no beginning, the question becomes meaningless. The Bible makes clear that God exists outside of our construct of time in many locations, including 1 Corinthians 2:7, 2 Timothy 1:9, and Titus 1:2.

===[[Thomism|Thomistic]] cosmological argument===
# What we observe in this universe is contingent (i.e. dependent, or conditional)
# A sequence of causally related contingent things cannot be infinite
# The sequence of causally dependent contingent things must be finite
Conclusion: There must be a first cause in the sequence of contingent causes

===Leibnizian cosmological argument===
The argument comes from a German polymath, Gottfriend Wilhelm Leibniz. Leibniz wrote, "The first question which should rightly be asked is this: why is there something rather than nothing?"

The argument runs as follows:
# Every existing thing has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own [[nature]] or in an external cause.
# If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.
# The universe is an existing thing.
# Therefore the explanation of the universe is God.

Some [[Atheism|atheists]] object to premise 2 in that God does not have to be the explanation, but that the universe can be what is called a necessary being (one which exists of its own nature and have no external cause). This was a suggestion of [[David Hume]] who demanded, "Why may not the material universe be the necessarily existent being?" (Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, part 9).
The Kalam Cosmological Argument is helpful. If Hume (and other atheists) is right in saying that the universe is a necessary being/thing, then this implies that the universe is eternal. This is exactly what the Kalam argument seeks to disprove. Thus, the Kalam is a valuable supplement to the Leibnizian argument.

==Teleological argument==
(the "unmoved mover")

Probably the most popular argument for God's existence is the teleological argument. Derived from the Greek word ''telos'', which refers to purpose or end, this argument hinges on the idea that the world gives evidence of being designed, and concludes that a divine designer must be posited to account for the orderly world we encounter. Although the teleological argument dates at least as far back as Plato, it is perhaps most memorable today from the work of [[William Paley]] (1743-1805), in his ''Natural Theology'' (1802). Recently, the teleological argument has gained renewed interest as a core element of the theory of [[Intelligent design|Intelligent Design]] and the related efforts to reconcile science and faith.

Although there are variations, the basic argument goes something like this:

# ''X'' is too complex to have occurred randomly or naturally.
# Therefore, ''X'' must have been created by an intelligent being, ''Y''.
# God is that intelligent being.
# Therefore, God exists.

Often, X is life, but there are other values for which the argument works. For example, scientists have found that if the universal constants (such as the speed of light or the Planck constant) were only a tiny bit different life could not exist.

=== A significant portion of atheists see their lives and the world being the product of design ===

Research and historical data indicate that a significant portion of [[atheism|atheists]]/agnostics often see the their lives and the world as being the product of purposeful design (see: [[Atheists and belief in fate and in intelligent design]]).<ref>
*[http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/19/opinion/sunday/does-everything-happen-for-a-reason.html ''Does everything happen for a reason?''],'' New York Times'', October 17, 2014
*[http://creation.com/children-see-the-world-as-designed Children see the world as designed] by David Catchpoole, [[Creation Ministries International]], Published: 16 July 2009
*Atheist [[Jean-Paul Sartre]] made the candid confession: "As for me, I don’t see myself as so much dust that has appeared in the world but as a being that was expected, prefigured, called forth. In short, as a being that could, it seems, come only from a creator; and this idea of a creating hand that created me refers me back to God. Naturally this is not a clear, exact idea that I set in motion every time I think of myself. It contradicts many of my other ideas; but it is there, floating vaguely. And when I think of myself I often think rather in this way, for wont of being able to think otherwise." Source: ''Escape from God: The Use of Religion and Philosophy to Evade Responsibility'' By Dean Turner, page 109
*The ''Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy'' declares: "In 1885, the Duke of Argyll recounted a conversation he had had with Charles Darwin the year before Darwin's death: In the course of that conversation I said to Mr. Darwin, with reference to some of his own remarkable works on the Fertilization of [[Orchid]]s, and upon The [[Earthworm]]s, and various other observations he made of the wonderful contrivances for certain purposes in nature — I said it was impossible to look at these without seeing that they were the effect and the expression of Mind. I shall never forget Mr. Darwin's answer. He looked at me very hard and said, 'Well, that often comes over me with overwhelming force; but at other times,' and he shook his head vaguely, adding, 'it seems to go away.'(Argyll 1885, 244)[http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/teleological-arguments/notes.html Notes to Teleological Arguments for God's Existence]</ref>

===Comments on the teleological argument===
'''The first and second premises''' assume that one can infer the existence of intelligent design merely by examining an object. This is the same principle that archaeology uses to determine if, for example, a piece of stone is a stone tool.

The teleological argument assumes that because life is complex, it must have been designed. This is based on observations that complexity is not the outcome of random processes. Some object that life or objects are described as, “orderly” or “ordered”, and that this implies that an intelligent designer has ordered them. These objector claim that a system can be non-random or ordered simply because it is following impersonal physical processes, for example diamonds or snowflakes. However, such "ordered" systems do not have ''complexity'', which life has.

'''The third premise''' is rejected by some even if the first and second premises are accepted, as the implied designer (Y) might be an unknown force or mere demiurge, not God as God is commonly understood. It is argued in defense that the outside force through which Y came into being might then be explained as a more powerful being resulting in either an omnipotent being or infinite regression.

Critics often argue that the teleological argument would apply to the designer, arguing any designer must be at least as complex and purposeful as the designed object. This, they say, would create the absurdity of an infinite series of designers. However, the counter-argument of an "undesigned designer," akin to Aristotle's uncaused causer, is common. Furthermore, it has been argued that God is ''not'' complex, that is, He is not composed of many interrelated parts, so the complexity argument does not apply. However, such a response would refute itself, for how could something simple create something complex, intelligently?

==Anthropological argument==
The anthropological (anthropos meaning "man") argument is made on the basis of the condition of humanity, of mankind's basic moral standards and the thread a search for a higher being. It is related to the cosmological and teleological arguments in that it if man has a yearning for God and a conscience when offending him, ostensibly these have their origin and cause in God and not in man. The argument was perhaps most famously posited by [[Blaise Pascal]], who reasoned that it was better "bet" to believe in God than not to do so.

==Ontological argument==
The ontological argument attempts to prove God's existence through abstract reasoning alone. The argument is entirely ''[[a priori]],'' i.e. it involves no empirical evidence at all. Rather, the argument begins with an explication of the concept of God, and seeks to demonstrate that God exists on the basis of that concept alone.
{{cquote|"The argument is ingenious. It has the appearance of a linguistic trick, but it is a difficult task to say precisely what, if anything, is wrong with it. All forms of the argument make some association between three concepts: the concepts of God, of perfection, and of existence. Very roughly, they state that perfection is a part of the concept of God, and that perfection entails existence, and so that the concept of God entails God's existence." <ref>http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/ontological.html</ref>}}

The ontological argument was first formulated by [[Anselm]] of Canterbury (1033-1109), one of the great medieval philosopher-theologians, in his ''Proslogium'', Chapter 2. Anselm’s ontological argument rests on the identification of God as “that than which no greater can be conceived”. Once it is understood that God is that of which no greater can be conceived, Anselm suggests, it becomes evident that God must exist.

A problem with this argument is that it merely defines God into existence. It is unclear if the concept of being able to conceive of a perfect being has any connection to actual existence. Without being able to make this connection, the merit of the argument can become questionable.

===Descartes' ontological argument===
We have the idea of an infinitely perfect Being. Since we are finite, and everything around us is finite, the idea of an infinitely perfect Being could not have originated with us or with the nature around us. Therefore the idea of an infinitely perfect Being must have come from such a being - God. <ref>http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/descartes-ontological/</ref>
Of course, such a idea, is [[shoehorning]] the idea that something must be infinite.

==Free will argument==

* There can be no free will in a totally naturalistic system
* Free will exists
* Therefore God exists

Oxygen and hydrogen don't 'choose' to combine, they do so due to natural laws. In a naturalistic system every component that makes us up obeys similar natural laws. The concept of freewill or choice would therefore not exist.

=== Objections ===
Some challenge this argument on the basis that premises one and two have not been proven. They argue:
* In challenging premise 1, those ascribing to [[compatibilism]] believe that our experience of free will is still compatible with naturalistic causes even if the mechanism that causes this to be is not yet known and no viable explanation can be postulated apart from acting as if it is so.<ref>"The Astonishing Hypothesis is that "You," your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of personal identity and '''free will''', are in fact no more than the behavior of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules ... Free Will is located in or near the anterior cingulate sulcus." Francis Crick, ''The Astonishing Hypothesis: The Scientific Search for the Soul'', Charles Scribner's Sons, New York, NY, 1993, p. 3, 268. </ref> Since this can not be disproven, it is possible that free will exists in a naturalistic system.
* In challenging premise 2, those ascribing to [[determinism]] simply believe that free will does not exist and no one has free will. Therefore there is no importance to the concept of God.

==Consciousness==

* Nature consists of a finite number of elements.
* We (our physical bodies) consist of those elements.
* The elements themselves which we consist of, and nature itself, have no consciousness.
* Despite our elements themselves having no consciousness, we do.
* Consciousness can not happen by chance, therefore there must be a being who supply that to us.
* Infinite regress of beings is illogical, therefore a single, uncaused causer must be the causer of consciousness.
* This uncaused causer of the conscience is [[God]]

===Objections===

* This argument fails to address [[gestalt consciousness]].
* [[Evolutionists]] typically argue that consciousness may happen by chance. If this is the case, then the [[anthropic principle]] applies.
* Infinite regress is allowable both in modern mathematics and physics.
* The last point (that the uncaused causer is God) is unsupported unless it is taken as a statement of definition. If this is the case, the prior arguments are unnecessary.

== Argument from beauty ==

*[[Argument from beauty]]

==Resources==
* ''God, Are you There? Five Reasons God Exists and Three Reasons it Makes a Difference'', by [[William Lane Craig]] (from the [http://www.rzim.org RZIM] Critical Questions Booklet Series)
* ''Does God Exist? The Debate between Theists and Atheists'', by [[J.P. Moreland]] (theist) and [[Kai Nielsen]] (atheist). Prometheus Books, 1993.

==See also==

* [[Rebuttals to atheist arguments]]
* [[Christian apologetics]]
* [[Apologetics]]
* [[Creation science]]
* [[Atheism]]
* [[Thomas Aquinas]]
* [[Argument from miracles]]
* [[Argument from desire]]

==References==
*''This article is based off the Theopedia.com [http://www.theopedia.com/Arguments_for_the_existence_of_God article] which is in the public domain.''
{{reflist|2}}

==External links==
* [http://www.apologetics.com/default.jsp?bodycontent=/articles/theistic_apologetics/kreeft-arguments.html Twenty Arguments For The Existence Of God], by [[Peter Kreeft]] & Ronald K. Tacelli
* [http://www.homestead.com/philofreligion/files/Theisticarguments.html Two Dozen (or so) Theistic Arguments] by [[Alvin Plantinga]]; Lecture presented at the 33rd Annual Philosophy Converence, Wheaton College, Oct 23-25, 1986
* [http://www.apologetics.com/default.jsp?bodycontent=/articles/theistic_apologetics/beck-cosmology.html The Cosmological Argument: A Current Bibliographical Appraisal], by W. David Beck
* [http://theologica.blogspot.com/2005/11/evil-as-evidence-for-god.html Evil as Evidence for God], by Justin Taylor
* [http://www.theologicalstudies.citymax.com/page/page/1572404.htm The 4 Primary Arguments for God's Existence], by Michael J. Vlach
* "[http://www.realclearreligion.org/articles/2014/10/08/thomas_aquinass_proof_of_god.html Thomas Aquinas's Proof of God]" by Robert Barron, October 8, 2014

===Multimedia===
* [http://biblicaltraining.org/audio/TH503/theology_1_11001.mp3 Theism; Proof of God's existence], by [[Bruce Ware]] (MP3)
* [http://www.veritas.org/mediafiles/Craig%20DoesGodExist%20Fresno.aiff.mp3 Does God Exist?] (MP3), by William Lane Craig
* [http://www.veritas.org/3.0_media/topics/17 Existence of God Audio Lectures] (The Veritas Forum)
* [http://www.believerschapeldallas.org/audio/slj-69_systematic-theology/002_SLJ_69_32K.mp3 Is There a Supreme Being?, or the Existence of God] (MP3), by S. Lewis Johnson
* [http://biblicaltraining.org/audio/TH601/apologetics_08c_MSTR.mov Cosmological Argument] (QuickTime), by Ronald Nash
'''ApologeticsPress.org''' (RealPlayer) 
* [http://www.apologeticspress.org/audio/rsf1-l05.rm The Case for the Existence of God] (Part I)
* [http://www.apologeticspress.org/audio/rsf1-l06.rm The Case for the Existence of God] (Part II)
* [http://www.apologeticspress.org/audio/rsf1-l07.rm The Case for the Existence of God] (Part III)

[[Category:Christian Apologetics]]
[[Category:Arguments for the existence of God| ]]
[[Category:Theology]]
[[Category:Philosophy]]

Talk:Essay: The atheist and evolutionist helpline

2014-12-17T20:25:18Z

Darwon:

The videos by [[Lee Strobel]] don´t work. Please repair them.--[[User:JoeyJ|JoeyJ]] 11:40, 29 September 2014 (EDT)

The caption of the "militant atheist taking a stroll" has a broken link. [[User:Darwon|Darwon]] 15:24, 17 December 2014 (EST)

Talk:Essay: The atheist and evolutionist helpline

2014-12-17T20:24:47Z

Darwon:

The videos by [[Lee Strobel]] don´t work. Please repair them.--[[User:JoeyJ|JoeyJ]] 11:40, 29 September 2014 (EDT)
The caption of the "militant atheist taking a stroll" has a broken link. [[User:Darwon|Darwon]] 15:24, 17 December 2014 (EST)

Mystery:Does God Have a Sense of Humor?

2014-12-17T20:00:38Z

Darwon: You mean sorta like the Streisand effect? I'm not surprised.

'''Does [[God]] Have a Sense of Humor?'''

Rarely is the sense of humor of God discussed or analyzed, but [[Proverbs 1-8 (Translated)#8:31|Proverbs 8:31]] states that [[God]] finds amusement with the human race. '''''There are many compelling reasons to conclude that God does have a sense of humor''''', and most of the jokes are at the expense of liberals/anti-Christians:

*'''names''': remarkable skills seem to be given to people who have unusual names to match or induce humor. Jaime Lachica Sin was such an extraordinary priest that he was elevated to the esteemed position of "Cardinal", making him "Cardinal Sin."<ref>http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/bishop/bsin.html</ref> Other examples include "Usain Bolt" (the fastest sprinter in world history), "Learned Hand" (one of the finest judges in history), "Michael Arms" (an [[2012 Summer Olympics|Olympic]] rower from [[New Zealand]]),<ref>http://www.bbc.com/sport/olympics/2012/athletes/047f7705-2b90-4267-94da-e2c02de08d98</ref> "Billy Sunday" (one of the most famous Christian preachers in American history), "Richie Incognito" (an [[NFL]] all-Pro offensive lineman who made headlines for badgering a teammate),<ref>http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=5002565</ref> "Marcus Smart" (a star basketball player who did the not-so-smart shoving of a fan who heckled him during a game),<ref>http://www.sportingnews.com/ncaa-basketball/story/2014-02-09/marcus-smart-suspension-length-punishment-shove-push-fan-oklahoma-state-texas-tech-video-return-out</ref> and "[[George McGovern]]" (a former U.S. Senator and presidential candidate). Also, there are many whites named "Black" and many African Americans named "White". Russell Brain was a famous neurologist whose textbook, ''Brain's Diseases of the Nervous System'', is still in wide use.
*'''political scandals''': liberals once mocked General David Petraeus by calling him "General Betray Us"; liberal President Obama subsequently appointed him as head of the CIA, whereupon he caused a massive scandal that betrayed liberals by embarrassing them.
*'''football''': [[Tim Tebow]]'s completion of ten passes for 316 yards, at 31.6 yards per competition, in his stunning playoff victory against the [[Pittsburgh Steelers]], echoed his promotion of [[John_1-7_(Translated)#Chapter_3|John 3:16]].
*'''[[John 1-7 (Translated)#2:1|the wedding at Cana]]''': it was a huge ''faux paux'' for the host to run out of wine, leaving the guests stranded with nothing to drink (the water was probably not drinkable), but the last laugh was by the servants and [[Jesus]] when they gave a welcomed surprise to the host without explaining the source.
*'''implausible absurdities''': the election outcome for the 2000 presidential election was implausibly close in [[Florida]], and apparently [[Al Gore]] lost because some [[Democrat]] voters misread the "butterfly ballot."
*'''logic''': man has a sense of humor, and man was created in the image of God. Hence God has a sense of humor.
*'''history''': man's sense of humor improved with the discovery and expansion of Christianity, which indicates their strong correlation. [[Friedrich Nietzsche]], after attacking Jesus and God in the last books he would ever write, went insane.
*'''sociology''': the massive carvings of caricatures of human beings found, without a plausible explanation, on [[Easter Island]].
*'''politics''': atheistic political figures are known for their lack of a sense of humor, such as [[Attila the Hun]] and [[Adolf Hitler]], which suggests that the opposite of God is a lack of sense of humor
*'''religious''': the encounter on the road to Emmaus, described at [[Luke_17-24_(Translated)#Chapter_24|Luke 25:13-31]], strongly suggests that God has intervened in amusing ways; also, God sometimes uses [[sarcasm]], as in [[Amos_(Translated)#Chapter_4|Amos 4:4]].
*'''scientific''': snowstorms have disrupted [[global warming]] conferences; regions that promote the global warming hoax have been subjected to brutally cold weather.
*'''zoology''': there are various animals, such as the duck-billed platypus, the cheeky monkey or the long-necked giraffe, that seem designed in order to amuse.
*'''[[atheism]]''': atheistic nations like [[North Korea]] are known for their lack of a sense of humor.
*'''[[ontological argument|ontological]]''': God is defined as the greatest being conceivable, and it's better to have a sense of humor than not; therefore God has a sense of humor.
*'''intrinsic humor''': some humor is funny to virtually everyone who has a sense of humor - which would be impossible in the absence of intrinsic humor. Yet intrinsic humor would be impossible unless God appreciated it also.
*'''contradictions and disbelief''': contradictions and surprise are the essence of humor, and God's allowance of their basis to continue to exist suggests that God may find amusement in it.
*'''media''': Within weeks after the [[lamestream media]] made the unlikely claim that [[Fidel Castro]] -- who has not been seen in public since the frail dictator went to a hospital for a very grave condition in July 2006 -- had met the [[Pope]], a five-day suspension was imposed on [[Florida Marlins]] manager Ozzie Guillen for expressing admiration that Fidel Castro has such longevity.
*'''dreams''': some dreams might be God playing a trick for amusement purposes on you.
*'''the Bible''': see [[humor in the Bible]]
*'''idolatry''': some who idolize [[Obama]] think that he is an atheist, when in fact he is likely a [[Muslim]]
*'''Miracle Catch of Fish''' (John 21:1-25) - God chose to reveal himself in a humorous by telling the fishermen, who had unsuccessfully tried all night to catch a fish, to cast their nets on the other side of the boat, which nearly broke the net with such a large catch of fish.
*'''[[Adultery]]''': The seventh commandment Thou shalt not commit adultery shows God has a sense of humor because when a womanizer from Arkansas had an affair with Miss [[Monica Lewinsky]] he tarnished his presidential reputation and created a field day for conservatives.
* '''Crime''': A [[pro-life]] <ref>[http://www.priest2010.com/issues.html] </ref> Montana state senator was charged with assault on a minor after he threw his young daughter to the ground. The pro-life politician's name? "Priest." <ref>[http://www.krtv.com/news/mt-lawmaker-priest-charged-with-felony-for-assault-on-4-year-old-daughter/]</ref>
== References ==

<references/>
[[Category:Mystery]]
[[Category:Theology]]
[[Category:Humor]]

Essay:Best New Conservative Words

2014-12-16T01:15:54Z

Darwon: extrapolation is fun, isn't it?

[[File:Conservative words.jpg|thumb|300px|The growth in conservative words on an annual basis (red), compared with a geometric growth rate (Courtesy [[User:Jcw]])]][[Conservative]] terms, expressing [[conservative insights]], originate at a faster rate and with higher quality than [[liberal]] terms do. Conservative triumph over liberalism is thus inevitable.

Each year the [[English language]] develops about a thousand new words. The [[King James Version]] of the [[Bible]] contains only about 8,000 different words;<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/8013859.stm</ref> many good words have developed since.

Powerful new conservative terms have grown at a [[geometric progression|geometric rate]], roughly doubling every century. For each new conservative term originating in the 1600s,<ref>The King James Version of the Bible was published in 1611, by then [[William Shakespeare]] had written nearly all his plays.</ref> there are two new terms originating in the 1700s, four new terms in the 1800s, and eight new terms in the 1900s, for a pattern of "1-2-4-8". This suggests that the future will be increasingly conservative.

{| class="wikitable sortable"
|-
!Century
!# New Conservative Terms
|-
|1600s
|36
|-
|1700s
|72
|-
|1800s
|146
|-
|1900s
|290
|-
|2000s
|29 (preliminary)
|-
|}

==Conservative words and terms==

{{clear}}
{| class="wikitable sortable"
|-
!New Term
!Origin date
!Comments
|-
|a.m.
|1762
|"a.m." means "before noon" in [[Latin]] (ante meridiem); it became popular much as "[[A.D.]]" did. Also, a morning [[work ethic]] is a conservative concept.
|-
|[[abstract nonsense]]
|1940s
|a pejorative term for unnecessarily abstract mathematics of doubtful rigor; [[liberal denial]] insists that this term, which describes something as "nonsense", is somehow not negative!
|-
|[[accountability]]
|1794
|the willingness or obligation to be held responsible for one's actions- a fundamental conservative ideal, unlike liberals who believe that "society", and not individuals, is responsible for their wrongdoing.
|-
|accuracy
|1660
|conservatives strive for accuracy, while many liberals are masters of [[deceit]]
|-
|act of God
|1787<ref>From ''Pollard v. Shaaffer'', 1 U.S. 210, 213 (1 Dall. 210) (Pa. S.Ct. 1787): "In the case before the court, if the lessee had covenanted for himself and his assigns, to deliver up the tenements in good order and repair, notwithstanding they should be destroyed by act of God or of an Enemy, then this action would certainly lie, because of the special express words; but when there are no such words, but only generally to repair &c. would it be reasonable to construe these words so as to extend to the cases put?"</ref><ref>Merriam-Webster asserts a date of origin of 1635 in its online version [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/act%20of%20god], but 1859 in its 10th edition print version.</ref>
|an extraordinary, unforeseeable event, such as a massive flood or earthquake; term was probably inspired as a reference to the [[Great Flood]]
|-
|[[action-at-a-distance]]
|1693
|[[Newton]]'s acceptance of this concept -- which became fundamental to [[electrostatics]] and [[quantum mechanics]] and has a basis in Christianity<ref>''See, e.g.'', [[Jesus]]'s cure of the centurion's slave.</ref> -- was central to the development of his theory of gravity.<ref>http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/newton-philosophy/#ActDis</ref> [[Materialists]] censor this concept, while Einstein criticized it as "spooky".
|-
|activism
|1915
|this differentiates conservatives from inactive people; this term might have originated in connection with [[Prohibition]] and efforts to pass the [[Eighteenth Amendment]]
|-
|addictive
|1939
|the intrinsic characteristic of certain things or activities to induce repetitious involvement, usually with a harmful effect on the participant, as in [[gambling]], or [[video games]].
|-
|aerobics
|1967
|invented by the [[Christian]] Dr. Kenneth H. Cooper<ref>http://www.christianadvice.net/famous_christians.htm</ref> to describe his self-help program to improve health; he gave the title "Aerobics" to his ground-breaking book in 1968, and eventually it revolutionized attitudes toward exercise.
|-
|agency capture
|1985<ref>The concept originated a bit earlier, but its first best articulation was when a federal court recognized that "agency capture" is "where the regulated become the regulators." ''Huron Valley Hospital, Inc. v. Pontiac'', 612 F. Supp. 654, 663 (E.D. Mich. 1985).</ref>
|the misuse of Big Government (agencies) by Big Business to choke off free enterprise through regulations that impede competition
|-
|agitprop
|1929
|propaganda designed to incite agitation, originally coined to describe communist propaganda
|-
|alarmism
|1867
|needless warnings, as in the politically motivated claims of [[global warming]]
|-
|{{#ifexist: alcoholism | [[alcoholism]] | alcoholism }}
|1860
|excessive or addictive drinking of alcohol
|-
|algorithm
|1849
|an efficient and consistent step-by-step methodology for achieving a goal, the opposite of [[liberal style]]
|-
|altruism
|1853
|selfless assistance of others; this also occurs in the animal kingdom, and is a [[counterexample to evolution]]
|-
|ambulance chaser
|1896
|a lawyer who searches for victims to persuade them to sue for his profit
|-
|[[American dream]]
|1911<ref>1911 is the date given by the "OED", which refers to the Oxford English Dictionary. The Merriam-Webster dictionary gives a date of 1931.</ref>
|the vision that, with hard work, anyone in American can attain happiness and prosperity
|-
|[[American exceptionalism]]
|1835
|the idea that the United States and the American people hold a special place in the world, by offering opportunity and hope for humanity
|-
|American Way
|1930s
|later conservative entrepreneurs used this to coin a new name for what became a highly successful and uniquely American business model: "Amway"
|-
|[[anti-Christian]]
|1900s
|opposing Christian ideals and institutions
|-
|anticompetitive
|1854
|interfering with open competition and the enormous benefits that flow from it
|-
|antilife
|1929
|term criticizing a tendency to oppose life and lifesaving care
|-
|antitrust
|1890
|the origin is the passage of the [[Republican]]-sponsored [[Sherman Act]] to prohibit restraints of trade, one of the greatest pieces of legislation in all of history
|-
|apathetic
|1744
|term critical of the those who are deliberately inactive and disengaged mentally
|-
|[[Apostles' Creed]]
|1658
|a concise statement of [[Christian]] [[faith]] that began with the original [[Apostles]] and has guided billions since. (The earliest historical evidence of the creed's existence is in a letter written by the Council of Milan in 390 A.D. <ref>[http://www.christianitytoday.com/biblestudies/articles/churchhomeleadership/080730.html Christianity Today]]</ref>)
|-
|apparatchik
|1941
|an official who blindly does what he thinks his government superiors want, as in [[communism]]
|-
|apple pie
|1780
|honesty, simplicity, wholesomeness. Relating to, or characterized by traditionally American values. <ref>[http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/apple%20pie Merriam-webster- Apple pie]</ref>
|-
|assimilate
|1880s<ref>estimate only; this originated sometime in the late 1880s.</ref>
|the desired absorption of immigrant groups into the culture and mores of the resident population
|-
|atheistic
|1625-35
|An adjective pertaining to or characteristic of atheists or atheism; containing, suggesting, or disseminating atheism.
|-
|attention span
|1934
|correlated with intelligence, the attention span is how long someone can concentrate on something. It is rapidly shortening; the Lincoln-Douglas debates 150 years ago lasted for hours, but none do today.<ref>http://www.help4teachers.com/ras.htm</ref> The average length of sentences in speech is another indication of attention span, and it has been shortening significantly.
|-
|Austrian economics
|1900s<ref>A more precise date is welcome; "Austrian school" was coined a bit earlier, initially as a derisive term.</ref>
|an approach to economics that emphasizes the purposeful decisions of individuals, and which was belatedly recognized by a 1974 [[Nobel Prize]] to [[Friedrich von Hayek]]; these economic ideas influenced [[Ludwig von Mises]], [[Ron Paul]], and 1987 Nobel Laureate James M. Buchanan.
|-
|axiomatic
|1797
|self-evident (first usage), and later it developed the meaning of being based on a set of axioms
|-
|baby boom
|1920<ref>[http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/baby-boomer.html Baby boomer] phrases.org.uk, retrieved August 30, 2012</ref>
|an increase in birthrate, which is a good thing; note that what is known as post-World War II baby boom actually started before the war, contrary to what textbooks teach. Perpetuating the mistake, the U.S. Census Bureau counts the generation born between 1946 and 1964 as the baby boomers.<ref>[http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/facts_for_features_special_editions/cb06-ffse01-2.html Newsroom: Facts for Features - Special Edition - The Oldest Baby Boomers Turn 60!]</ref>
|-
|back burner
|1963
|inactive status away from attention, as in "RINOs try to put social issues on the back burner"
|-
|bag lady
|1979
|a woman, typically unmarried, whose life tragically degenerated into a homeless existence of wandering in a city while carrying bags of worthless possessions
|-
|[[bailout]]
|1951
|wasting taxpayer money to rescue, temporarily, a failing company
|-
|bake sale
|1903<ref>Citizen Patriot of Jackson, Michigan, “Albion,” pg. 6, (Nov. 21, 1903) [http://www.redstate.com/barrypopik/2011/03/27/origin-of-the-bake-sale-and-maddows-bakesales-for-bombersbakesales-or-billionaires/]</ref>
|the activity of volunteers, typically women, baking good food and selling it to raise money for a worthy cause
|-
|balkanize
|1919
|to break a region or neighborhood into divisive components; the opposite of the American concept of assimilation or "[[E pluribus unum]]"
|-
|baseball
|1815
|an American original that is governed by rules rather than a clock; the stars and fans are overwhelmingly conservative
|-
|bedrock
|1840-1850
|an American term for unbroken solid rock underneath fragments or soil, which adopted the figurative meaning of strong values: "bedrock principles"<ref>http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bedrock</ref>
|-
|beltway mentality
|1986
|popularized by [[Paul Weyrich]] though possibly first used by then-Governor [[John Sununu]] ("captives of yourselves"), it refers to a governing style that sees only as far as the highway that surrounds its capital, especially the one around D.C.
|-
|benchmark
|1842
|a quality standard for which people can strive
|-
|[[Best of the Public]]
|2009
|A term coined by [[Andy Schlafly]] to express the idea that one does not need [[liberal]] credentials that so-called "experts" have. Indeed, many great historical figures would have failed the liberal "expert" test.
|-
|biased
|1649
|to show prejudice for or against something; American society is rapidly becoming ''biased'' against Christian and Conservative beliefs.
|-
|Biblophobic
|2012<ref>http://www.christianpost.com/news/pastor-greg-laurie-i-hate-the-word-homophobic-83209/</ref>
|hatred or fear of the [[Bible]]
|-
|Bidenism
|1992
|an idiotic remark that would subject the politician to enormous ridicule if he were a [[conservative]], but when spoken by [[liberal]] [[Joe Biden]] the media are just fine with it
|-
|Big Brother
|1949
|government constantly watching its citizens; [[George Orwell]] first coined this term in his classic, ''[[1984]]''
|-
|biological clock
|1955
|how each woman begins to lose her ability to have children at age 27, no matter how much [[feminists]] try to conceal this scientific fact from women
|-
|Blame America Crowd<ref>Or "Blame-America-First Crowd"</ref>
|1984
|Michael Barone quoted [[Jeane Kirkpatrick]] as saying that the "San Francisco Democrats" (site of the Democratic National Convention in 1984) "always blame America first."<ref>http://www.creators.com/opinion/michael-barone/the-blame-america-first-crowd.html</ref>
|-
|blank check
|1884
|irresponsibly giving someone unlimited spending authority or power, as in "a Con Con would be a blank check to destroy the nation"
|-
|blather
|1719
|nonsensical or insignificant babble, as in "liberal blather is common in the [[lamestream media]]"
|-
|[[Blue Dog Democrat]]
|1995
|a person who adheres to conservative principles within the Democratic party, once called a Boll Weevil; as of 2009 there are 45-50 Blue Dog Democrats in the [[House of Representatives]], which is enough to form a majority with [[Republicans]]
|-
|boomerang
|1825
|originally coined to describe a throwing device that returns to the thrower, the term became increasingly useful to describe how wrongful conduct returns to bite the perpetrator
|-
|boondoggle
|1935
|"popularized during the [[New Deal]] as a contemptuous word for make-work projects for the unemployed." <ref>http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=boondoggle&searchmode=none</ref> The term gained popularity in [[Canada]] following a corruption scandal tied to the [[Liberal]] government in 2000.
|-
|bootstrap
|1913
|unaided effort, personal merit, hard work
|-
|bork
|1988
|coined by William Safire to refer to how Democrats savage a conservative nominee, such as their defeat of Supreme Court nominee [[Robert H. Bork]].
|-
|born-again
|1961
|it takes an open mind and heart
|-
|borrowed time
|1898
|a bit more time than one has earned, which is best spent by accepting the truth of the [[Bible]]
|-
|bottom line
|1967
|the essential point, without the [[liberal claptrap]]<ref>The original usage of the term the "bottom line" had nothing to do with money.</ref>
|-
|brainstorm
|1894
|a burst of productive thought
|-
|brainwashing
|1950
|derived from the Chinese term "xǐnǎo" soon after the [[communist]] takeover of China, "brainwashing" means forced abandonment of [[faith]] in favor of regimented [[atheism]]. In a more general sense, it refers to the manipulation and control of the human mind through torture and propaganda techniques.
|-
|bright-line rule
|1971<ref>First used by [[U.S. Supreme Court]] Justice [[John Harlan II]] in ''United States v. Jorn'', 400 U.S. 470, 486 (1971), where he rejected adopting a bright-line rule for that case.</ref>
|a clear, unwavering line dividing what is allowed from what is prohibited; increasingly favored to avoid confusion and requirements that arbitrarily change
|-
|brinkmanship
|1956
|the art of displaying a willingness to use military force in order to obtain a just resolution to a conflict between nations
|-
|[[bureaucracy]]
|1818
|
|-
|busywork
|1910
|meaningless activity under the pretense of accomplishing something
|-
|can-do
|1903 <ref> according to the Oxford English Dictionary. [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/can-do Miram-webster] gives the date of 1945 </ref>
|Phrase coined in a short story by [[Rudyard Kipling]] that has come to refer to an attitude that espouses individual ability and responsibility and not reliance on [[entitlements]]
|-
|[[capitalism]]
|1850-1855
|creating jobs and wealth based on a private invention, ownership and investments rather than state-controlled resources
|-
|career politician
|1974<ref>First use found by ''Conservapedia'' was in an article describing a controversy in communist [[Yugoslavia]] over their "career politicians," published in the ''New York Times'' and authored by Malcolm W. Browne, sect. 4, p. 3, col. 1.</ref>
|a term used for the entrenched communist government officials in Yugoslavia, with whom even President Tito was fed up
|-
|[[carpetbagger]]
|1868
|a politician who moves to a new area to be elected to a government position, as in [[Hillary Clinton]] moving to [[New York]] to become a U.S. Senator
|-
|carte blanche
|1645-1655
|unconditional authority or power, without any limits on misuse of that power
|-
|cash discount
|1917
|a reduction in price for payment by cash, in recognition of how cash is more efficient
|-
|catharsis
|1775
|facilitating forgiveness and spiritual renewal by expression, as in writing or teaching or confession
|-
|caucus
|1763
|citizens or representatives gathering to meet and reach political decisions as a group while harnessing aspects of the [[best of the public]]; first coined by [[John Adams]]<ref>The future author of the Massachusetts Constitution who also played a role in developing the [[Declaration of Independence]].</ref> when he described a meeting of political Boston elders as a "caucus club"; the word may be from an Algonquian term for a group of advisers or elders.
|-
|cesspool
|1782
|an evil or corrupt place or state.
|-
|chaperone
|1720
|care and well-being of youths overseen by adults
|-
|charisma
|1930
|literally "a gift from God", charisma is a personal magic of leadership found in [[conservative]] public figures (but beware of the liberal tendency to put style before substance!)
|-
|Chicken Little
|1895
|one who falsely predicts disaster, especially for silly reasons: "global alarmists" are the Chicken Littles of our time<ref>In characteristically [[liberal]] style, the online Merriam-Webster spins the [[global warming]] example usage by saying the data showed he wasn't a Chicken Little.</ref>
|-
|Chinese wall
|1900
|a beneficial, impregnable wall that safeguards against wrongdoing
|-
|Christmas card
|1883
|another conservative innovation that apparently did not exist earlier, even though mail did; cards that say "Seasons Greetings" are a cheap imitation now.
|-
|Christmas tree
|1835
|the immensely popular custom of using an evergreen tree to support ornaments, cards and gifts, and symbolize life impervious to the darkness and cold of winter
|-
|chump change
|1968
|a term that highlights the insignificance of an amount of money; used especially against a miser or someone who makes the mistake of thinking money is more important than [[Christ]]
|-
|churchgoer
|1687
|a person who makes an effort, during the 168 hours in a week, to attend a church service
|-
|circle the wagons
|1800s
|regroup with family and friends, when under attack. usage from settlers in the old US west.
|-
|citizen's arrest
|1941
|private enforcement of the law without the need of a taxpayer-funded police officer
|-
|civil defense
|1939
|civilians protecting themselves and their community against attack or natural disasters
|-
|claptrap
|1799
|pretentious, verbose, and often liberal nonsense; example usage: "the professor wasted the rest of the class on his [[liberal claptrap]]"
|-
|class act
|1976
|exemplify conservative principles with values, integrity and a work ethic
|-
|class warfare
|1848
|this concept was initially coined by [[Karl Marx]] in ''[[The Communist Manifesto]]'', but it has become so discredited that it is now used mostly by conservatives to point out liberal demagoguery
|-
|closed shop
|1904
|a business that requires membership in a union as a condition of working there; 22 conservative states prohibit this
|-
|clueless
|1943
|hopelessly ignorant about something important, as liberals often are
|-
|[[Coase theorem|Coasean]]
|1980s
|an efficient result or bargain based on market forces without the distortions caused by [[transaction costs]]
|-
|cogent
|1659
|compelling with the powerful force of reason, the opposite of [[liberal]] claptrap
|-
|cold turkey
|1921
|defeating an addiction by completely turning away from it, often by using power of the [[Bible]] and [[Christ]]
|-
|Columbian
|1757
|relating to Christopher Columbus ''or the United States''
|-
|Cold War
|1945
|coined by [[George Orwell]] shortly after he wrote ''Animal Farm'',<ref>http://www.worldwar2history.info/war/causes/Cold-War.html</ref> as recognition that communist nations were at war with American freedom even in the absence of actual military conflict
|-
|collectivism
|1880
|when decision-making by a group takes priority over the good ideas of an individual, often preventing progress
|-
|commie
|1940
|abbreviation for "communist" that captures their simple-minded totalitarianism
|-
|common sense
|1726
|sound judgment based on facts
|-
|competitive
|1829
|
|-
|Con Con
|1980s
|popularized by [[Phyllis Schlafly]] to highlight the deception and risks inherent in proposed national constitutional conventions
|-
|conniption
|1833
|hysteria or alarm, as in "having a conniption fit"; a typical response by [[liberals]] when confronted with their [[double standards]] and illogical positions
|-
|conservation of charge
|1949
|overall charge does not change in an isolated system; it is neither created nor destroyed; the concept was first suggested by [[Benjamin Franklin]] but the date of origin for this term is surprisingly recent
|-
|[[conservative]]
|1808<ref>"[T]his is one of those rare cases when the [Oxford English Dictionary] gets something wrong. America, not Britain, deserves credit for inventing the word. Jacob Wagner, a Massachusetts federalist, first used ''conservative'' in its modern political sense in a letter dated May 13, 1808." David Lefer, ''The Founding Conservatives'', page 5 (2013).</ref>
|principles of limited government, personal responsibility, moral values, and productivity
|-
|[[conservative field]]
|1870s?
|a type of physical force over a region such that items moving throughout the region can store energy ''without loss'', as in the planetary system and electrical products<ref>The mathematical definition of a conservative field -- which arises in [[multivariable calculus]] -- is that a scalar potential exists for the function and, alternatively, it is [[irrotational]].</ref>
|-
|[[consumer surplus]]
|1890<ref>First coined by Cambridge University Professor Alfred Marshall in his acclaimed text, ''Principles of Economics'' (1890).</ref>
|the extra benefit received by consumers above the price they paid for a good or service, illustrating the value of the [[free market]]; specifically, consumer surplus is the difference between what consumers would have paid for something, and the lower price they did pay.
|-
|constant
|1832
|(noun) something unchanging in value
|-
|constitutionality
|1787
|its date of origin is the year of the [[Constitutional Convention]] that proposed the [[U.S. Constitution]]
|-
|contrarian
|1657
|someone who advocates views contrary to that of others; this type of person frustates [[liberal]] attempts to gain control
|-
|cooking the data
|1830
|[[Charles Babbage]] used it in his book, "Reflections on the Decline of Science in England."<ref>http://www.scientus.org/Church-Science-History.html</ref>
|-
|copacetic
|1890s<ref>Merriam-Webster officially lists its date of origin as 1919 and its source as unknown, but that is well after when Robinson says he developed it.</ref>
|Bill “Bojangles” Robinson, tap dancer extraordinaire, claimed the invention of this word; it was first popularized by African Americans
|-
|cop-out
|1942
|taking the easy way out, usually by shirking one's responsibilities
|-
|copyright
|1735
|extending private property to protect expressive works
|-
|corporate socialism
|1970s
|the tendency of large corporations to act in a socialistic manner, at the expense of meritocracy and productivity
|-
|correlate
|1742
|(verb) to show that one thing relates to another, such as [[atheism]] or [[homosexuality]] and selfishness or lack of charity; [[liberal]]s falsely rely on anecdotes to deny the general relationship
|-
|[[countability (Mathematics)|countability]]
|1874
|[[Georg Cantor]], loathed by the leading contemporary [[mathematicians]], developed this in proving that the real numbers are ''uncountable''
|-
|counterexample
|1957
|an example that is contrary to the proposition. A common point in logical, reasoned debate.
|-
|counterfactual
|1946
|especially assumptions that are contrary to fact; Chief Justice [[John Roberts]] wrote for the [[U.S. Supreme Court]], "petitioners' standing does not require precise proof of what the Board's policies might have been in that counterfactual world."<ref>''Free Enter. Fund v. Pub. Co. Accounting Oversight Bd.'', 130 S. Ct. 3138, 3163 (2010) (5-4 decision).</ref>
|-
|counterproductive
|1959
|interfering with a worthy goal. Example usage: "nearly everything a liberal supports is counterproductive."
|-
|counter-reformation
|1840
|a movement in response to another movement, as in a counter-reformation to the [[homosexual agenda]]
|-
|cover-up
|1927
|concealment by government officials of the truth about a matter of public concern
|-
|crackpot
|1884
|crazy talk, lunacy, a person on the fringe of reality
|-
|[[creation science]]
|1970s
|a term coined by the anti-[[evolution|evolutionist]] [[Henry Morris]].<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/28/AR2006022801716.html</ref>
|-
|creativity
|1875
|an ability, unique to God and his likeness, to make something from nothing
|-
|cross-examination
|1824
|the most effective tool against [[liberal]] [[deceit]], better than even the requirement of an oath
|-
|crystal clear
|1815
|liberals are the opposite
|-
|[[culture war]]
|1991
|widespread use after the book ''Culture Wars: The Struggle to Define America'' by James Davison Hunter
|-
|cyberbullying
|2000s
|a type of obnoxious and hurtful liberal behavior on the internet
|-
|[[deadweight loss]]
|1930s<ref>Confirmation of the first use is desired.</ref>
|the loss in overall wealth and efficiency imposed by monopolies and taxation, due to the loss in extra value that someone would have received beyond what he would have paid for a good at a free market price
|-
|death panel
|2009
|a provision of [[Obamacare]] that will enable a panel of government bureaucrats to decide who receives medical treatment
|-
|death tax
|1989
|interestingly, the term was coined by Canadians opposed to the high estate tax on their assets held in the United States; Frank Luntz is credited with later popularizing this term in the United States.<ref>''See'' Dr. Frank Luntz, ''Words That Work: It's Not What You Say, It's What People Hear''</ref>
|-
|debunk
|1923
|derived from "bunkum" (nonsense), a term that originated in 1845 when a congressman defended his silly speech by saying his audience was Buncombe County, NC
|-
|decentralization
|1846
|the dispersion of power, as in a shift from national to local control
|-
|decrypt
|1935
|military code-breaking, which played an instrumental role in World War II in deciphering enemy codes that many felt were unbreakable; illustrates the "can do" approach of conservatism in a patriotic way
|-
|[[defeatism]]
|1918
|a negative attitude that becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy
|-
|defensive driving
|1964
|a style of driving a car that always focuses on avoiding accidents, even those potentially caused by others; nearly a half-century later, dictionaries still do not recognize this term
|-
|deflation
|1891
|an increase in the value of savings
|-
|defund
|1948
|refers especially to termination of government funding of a wasteful or hurtful program
|-
|deliberative assembly
|1774<ref>''Introduction to Robert's Rules of Order, Newly Revised'' (19th Ed. 2000), xxv.</ref>
|used by Edmund Burke in describing the British parliament during a speech to voters in Bristol; he meant a body of persons meeting to discuss and decide common action under parliamentary law
|-
|demagogue
|1648
|the initial meaning of "demagogue" was positive, but preacher Robert South gave it a negative connotation in 1716 by observing that a "plausible, insignificant word, in the mouth of an expert demagogue, is a dangerous and a dreadful weapon."
|-
|[[deregulation]]
|1963
|Reagan won in 1980 by campaigning on this.
|-
|design by committee
|before 1958
|pejorative term directed against collective production by a group
|-
|despotism
|1727
|a ruler with unlimited powers
|-
|[[deterrence]]
|1861
|Disincentive of committing a crime based on the amount of punishment
|-
|devalue
|1918
|describing an unwelcome attitude or act, as in "devaluing human life"
|-
|devil's advocate
|1760
|someone who espouses the position of the wrong side, in order to test, sharpen and strengthen the right side
|-
|devotee
|1645
|ardent follower, supporter, or loyalty to. 56 years separates devotee and devoted
|-
|disinformation
|1950s
|false information spread (and sometimes manufactured) by groups with a strong political agenda
|-
|division of labor
|1776
|increasing productivity through specialization of labor, as in a husband working in manufacturing while his wife cares for children
|-
|dog and pony show
|1970
|an overblown event, typically having more fanfare than substance; liberals like to run a "dog and pony show" in towns having a large public university, where students brainwashed by liberal professors are led like cattle to the events
|-
|domino effect
|1966
|how the fall of one nation to communism can result in its harmful spread to neighboring nations
|-
|double standard
|1894
|applying harsher criticism against one group, such as churchgoers or conservatives, than against another group, such as atheists or liberals; recognition of a double standard by the [[Prodigal Son]] led him to repent and convert
|-
|doublethink
|1949
|a term first coined by [[George Orwell]] in his dystopian novel ''[[1984]]''; it means simultaneously holding contradictory beliefs, which is a characteristic of [[status worship]]
|-
|doubting Thomas
|1848
|someone who believes only what he can see and touch, and doubts all else
|-
|drifter
|1897
|someone whose residency wanders about aimlessly, failing to become a permanent, productive member of any community
|-
|duh science
|2000
|First coined by the ''LA Weekly'' to criticize the ''[[LA Times]]'' for failing to criticize a publicly funded study that concluded that pessimistic people are often in bad moods.<ref>Originally "duh!" science: "But couldn't we have been treated to just a soupcon of critical thinking, some irony even -- perhaps a glancing reference to the wisdom of public funding for 'duh!' science?"
"L.A. TIMES WHO KNEW? DEPARTMENT", ''LA Weekly'' p. 12 (Jan. 14, 2000).</ref>
|-
|dumb down
|1933
|
|-
|dumpster diving
|1982
|Searching through dumpsters for food or other material that can used rather than discarded; first known use: "Restaurant and store owners have complained about drunks panhandling during the day and 'dumpster diving' through trash at night."<ref>Phil Long, "Special Wing for Drunks Suggested at Future Jail," Miami Herald D1 (Nov. 24, 1982).</ref>
|-
|duplicitous
|1928
|someone -- particularly a liberal politician -- who deceptively says one thing when he really intends to do something else
|-
|Eagle Scout
|1913
|the highest rank in the [[Boy Scouts]], the term also means "a straight-arrow and self-reliant man."<ref>Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary (1994).</ref>
|-
|earmark
|2009
|"A provision in congressional legislation that allocates a specified amount of money for a specific project, program or organization."<ref>Merriam-Webster's Dictionary (2009).</ref>
|-
|economic rent
|1889
|revenue above the minimum amount to keep a good or service on the market, typically due to monopoly power; notice the date of origin was only one year prior to passage of the conservative [[Sherman Act]] in 1990
|-
|editorialize
|1856
|"to introduce opinion into the reporting of facts"<ref>Merriam-Webster (1994).</ref>
|-
|educrat
|1968
|a liberal education bureaucrat
|-
|[[efficiency]]
|1633
|ultimately from the Latin ''efficientem'', meaning ''"working out, or accomplishing"''<ref>[http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=efficient Online Etymological Dictionary]</ref>
|-
|egotism
|1714
|the root of atheism, as explained by Paul in Romans 1:21-22; the root of depression and anxiety also
|-
|electioneering
|1780s
|to work for the success of a particular candidate, party, ticket, etc., in an election.
|-
|[[elementary proof]]
|1865
|a mathematical proof based on the minimum assumptions associated with real analysis; term probably does not predate [[complex analysis]] and its first use may have been the English mathematician James Joseph Sylvester's paper, "On an elementary proof and generalisation of Sir Isaac Newton's hitherto undenionstrated rule for the discovery of imaginary roots."<ref>http://www.archive.org/stream/circular129johnuoft/circular129johnuoft_djvu.txt</ref>
|-
|[[elitism]]
|1950
|
|-
|[[embryoscopy]]
|1967<ref>The first endoscopic image of the unborn child was in 1967, by Mandelbaum. The date of origin of the term "embryoscopy" may have been later, but likely before the 1990s.</ref>
|Search this term on the internet and see the spectacular photos of the unborn child ("embryo") that were "scoped" by tiny cameras.
|-
|empowerment
|1986
|facilitating power for the ordinary; see also [[best of the public]]
|-
|[[entitlement]]
|1944
|
|-
|entrepreneur
|1852
|
|-
|[[ethnic voting]]
|1900s
|widely recognized and even advocated by some,<ref>http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/1/5/2/3/4/p152345_index.html</ref> yet the dictionary doesn't yet recognize it
|-
|etiquette
|1740
|social standards of behavior that promote dignity and discourage inept communications (or lack thereof)
|-
|Eurabia
|1970s
|A satirical word based on the idea that Europe is rapidly becoming Islamized.
|-
|Eurosceptic
|1970s
|someone who opposes joining the super-socialist [[European Union]]; some prefer the term "Eurorealist" to express this opposition, and sometimes "Eurosceptic" is used to criticize opponents of the EU
|-
|everyman
|1906
|the typical person
|-
|exceptional
|1787
|same year of origin as the [[U.S. Constitution]]!
|-
|exculpatory
|1781
|often used in the phrase "exculpatory evidence," it took nearly 50 years to develop this term after origination of the legal term suggesting guilt: "incriminate"
|-
|existence proof
|1950
|overcoming denial that something is possible by referencing its existence
|-
|expatriate
|1768
|to give up one's own citizenship, or be banished by one's own nation
|-
|explain away
|1704
|a weaker form of [[liberal denial]], "explain away" the truth is the only way that some remain liberal as they grow older
|-
|expose
|1803
|(noun) a statement of the facts, typically to discredit wrongdoing by government
|-
|facade
|1845<ref>1845 is the date of origin for the figurative use. The literal use dates back to 1650s, meaning the front of a building.</ref>
|Example usage: "The facade of a liberal politician is often conservative."
|-
|fair shake
|1830
|approaching an idea or concept with an open mind
|-
|fairy tale
|1749
|a fanciful fictional story - sample usage: "[[Evolution]] is a fairy tale for adults who don't want to read and accept the logic of the [[Bible]]."
|-
|faith healing
|1885
|
|-
|[[falsifiability]]
|1934
|first emphasized by Karl Popper in 1934, this helps define science: if a proposition is false, then it can be shown to be false. If not, then the proposition is not scientific.
|-
|[[family values]]
|1916
|widespread use after a speech by Vice President [[Dan Quayle]], 1992
|-
|fat farm
|1969
|a place where obese people -- such as self-centered [[atheists]] -- might go to try to lose weight
|-
|father figure
|1934
|someone who fulfills the essential role of a father
|-
|faux conservative
|1990<ref>First coined by ''The Economist'', in "[[New England]]'s governors; All change" (September 22, 1990), in reference to [[Lowell Weicker]]'s "loss in 1988 to a Faux-conservative Democrat, Mr [[Joseph Lieberman]]."</ref>
|
|-
|federal government
|1787
|used by [[Alexander Hamilton]] in the first phrase of the ''[[Federalist Papers]]'' to signify a government that is not fully sovereign, as the States are
|-
|[[federalism]]
|1789
|the unique system of dual sovereigns, state and federal (national), established by the [[U.S. Constitution]]
|-
|fear-mongering
|1938<ref>The ''[[New York Times]]'' attributed the first use -- ironically -- to President [[Franklin Delano Roosevelt]].</ref>
|stir up exaggerated fear by the public, typically to expand government
|-
|feedback
|1920
|an all-important element of accountability and improvement, and a key consideration in good engineering design
|-
|[[fellow traveller]]
|1925
|may have existed earlier, but popularized in 1924 by Leon Trotsky. Describes a sympathizer of a cause but who does not formally belong to the cause, such as a [[communist]] sympathizer who is not part of the communist party. The term was invented by the communists in its original, non-negative sense, but the conservatives were the first to use it as a pejorative term.
|-
|[[fiscal cliff]]
|2012
|first coined by Federal Reserve Chairman [[Ben Bernanke]], it refers to the effect on the economy of a sharp drop in spending and perhaps an increase in taxes scheduled to take effect at approximately the same time.<ref>http://www.benjaminfedwards.com/blog/?p=197</ref>
|-
|[[Flip flop (politics)|flip-flop]]
|1976
|''verb'', meaning to change political position, typically due to [[liberal]] pressure. First used by the Republican S.I. Hayakawa campaign to describe California Democratic incumbent U.S. Senator John Tunney, whom Hayakawa defeated in an upset.
|-
|force-feed
|1901
|what liberals do to students in [[public schools]] today in training them to be [[atheist]]ic socialists
|-
|forward-looking
|1800
|planning for the future rather than dwelling on the past
|-
|Founding Fathers
|1914
|the several dozen [[Christian]] men <ref>[http://www.adherents.com/gov/Founding_Fathers_Religion.html Religious Affiliation of the Founding Fathers of the United States of America, Adherents.com]</ref> who helped draft the formative documents of the United States
|-
|[[free enterprise]]
|1820
|
|-
|free lunch
|1949
|something acquired ostensibly without paying for it, as in welfare; often used to remind people that "there's no such thing as a free lunch" in order to point out that it must cost someone something, now or later.
|-
|free market
|1907
|
|-
|free speech
|1873
|shorthand for "freedom of speech," but with a connotation that extends to non-citizens and listeners; first used in a U.S. Supreme Court opinion in dissent in the [[Slaughter-House Cases]] by Justice Bradley
|-
|free world
|1949
|areas of the world free of communism
|-
|freeloader
|1934
|someone who avoids paying or working for his share of a benefit
|-
|frontiersmen
|1814
|living and working in a self-sufficient manner and with courage in a new land.
|-
|fuzzy math
|1937
|non-computational math designed to obscure the differences between the correct answers and the incorrect -- but perhaps politically motivated -- answers
|-
|galvanize
|1802
|as in, "the liberal proposals ''galvanized'' the grassroots in opposition"
|-
|[[gambit]]
|1656
|a sacrifice that obtains an advantageous position, as in the game of [[chess]] ([[Bobby Fischer]]'s queen's gambit was a masterpiece) or in real life (the [[Passion of Christ]])
|-
|gang up
|1925
|group pressure
|-
|gateway drug
|1982
|abuse of alcohol/marijuana eventually leads to harder drugs cocaine/heroin
|-
|gerrymandering
|1812
|coined by a newspaper editor to criticize the manipulation of the lines of a new district into a salamander shape<ref>http://www.allbusiness.com/information/publishing-industries/251259-1.html</ref> that favored election of a liberal politician
|-
|Giving Tuesday
|2012
|a day of charity during the [[Christmas]] season, in response to "Black Friday" and "Cyber Monday"
|-
|gimmick
|1922
|originally meant a deceptive mechanical device for controlling a [[gambling]] machine, and then its meaning expanded to include all trickery to attract attention
|-
|globalism
|1997
|Merriam-Webster states it was first used in 1943<ref>http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/globalism</ref> and the OED gives a date of 1965 for the exact term "globalism";<ref>http://dictionary.oed.com/cgi/entry/50095613/50095613se2?single=1&query_type=word&queryword=globalism&first=1&max_to_show=10&hilite=50095613se2</ref> the term "globalization" was first used in the mid-1980s in a different, complimentary sense.
|-
|God-fearing
|1835
|Living by the rules of God; living in a way that is considered morally right.
|-
|godsend
|1820
|
|-
|go-getter
|1921
|
|-
|gold standard
|1831
|the highest standard; in currency, when money could be exchanged for a fixed amount of gold
|-
|golden parachute
|1981
|a pejorative term for a pre-arranged handout to a corporate executive when fired, as when the company is taken over by new ownership
|-
|good book
|1860
|the [[Bible]]
|-
|Good Samaritan
|1640
|how genuine charity is the best approach
|-
|goon
|1926
|a dim-witted thug, espec. one who intimidates on behalf of a union
|-
|government school
|1955
|coined by [[economist]] [[Milton Friedman]] as a more accurate name for [[public schools]]
|-
|[[grade inflation]]
|1975
|the tendency by Liberal educationalists and public schools to increase marks, irrespective of merit or actual achievement.
|-
|[[grassroots]]
|1901
|
|-
|gravy train
|1927
|easy money for little or no work, in contrast with the work ethic; notice how the [[Great Depression]] hit two years later
|-
|greasy spoon
|1902
|a free enterprise term for a small, cheap restaurant - which in many places is just what the public wants; reflects Jesus' [[Biblical scientific foreknowledge]] about the digestive system
|-
|Great Awakening
|1730-1740
|Christian spiritualism recurs periodically. See [[Essay:The Coming Fifth Great Awakening in America]].
|-
|Gresham's law
|1858
|the tendency in a free market for bad money (which loses its value) to drive out (be used more often in transactions) than good money (which retains its value), because people want to horde the good money while getting rid of the bad money; a similar effect can be seen when profanity drives out intelligent discussion
|-
|groupthink
|1952
|a style of thought consisting of conformity to a manufactured consensus and self-deception; coined by William H. Whyte in 1952.
|-
|half-baked
|1855
|an idea that can appear reasonable at first, but with just a little thought it is recognized to be absurd
|-
|hallmark
|1721
|purity, authentic, official seal, distinguishing feature
|-
|handout
|1882
|describes charity and government giveaways
|-
|happy talk
|1973
|sensless banter among broadcasters in the [[lamestream media]], as a substitute for real news; more generally, happy talk is unjustifiably feel-good rhetoric that implicitly denies the real existence of [[Hell]].
|-
|hardworking
|1774
|
|-
|harmless error
|1861
|an insignificant violation of a duty or procedural rule; first used in ''Western Ins. Co. v. The Goody Friends'', 29 F. Cas. 764 (S.D. Ohio 1861) (referring to a duty)
|-
|hatchet job
|1944
|still looking for the context of its first use; today it means an article, typically by a liberal, that misleadingly smears someone, typically a conservative
|-
|Hawthorne effect
|1962
|the increase in achievement resulting merely from being observed; this was demonstrated by experiment at the Hawthorne Works of Western Electric in Cicero, Illinois
|-
|heartland
|1904
|the central portion of the United States known for its [[conservative]] values and lack of control by the [[liberal media]] and [[Hollywood]]
|-
|heckler's veto
|1965
|coined by University of Chicago Law Professor Harvey Kalven, Jr., a strong supporter of free speech in politics, this term has been used in [[Supreme Court]] decisions by Justices [[Sam Alito]],<ref>''See'' ''Pleasant Grove City v. Summum'', 129 S. Ct. 1125 (2009); ''see also'' ''Child Evangelism Fellowship of N.J., Inc. v. Stafford Twp. Sch. Dist.'', 386 F.3d 514 (3rd Cir. 2004).</ref> [[Antonin Scalia]], and [[Clarence Thomas]].<ref>''Good News Club v. Milford Cent. Sch.'', 533 U.S. 98 (2001)</ref>
|-
|high maintenance
|1980s<ref>The use of the term was picked up and repeated in a movie released in 1989, ''When Harry Met Sally'' (1989).</ref>
|someone, often liberal, who repeatedly demands attention and unproductive help from others
|-
|hindsight
|1866
|understanding of an event or decision with the benefit of wisdom gained afterward
|-
|hippie
|1965
|someone who rejects traditional morality and does what he wants, often growing long hair and smoking [[marijuana]] rather than working hard; this term became increasingly pejorative over time
|-
|hissy fit
|1970
|an unjustified tantrum, typically female in nature, as in "[[feminist]]s had a hissy fit when [[Lawrence Summers]] suggested (but criticized) the possibility that women have weaker scientific aptitude than men, and Summers ultimately resigned."
|-
|hoax
|1796
|to deceive the public into believing something that is false, often to pull people away from the [[Bible]].
|-
|Hobson's choice
|1649<ref>this term has the entertaining history of originating with an English liveryman who required customers to "choose" the horse closest to the door.</ref>
|an ostensible choice that disguises a lack of freedom, because each alternative is completely unacceptable. This term is invoked to criticize an illusory freedom of choice. This term has been used in 48 cases by Supreme Court Justices, more often by conservatives than by liberals.
|-
|hokey
|1927
|phony, in an obvious or corny way
|-
|Holy Week
|1710
|the week leading up to [[Easter]], including the [[Passion]], [[Crucifixion]] and [[Resurrection]]
|-
|honor system
|1903
|an approach to discipline that emphasizes and encourages trust, honesty and personal responsibility rather than constant supervision
|-
|[[homeschool]]
|1980<ref>the OED assigns a date of origin of 1850 to "homeschool".</ref>
|
|-
|[[homemaker]]
|1876
|a wife and mother whose efforts are wisely spent running the household for the family
|-
|hometown
|1912
|the place where someone grew up and typically obtained some benefit
|-
|[[homosexual agenda]]
|1989
|used to promote the agenda in the book ''After the Ball'', but then used to criticize the movement by Justice [[Antonin Scalia]] in his dissent in''Lawrence v. Texas'' (2003)''
|-
|human rights
|1766
|rights of all peoples, such as to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" as set forth in the [[Declaration of Independence]]
|-
|hype
|1931
|originally meant to deceive or "put on," and then its meaning shifted slightly to represent extravagant promotion of something as the liberal media often do
set forth in the [[Declaration of Independence]]
|-
|hypergamy
|1883
|the preference of many women to "marry up," which requires a society where men tend to make more than women do
|-
|hyphenated American
|1889
|President Theodore Roosevelt said in 1915, "There is no such thing as a hyphenated American who is a good American."
|-
|hypothesis
|1656
|a suggestion, typically scientific in nature, which must be tested and proven before asserted as truth
|-
|hysteria
|1801
|From the Latin ''hystericus'', from Greek ''hystera '' meaning ''"womb"''<ref>[http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hysteria Meriam Webster Dictionary]</ref> (an old notion that hysteria was caused by the [[womb]]).
|-
|idealist
|1829
|a person guided by ideals
|-
|illiteracy
|1660
|liberals seek to produce illiterate voters who lack independence, and many graduates of the [[public schools]] are illiterate today
|-
|inalienable
|1640s
|cannot be taken away, especially by government, as in "inalienable rights" in the [[Declaration of Independence]]
|-
|inattentive
|1741<ref>Date of origin given by the Online Etymology Dictionary; Merriam-Webster cites an earlier date of origin, perhaps with a narrower meaning.</ref>
|more than 150 years before the discovery in physics of the connection between attentiveness/observation and uncertainty/chaos, this conservative word cautioned against inattentiveness
|-
|incentivize
|1970
|create a reward to encourage good work
|-
|incidental inequality
|2009
|inequalities that result as side effects of an objectively just system
|-
|incoherent
|1626
|the term often applies to liberal [[double standard]]s
|-
|incompleteness
|1931
|a system of logic or mathematics that includes propositions that are impossible to prove or disprove; term coined as a result of [[Kurt Godel]]'s work in 1931
|-
|incrementalism
|1966
|imposing bad political or social change slowly
|-
|independence
|1640
|free will
|-
|individualism
|1827
|values, rights and duties arise from the individual
|-
|inerrancy
|1834
|free from error, as in "biblical inerrancy"
|-
|inflationary
|1920
|policies causing inflation of the monetary supply
|-
|informed consent
|1967
|consent to surgery is meaningful only if informed, a requirement that should apply to abortion
|-
|initiative
|1793
|self-starting first step toward improvement, overcoming a tendency of complacent underachievement
|-
|inoculate
|1721
|to safeguard against future harm by developing immunity against it. Sample usage: "Conservapedia inoculates against [[liberal claptrap]]."
|-
|insightful
|1907
|what conservatism is about: gaining insights into the truth, and bettering individuals and society with them
|-
|inside baseball
|1978<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/1988/06/19/magazine/on-language-inside-baseball.html (popularized in the 1970s, but a date of origin earlier in the 1900s is likely)</ref>
|strategy and tactics known to the well-informed participants, but mysterious to most observers
|-
|intangible
|1914
|something valuable that cannot be seen or touched, such as goodwill
|-
|intellectual property
|1845
|"we [should] protect intellectual property, the labors of the mind, productions and interests as much a man's own, and as much the fruit of his honest industry, as the wheat he cultivates, or the flocks he rears." ''Davoll v. Brown'', 7 F. Cas. 197 (Cir. Ct. Mass. 1845) (Woodbury, federal judge).
|-
|intelligent design
|1991<ref>A few isolated references to this phrase, without its full current significance, can be found dating back to the mid-1800s</ref>
|coined in ''Darwin on Trial'', a book by Philip Johnson, who is considered the father of the intelligent design movement and who co-founded the [[Discovery Institute]]'s Center for Science and Culture in 1996<ref>http://biologos.org/resources/johnson-phillip-e</ref>
|-
|interventionism
|1923
|"governmental interference in economic affairs at home or in political affairs of another country"<ref>Merriam-Webster (1994).</ref>
|-
|invisible hand
|1776
|coined by Adam Smith in the ''Wealth of Nations'' and widely used today.
|-
|[[invisible hand of marriage]]
|2008
|discovered on Conservapedia, it is the unseen force of productivity that results from marriage (only between a man and woman).
|-
|Iron curtain
|1945
|coined by Winston Churchill in a speech in Missouri just after World War II, to describe the communist's figurative wall against freedom
|-
|[[irreducible complexity]]
|1935
|coined<ref>[[Alan Turing]] reportedly used the term for a completely different meaning that went nowhere. [http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/nasty-feelings-in-the-ool-community-toward-yockey/]</ref> and later adopted and developed by [[Michael Behe]] to describe structure or system that could not possibly have evolved, because removing any part makes it nonfunctional, thereby showing that [[God]] must have created it whole into biology; if the [[Nobel Prize]] were not dominated by [[atheism]], Behe could win one for this insight.
|-
|[[Islamofascism]]
|1990?
|A form of totalitarian Muslim fundamentalist rule, or extreme Islamism.
|-
|ivory tower
|1910
|a description of the pampered culture of liberal [[professor values|professors]], and how far out of touch with the truth it is
|-
|[[John Hancock]]
|1903
|a personal signature, especially in a bold style that stands up for principles as John Hancock did with his signing the Declaration of Independence
|-
|[[judicial activism]]
|1947
|first coined in an article in ''Fortune'' magazine by Arthur Schlesinger, Jr.,<ref>http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/enwiki/278089</ref> and repeatedly used in U.S. Supreme Court opinions since 1967,<ref>''United States v. Wade'',
388 U.S. 218 (1967).</ref> yet as of 2009 [[Merriam-Webster]] dictionary still fails to recognize this widely used term.
|-
|judicial prejudice
|2009
|the bias of a judge in favor of a political correct identity group intended to rig outcome equality in favor of that group based on subjective bias rather than objective justice.
|-
|judicial restraint
|1942
|"Assuming that this court has power to act, it does not necessarily follow that it should act. ... In a number of situations, and in a number of cases, it has been held that courts should voluntarily refrain from using or asserting power. Where the use or assertion of power might be destructive of a well defined purpose of law or of a declared public policy such voluntarily imposed '''judicial restraint''' may be commendable."<ref>Osage Tribe of Indians v. Ickes, 45 F. Supp. 179, 184-85 (D.D.C. 1942) (emphasis added).</ref>
|-
|judicial supremacist
|2004
|one who advocates that the courts should be supreme over the other branches of government for certain legal issues; first coined in a book by [[Phyllis Schlafly]]; first used by the judiciary by the Michigan Supreme Court in ''Paige v. City of Sterling Heights'', 476 Mich. 495 (2006).<ref>A similar yet different concept, "judicial supremacy," was coined by [[conservative]] Supreme Court Justice [[Robert H. Jackson]] as the title of his book,'' The Struggle for Judicial Supremacy: A Study of a Crisis in American Political Power'' (New York: Knopf, 1941).</ref>
|-
|[[judicial taking]]
|1982
|the deprivation of private property due to a court decision; this concept was introduced by conservative Justice [[Potter Stewart]] in 1967, and the term was used for the first time independently by the Michigan and Hawaii Supreme Courts in the same month (!) in December 1982, and then used often in law review articles and Circuit Court decisions in the 2000s, and then four Justices of the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] endorsed the principle in a decision in 2010, with two others accepting the possibility.
|-
|[[junk science]]
|1962<ref>http://rated.com/dir/Society/Issues/Environment/Opposing_Views/Junk_Science</ref>
|the corruption of the scientific method to advance other, often political, goals (such as [[Global Warming]])
|-
|jury nullification
|1948
|the power of a jury to overrule the law and acquit an ostensibly guilty defendant; the power was established in the colonies in 1735 in the trial of [[John Peter Zenger]], but this term was first used in state court by Pfeuffer v. Haas, 55 S.W.2d 111 (Tex. Civ. App. 1932) and in federal court by ''Skidmore v. Baltimore & O. R. Co.'', 167 F.2d 54 (2nd Cir. 1948)
|-
|killjoy
|1776
|one who spoils the pleasure of others. <ref>[http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/killjoy Killjoy 1776 Mer-Web]</ref> ''Example''-Vandals seek to disrupt conservative wikis, an education project. They are a killjoy to the learning process.
|-
|kiss of death
|1943
|from Judas's betrayal of Jesus with a kiss, Mark 14:44-4
|-
|kleptocrat
|1819
|A politician who seeks status and personal gain at the expense of the governed
|-
|kowtow
|1826
|obsequious, unthinking obedience to someone or something, used especially in the context of dictatorships and liberal belief systems
|-
|Kremlinology
|1958
|the study of the otherwise indecipherable behavior of the government of the [[communist]] [[Soviet Union]]. Refers to the Kremlin, the traditional seat of Russian government (Soviet or not).
|-
|kudos
|1831
|praise for real achievement
|-
|la-la land
|1979<ref>First known use was in an article by Tom Zito, "Mr. Mike's Mania; Sick Humor, Very Well Indulged," [[Washington Post]] F1 (Nov. 8, 1979): "But now, it's off to La-La land, and his movie deal. 'The thing about Southern Californians,' he says, 'is this: They wake up and say, 'Gee, what a wonderful morning. I think I'll make a salad.' And that takes them the whole day. ..."</ref>
|a term for the decadent, liberal culture of [[Hollywood]]-driven [[Los Angeles]], originally capitalized as "La-La land."; Merriam-Webster is in denial about this etymology and claims a later origin of 1983.
|-
|labor camp
|1900
|forced work prison
|-
|laissez-faire
|1825
|opposing governmental interference in economic affairs beyond what is minimally necessary
|-
|lame duck
|1761
|one falling being in achievement, especially a public official whose power is limited because his term in office is set to expire without possibility of reelection.
|-
|lamestream media
|2009
|coined by Bernie Goldberg to describe the clueless [[Mainstream media]] that repeat superficial, discredited liberal claptrap
|-
|landslide
|1838
|In the political sense, an overwhelming election victory. A clear, democratic expression of popular will.
|-
|leadership
|1821
|an ability and willingness to lead, often by example
|-
|learning curve
|1922
|initial, extra time and effort that is typically necessary before someone becomes productive
|-
|[[Left Coast]]
|1990s
|a more descriptive term for the West Coast of the United States
|-
|leftism
|1920
|principles and doctrine of leftists
|-
|level-headed
|1876
|"balanced", "having common sense and sound judgment"
|-
|[[liberal creep]]
|2008
|liberal bias that gradually creeps or distorts an entry, definition, explanation, description, or historical account.
|-
|life vest
|1939
|a pro-life invention
|-
|lifelong
|1855
|something, usually a commitment, that lasts a lifetime, as in "a lifelong commitment to [[Christ]]"
|-
|limousine liberal
|1969
|a multi-millionaire who pretends to be compassionate about the poor, but supports liberal policies that increase burdens on working Americans
|-
|litmus test
|1952
|use of a single political issue to determine if a candidate or nominee is acceptable
|-
|local
|1824<ref>This date refers to its first usage as a ''noun'', which is an estimate of its adoption as a concept.</ref>
|common usage: "all politics is local"
|-
|lockstep
|1802
|mindless conformity, often to liberal values
|-
|locomotive
|1829
|a great engine of economic growth during the [[Industrial Revolution]]
|-
|lone wolf
|1909
|a person who prefers to work, act, or live alone,<ref>[http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/lone%20wolf Lone wolf, Merriam-Webster]</ref> synonymous with self-sufficiency
|-
|loose cannon
|1973
|an undisciplined person or program that dangerously lacks forethought; used in mid-November 1976 to describe $11 billion in unspent appropriations by the Ford Administration: "'That money,' says Arnold Packer, a senior Senate Budget Committee economist who is helping Carter draw up his shadow budget, 'is like a loose cannon rolling around the deck' because a sudden reappearance of the funds could be inflationary." (''BusinessWeek'')
|-
|lowest common denominator
|1854
|the lowest in work ethic, morals, or knowledge among a group; typically used to criticize the liberal practice of dumbing down content
|-
|lunatic fringe
|1913
|coined by U.S. President [[Theodore Roosevelt]] to describe members of eccentric, radical or extremist groups<ref> http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=lunatic</ref>
|-
|machismo
|1948
|a word never used favorably by feminists!
|-
|Main Street
|1743
|the many small towns in America, and their conservative values
|-
|mainstay
|1787
|the primary support, typically for something good
|-
|man of [[God]]
|1748
|a clergyman
|-
|man-hater
|1970s<ref>This was during the epic struggle -- and defeat -- of the so-called [[Equal Rights Amendment]].</ref>
|William Safire wrote in the ''New York Times'' in 1983, "Misandry, from the Greek misandros for 'hating men,' is in the 1961 Merriam-Webster New International Dictionary, and the Oxford Dictionary Supplement traces it to 1946. The word is pronounced as 'Ms. Andry,' but I wonder why we need the Greek word for it. What's wrong with good, old-fashioned man-hater?"<ref>Sunday, Oct. 30, 1983, Section 6, Page 12, Column 3.</ref>
|-
|make-work
|1923
|inefficient or useless activity that has the false appearance of being productive; a favorite endeavor of liberals
|-
|[[market failure]]
|1958<ref>[Coined as the title of a scholarly article by Francis M. Bator, "The Anatomy of Market Failure," ''The Quarterly Journal of Economics'' (1958) [http://instruct1.cit.cornell.edu/Courses/econ335/out/bator_qje.pdf]</ref>
|instances where the free market does not provide a desirable result, as when information is withheld from an unsuspecting consumer
|-
|manifest destiny
|1845
|Providential design over future events, which originated in the context of expanding the United States to the Pacific Ocean
|-
|[[Mardi Gras]]
|1699
|The annual celebration on the eve of [[Ash Wednesday]] and [[Lent]], particularly in the historically [[Catholic]] city of [[New Orleans]].
|-
|marriage redefinition
|2003
|descriptive term used to criticize the legalizing of same-sex marriage in [[Canada]].
|-
|materialism
|1748
|the view of life that physical matter is all that exists; as an "ism", the term criticizes such view
|-
|meat and potatoes
|1951
|the most interesting or fundamental part
|-
|[[Medal of Honor]]
|1898
|a special American honor for bravery on the battlefield
|-
|[[media bullying]]
|2008<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Media_bullying&oldid=430831 (Apr. 14, 2008)</ref>
|first coined by ''Conservapedia'', media bullying is aggressive bias by the media in the attempt to influence a politician or others, typically toward a [[liberal]] goal
|-
|melting pot
|1912
|requires "social and cultural assimilation" for successful immigration<ref>Merriam-Webster dictionary (1994)</ref>
|-
|[[meritocracy]]
|1958
|a system in which the talented are chosen and moved ahead on the basis of their achievement
|-
|[[microeconomics]]
|1947
|the study of the economics of the individual person or business
|-
|micromanage
|1985
|insistence on controlling details, typically by liberals to [[censorship|censor]] progress; [[Ronald Reagan]] was critical of this style by [[Democrat]] Presidents
|-
|mind control
|1944
|a pejorative term for how an atheistic government influences what people believe, especially through public education
|-
|mindset
|1909
|close-minded point-of-view, typically in adherence to a liberal falsehood and often to the exclusion of Christ
|-
|missile defense
|1980s
|popularized by President Ronald Reagan as part of [[SDI]]
|-
|missionary
|1625
|someone sent on a mission, typically a religious mission
|-
|mobocracy
|1754
|rule by a mob, as at Wikipedia
|-
|monogamy
|1612
|this has the same date of origin as "productive", and that may not be a coincidence!
|-
|moonlighting
|1957
|working more than a full-time job in order to be as productive as possible; the [[work ethic]] at its best
|-
|moral majority
|1979
|coined by Jerry Falwell to describe the movement of growing moral, Christian conservatives.
|-
|motivation
|1873
|can you believe the word did not exist before 1873?!
|-
|muckety–muck
|1912
|a pejorative term for an arrogant person who holds a title or position considered to be important by others
|-
|muckraker
|1910
|a person who searches out and publicly exposes [[deceit]]<ref>[http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/muckraker Merriam-Webster - Muckraker]</ref>
|-
|Murphy's Law
|1958
|if something can go wrong, then it will go wrong: this was a conservative insight by an engineer Edward Murphy
|-
|muscle car
|1967
|placing a powerful engine in a classic two-door car for highly efficient performance; also celebrate masculine style against erosion by feminism
|-
|myopic
|1990s
|originally a term in optometry (1752), 1990's used to describe liberals' lack of foresight
|-
|name-dropping
|1950
|a term critical of the [[liberal]] practice of seeking to impress others by casually mentioning personal association with prominent people, despite its lack of relevance to the conversation
|-
|nanny state
|1978
|"Under the New Economic Policy, [the new French Prime Minister Raymond] Barre has made it clear that industrial lame ducks can no longer count on the generosity of Nanny i.e. the state - for bailing out."<ref>Leo Ryan, "Economy Shored up: France's new surge of liberalism," The Globe and Mail (Canada) (Aug. 1, 1978)</ref> Note how two powerful new conservative terms led to a third here!
|-
|negativism
|1824
|mental attitude that tends that is skeptical about almost everything, except one's own views
|-
|newspeak
|1949
|political or media expressions using circumlocution and euphemisms to disguise or distract from the truth; first coined by [[George Orwell]] in ''[[1984]]''
|-
|noel
|1811
|a Christmas carol or, when capitalized, Christmas itself
|-
|non-justiciable
|1922<ref>Used by the state attorneys for West Virginia (including Philip Steptoe, founder of Steptoe & Johnson) in ''Pennsylvania v. West Virginia'', 262 U.S. 553 (1923): "It is not the 'subject of judicial cognizance,' Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U.S. 1, 15; Louisiana v. Texas, 176 U.S 1, 15; Missouri v. Illinois, 180 U.S. 208, 233, or 'susceptible of judicial solution.' Louisiana v. Texas, 176 U.S. 1, 18, 22; Missouri v. Illinois, 180 U.S. 208, 233, 234."</ref>
|a difficult issue that the courts should not attempt to resolve, often because it is too political in nature
|-
|non-locality
|1920s
|[[action at a distance]] at the atomic level; even though proven, it is still opposed by those who believe in [[relativity]] and still not recognized by Merriam-Webster
|-
|nonstarter
|1902
|an idea -- typically a [[liberal]] one -- that has no possibility of being productive
|-
|null set
|1906<ref>http://www.leidenuniv.nl/fsw/verduin/stathist/1stword.htm</ref>
|Example usage: "the contribution of [[Leftism]] to progress is the null set."
|-
|nullification
|1798
|assertion of authority by a State against encroachment by the federal government, in defense of liberty
|-
|obstructionism
|1879
|deliberate interference with free speech or legislative progress, as when liberal legislators (the "fleebaggers") fled Wisconsin to try to block a reform
|-
|Old Glory
|1862
|the ''United States of America'' flag, Stars & Stripes
|-
|one-size-fits-all
|1996<ref>Was there an earlier conservative use? Frank Zappa's album cover in the 1970s does not count!</ref>
|Lee Wishing, director of communications for conservative [[Grove City College]], in criticism of how the government administers student loans: "Unfortunately, with government programs, it's one size fits all."<ref>http://www.eagleforum.org/educate/1996/dec96/er-dec96.html</ref> The 2008 Republican platform states, "We reject a one-size-fits-all approach and support parental options, including home schooling, and local innovations such as schools or classes for boys only or for girls only and alternative and innovative school schedules."<ref>http://platform.gop.com/2008Platform.pdf</ref>
|-
|one-trick pony
|1980
|a person or group that relies repeatedly on the same gimmick, as in "the media are a one-trick pony in their criticism of [[Rand Paul]]"
|-
|open-minded
|1828
|see [[Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness]]
|-
|[[opportunity cost]]
|1911
|
|-
|optimism
|1759
|
|-
|ordered pair
|1870s
|developed by the [[Christian]] [[Georg Cantor]], this [[conservative]] concept was part of the [[set theory]] that he invented and revolutionized mathematics with, despite opposition by the establishment
|-
|organic food
|1950s
|a grassroots conservative response, led by mom-and-pop consumers and pharmacies, against government-approved pesticides and mandatory fluoridation
|-
|originalism
|1985
|taken from original intent, The belief that the United States Constitution should be interpreted in the way the authors originally intended it
|-
|originality
|1742
|[[Liberals]] not only lack originality, but (like Justice [[Hugo Black]]) are often hostile to its possibility.
|-
|Orwellian
|1960s
|terminology or style that advances the power of big government but is hurtful or nonsensical<ref>http://www.ntu.org/main/press.php?PressID=604</ref>
|-
|ostensibly
|1765
|having an outward appearance that may not reflect the underlying truth; good potential use is Luke 3:23 in describing Jesus as the son of Joseph
|-
|outflank
|1765
|to move swiftly around an opponent, a military tactic mastered by [[conservative]] [[General]] [[George Patton]] to crush the [[Germans]] in [[World War II]]
|-
|pack heat
|1940s
|carry a concealed firearm, allowed by permit in nearly every state, yet liberal bias has made dictionaries slow to recognize this term
|-
|parenting
|1958
|children raising
|-
|Parkinson's Law
|1955
|how bureaucracies expand regardless of the productivity, and how inefficient work expands to fill the time available for its completion
|-
|parochial school
|1755
|a donation-supported, religious alternative to the mistake of [[public schools]]
|-
|[[Parthian shot]]
|1832
|a negative term for the tactic of expressing a criticism while one exits, just as the ancient Parthians would shoot arrows while retreating in battle. This tactic is common among those who reject [[conservative]] truths, as seen when left-leaning editors leave ''Conservapedia''.
|-
|[[patent troll]]
|2001
|a company that obtains or buys up patents for the sole purpose of asserting infringement claims, and without any intention of actually manufacturing the invention; the term was first coined by Peter Detkin, in-house counsel to Intel
|-
|patriotism
|1726
|
|-
|Pavlovian
|1926
|a conditioned, automatic and unthinking response to a signal; it has been used twice by [[conservative]] Supreme Court Justices. "It is well established that this Court does not, or at least should not, respond in Pavlovian fashion to confessions of error by the [[Solicitor General]]." ''De Marco v. United States'', 415 U.S. 449, 451 (1974) ([[Rehnquist]], J., dissenting); "'[[Incorporation doctrine|Incorporation]]' has become so Pavlovian that my Brother BLACK barely mentions the [[Fourteenth Amendment]] in the course of an 11-page opinion dealing with the procedural rule the State of [[Florida]] has adopted for cases tried in Florida courts under Florida's criminal laws." '' Williams v. Fla.'', 399 U.S. 78, 144 (1970) ([[Potter Stewart|Stewart]], J., dissenting and concurring).
|-
|pejorative
|1882
|a word that has negative connotations in describing something, which the [[liberal media]] use while pretending that the term is neutral, such as "nativism" or "isolationism"
|-
|perestroika
|1986
|increasing economic freedom and free speech under [[communism]], which led to the unraveling of the [[communist]] [[Soviet Union]]
|-
|perpetual war
|1947
|Coined by historian Charles A. Beard,<ref>Charles A. Beard is best known for interpreting the Constitution as being primarily motivated by economic interests.</ref> it has been used most recently by [[Ann Coulter]]
|-
|[[personhood]] <ref>[http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/personhood Personhood] Dictionary.com</ref>
|1955
|Inherent rights guaranteed to all human beings from the beginning of their biological development, including the pre-born, partially born. Also, the state or fact of being a person.
|-
|Philadelphia
|1682
|coined by [[William Penn]] and meaning "city of brotherly love," the concept captures the "[[best of the public]]" approach
|-
|[[phonics]]
|1684
|conservatives have long championed phonics to promote literacy, Bible-reading, and informed voters; liberals take the opposite position
|-
|phony
|1900<ref>This surprisingly recent origin appears to be derived from a British confidence game.</ref>
|needed to address [[liberal deceit]]
|-
|[[photo bias]]
|1992<ref>A letter to the editor by a reader of the [[liberal]] ''[[Chicago Tribune]]'' observed, "This is the third time in recent weeks that a weird or disfigured picture of Mr. Quayle has appeared in your Sunday paper."</ref>
|a common trick of the [[liberal media]] to push the reader to the political left on an issue, as in displaying a man without teeth as an opponent of a liberal bill or candidate.
|-
|[[pie in the sky]]
|1911
|an unrealistic claim of value about a future [[materialism|materialistic]] benefit
|-
|piece of cake
|1936
|Sample usage: with church and the [[Bible]], life can be a piece of cake, but without [[Christ]] it can be very difficult
|-
|plasticity
|1783
|having a plastic quality that conforms to molding or pressure; in pejorative usage, someone who easily conforms to [[peer pressure]] or [[liberal]] falsehoods
|-
|poetic justice
|1890
|when virtue is rewarded and/or wrongdoing is punished in an indirect or unexpected way
|-
|political machine
|1905
|a pejorative term for local and typically Democratic power structures that prevent outsiders from winning elections; first used by George Washington Plunkitt to criticize the Tammany Hall machine for which he served
|-
|[[politically correct]]
|1983
|This term originated among radicals at the [[University of Wisconsin-Madison]] to enforce radical orthodoxy, but immediately flipped in usage to become a term of mockery of radicals.<ref>For an early different usage of the word, see 1793 J. WILSON in U.S. Rep. (U.S. Supreme Court) 2 (1798) 462 Sentiments and expressions of this inaccurate kind prevail in our..language... ‘The United States’, instead of the ‘People of the United States’, is the toast given. This is not politically correct.</ref> The term may have come from Chairman Mao in 1936.
|-
|politicize
|1846
|seeking political gain at the expense of truth or quality<ref>The Merriam-Webster definition (1994 ed.) is incomplete and unclear: "to give a political tone or character to"</ref>
|-
|politics of envy
|2011
|used by Australian [[conservative]] Christopher Pine to describe the philosophy behind taking money from private schools and giving it to public ones.
|-
|pork barrel
|1909
|government as a source of handouts that redistribute money from hard-working people to those who avoid work
|-
|[[post-abortive]]
|1986
|the unexpected trauma and physical harm -- which can worsen over time -- that is experienced by a woman after having an [[abortion]]; coined by Dr. Kaye Cash in an editorial describing what she learned during a 365-mile walk in southeast Arkansas to speak with the public about abortion<ref>Editorial by Kaye Cash, Arkansas Democrat-Gazette (Little Rock, AR), October 23, 1986.</ref>
|-
|potential
|1817<ref>Usage here refers to "promise", not "possibility".</ref>
|
|-
|pothead
|1959
|someone who smokes marijuana and doesn't realize how it destroys people
|-
|powerhouse
|1881
|source of energy and strength - which is what the conservative movement is
|-
|[[price discrimination]]
|1920
|charging different prices for the exact same service or good; first coined by the British economist (and critic of [[John Maynard Keynes]]) Arthur Cecil Pigou in ''The Economics of Welfare''.
|-
|[[price fixing]]
|1920
|the setting of prices in interference of the [[free market]]; it is illegal for private companies to do this, but government itself sometimes does it
|-
|prioritize
|1961
|to recognize that some goals and activities are more important than others, and then focus accordingly
|-
|private sector
|1952
|non-governmental businesses and jobs functioning in free enterprise
|-
|privatize
|1940
|to return a business or enterprise from state to private control; to de-nationalize.
|-
|proactive
|1933
|
|-
|Procrustean
|1832
|a pejorative description of the one-size-fits-all mentality, which disregards individual differences
|-
|productive
|1612
|
|-
|productivity
|1810
|the gap of about 200 years between the creation of "productive" and "productivity" is astounding
|-
|[[pro-life]]
|1960
|
|-
|property right
|1853
|
|-
|provocateur
|1919
|someone who spends more time causing unproductive conflicts rather than advancing knowledge, accomplishing legitimate goals, or helping anyone
|-
|pseudoscience
|1844
|worthless claims written with the appearance of scientific rigor to gain an aura of credibility
|-
|publicity stunt
|1969<ref>Earlier usage in the 1900s may have occurred, but the term "stunt" was not coined until 1878.</ref>
|Used on April 10, 1969 by Republican Senators who withdrew from a tour and probe by Senator [[Ted Kennedy]], criticizing him for his "publicity stunt" in preparation for his expected run for the presidency; the [[Chappaquiddick incident]] sunk his chances three months later.
|-
|punctual
|1675
|consistently showing up on time, rather than a disrespectful tardiness
|-
|quantify
|1840
|
|-
|race card
|1995<ref>This is the date of its widespread familiarity.</ref>
|"Playing the race card" consists of relying on racial emotions or charges of racism in order to overcome the truth and logic in politics, legal proceedings, or otherwise; this term became familiar in the criticism of the defense and acquittal of O.J. Simpson for the murder of his ex-wife and her friend.
|-
|reasonable doubt
|1770
|a Christian concept for the benefit of the souls of jurors, not the accused; first used in English by [[John Adams]] (before that, in [[canon law]]) in addressing the jury during his defense of the Boston Massacre perpetrators: "Where you are doubtful never act: that is, if you doubt of the prisoner's guilt, never declare him guilty; that is always the rule, especially in cases of life."<ref>http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1000&context=fss_papers</ref>
|-
|rapture
|1629
|spiritual ecstasy[http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=rapture]
|-
|[[recidivism]]
|1886
|the tendency for people lacking in [[faith]] and determination to revert to prior patterns of harmful behavior, such as repeat criminal offenders
|-
|recuse
|1949
|self-removal by a decision-maker (especially a judge) because of possible bias with respect to the pending issue
|-
|red tape
|1736
|excessive bureaucracy and procedural complexity which frustrate meaningful activity and progress
|-
|refudiate
|2010
|combination of ''refute'' and ''repudiate'', as coined by [[Sarah Palin]]
|-
|[[relativism]]
|1865
|the view that ethical truths are not absolute, but depend on the person or group that holds them
|-
|[[responsibility]]
|1737
|HAMILTON Federalist No. 63 (1988) II. 193 Responsibility in order to be reasonable must be limited to objects within the power of the responsible party.
|-
|rethink
|1700<ref>Date of origin given by the 10th Edition of the ''Merriam-Webster'' dictionary; its online dictionary has an earlier date.</ref>
|to reconsider, a sign of [[Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness|openmindedness]]
|-
|reverse discrimination
|1969
|the use of quotas or affirmative action to use race or gender to discriminate against a better qualified person
|-
|revisionism
|1903<ref>The first use of this term, now obscure, refers to a Marxist movement that preferred evolutionary rather than revolutionary change.</ref>
|distortions of history to promote liberal bias
|-
|revolving-door
|1973
|the liberal practice of repeatedly transferring into and out of government in a way that impedes progress and access by others, like the same people going round-and-round in a real revolving door
|-
|right-of-way
|1768
|a right to pass through, other rights notwithstanding
|-
|[[RINO Backer]]
|2012
|a more important term than "RINO", because what matters most is whether someone will stand up for a [[conservative]] position and candidate when the [[liberal media]] demand that everyone flock to the liberal side.
|-
|riot act
|1715<ref>Its colloquial use, as in "read them the riot act," began in 1819.</ref>
|the Riot Act was a law passed in England in 1715 to authorize officials to disperse riots
|-
|Rogue state
|1993
|(Originally used in 1993 then reintroduced in 2002.) A 'rogue state' displays no regard for international law. It attempts to acquire weapons of mass destruction and other military technology with which to threaten neighbouring countries and support terrorism. Rogue states often reject human values and brutalize their own people.
|-
|rubber-stamp
|1918
|unthinking repetition or endorsement of something, despite having the responsibility to make an independent decision, as in "Democrats rubber-stamp demands by the abortion industry."
|-
|running start
|1926
|taking initiative earlier than required, in order to achieve more
|-
|run of the mill
|1930
|meaning "merely average, commonplace," the term is critical of a failure to strive for excellence
|-
|sacred cow
|1910
|a person or idea, typically liberal, that becomes immune from criticism because of its political usefulness rather than its truthfulness, as in the theories of [[evolution]] and [[relativity]]
|-
|scam
|1963
|a deceptive scheme, which is what most liberal theories are. Interestingly, the origin of the term "scam" is unknown, but its timing near the beginning of the 1960s is telling.
|-
|scapegoating
|1943
|a term criticizing how people, particularly liberals, deflect accountability and blame from themselves to others; inspired by Leviticus 16:8.
|-
|salutary neglect
|1775
|coined by the [[conservative]] [[Edmund Burke]] in his 1775 speech to the British [[House of Commons]] entitled "On Moving His Resolutions for Conciliation with the Colonies"<ref>http://www.archive.org/stream/burkesspeechonco00burkuoft/burkesspeechonco00burkuoft_djvu.txt</ref>
|-
|school choice
|1980
|popularized by Milton Friedman in his book, ''Free to Choose''
|-
|[[scientific fascism]]
|2009
|a coordinated effort by a group of scientists to enforce a certain point of view upon others.
|-
|scofflaw
|1924
|a word invented by the [[best of the public]] as part of contest to describe people who are contemptuous of laws and repeatedly violate them
|-
|scrutinize
|1671
|its original meaning was to examine votes, and thus prevent [[liberal]] attempts at voter fraud
|-
|[[secularism]]
|1850-55
|attempts to educate, particularly through [[public school]], without including [[faith]] or even acknowledgment of [[God]]
|-
|Segway
|2001
|Dean Kamen's trademark spelling of "segue" for use of Yankee Ingenuity to improve efficiency, to refer to a form of battery-powered transportation.
|-
|[[self-defense]]
|1651
|
|-
|self-destruct
|1968
|often the tragic result of liberal falsehoods
|-
|[[Discipline|self-discipline]]
|1838
|
|-
|self-preservation
|1614
|preservation of oneself from destruction or harm
|-
|self-reliant
|1848
|
|-
|separation of powers
|1748
|the fundamental insight underlying the [[U.S. Constitution]]
|-
|shotgun marriage
|1929
|pregnancy => get married. Think of someone besides yourself for a change.
|-
|show trial
|1937
|trials, especially in communist countries, which have preordained outcomes but are used for propaganda purposes
|-
|sidewalk counseling
|1975
|the practice of volunteers exercising their right of [[free speech]] to advise women against [[abortion]] as they walk on sidewalks toward abortion clinics; liberals have passed laws to restrict and [[censorship|censor]] this
|-
|silent majority
|1969
|coined by President [[Richard Nixon]] in his speech to the nation on Nov. 3, 1969<ref>http://watergate.info/nixon/silent-majority-speech-1969.shtml</ref>
|-
|silver lining
|1871
|a benefit that is not obvious to see, particularly amid a disappointment
|-
|skullduggery
|1867
|underhanded or unscrupulous behavior
|-
|slippery slope
|1900s
|term has been widely used for decades to expose the fallacy of "it doesn't hurt to try"
|-
|small town values
|1984
|term was first used by [[Democrat]] [[John Glenn]] in his failed presidential run in 1984, in a futile effort to appear more conservative than [[Ronald Reagan]]
|-
|smoke and mirrors
|1979
|something intended to disguise or draw attention away from an often embarrassing or unpleasant issue. <ref>[http://www.merriam-webster.com/netdict/smoke%20and%20mirrors Smoke and Mirrors, Merriam-Webster]</ref> Widely used during the 1990s to describe [[Bill Clinton]]'s political strategy.
|-
|smoke-filled room
|1920
|a pejorative term describing how a few political insiders sometimes pick a candidate or make a decision in a secret room (in the old days, filled with cigar smoke)
|-
|smoking gun
|1974
|a law-and-order term, "smoking gun" was first used as figurative term in a reported judicial decision in ''Rodgers v. United States Steel Corp.'', 1975 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12775 (W.D. Pa. Apr. 20, 1975), and many literal uses of the term in court decisions before that!
|-
|soapbox
|1907
|staging for a typically liberal, unproductive rant having little substance
|-
|soccer mom
|1987
|a mother who devotes herself to her children's activities; this is a significant voting bloc or demographic group
|-
|social engineering
|1925
|an increasingly pejorative term for liberal attempts to create a "nanny state"
|-
|[[socialist]]
|1827
|someone who advocates government control over the economy, and particularly state control of the means of production
|-
|social justice rhetoric
|2009
|language and rhetorical ploys equating equality of outcome with justice
|-
|sophomoric
|1813
|pretending to know much, when in fact the person knows little and is even immature
|-
|soul-searching
|1924
|personal reflection about one's own values and morality
|-
|sour grapes
|1760
|disparagement of something by someone who failed to attain it, rather than admitting his own faults
|-
|spend-and-tax
|2009<ref>http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/02/morning-bell-the-obama-tax-and-spend-economy-is-here/</ref>
|a variation on "tax-and-spend" (see below), "spend-and-tax" consists of spending the money first and then trying to justify raising taxes based on the deficit created by the spending
|-
|spin doctor
|1984
|someone ensuring that others interpret an event from a particular point of view. <ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/22/world/asia/22policy.html?_r=2 General Petraeus describes Axelrod by Bob Woodward]</ref>
|-
|spot-on
|1949
|precisely correct, as in a prediction or in overcoming imprecision in a challenging task; its origin is from the military
|-
|squirrelly
|1928
|like a squirrel; jumpy and unpredictable; as in liberals get squirrelly when confronted with facts.
|-
|squish
|1981
|someone who pretends to be conservative when it is popular, but then caves into [[liberals]] as soon as they start to criticize him
|-
|[[stagflation]]
|1965
|inflation ''and'' high [[unemployment]] ''and'' stagnant demand by consumers, typically due to [[liberal]] policies as in the late 1970s under President [[Jimmy Carter]]
|-
|stalking horse
|1788
|a candidate or issue that serves to increase the chances that ''another'' will win, as in "antifederalists attempted to win elections by using 'the stalking horse of amendments.'"<ref>''Centinel'', 1788 (quoted in ''The Federalist party in Massachusetts to the year 1800'', By Anson Ely Morse).</ref>
|-
|[[statism]]
|1919
|advocates for centralized government and government ownership
|-
|[[Statue of Liberty]]
|1900
|a phrase used to describe it more than a decade after its completion
|-
|status quo
|1833
|a useful baseline for assessing and promoting conservative growth
|-
|stay-at-home
|1806
|typically usage is "stay-at-home mom," the mainstay of successful, productive family life
|-
|stem-winder
|1875
|first-rate of its kind, especially a political speech; term inspired by the innovation for the watch to be wound by stem rather than by a key
|-
|straightforward
|1806
|something liberals are not
|-
|straw man
|1896
|an imaginary argument or example set up for the purpose of easily knocking down, while distracting from valid arguments
|-
|strategy
|1810
|a careful plan or method, the opposite of liberal style
|-
|street-smart
|1974
|the non-bookish intelligence necessary to survive and thrive in an unstructured, rough-and-tumble environment analogous to a tough neighborhood in a big city
|-
|Stupaked
|2010
|hurt by someone who reassured everyone he would do the right thing, but then switched at the last minute to do the opposite (refers especially to [[abortion betrayal]]s)<ref>Columnist Kathleen Parker is credited with first coining this term.</ref>
|-
|[[subsidiarity]]
|1936
|the concept (opposed by liberals) that responsibilities performed by local or subordinate organizations should not be usurped by centralized government
|-
|sugarcoat
|1865
|popularized by [[Abraham Lincoln]] to say that secession is a sugarcoated word for rebellion
|-
|supply-side
|1976
|the economic theory that reducing taxes expands economic activity by encouraging greater earnings and investments; proven successful during the Reagan Administration in the 1980s
|-
|survivalist
|1970
|one who is determined and prepared to stay alive, and even thrive, if liberals cause a breakdown of society
|-
|take-charge
|1954
|proactive leadership for the greater good
|-
|takeover
|1917
|as in the takeover of government by the communist revolution in that year
|-
|takings
|1926<ref>''Marion & R. V. R. Co. v. United States'', 270 U.S. 280, 285 (1926) (the Supreme Court referring for the first time to "takings by eminent domain")</ref>
|use of the power of [[eminent domain]] by government to convert private property to a public use, typically disfavored by the property owner
|-
|tax-and-spend
|1937
|not yet recognized by Merriam-Webster, it is included in dictionary.com and it means the liberal policy of raising taxes and increasing government spending
|-
|taxpayer
|1816
|the word highlights who is really paying for things
|-
|tea party
|2007
|an amorphous group of ordinary citizens unified against a more expensive government
|-
|[[Tebowing]]
|2011
|bending on one knee in public to give glory to God (named after [[pro-life]] [[NFL]] [[QB]] [[Tim Tebow]])
|-
|teetotaler
|1834
|someone who does not drink any alcohol, and thereby avoids supporting the alcoholic industry
|-
|[[term limits]]
|1861
|can you believe this is not in the dictionary yet? Merriam-Webster omits it, but dictionary.com has it<ref>http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/term+limit</ref>
|-
|terrorism
|1795
|this was during the French Revolution
|-
|[[textualism]]
|1952
|first used by Justice [[Robert Jackson]] in his influential concurrence in ''[[Youngstown Sheet and Tube Co. v. Sawyer]]'', 343 U.S. 579 (1952), it now describes the legal philosophy of Justice [[Antonin Scalia]]
|-
|[[Thanksgiving Day]]
|1674
|a tradition older than the [[United States]]
|-
|[[think tank]]
|1940s
|first coined in [[Britain]] to describe intelligence organizations that helped the military, think tanks became part of the rise of conservatism in the 1970s and 1980s; is ''Conservapedia'' the think tank of the future?
|-
|time-tested
|1930
|an approach that has proven to be beneficial over time, like heterosexual marriage
|-
|top-notch
|1900
|the highest quality, which requires respect for merit to recognize
|-
|tort reform
|1970<ref>http://faculty.lls.edu/workshops/documents/nockleby.pdf (citing the late 1960s and 1970s for the beginning of the movement)</ref>
|a movement placing sensible limits on runaway liberal lawsuits
|-
|[[totalitarianism]]
|1926
|term which identifies the similarities of fascist and communist regimes and ideologies and urges resistance
|-
|tour de force
|1802
|a feat of skill
|-
|trademark
|1838
|extends the concept of private property to the marks used by business
|-
|traditionalist
|1856
|"adherence to the doctrines or practices of a tradition...the beliefs of those opposed to modernism, liberalism, or radicalism"<ref>http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/traditionalist</ref>
|-
|[[transaction cost]]
|1961
|Economist [[Ronald Coase]] won a [[Nobel Prize]] for this.
|-
|[[transistor]]
|1948
|named by John R. Pierce and developed at the [[conservative]] [[Bell Labs]], this invention epitomized Yankee ingenuity; Pierce was a critic of claims of [[artificial intelligence]] and was the future developer of [[Telstar]], a precursor to the [[Strategic Defense Initiative]]
|-
|transparency
|1615
|allowing people who are affected by decisions to see how and why those decisions are really being made.
|-
|tree huggers
|1970s
|still not recognized by the dictionary, this term criticizes extreme environmentalists, but they proudly use the term also to describe what they literally do
|-
|trivia
|1920
|insignificant detail, which can sometimes obscure what is important and distract people from the Bible; liberal [[Wikipedia]] is filled with trivial junk
|-
|Trojan horse
|1837
|describes a type of liberal [[deceit]]: subversion from within
|-
|trust but verify
|1980s
|popularized by President Ronald Reagan as the approach to use towards communist [[deceit]]
|-
|typewriter
|1829
|invented by a homeschooled American, used to better spread conservative ideas
|-
|ugly duckling
|1883
|an unpromising appearance but often with great unseen potential
|-
|ultra vires
|1793
|beyond the authority, especially of a government or corporate official
|-
|un-American
|1818
|contrary to American values
|-
|unborn child
|1791
|the rights of the unborn child have been recognized in English law since the 1600s, but the specific term "unborn child" itself may have been first used by an attorney arguing before the New Jersey Supreme Court in ''Den v. Sparks'', 1 N.J.L. 67 (Sup. Ct. 1791)
|-
|uncertainty principle
|1929
|an underlying chaos (uncertainty) at the atomic level in the physical world after the [[Fall of man]], which renders a [[perpetual motion machine]] and life beyond 120 years impossible
|-
|underachiever
|1952
|a typically liberal person who fails to accomplish what he could
|-
|underdog
|1859
|[[David]] v. [[Goliath]], [[Cinderella]], [[best of the public]], etc.
|-
|[[underemployed]]
|1908
|having less than full-time or suitable employment
|-
|underwater basket weaving
|1950s
|A pejorative that describes worthless college courses and a declining educational system; see [[Worst College Majors]].
|-
|unscripted
|1950
|speaking sincerely without parroting a script; "[[Rand Paul]] and [[Chris Christie]] are effective because, unlike [[Obama]], they are unscripted."
|-
|unsung hero
|1860
|someone who accomplishes good without receiving recognition for it
|-
|useful idiot
|1920<ref>[http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=135140 Attributed originally to Lenin], but since used by others like [[Nobel Prize]] winner (Literature) Doris Lessing to describe how she was manipulated by the [[communists]]: “I was taken around and shown things as a ‘useful idiot’... that’s what my role was. I can’t understand why I was so gullible.” [http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/documentaries/2010/07/100624_doc_useful_idiots_lenin.shtml]</ref>
|Sample usage: "There are not as many useful idiots on college campuses for the Obama reelection campaign in 2012 as there were in 2008, and it's doubtful he can fill a stadium rally unless the campaign pays students to attend."
|-
|vacuous
|1850s<ref>This word as a prior date of origin for its physical meaning.</ref>
|lacking any insight or depth of thought - common among [[liberal claptrap]]
|-
|vandalism
|1798
|malicious destruction of someone else's property
|-
|vaporware
|1984
|a new computer program that is not really available as hyped in the media; see also the parable of the two sons at Matthew 21:28-32
|-
|venture capital
|1943
|capitalism at its best: funding new and risky enterprises to create wealth for many
|-
|veracity
|1623
|devotion to truthfulness
|-
|vet
|1904<ref>http://www.slate.com/id/2199254/?from=rss</ref>
|a verb meaning to screen for flaws
|-
|veto
|1629
|a power by one branch of government to restrain another branch, and thereby attain less government overall
|-
|[[victimization]]
|1840
|
|-
|volunteer
|1618
|someone who freely offers to help
|-
|wannabe
|1981
|a word that criticizes liberal [[status worship]]
|-
|War on Terror
|2001
|no listing at Merriam-Webster; on February 2, 2009 (less than two weeks after inauguration), Obama dropped use of this term. <ref>[http://pewforum.org/news/display.php?NewsID=17455 Obama administration drops 'war on terror' phrase] Pew Forum, February 2, 2009</ref>
|-
|washed-up
|1928
|no longer productive, as in "the washed-up liberal professor has not contributed anything to his field in 30 years."
|-
|waterloo
|1816
|a final defeat or setback, coined merely one year after the [[English]] defeated [[Napoleon]] at the [[Battle of Waterloo]]; there has never been a "waterloo" for [[Christianity]] or [[conservatism]]
|-
|welfare queen
|1976
|a disparaging term for someone who collects excessive welfare payments through fraud, manipulation, or laziness. First used by [[Ronald Reagan]] during his 1976 Presidential campaign.
|-
|welfare state
|1941
|a government that views its primary responsibility to be to give handouts to individuals to make sure they have what they need
|-
|wildcatter
|1883
|a pro-energy term that describes someone who drills for oil in fields not known to have oil
|-
|wishy-washy
|1873<ref>An archaic meaning of poor quality dates to 1690.</ref>
|easily changing in opinion, usually due to peer pressure
|-
|woman's intuition
|1890<ref>Notice how this predates the modern [[feminists]], who would tend to consider this term [[politically incorrect]].</ref>
|a perception more common in women that something or someone is to be avoided without yet understanding why.
|-
|word poverty
|2001<ref>http://www.aft.org/pubs-reports/american_educator/summer2001/lang_gap_moats.html</ref>
|popularized by President [[George W. Bush]]
|-
|work (physical sense)
|1826
|a physical measure<ref>Work equals force times distance.</ref> of effort used to increase energy
|-
|work ethic
|1951
|a habit of working as a moral good
|-
|workaholic
|1968
|coined by a Southern Baptist pastor to describe the work habits of himself and other ministers<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2000/01/02/magazine/the-lives-they-lived-on-language-wordplayers.html</ref>
|-
|worldview
|1858
|a comprehensive way of looking at life and the world; sometimes used to criticize a liberal's irrational belief system
|-
|Yankee
|1758
|Inhabitants of New England, United States. Dutch slang in 1698- Americanized 50 years later.
|-
|Yankee Ingenuity
|1761
|America's inhabitants had a knack for clever design and capitalist success. The early Americans had applied their exceptional skills prior to the terms existence, see [[Eli Whitney]] and [[Benjamin Franklin]].
|-
|yellow journalism
|1898
|the practice, started by newspaper publishers Joseph Pulitzer and his rival William Randolph Hearst, of sensationalizing and biasing newspaper headlines and articles in order to influence public opinion
|-
|zero-sum
|1944
|activities or political approaches in which a gain can only be achieved at a corresponding loss to someone else. For example, Facebook revenue is "zero-sum" because it results from users wasting their time (or ruining their marriages); reading or translating the [[Bible]] is not zero-sum.
|-
|[[ziggurat]]
|1877
|predicted by [[Biblical scientific foreknowledge]] in the story of the [[Tower of Babel]], the existence of the ziggurats were unknown to the Western world throughout most of history
|-
|}

__TOC__ 

== Sources ==

*[http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ Merriam-Webster dictionary]
*[http://dictionary.reference.com/ Dictionary.com]

== See Also ==
* [[Essay:Best New Conservative Words]]
* [[Conservative Words Not Yet Recognized by the Dictionary‎]]
* [[Downgraded Conservative Terms]]
* [[Essay:New Liberal Terms]]
* [[Essay:Surprising Dates of Origin for Terms]]
* [[Linguistic Analysis of Candidates]]
* [[Conservative Bible Project]]
* [[Essay:Conservapedia's Law]]
* [[Secularized Language‎]]
* [[Terms Difficult to Classify]]
* [[Language]]: [[Etymology]], [[Vocabulary]], [[Word]]

[[Category:Linguistics]]
[[Category:Language]]

{{Conservatism}}
{{Conservapedia}}

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

[[Category:Essays]]
[[Category:Conservative Bible]]
[[Category:Featured articles]]
[[Category:Essays about Conservatism]]

Jupiter

2014-12-15T23:03:54Z

Darwon: /* Exploration */ moons "inside" Io

{{Planet
| image=Jumpsas.jpg
| caption=This processed color image of Jupiter was produced in 1990 by the U.S. Geological Survey from a Voyager image captured in 1979
|symbol=Jupiter symbol.svg
|discname=Known to ancients
|origname=Roman king of gods<ref name=nasa1>"[http://solarsystem.jpl.nasa.gov/planets/profile.cfm?Object=Jupiter&Display=Overview Entry for Jupiter]." ''Solar System Exploration'', [[NASA]]. Accessed March 3, 2008.</ref>
|order=6
|primary=Sun
|periapsis=4.95 AU<ref name=nasa1/>
|apoapsis=5.46 AU<ref name=nasa1/>
|semimajor=5.203 AU<ref name=nasa1/><ref name=nasa2>Williams, David R. "[http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/jupiterfact.html Jupiter Fact Sheet]." National Space Science Data Center, [[NASA]], November 2, 2007. Accessed March 2, 2008.</ref>
|bode=5.2 AU<ref name=calc>Calculated</ref>
|circumference=32.675 AU<ref name=nasa1/>
|eccentricity=0.048<ref name=nasa1/>
|sidereal=11.862 a<ref name=nasa1/><ref name=nasa2/>
|synodic=398.88 da (1.092 a)<ref name=nasa2/>
|orbitspeed=13.07 km/s<ref name=nasa1/><ref name=nasa2/>
|inclination=1.305°<ref name=nasa1/>
|reference=the ecliptic
|siderealday=9.925 h (0.414 da)<ref name=nasa1/><ref name=nasa2/>
|solarday=9.9259 h<ref name=nasa2/>
|axialtilt=3.13°<ref name=nasa1/>
|mass=1.8986 * 1027 kg (317.705 * earth)<ref name=nasa1/>
|density=1,326 kg/m³<ref name=nasa1/>
|surfacegrav=22.88 m/s² (2.333 ''g'')<ref name=nasa1/>
|escapespeed=59.56 km/s<ref name=nasa1/>
|equatorradius =71,492 km<ref name=nasa1/>
|surfacearea=61,400,000,000 km² (120.375 * earth)<ref name=nasa1/>
|meantemp=152 K<ref name=nasa1/>
|moons=66
|composition=90% hydrogen and 10% helium<ref name=nasa1/>
|color=Colored latitudinal bands
|albedo=0.52<ref name=ssdphys>"[http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/?planet_phys_par Planet Physical Characteristics]." Solar System Dynamics, [[JPL]], [[NASA]]. Accessed March 3, 2008.</ref>
|mfd=4.28 G <ref name=jupiterfact>"[http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/jupiterfact.html Jupiter Fact Sheet]," [[National Aeronautics and Space Administration|NASA]], November 2, 2007. Accessed May 12, 2008.</ref>
|pmdm=1.55 * 1027 N-m/T<ref name=Humphreys>Humphreys, D. R. "[http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/21/21_3/21_3.html The Creation of Planetary Magnetic Fields]." ''[[Creation Research Society Quarterly]]'' 21(3), December 1984. Accessed April 29, 2008.</ref>
|cmdm=1.79 * 1027 N-m/T<ref name=Humphreys/>
|mdt=45,469 a<ref name=calc/>
|mhl=31,516 a<ref name=calc/>
}}
'''Jupiter''' is the fifth [[planet]] from the [[sun]], and the most massive. In fact, this [[gas giant]] is the largest body in the [[solar system]] except for the sun itself, and more than two times as massive as all the other planets combined. In composition it closely resembles a [[star]], so much so that some authorities hold that had it been eighty times as massive, it would have become a star.

== Ancient knowledge and naming ==
Named after the ruler of the Roman gods, Jupiter is large and bright enough to be seen by the naked eye. In fact it is the fourth-brightest object in the night sky, after the [[Sun]], the [[Moon]], and the planet [[Venus]].<ref name=arnett>Arnett, Bill. "[http://www.nineplanets.org/jupiter.html Entry for Jupiter]." ''The <s>Nine</s> 8 Planets'', April 10, 2005. Accessed March 3, 2008.</ref> Jupiter is conspicuous and easy to recognize. An observer carrying 7-power field glasses (of a type used for birding or hunting) will see a round disk that shines steadily. An observer with a small telescope should also be able to resolve the [[Galilean moons]], as [[Galileo Galilei]] himself did. They will appear, as they did to Galileo, as "stars" traveling in "formation" with Jupiter and changing their positions relative to Jupiter in a single night of observation.

The [[Babylonia]]ns believed that their god [[Marduk]] set Jupiter in the sky to guide the stars.<ref name=nelson>Nelson, Clark. "[http://www.timeemits.com/HoH_Articles/399-Day_Mean_Synodic_Period_of_Jupiter.htm 399-day Mean Synodic Period of Jupiter]." <http://www.timeemits.com/>, 2006. Accessed March 3, 2008.</ref> Jupiter might have had an influence in the invention of several ancient calendars, including the Mayan calendar, the Egyptian calendar, the ancient (pre-Hillel II) Hebrew calendar, and possibly the calendar in use (at least by the [[Seth]]ite generations of [[Adam]]) before the [[Great flood|Great Flood]]).<ref name=nelson/>

The name of the Roman god derives from the Latin "dyeu-pater" and "ius-pater."<ref>http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=Jupiter</ref>

== Orbital characteristics ==
Jupiter completes one slightly eccentric orbit around the [[Sun]] in 11.86 years, and returns to the same position in [[Earth]]'s night sky in roughly 399 years.<ref name=nasa2/><ref name=nelson/> Its mean distance from the Sun is about 5.2 AU--almost exactly the distance predicted by the [[Titius-Bode law]] of planetary distances. Though Jupiter is the fifth ''planet'' from the Sun, it is actually the ''sixth'' object of a size requiring the assumption of a spheroidal shape. Hence ''n=6'' is the proper number to use in the Bode's Law formula.

== Rotational characteristics ==
Jupiter has a very short sidereal day of about 9.92 hours. However, its latitudinal cloud bands rotate at different speeds, and some of these appear to rotate retrograde. Astronomers once calculated the Jovian day from observations of the equatorial cloud band, but today they rely on the periodicity of Jupiter's magnetic field.<ref name=nasa3>Gierasch, Peter J., and Philip D. Nicholson. "Jupiter." World Book Online Reference Center. 2004. World Book, Inc. <http://www.worldbookonline.com/wb/Article?id=ar293080.> Hosted as "[http://www.nasa.gov/worldbook/jupiter_worldbook.html Entry for Jupiter]," World Book at [[NASA]]. Accessed March 3, 2008.</ref>

== Physical characteristics ==
Jupiter is about 318 times as massive as Earth, and has a radius of 71,492 km (44,423 miles). Its atmosphere is composed primarily of 86% [[hydrogen]], 14% [[helium]], and traces of [[methane]], [[ammonia]], [[phosphine]], [[water]], [[acetylene]], [[ethane]], [[germanium]], and [[carbon monoxide]].<ref name=nasa3/> It is so thick that no record exists of the surface, if Jupiter has one in the traditional sense--though Jupiter might have a heavy-metal core having a composition similar to that of [[Earth]] but 20 to 30 times as massive.<ref name=nasa3/>

=== The Great Red Spot and other storms ===
The planet endures continual storms. The most famous of these is the Great Red Spot, which has raged for at least three hundred years. The most precise estimate of its duration is 342 years,<ref name=Than>Than, Ker. "[http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060731_red_spots.html Differences Spotted in Jupiter's Big Red Storms]." <http://www.space.com/>, July 31, 2006. Accessed March 3, 2008.</ref> but this might refer merely to the first time that someone observed it with a telescope capable of resolving it. It is large enough to encompass the entirety of the [[Earth]] and rotates anticlockwise along Jupiter's equator. Winds at its edge circulate at 360 km/h<ref name=nasa3/>, far faster than those of the most powerful [[hurricane]] ever recorded on Earth.

=== Radiation of heat ===
Jupiter actually radiates 1.7 times the heat that strikes it from the Sun.<ref name=Weisstein>Weisstein, Eric W. "[http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/astronomy/Jupiter.html Jupiter]." ''Eric Weisstein's World of Astronomy'', accessed March 3, 2008.</ref> This could be due to Kelvin-Helmholtz gravitational compression, a process that also limits the size that Jupiter can have.<ref name=arnett/> In this process, the planet's cooling causes it to compress, which in turn heats up Jupiter's core.

== Magnetosphere ==
Jupiter has a magnetic field about 14 times as strong as that of Earth. Specifically, its [[magnetic dipole moment]] amounts to 1.55 * 1027 N-m/T, higher than that of any object except the [[Sun]]. It is so high, in fact, that by [[Russell Humphreys]]' model for planetary magnetic fields, Jupiter's field must have formed with ''all'' of its mass aligned for the maximum cumulative magnetic dipole moment, instead of the usual 25%. By this assumption, the magnetic dipole moment of Jupiter at creation must have been 1.79 * 1027 N-m/T. The half-life of this field is longer than 31,500 Julian years.

This field tends to shield Jupiter from the [[solar wind]]. However, the field has also trapped large numbers of radioactive particles in a Van-Allen-like radiation belt<ref name=nasa3/> that actually encompasses the orbits of the seven innermost moons. The magnetic field extends beyond the far side of Jupiter for at least 700 million kilometers.<ref name=nasa3/>

The very strong magnetic field of Jupiter is extraordinary by any standard. The Humphreys model has passed two key tests of its predictive value, one at [[Uranus]] and the other at [[Neptune]].<ref name=Humphreys2>Humphreys, D. R. "[http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&page=329 Beyond Neptune: Voyager II Supports Creation]." [[Institute for Creation Research]]. Accessed April 30, 2008</ref> That model normally assumes that God formed any given celestial body initially out of water, with its molecules partially aligned for maximum cumulative effect, and then transmuted the molecules after the magnetic field was established. For most celestial bodies thus far observed, an alignment fraction of 25% suffices to establish a magnetic dipole moment at creation. But Jupiter's magnetic dipole moment is far too high to have resulted from an initial alignment of 25%. An alignment of 100% seems to be required, the highest fraction allowable and the highest fraction of all celestial bodies observed to date. This implies that God made Jupiter to be a beacon in the night sky, in more ways than merely by making it large.

Jupiter's orbit is inclined 1.305 degrees to the ecliptic, so Jupiter appears, in turn, in each constellation of the Zodiac. In fact, its 399-day synodic year places it in a different constellation of the Zodiac at the same point in each succeeding year. Pratt<ref name=Pratt>Pratt, John C. "[http://www.johnpratt.com/items/docs/lds/meridian/2005/zodiac.html The Constellations Tell of Christ]." ''Meridian'', June 15, 2005. Accessed May 12, 2008.</ref> shows that the members of the Zodiac, and a number of closely associated constellations, presage the life and ministry of [[Jesus Christ]]. If Jupiter is indeed a beacon, then it could not have been better placed.

== Ring system ==
Jupiter does have a ring, consisting of three components, called the halo, the main ring, and the gossamer ring. This ring lies entirely within the region occupied by the four innermost moons, and probably derives its substance from escaping dust from the two innermost moons, [[Metis]] and [[Adrastea]]. The average size of the ring particles is 10 microns, comparable in size to the particles in [[tobacco]] smoke.<ref name=nasa4>Harvey, Samantha. "[http://solarsystem.jpl.nasa.gov/planets/profile.cfm?Object=Jupiter&Display=Rings Jupiter:Rings]." ''Solar System Exploration'', [[NASA]], February 7, 2008. Accessed March 3, 2008.</ref>

==Shoemaker-Levy==
In 1994, scientists were able to witness fragments of the comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 collide with Jupiter. These collisions laster for 6 days, starting on July 16th of that year, and was the first cosmic collision to be observed. During the impacts, at least 21 separate fragments with a size of up to 2 kilometers hit Jupiter, leaving scars in its atmosphere larger than several Earths.

== Problems for uniformitarian theories ==

Jupiter's sidereal day is less than ten Earth hours long. If Jupiter formed simply as an accretion aggregate of the [[nebula hypothesis|solar nebula]], then it should not have acquired such tremendous angular momentum. The problem involves not merely the short sidereal day but also Jupiter's tremendous mass.

The alternative theory is that Jupiter formed as a "failed protostar" at the center of its own nebula. This theory has several problems:

# Jupiter never ignited, though its magnetic field is four times as strong as its mass would normally predict.
# None of Jupiter's 63 moons is gaseous. Therefore a key event in the nebular sequence did not take place.
# The four dwarf-planet-sized [[Galilean moons]] have vastly differing apparent geological "ages" coming from times estimated to be as disparate as ten million years to as recent as thirteen hundred (although the times cannot be fixed with any reliability).<ref>Fulbright, Jeannie. ''Exploring Creation with Astronomy.'' Apologia Educational Ministries, 2004.</ref>
# Many of Jupiter's outer moons move retrograde to Jupiter's own day.

== Exploration ==
[[Galileo Galilei]] studied Jupiter extensively and in the process discovered its four largest moons--[[Io]], [[Europa (moon)|Europa]], [[Ganymede]], and [[Callisto]], also known as the [[Galilean moons]]. Many other astronomers studied Jupiter from Earth-bound telescopes for hundreds of years. In the process they discovered twelve of Jupiter's moons and the Great Red Spot, but did not discover Jupiter's ring system.

Seven spacecraft, all from the [[United States]], have visited Jupiter thus far. First to do so was [[Pioneer 10]] (December 3, 1973), which suffered tremendously from the radiation belt but still provided the evidence for Jupiter's [[magnetosphere]]. [[Pioneer 11]] was next (December, 1974) and took far better images of Jupiter and its Great Red Spot.

[[Voyager 1]] (March, 1979) and [[Voyager 2]] (July, 1979) gave the first comprehensive views of Jupiter and the Jovian system, including the discovery of its rings, the discovery of four moons inside [[Io]]'s orbit, and the first extensive studies of the [[Galilean moons]].

[[Ulysses]] (February 1992) made a brief flyby of Jupiter in order to place itself in polar orbit around the Sun. Nevertheless [[European Space Agency]] scientists used this opportunity to make further measurements of Jupiter's magnetosphere and the effect upon it by the solar wind.

[[Galileo Project|Galileo]] reached Jupiter in 1995. It released a probe to dive into Jupiter's atmosphere; that probe transmitted for nearly an hour before the tremendous pressures crushed it. Galileo's orbiter remained in the system for nearly eight years, through two extensions of its mission, and conducted the most extensive surveys of the Galilean moons to day. Eventually, with the craft low on fuel, mission planners dived it into Jupiter to prevent its possibly crashing into [[Europa]], rupturing Europa's ice sheet, and contaminating the liquid ocean that astronomers now suspect lies a mere 10 km deep to the ice and could yet harbor [[extraterrestrial life]].<ref name=nasa3/>

[[Cassini-Huygens Mission|Cassini]] flew by Jupiter briefly in 2000 on its way to [[Saturn]]. While in the Jovian system, it took the image shown at the top of this article.

The [[New Horizons mission]] will include a Jupiter flyby in its journey to the [[Pluto]] system.

== References==
{{reflist|2}}
{{Solarsystem}}

Quantum mechanics

2014-12-15T22:13:52Z

Darwon: /* Interpretations */ quantum mechanics doesn't care about humans + fixed links

'''Quantum mechanics''' is the branch of [[physics]] that describes the behavior of systems on very small length and energy scales, such as those found in [[atom]]ic and subatomic interactions. It is essential for understanding certain concepts that [[classical physics]] cannot explain, such as the discrete nature of small-scale interactions, [[wave-particle duality]], the [[uncertainty principle]], and [[quantum entanglement]]. Quantum mechanics forms the basis for our understanding of many phenomena, including [[chemical reaction]]s and [[radioactive decay]], as well as all [[computer]]s and electronic devices today.

The fundamental principle of quantum mechanics is that there is an uncertainty in the location of a subatomic particle until attention is focused on it by observing its location.

The name "Quantum Mechanics" comes from the idea that energy is transmitted in discrete quanta, and not continuous. Another historical name for "quantum mechanics" was "wave mechanics."

==History==

Until the early 1900's, scientists believed that [[electron]]s and [[proton]]s were small discrete lumps. Thus, electrons would orbit the nucleus of an [[atom]] just as planets orbit the sun. The problem with this idea was that, according to classical [[electromagnetism]], the orbiting electron would emit energy as it orbited. This would cause it to lose rotational kinetic energy and orbit closer and closer to the proton, until it collapses into the proton! Since atoms are stable, this model could not be correct.

The idea of "quanta", or discrete units, of energy was proposed by [[Max Planck]] in 1900, to explain the energy spectrum of [[black body]] radiation. He proposed that the energy of what we now call a photon is proportional to its frequency. In 1905, [[Albert Einstein]] also suggested that light is composed of discrete packets (''[[quanta]]'') in order to explain the [[photoelectric effect]].

In 1915, [[Niels Bohr]] applied this to the electron problem by proposing that [[angular momentum]] is also quantized - electrons can only orbit at certain locations, so they cannot spiral into the nucleus. While this model explained how atoms do not collapse, not even Bohr himself had any idea why. As Sir James Jeans remarked, the only justification for Bohr's theory was "the very weighty one of success".<ref name="VA">http://galileo.phys.virginia.edu/classes/252/Bohr_to_Waves/Bohr_to_Waves.html</ref>

It was Prince [[Louis de Broglie]] who explained Bohr's theory in 1924 by describing the electron as a wave with wavelength λ=[[Planck's Constant|h]]/[[momentum|p]]. Therefore, it would be logical that it could only orbit in orbits whose circumference is equal to an integer number of wavelengths. Thus, angular momentum is quantized as Bohr predicted, and atoms do not self-destruct. <ref name="VA" />

Eventually, the mathematical formalism that became known as quantum mechanics was developed in the 1920s and 1930s by [[John von Neumann]], [[Hermann Weyl]], and others, after [[Erwin Schrodinger]]'s discovery of wave mechanics and [[Werner Heisenberg]]'s discovery of matrix mechanics.

The work of Tomonaga, Schwinger and Feynman in quantum electrodynamics led to the modern framework of quantum mechanics, currently applicable in quantum electrodynamics and quantum chromodynamics.

==Principles==

*Every system can be described by a wave function, which is generally a function of the position coordinates and time. All possible predictions of the physical properties of the system can be obtained from the wave function. The wave function can be obtained by solving the [[Schrodinger equation]] for the system.

*An observable is a property of the system which can be measured. In some systems, many observables can take only certain specific values.

*If we measure such an observable, generally the wave function does not predict exactly which value we will obtain. Instead, the wave function gives us the probability that a certain value will be obtained. After a measurement is made, the wave function is permanently changed in such a way that any successive measurement will certainly return the same value. This is called the collapse of the wave function.

===Collapse of The Wave Function===
[[File:norm.png|right|150x250px|thumb|An example of a wave that could be a position function. (Actual position functions are normally much more concentrated.)]]

In quantum mechanics, it is meaningless to make absolute statements such as "the particle is here". This is a consequence of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle which (simply put) states, "particles move," in an apparently random manner. Thus, giving a definite position to a particle is meaningless. Instead, scientists use the particle's "position function," or "wave function," which gives the probability of a particle being at any point. As the function increases, the probability of finding the particle in that location increases. In the diagram, where the particle is free to move in 1 direction, we see that there is a region (close to the y-axis) where the particle is more likely to be found. However, we also notice that the wave function does not reach zero as it moves towards infinity in both directions. This means that there is a high likelihood of finding the particle around the center, but there is still a possibility that, if measured, the particle will be a long ways away.

When the particle is actually observed to be in a specific location, its wave function is said to have "collapsed". This means that if it is again observed immediately the probability that it will be found near the original location is almost 1. However, if it is not immediately observed, the wave function reverts back to its original shape as expected. The collapsed wave function has a much narrower and sharper peak than the original wave function.

Collapsing of the wave function is by no means magic. In can be intuitively understood as this: You find a particle at a particular spot; if you look again immediately, it's still in the same spot.

===The uncertainty principle===
As a result of the wave nature of a particle, neither position nor [[momentum]] of a particle can never be precisely known. Whenever its position is measured more accurately (beyond a certain limit), its momentum becomes less certain, and visa versa. Hence, there is an inherent uncertainty that prevents precisely measuring both the position and the momentum simultaneously. This is known as the [[Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle]]<ref>http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/uncer.html</ref>:

:<math> Dx \times Dp \ge \frac{h}{4\pi}</math>
where:
* Dx = uncertainty in position
* Dp = uncertainty in momentum
* h = [[Planck's Constant]]

==Interpretations==
Several interpretations have been advanced to explain how wavefunctions "collapse" to yield the observable world we see.

* The "hidden variable" interpretation<ref>http://www.reasons.org/resources/non-staff-papers/the-metaphysics-of-quantum-mechanics</ref> says that there is actually a [[determinism|deterministic]] way to predict where the wavefunction will collapse; we simply have not discovered it. [[John von Neumann]] attempted to prove that there is no such way; however, [[John Stuart Bell]] pointed out an error in his proof.
* The many-worlds interpretation says that each particle does show up at every possible location on its wavefunction; it simply does so in alternate universes. Thus, myriads of alternate universes are invisibly branching off of our universe every moment.
* The currently prevailing interpretation, the Copenhagen interpretation, states that the wavefunctions do ''not'' collapse until the particle is observed at a certain location; until it is observed, it exists in a quantum indeterminate state of simultaneously being everywhere in the universe. However, [[Schrodinger]], with [[Schroedinger's Cat|his famous thought experiment]], raised the obvious question: who, or what, constitutes an observer? What distinguishes an observer from the system being observed? This distinction is highly complex, requiring the use of ''quantum decoherence theory'', parts of which are not entirely agreed upon. In particular, quantum decoherence theory posits the possibility of "weak measurements", which can indirectly provide "weak" information about a particle ''without'' collapsing it.<ref>http://quanta.ws/ojs/index.php/quanta/article/view/14/21</ref>

==Applications==
An important aspect of Quantum Mechanics is the predictions it makes about the [[radioactive decay]] of [[isotopes]]. Radioactive decay processes, controlled by the wave equations, are random events. A radioactive atom has a certain probability of decaying per unit time. As a result, the decay results in an exponential decrease in the amount of isotope remaining in a given sample as a function of time. The characteristic time required for 1/2 of the original amount of isotope to decay is known as the "half-life" and can vary from quadrillionths of a second to quintillions of years.

==See also==
===Concepts in quantum mechanics===
*[[Schrodinger equation]]
*[[Heisenberg uncertainty principle]]
*[[Momentum (operator)]]
===Important contributors to quantum mechanics===
*[[Erwin Schrodinger]]
*[[Werner Heisenberg]]
*[[Paul Dirac]]
*[[Niels Bohr]]
*[[Albert Einstein]]
*[[Max Planck]]

==External Links==
{{reflist}}

For an excellent discussion of quantum mechanics, see:
http://www.chemistry.ohio-state.edu/betha/qm/

*[http://www.relativitycalculator.com/compton_effect.shtml The Compton Effect]

[[Category:Quantum Mechanics]]
[[Category:Physics]]

Talk:Conservapedia proven right

2014-12-14T22:40:03Z

Darwon: forgot signature

The two rows about gold seem repetitive. How about combining into only one row?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:23, 20 November 2011 (EST)
:::It is a lot of information plus Conservapedia mentioned gold and precious metals a lot. But at the same time reportedly positively about having a broad commodity strategy if possible. I think it would make a very long single entry. I will look at it though. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:18, 20 November 2011 (EST)
::::::I will combine them. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]]

== Neutrinos and the speed of light ==

The article claims that Conservapedia's prediction about the theory of General Relativity being wrong was proven by Neutrinos travelling faster that the speed of light. It has recently been found that this is in fact false, the accuracy of the measurements was affected by a loose fibre optic cable <ref>http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2012/02/official-word-on-superluminal-ne.html?ref=hp</ref>. Shall I remove this claim?

:The issue remains unresolved, rather than the claim by the scientists having been proven false. Feel free to edit accordingly.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:54, 29 February 2012 (EST)

::Thanks for the help Andy. Sorry, I'm new so I thought I would ask. Either way, the statement is invalid as there is reasonable concern that the results are inaccurate. I will delete it for now as it will save face for Conservapedia. But if the anomaly is still present (as some physicists believe it will be), then we can alwpays re-insert it.--[[User:JeremyK|JeremyK]] 11:23, 29 February 2012 (EST)

== Cristie and Palin ==

If Conservapedia thought those two weren't likely nominees why is [[Presidential Election 2012|Palin still listed as one]] and [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Presidential_Election_2012&diff=938676&oldid=937791 Christie was only removed as a potential nominee only two days ago]?

:The way that mathematical probabilities work, nobody, including Palin, has an absolute zero probability of being nominated. An absolute zero probability for an uncertainty is, by definition, impossible.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:05, 22 November 2011 (EST)

== Newt Gingrich ==

*Conservapedia statement: "Newt Gingrich is the most likely to win the Republican nomination for President"
*Ranking of Potential Republican Candidates by Likelihood of Winning Nomination as per the linked article right now: #1 - Mitt Romney
So Conservapedia is proven right for a prediction it's not making anymore? Oh, let me guess: If Mitt Romney wins the nomination after all, you will again claim that Conservapedia is proven right by linking to the first version where he happened to be at the top?

Make up your mind - either actually promote Newt as your top choice or strike this out. It's not much of a prediction when you're basically playing "Heads, I win! Tails, you lose!" with the wiki revision system. ;) --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 17:41, 22 November 2011 (EST)
:I see that the "most likely" list at least reflects this "prediction" again. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 17:12, 27 November 2011 (EST)

== Britain, atheism and the World Cup ==

*Conservapedia statement: "Atheistic Britain would embarrass itself in the World Cup"
*Liberal claptrap in response: "Liberal denial shouts down any observation of the correlation between atheism and underachievement"
*Result: "'England's performance at South Africa 2010 was officially their worst at a World Cup finals, according to Fifa.'"
Uh... your logic isn't sound. You roughly guessed a soccer result correctly, but that doesn't prove anything about a supposed correlation between atheism and underachievement.

Let's look at the actual statistics and results:
*Both England and the religious USA dropped out in the Top 16 round.
*The Top 3 spots of the World Cup went to Spain, the Netherlands and Germany (in that order).
*[http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_atheist.html This] site lists somewhat recent atheism/agnostic/nonbeliever rates per country:
**Spain: 15 - 24%
**Netherlands: 39 - 44%
**Germany: 41 - 49%
**Britain (as a yardstick for "atheistic country"): 31 - 44%
**USA (as a yardstick for a religious country): 3 - 9%
What was that? Correlation between atheism and underachieving? Citing the World Cup 2010 as an example? Not quite. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:08, 22 November 2011 (EST)

:Obviously nobody said atheism was the ''only'' factor. Of course there are other factors in fielding a successul soccer team, such as the level of interest in the sport.

:Looking at British soccer performance over time isolates the effect of atheism. As atheism has grown in Britain, it's ability to compete in the World Cup has fallen to pathetically weak levels. Atheism causes underachievement.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:09, 22 November 2011 (EST)
::England's past World Cup ratings:
::*1950: '''8th'''
::*1954: '''6th'''
::*1958: 11th
::*1962: '''8th'''
::*1966: 1st
::*1970: '''8th'''
::*1974: not qualified
::*1978: not qualified
::*1982: '''6th'''
::*1986: '''8th'''
::*1990: '''4th'''
::*1994: not qualified
::*1998: 9th
::*2002: '''6th'''
::*2006: '''7th'''
::*2010: 13th
::Whenever England qualified for a World Cup, it ended up in the Top 16. And I highlighted (in bold) the times in which England made it at least into the quarterfinals. Fallen to pathetically weak levels? During the last three World Cups, England twice had one of the best eight teams on the planet. Or are you claiming that there was a sudden atheism spike between 2006 and 2010?
::Also, the FIFA World Rankings currently rank England as #7, and the [http://www.fifa.com/worldranking/rankingtools/compareteams.html#g=m&t1=ENG&t2=ENG&t3=ENG&t4=ENG&dRange=4&fm=8&fy=1993&tm=11&ty=2011 trend there] isn't exactly indicating growing failure.
::So let's do this right. What are your sources for the claim that "atheism has grown in Britain"? How much during what time period? And then we can see how that compares to the the World Cup and the World Ranking.
::And you claim that atheism causes underachievement, but completely fail to address how the atheism in other countries somehow isn't causing underachievement there. You can't make a claim and then only consider a single country with "high" levels of atheism. How do you explain that the best three teams during the last World Cup have high atheism rates? Why aren't highly religious countries doing better?
::Sorry, but I don't see this going anywhere. You considered only a single data point (the performance of a single team during a single World Cup) to make a claim that doesn't seem to fit the moment you expand the scope at all. You called a single team's performance during a single event correctly, but that doesn't make your reasoning right. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 20:32, 22 November 2011 (EST)

== Earthquakes ==

I'm surprised that this is ''still'' doing its rounds: It's wrong.

I don't even have to make a longwinded speech; just look at [[Talk:Main Page/Archive index/102#Severe_earthquakes_double_every_40_years.3F|this]] discussion and also at [[Talk:Counterexamples to an Old Earth#Major_earthquakes_are_doubling_every_40_years.3F|this]] one. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:13, 22 November 2011 (EST)

== Jon Stewart Curse ==
Since the "prediction" was made, Stewart hasn't actually been in any movies. Hosting the Academy Awards was not movie acting. If you want to count "has appeared in front of a camera" as movie acting, then The Daily Show also counts, and it does [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1394561/The-force-Jon-Stewart-Daily-Shows-ratings-higher-FOX-News.html very] well. In addition, this prediction was originally made by somebody who was banned as a vandal. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 17:12, 27 November 2011 (EST)

==What is the point of this article ?==
It just look like boasting. And I shall remind you that ''"As it is, you boast in your arrogance. All such boasting is evil."'' - James 4:16 --[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 23:10, 8 February 2012 (EST)

:''Neither do men light a candle and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick, and it giveth light unto all that are in the house.'' - Matthew 5:15. Your move!--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 11:45, 29 February 2012 (EST)
::Admittedly, the title is a bit on the nose. I'm inclined to change it to "Conservapedia prescience" or "Presience of conservative insight." Or simply "Conservative Insight." [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 12:38, 29 February 2012 (EST)

::(edit conflict) Well put, CPalmer. And if "accountability" had been a term known to the [[King James Version]] translators, then it would be in the English translations of the Bible too. It's very important to circle back and check what was right and what was wrong.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:40, 29 February 2012 (EST)

:::Douglas, I'm [[Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness|open-minded about this]], but don't think the alternative titles would be an improvement.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:41, 29 February 2012 (EST)

== Gay penguin ==

Isn't it possible (and indeed more likely) that the penguin was never gay in the first place? I can't really picture one penguin (peacefully or otherwise) convincing another penguin to change from his ways. There are no penguin therapy support groups. Either way, Conservapedia is right about the gay animal myth (either he's an ex-homosexual or he never was one in the first place). But I do think that possibility is worth mentioning. I'm not sure how to word it though. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 22:44, 9 February 2012 (EST)
:::I think the idea of a homosexual animal is wrongheaded and that the homosexual animal notion is a myth. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:12, 29 March 2012 (EDT)

== References ==

<references/>

== Stalking Horse ==

Don't we need some evidence of intent before deciding that Santorum was a stalking horse for Romney? Was Nader a stalking horse for Bush in 2000? He certainly did more to hurt Gore than Santorum did to hurt Gingrich --[[User:JustinD|JustinD]] 20:57, 10 April 2012 (EDT)

:I have an [[open mind]] about whether Santorum was a [[stalking horse]] for Romney. But what other plausible explanation is there for the abrupt pull-out by Santorum at this time, stranding so many [[conservatives]] who had rallied behind him?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:42, 10 April 2012 (EDT)
::Winning less than half as many delegates as Romney. A sick kid at home. Nothing near the financial resources that Romney has. Poll leads in his home state that weren't incredibly solid. [[User:DVMRoberts|DVMRoberts]] 22:03, 10 April 2012 (EDT)
:::Just speculating, but I'd say the potential loss in Pennsylvania had to play a big part in his timing. It's been clear for a while now that he didn't really have much of a chance of turning things around this time out, but the longer he could stay competitive, the more influence he'd have going forward. A loss in his home state would have cost him a lot of credibility he's gained these last few months. It's also not implausible that Romney made some pseudo-promises behind the scenes that now allow him to cancel what was going to be a huge ad buy in Pennsylvania. At any rate, if you/we/Conservapedia still have an open mind about Santorum's status as a stalking horse, is it really an appropriate time to count this as an example of [[Conservapedia proven right]]?[[User:JustinD|JustinD]] 00:40, 11 April 2012 (EDT)
:::: Yeah, it seems silly to proclaim [[Conservapedia proven right]] about something that isn't even clear is true yet. And if Conservapedia did indeed think Santorum was just a stalking horse for Romney, why has it portrayed Santorum as the conservative alternative to Romney for the past few months? Why was this prediction from two years ago not brought up weeks ago? --[[User:BradleyS|BradleyS]] 01:56, 11 April 2012 (EDT)
:::::Although this will unfortunately make me sound like a jerk, this really isn't the place for those questions. Can we focus on trying to improve this particular article? I do appreciate the pro not-yet-a-stalking-horse sentiment though. --[[User:JustinD|JustinD]] 02:09, 11 April 2012 (EDT)
:::::: I think those questions are relevant. Conservapedia is claiming have been proven right about X when it doesn't appear to have actually believed in X and X hasn't been shown to be true. That's about as far away as 'proven right' as you can be. Hence an improvement of this article would be to remove the entry. --[[User:BradleyS|BradleyS]] 12:01, 11 April 2012 (EDT)
:::::::You're right. Sorry about that and carry on. I guess I was more tired than I thought last night. --[[User:JustinD|JustinD]] 12:50, 11 April 2012 (EDT)

::::::::It was asked "why has it portrayed Santorum as the conservative alternative to Romney for the past few months?" - Answer: because, obviously, voters '''''perceived''''' "Santorum as the [[conservative]] alternative to Romney." The strength of the votes for that conservative alternative was significant.

::::::::What Santorum's own intentions have been are, of course, another matter. The sbrupt timing of his pull-out seemed to have been coordinated with the Romney campaign, or at least to help him. Gingrich didn't pull out.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:32, 11 April 2012 (EDT)
:::::::::Exactly. I completely agree. This strongly hints that Santorum might not be as conservative as Romney really is (perhaps the plan was something like this; Romney would appeal to moderates while Santorum distracted the easily amused Liberals as Romney gained support. Now with his "shield" down Liberals have spent all their ammo on Santorum so Romney can advance as the real, true Conservative? When you think about it it's brilliant; the Republicans appear to compromise with the more simpleminded voters when in reality the Conservative train steams ahead with more power than ever! [[User:Insel|Insel]] 00:01, 19 April 2012 (EDT)

== Another case of selective reading.... ==

That's bordering the ridiculous: Aschlafly, have you read your source beyond the headline? Surely you want to differ between man-made quakes and natural ones! And a quote from the article: "''America's Natural Gas Alliance, which represents major energy companies involved in natural gas fracking, said it was difficult to conclude anything based on an unpublished abstract. ''" So perhaps you want to wait for the scientific article until you declare triumph - or will this be another article you quote, but don't read? [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 14:05, 22 April 2012 (EDT)

:You seem to be focusing on the [[hearsay]] in the article, which of course would be [[inadmissible]] in court for its lack of reliability. The article is cite here for its admissible factual content, which is that large earthquakes are increasing.

:Please see [[hearsay society]] for an enlightening discussion of the key distinction.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:13, 22 April 2012 (EDT)

::I think AugustO's point is that although Conservapedia is technically correct in saying the number of earthquakes is increasing, there is a very real possibility that the increase is due to recent human activity. If this is the case, the increase in earthquakes is not a logical counterexample to an old Earth. Even though the increase in earthquakes has not been conclusively linked to fracking, ignoring this possibility and claiming the counterexample to be definitively true is an example of [[deliberate ignorance]] or [[closed-mindedness]]. --[[User:Toadaron|AaronT]] 15:16, 22 April 2012 (EDT)

:::Previously there was denial that earthquakes are increasing. Conservapedia was correct about that, and there's no denying that now, right? As to why, that's a separate issue, but the claim that mankind is causing this is implausible.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:21, 22 April 2012 (EDT)

::::To answer your question, yes, you are correct. Whether this item belongs in this article and whether it belongs in [[Counterexamples to an Old Earth]] are two seperate issues. --[[User:Toadaron|AaronT]] 15:31, 22 April 2012 (EDT)

:::::Aschlafly would be correct if his claim were that ''the number of magnitude 3 and greater earthquakes increases dramatically in an area that includes Arkansas, Colorado, Oklahoma, New Mexico and Texas''.
:::::But his claim is ''Large earthquakes are increasing in frequency.'' That's quite a difference!
:::::And calling ''the claim that mankind is causing this'' [...] ''implausible'' seems to be a sign of severe closed-mindedness! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:17, 22 April 2012 (EDT)

== Predicted Increase in Premature Graying ==

Mr. Schlafly, I know from the [[Andy Schlafly|article about you]] that you have a background in law and engineering, two fields that highly value logic, evidence, and truth. So you must understand that one nonspecific example of one case of premature graying at one point in time - or even the few example given in the [[Counterexample to an Old Earth]] page - does not nearly offer rigorous proof that premature graying is increasing. (Not to mention the almost nonexistent relationship between premature graying and the age of the Earth.) --[[User:Randall7|Randall7]] 23:19, 28 April 2012 (EDT)

:The example is specific, and one case can prove a theory. The solitary example of [[Christ]] rising from the dead does prove several theories in [[Christianity]].

:With young people having gray hair with increasing frequency, this does suggest that the slope of man's developmental path is a much sharper incline (downward) than Old Earth believers claim.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:46, 28 April 2012 (EDT)

::Of course you are correct that there are some theories that can be proven true with a single example. But this is certainly not one of them. To prove your claim is true, you need to present a substantial amount of data from the past as well as from the present. At the risk of being called part of the [[Hearsay society]], I am going to suggest you present some credible references. (Also, I called the example on this page nonspecific because the "Result" column does not give the person's name or a reference.) --[[User:Randall7|Randall7]] 00:25, 29 April 2012 (EDT)

:::Good point about the need for specificity. The link is on the front page but this entry should identify the person. I've corrected that.

:::Your request for references is unpersuasive, as evidence is abundant in daily life. Would anyone ask [[Jesus]] for a reference after telling the parable of the [[Prodigal Son]]?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:31, 29 April 2012 (EDT)

::::I appreciate your point - I doubt anyone asked Jesus for references during his numerous speeches/sermons. But even though it may be obvious to you that the age of onset of gray hair is rapidly decreasing, it may not be obvious to many readers of Conservapedia, so providing substantial evidence would be useful to these readers. --[[User:Randall7|Randall7]] 00:41, 29 April 2012 (EDT)
::::::No, but you're not Jesus. You need to provide citations to factual claims when asked. You should do it before being asked really. I know you know this. [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 10:02, 29 April 2012 (EDT)
And now we see the "Hearsay Society" defense (...or, as I call it, the "Go Away, You Bother Me" defense) in action. Look Randall, look Nate: I've been coming to this website since 2007. Here's how it works. As stated above, one of the people who never have to provide evidence for their claims is Jesus Christ Himself. The other is Andy Schlafly. People are going gray earlier. Just roll with it, 'cause you ain't gonna get any more than "It's self-evident" or "One case proves the theory." Just kick back and enjoy the fun. [[User:Sylvain|Sylvain]] 10:05, 29 April 2012 (EDT)
:Nonsense. Mr. Schlafly uses citations all the time. He just needs to cite it his point. [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 10:11, 29 April 2012 (EDT)
::Mr. Schlafly supported a user who created a template expressly designed to do away with the need for citations. Thus the invention of the notion of the "Hearsay Society." Mr. Schlafly just now on this very page is arguing that, like Jesus Christ, his assertions on this matter are obvious and require no corroborating data. Mr. Schlafly re-wrote the Bible when that particular "data-set," if you would, did not correspond to his own beliefs, and has used articles about events that happened billions of years ago in order to advance the cause of a young creation. Mr. Schlafly has what one might call an interesting approach to the idea of how evidence might support an argument. [[User:Sylvain|Sylvain]] 10:16, 29 April 2012 (EDT)

:::The [[Hearsay Society]] is the ultimate haven for anyone who denies [[logic]] and, in this case, the increasingly premature graying apparent all around in daily life. [[Pharisees]] used the same escape hatch to avoid accepting the compelling parables and indisputable reasoning.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:19, 29 April 2012 (EDT)
::::Not it's not apparent at all because none of us is 6000 years old, assuming YEC is why you're saying this it seems to me that arguing without citing authority where necessary is the ultimate escape hatch for anyone who denies logic because arguments are built on supported factual premises. We have no idea how grey people were at age 30 before the invention of photography unless you've got some citations. And you're still not Jesus. This grey hair stuff is not remotely similar to Jesus's sayings and you know it. You're also getting hearsay wrong. It has nothing to do with citing authority. [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 10:38, 29 April 2012 (EDT)
ASchlafly, most people who are asked for a bit of evidence to back up a controversial claim don't retreat to constructing societal models out of whole cloth and then charging their interlocutors with being members of that made-up society. Nor do they compare their own arguments to those of the Lord. [[User:Sylvain|Sylvain]] 10:56, 29 April 2012 (EDT)
:::::Wait a minute here Mr. Schlafly - are you suggesting I'm part of this "hearsay society" and that by asking you for a citation to show that people are prematurely graying I'm "continuing the don't-think-for-yourself tradition started by the Pharisees"? [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 12:33, 29 April 2012 (EDT)
:::::::That's exactly what he's doing. I'm curious as to why you would find this surprising. [[User:Sylvain|Sylvain]] 12:57, 29 April 2012 (EDT)
:Jesus was infalible. You, Aschlafly, are not. He did not need to provide citations but unless you are now comparing yourself to Jesus you, Aschlafly as a falible human, do. [[User:Davidspencer|Davidspencer]] 11:56, 29 April 2012 (EDT)
:Also - but please correct me if I'm wrong - Jesus did not tell the Parable of the Prodigal Son as a true story, but, well, as a parable. --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 12:59, 29 April 2012 (EDT)

::Jesus told the [[parable]] as a true story about the good side of human nature. It was not merely fiction. Notice how no one asked Him to provide a citation that human nature was really like this. Instead, listeners of the [[Prodigal Son]] then and now think for themselves, and recognize its truth without resorting to a demand for [[hearsay]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:07, 29 April 2012 (EDT)
:::So you feel yourself to be on a level with Jesus? You feel that because he, the infaliable Son of God, was not asked for a citation then you should not be? Less than 300 years ago you would have been burnt at the stake for making such a claim. You should really reconsider your hubris, and then ask for forgivness for your pride. And then provide a citation - or withdraw your claim. [[User:Davidspencer|Davidspencer]] 13:31, 29 April 2012 (EDT)
::::But ASchlafly, you yourself said that [[parable| a parable is "a fictional narrative."]] Is it a true story or fiction? It cannot be both. [[User:Sylvain|Sylvain]] 13:34, 29 April 2012 (EDT)

:::::Sylvain, do you think the correct answer to a word problem in math is "merely fiction"? I don't think so.

:::::David, I don't think Christians burned anyone at the stake for making observations about premature graying, without citation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:58, 29 April 2012 (EDT)
For those of you who argue that Andy Schlafly is not infalible and needs to supply sources, keep in mind that by your own argument you need to supply sources that Andy is not infalible if you wish to state it. I doubt you can. [[User:JacobJ|JacobJ]] 14:16, 29 April 2012 (EDT)
:::::::Edit Conflict: No, but they very well might have burned someone who claimed that his pronouncements were as clear and obvious as those of the Lord. And I'm not sure you can equate word problems with empirical statements about the observable world. I could write a word problem about a train taking 20 minutes to go from Baltimore to Chicago, and for the sake of the word problem, that's fine. It's not the same as saying "a train take 20 minutes to go from Baltimore to Chicago, and only a Pharisee would question my word," which is essentially what you are doing here. [[User:Sylvain|Sylvain]]

::::::::So is the correct answer to a word problem "merely fiction," or not? And, by the way, Christians did not burn people at the stake as much as [[public schools]] might lead people to believe. Opponents of Christianity have been far more violent throughout history.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:25, 29 April 2012 (EDT)
Let's leave the questions of public schools and burning at the stake aside for the purposes of this discussion. The issue here is whether or not a constructed word problem is the same as an empirical claim about the world. I could construct a word problem where the correct answer is that the train took 20 minutes to get from Baltimore to Chicago. That says nothing about an actual train. You are making a claim about grey hair and when asked for evidence, your position seems to be "Jesus didn't need to provide evidence for his parables, and neither do I for this claim." This implies, to the casual observer, that you think that your claims have the same authority as those of the Lord. Do you not see how the reader might raise his eyebrows at such a position? [[User:Sylvain|Sylvain]] 14:31, 29 April 2012 (EDT)

:OK, suppose it wasn't Jesus who told the [[Prodigal Son]], but someone else. Would anyone ask for references to confirm how the story illustrates a truth about life?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:28, 29 April 2012 (EDT)

::Someone might ask not for references to confirm that the story tells a truth about life, but for references that the events mentioned in the story actually happened. However, whether or not the story happened or not doesn't change the lesson implied in the story. I get that. But you're not simply telling a story to impart a larger lesson. You are making an empirical claim about the world, having to do with the occurrence of gray hairs. The only evidence you seem to give is "Just like Jesus, I don't need any proof." But Jesus wasn't talking about an actual son and an actual father in the parable--he was telling a story. He could have made it all up in order to illustrate the lesson; that doesn't make the lesson any less valid. Story-telling is not making an empirical claim. Surely you can see the difference. Either 1. You do not understand the difference between metaphor and observable reality, or 2. You believe that your word is as unquestionable as that of Jesus Christ Himself. [[User:Sylvain|Sylvain]] 15:52, 29 April 2012 (EDT)

===A related issue===
A man making a claim with an appeal to Scripture is one thing. A man making a claim with an appeal to Scripture who led a project to re-write the Bible because parts of it did not conform to his political ideology is quite another. Then the claims of the man become self-fulfilling. Step 1: "Here is a claim about the world." Step 2: "For verification of this claim, please consult the version of the Bible that I wrote that reinforces the vision of the world that I am claiming in Step 1." Step 3: "If you have a problem with that, remember that Jesus--at least the version of him that I describe in my Bible--said things without reference to anything, and I can too. Because, like the claims of Jesus (the one in the Bible I rewrote), my claims are obvious." Does that not strike you as problematic? [[User:Sylvain|Sylvain]] 16:01, 29 April 2012 (EDT)

:The [[Conservative Bible Project]] has always been dedicated to translating the original meaning of the [[Bible]] more precisely, free of [[liberal bias]] that creeps into other translations.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:58, 29 April 2012 (EDT)
::Which explains why so many noted conservative theologians have given the rewritten Bible that you produced high praises, and why so many conservative churches and denominations are using it instead of those other, more liberal versions, I guess. [[User:Sylvain|Sylvain]] 00:07, 30 April 2012 (EDT)

:::I think the first statement would amount to more reliance on [[hearsay]] concerning what "conservative" theologians supposedly said. And, by the way, the [[Conservative Bible Project]] was never a "rewritten Bible."--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:51, 30 April 2012 (EDT)

{{nohearsay}}
What is this?
{| class="collapsible collapsed" style="border:1px dashed Gainsboro;margin:+.1em;width:20%"
|-
! style="border:1px solid lightgray;margin:+.1em;text-align:center;padding:+.2em" | [[user:Brenden|Brenden]].
|-
| style="padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
*[[Special:Contributions/Brenden|Contribs]]
*[[user talk:Brenden|talk]]
*[[Special:Log&user=Brenden|log]]
|} 15:50, 29 April 2012 (EDT)
:It's a template that can be used to answer or pre-empt calls for references on pages where they aren't needed. There's also <nowiki>{{nohearsaysection}}</nowiki> for use on specific sections of pages.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:21, 30 April 2012 (EDT)

Andy, let's assume, just for the sake of argument, that there is a scientist, a well-respected man and a well-known conservative (so no liberal bias involved), who has spent his career investigating premature greying in society, collecting data on the current incidence of premature greying and studying historic records on premature greying. Let us further assume - purely hypothetically - that this man has found that premature greying has not increased since, say, the time of Jesus up to now. If we don't know this man personally, should we take his results seriously or should we dismiss them and all reference to them as hearsay? What if we know him personally, maybe even as a close friend, and know him to be an honest, conservative man? Should we trust him and take his results seriously, even if they contradict what we believe to be true? At what point does information obtained from someone else stop being hearsay? You will surely say that he will not find contradicting results, but my question is not about premature greying (incidentally, I'm in my mid-40s and have been completely grey for at least ten years now). What I really want to understand is the concept of hearsay, its limits and the connection to openmindedness. --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 11:36, 30 April 2012 (EDT)
::I'm sorry, I meant what's the point of this. References aren't bad, they prevent people from inventing their own facts.[[User:Brenden|brenden]] 00:21, 1 May 2012 (EDT)

:::When a demand for references is used to shout down logic or obvious truths available to everyone, then that is bad. When references are used to repeat hearsay contained in the references, then that is also bad. Silly demands for references or authority were used to interfere with the logic and obvious truths in the [[Gospels]], which of course contain no references.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:44, 1 May 2012 (EDT)
'::good point. However, when used correctly, references help people navigate the facts and content

::::I agree, but too often people demand references as a way of sidestepping clear logic or obvious truths, while accepting worthless references in other situations if the references reinforce their views.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:04, 1 May 2012 (EDT)
:::::So, I understand that it some situations, references just aren't readily available. Maybe because an insight is either so obvious that no one's bothered to discuss it or so novel that no one's thought to discuss it. But in other situations, they are available. Lots of smart people have studied lots of obscure things. In situations where references are available, is it appropriate to use them? If I, for example, found a study investigating the age at which people go grey, would that be worth considering? --[[User:JustinD|JustinD]] 03:07, 1 May 2012 (EDT)
::::::Yes, of course references are sometimes - often - wholly appropriate and very useful. They are used extensively on Conservapedia. But Wikipedia has gone beyond that and suffers from a kind of reference-mania - dismissing ''any'' statement that has no reference, and conversely often allowing any old garbage on the grounds that it does have a (questionable) citation.
:::::: See the comics [http://xkcd.com/978/ here] and [http://xkcd.com/906/ here] for two humorous commentaries on the problems caused by Wikipedia's policies (though note that other comics on that site may not be so educational - in fact the second link should come with a mild warning).--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 04:18, 1 May 2012 (EDT)
:::::::I understand, I think, your criticism of how references are used elsewhere. I'm more interested in trying to understand how you/Andy/Conservapedia want them to be used here. How do I know when it is appropriate to ask for a reference? If I ask for one and am told it is not necessary, by what criteria will we (or even better, objective others) determine who is correct? If I have a reference on some topic, how will I know whether or not it is appropriate to include in an article? --[[User:JustinD|JustinD]] 17:31, 1 May 2012 (EDT)

== Opportunities for improvement ==

I recently stumbled upon this article after a link to it was featured on the main page. After reviewing the article and it's subsequent talk page discussion, I believe I have found a few areas that could stand some attention.

# '''Ambiguousness of predictions''' - Many of the predictions are vague and offer little in the way of an objectively measurable outcome. To be effective, predictions should be as specific as possible, with indisputable results.
# '''Links to predictions''' - Very few of the list items reference the article (and exact edit) on Conservapedia where the actual prediction was made. Critics of the project could easily claim that predictions were being made after-the-fact once the final outcome was known. Citing the specific edit where the prediction was made would preemptively silence such criticism.
# '''"Liberal claptrap" responses''' - Like the predictions themselves, only a minuscule amount of the alleged liberal uproar is actually documented.
# '''The results''' - Surprisingly many of the results do not link to any external source, where the reader can review the material and reach their own conclusion about the accuracy of the prediction.

--[[User:DonnyC|DonnyC]] 15:06, 10 January 2013 (EST)

:You're welcome to add more references, but the predictions and outcomes are so clear and well-known that even more references are hardly necessary.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:10, 15 January 2013 (EST)

== Item on Armstrong is somewhat ridiculous ==

Lance Armstrong was stripped from his titles in August 2012, so adding him in September 2012 to the list of overrated sport-starts doesn't take a visionary... --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:46, 15 January 2013 (EST)

:May seem obvious now, but as you can see from the reference there was objection in September 2012 to including him in the [[Overrated Sports Stars]] entry.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:02, 15 January 2013 (EST)
::I remember this well, as I reinserted the entry. So there were two editors ([[User:Wonders]] and [[User:AugustO]]) who thought that he was overrated, and other Conservapedians disagreed: you have enough convenient predictions to cover any outcome.... --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 13:58, 15 January 2013 (EST)

:::No, because the deniers were not "Conservapedians" in many meaningful sense. Conservapedians said he was overrated, and non-Conservapedians disagreed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:08, 15 January 2013 (EST)

*the article on [[Lance Armstrong]] was created in '''Sep 2007'''. The first reference to drug abuse was inserted in '''Jan 2012'''
*In '''Sep 2007''' wikipedia's [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lance_Armstrong&oldid=156195303#Allegations_of_drug_use article on Armstrong] already had a long section named '''Allegations of drug use'''
So even if you claim that Conservapedia was proven right, it came quite late to the party... --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 14:34, 15 January 2013 (EST)
::::"Predicting" that Armstrong is overrated in September is a bit like "predicting" that Obama would win the election ... on the 7th of November. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 15:12, 15 January 2013 (EST)

:::::[[Liberal denial]] about Armstrong continued well past September. There are probably atheist websites today that still list him as being great.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:47, 15 January 2013 (EST)

:::::''[[Liberal denial]] about Armstrong continued well past September.'' Evidence?
:::::''There are probably atheist websites today that still list him as being great.'' Link?
:::::There are those thinks called ''facts''... --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 17:57, 15 January 2013 (EST)

::::::Liberal companies including a beer company and Nike continued to endorse Armstrong for months after September. Now, do you need a citation for that too???--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:59, 15 January 2013 (EST)

:::::::Just citations which show that [[Anheuser Bush]] and [[Nike]] are liberal companies... --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 19:20, 15 January 2013 (EST)

::::::::Oh please ... is it really necessary to provide a citation that Nike and a beer company are liberal???--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:30, 15 January 2013 (EST)

:::::::::Yes. In my country, beer companies belong to the most conservative companies imaginable. And [[Anheuser Bush]] doesn't strike me as a kind of micro-brewery.
:::::::::--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 19:32, 15 January 2013 (EST)
::::::::::Both Nike and Budd dropped him, presumably after looking in detail at their legal options. Besides I cannot imagine how you would even begin to argue that Nike is a "liberal" company - they are one of the biggest exploiters of cheap labour in the world; they are famous for having extremely lax safety standards for employees, and being in favour of countries that reduce them as much as possible. I'm not familiar with the beer company, but given their size I doubt they would meet any sensible definition of liberal. As for "I'm sure there are atheist websites who endorse him still"; that is a meaningless statement unless you actually cite one. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 21:07, 15 January 2013 (EST)
::::::::It's difficult for me to imagine any corporation as "liberal." When the primary motivator is profit, groups and individuals tend to go conservative. --[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 00:41, 16 January 2013 (EST)

:::::::::Big corporations have never been friendly to the conservative movement. Except for the union issue, big corporations tend to support liberals.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:54, 16 January 2013 (EST)
::::::::::I think the opposite is the case (take, for example, the membership of ALEC). [[User:GregG|GregG]] 01:14, 16 January 2013 (EST)
:::::::::::(EC)And tax policy, and health and safety, and welfare, and discrimination laws, and minimum wages, and healthcare, and political finance reform and etc etc ad nauseum. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 01:18, 16 January 2013 (EST)
Rupert Murdock a liberal? [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 00:58, 16 January 2013 (EST)

: Rupert Murdoch is whatever will further his business interests. He has at various times supported both sides of politics when doing so helps his various business interests. [[User:Dvergne|Dvergne]] 01:13, 16 January 2013 (EST)

:: ''The Australian, "The Times of London", "The Wall Street Journal"'', those rubbish tabloids in Britain. New York and in the various state capitals in Australia - "liberal" papers, Dvergne? [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 01:38, 16 January 2013 (EST)

This is like shooting fish in a barrel guys - just follow the money. In 2012, Anheuser Busch donated [https://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.php?strID=C00034488 55% of its PAC money to Republicans, 45% to Democrats]. Since 2003, it has donated [http://www.followthemoney.org/database/topcontributor.phtml?u=207 45% of its money to Republicans, and 38% to Democrats]. In 2012, Nike donated [http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.php?strID=C00142786 63% to Republicans, 37% to Democrats]. Since 2004, Nike has given [http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.php?strID=C00142786 43% to Republicans, 40% to Democrats]. Although neither are 'overwhelmingly GOP', like, for example, [http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.php?strID=C00236489 Koch Industries] (98% Republican, 2% Democrat), if the Nike and Anheuser Busch numbers were election results, they would be called a "landslide" for Republicans. The vast majority of corporations will be found to be like this - it's in their interest to support less regulation, lower business taxes, etc, and they almost all line up to support conservatives. [[User:Wonders|Wonders]] 12:27, 18 January 2013 (EST)

:The donations by corporations to Republicans are typically to '''''liberal''''' Republicans, some of whom are more liberal than many Democrats.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:30, 18 January 2013 (EST)
::But Anheuser-Busch is a member of ALEC, at least according to [http://www.commoncause.org/atf/cf/%7BFB3C17E2-CDD1-4DF6-92BE-BD4429893665%7D/cied_35-day_mailing_2011_annual_meeting%20New%20Orleans.pdf this source]. I don't think they would belong to ALEC if they were liberal. [[User:GregG|GregG]] 20:13, 18 January 2013 (EST)
:::Not to mention that Anheuser-Busch donated to Andy's favorite candidate [[Todd Akin]]. --[[User:DonnyC|DonnyC]] 20:32, 18 January 2013 (EST)

== Relay ==

I read [http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2013/02/130208-super-bowl-blackout-cause/ the National Geographic article], and it appears that the argument is whether the relay mechanically failed or whether it was improperly set. Nothing suggests that relay or its use was not at fault, and certainly nothing suggests that energy rationing of any sort contributed to the outage. Please fix this. Thanks, [[User:GregG|GregG]] 21:25, 9 February 2013 (EST)

:A low setting on a relay (or fuse) would result from guidelines based on rationing energy.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:05, 9 February 2013 (EST)
::Relays almost never fail, and stadiums almost never go dark. You can't prove that a relay didn't cause a blackout by saying that relays almost never fail, just as liberals can't prove that God didn't create the world because worlds almost never are created. --[[User:Praymond|Praymond]] 11:30, 27 May 2013 (EDT)
::There are several other, more plausible reasons. It could have been to prevent larger-scale blackouts due to interruption in the power coming into the stadium. It could have been to reduce the risk of fire (the same kind of reason why circuit breakers in your home trip). Or, the setting may have been too low simply due to human error. The details should be sorted out soon through investigation. [[User:GregG|GregG]] 22:31, 9 February 2013 (EST)

== Media bullying ==

A simple google search shows that the term "media bullying" was already in use before Conservapedia purportedly coined it. [[User:Onestone|Onestone]] 09:48, 10 March 2013 (EDT)

:Were prior uses elsewhere of the term "[[media bullying]]" in the same rich meaning as the usage here?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:24, 10 March 2013 (EDT)
::You claim (and literally wrote) that Conservapedia coined the ''term''. However, judging from your reply, what you probably intended to write was that Conservapedia merely coined the highly particular ''usage'' of the term. That is an essential difference. [[User:Onestone|Onestone]] 09:13, 11 March 2013 (EDT)

== Explained that abortion increases the risk of breast cancer ==

The article cited as proof that abortion increases the risk of breast cancer mentions nothing about abortions, nothing about ''Roe V Wade'' being connected with the increase of cancer in young women. Quote: "Why more young women would be presenting with tumors that have already spread to bone, brain, lungs, or other distant sites ''isn't clear, they noted. Rising obesity rates, changes in alcohol and tobacco use, and genetics are possible causes, according to Dr. Thomas Julian, director of surgical oncology at Allegheny General Hospital in Pittsburgh."
''

If you want to find a connection, or have some proof, I recommend adding it, but this is not that proof. Doesn't even come close. It just so happens that the studies started a few years after ''Roe V Wade'' was decided. There is not even a casual connection between the two mentioned in this article. [[User:Vyselink|Vyselink]] 15:03, 26 March 2013 (EDT)

:Newspaper articles often do have the problem of [[liberal denial]], but are cited here for the facts they contain.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:09, 12 May 2013 (EDT)
::The article's fact's also don't support the conclusion I'm afraid, which ultimately doesn't make a good case for this thesis. It states:
::The steepest uptick occurred in the most recent era from 2000-2009, during which incidence rose 3.6 percent per year.
::Keeping in mind that the study is about women in the 25-39 age group, the group around 2000 (before the uptick) are not pre-abortion. Even the oldest (age 39) member of the least cancerous cohort (in 2000) would have been age 12 when Roe v. Wade was decided in January 1973. In other words, even the early, healthy, group in the study were of child-bearing age in the abort era. As much as I'd like for this study to support this case, I don't see how it does. [[User:MelH|MelH]] 15:32, 2 July 2013 (EDT)

Here is a link to a reputable source that more than confirms the hypothesis.http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1288955/Abortion-triple-risk-breast-cancer.html
--[[User:Tomqua|Tomqua]] 16:02, 2 July 2013 (EDT)

==Tamerlan Tsarnaev==
Does anyone else feel like this might be jumping the gun a little?? "Tamerlan Tsarnaev '''probably''' murdered his friend on a 9/11 anniversary, and DNA '''likely''' proves it." The words "probably" and "likely" are not synonyms for "proven right"... especially not when the [[Conservapedia proven right#cite note-56|only citation provided]] is a link back to the [[Main Page|same statement]] (without any external source at the time of this posting) on the main page of this very website. I honestly haven't followed the murder case at all and have no idea what is going on with it, but the information provided here is far from convincing to me. [[User:Fnarrow|Fnarrow]] 00:24, 12 May 2013 (EDT)
:I stand corrected, there is now a [http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2013/0511/Tsarnaev-2011-murders-Boston-bombing-brothers-also-could-be-linked-to-earlier-deaths source] provided on the main page... however, it very clearly states that the evidence only points to them being in the area on the day of the murder and circumstantial at best. Like I said above, I haven't been following the case so I don't know all the details, I just feel it's a little premature to claim CP was proven right on this. [[User:Fnarrow|Fnarrow]] 00:33, 12 May 2013 (EDT)
::I don't see any "liberal bias" or right-vs-left in any of this. All Americans believe that the Boston Marathon bombing, carjacking, police shootouts etc. were horrible behavior. It is an opportunity for the nation to pull together to respond to this. We all want the police and the criminal justice system to work effectively to identify all related crimes and any possible co-conspirators. America demands a complete and professional investigation. Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 01:13, 12 May 2013 (EDT)

:::Within days the DNA evidence from the [[9/11]] triple-murder was compared with the DNA of Tamerlan Tsarnaev, and they likely matched. (If they didn't match, then authorities would surely say so.) '''''Yet [[liberal denial]] about the DNA match continues'''''.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:57, 12 May 2013 (EDT)

==Proposed Enhancements==
It seems my recent edit to this page was more controversial than I intended. I wanted to apologize to the project for the problems that I caused--it was never my intent to remove substantive material. I believe the lay out of the chart can be enhanced, and the following is my proposed methodology. I will not endeavor to make these changes without approval. Each of these phases would be enacted in separate edits with significant time in between them to facilitate review.
 -First: Standardization of the dates. Currently, there is no standard. Some dates are seasons while others are ranges, and those with specific dates are displayed with no specific style. My proposed standardization is as follows--for dates: (Full Month) (Day) (Year). for those that are currently seasons or ranges, I will search for the first relevant edit and use that as the date. I will provide a citation.
 -Second: Citation of Claims. After completing phase one, my intent is to revisit the table and provide internal citations to all predication made.
 -Third: Citation of Results. After completing phase two, my intent is to revisit the table and provide citations to all results.
 -Fourth: Sortability of Table. After completing phase three, my intent is to edit the formatting to create a sort-able table.

I believe these enhancements will improve the visual appeal of the table. Further, I believe these enhancements embody an important principle: credit where credit is due. Conservapedia has often made bold predictions and has been proven right time and time again. Although it is improper to brag, we ought to take pride in, and document, the project's success.

Again, my apologies for any complications my previous edits caused. [[User:WilliamWB|WilliamWB]] 11:22, 23 May 2013 (EDT)

:I'm fine with the addition of citations, and with standardizing the form for dates is good too. I don't see how sortability will be a problem. The reason I reverted prior edits to this entry was that content changed. For example, and I don't know if this was your edit, but a correct statement about Manning throwing interceptions in the final key game was changed to incorrectly state that Tebow had done so.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:22, 23 May 2013 (EDT)

::As I work through adding dates and internal citations, I have noticed that the archive page of In The News ends in December 2011. Were the months January-December 2012 archived? I ask because searching the archives is simpler than my current method of searching through revision histories. Thanks, [[User:WilliamWB|WilliamWB]] 09:06, 27 May 2013 (EDT)

:::I think 2012 is archived here: [http://www.conservapedia.com/Main_Page/Previous_Conservapedia_Breaking_News].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:23, 27 May 2013 (EDT)

::::Ah, great! I was looking at the general archives page here: [http://www.conservapedia.com/Main_Page/Previous_Conservapedia_Breaking_News/Archives] Thanks, [[User:WilliamWB|WilliamWB]] 11:55, 27 May 2013 (EDT)

==Variability of the Speed of Light==

I suggest deleting the point about the speed of light being variable. The article sited does not in fact say this. It states that the speed of light is constant but that space is not the complete vacuum previously thought. Thus the speed of light is slightly slower traveling through space as it is in any non vacuum. [[User:CenterK|CenterK]] 01:53, 1 July 2013 (EDT)

== The expert, number two seed, Andy Murray won the men's tournament; defeating a field of "best of publics". ==

What does this have to do with a page documenting Conservapedia's correct predictions? Should it not be on a page, if it exists, of incorrect predictions? [[User:EddyJ|EddyJ]] 14:33, 7 July 2013 (EDT)

:I don't see what the victory by the #2 seed in the men's tourney has to do with this. No one is claiming that the experts '''''always''''' lose and underachieve, but they often fail - rougly 50% of the time judging by the [[Wimbledon]] results.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:17, 7 July 2013 (EDT)
::Exactly. Thanks for the insight. [[User:EddyJ|EddyJ]] 15:22, 7 July 2013 (EDT)
:::What insight? To suggest that ''anyone'' who gets as far as Wimbledon isn't an "expert" is vacuous at best. The "best of the public" are playing tennis in their gardens or at the local club. The only thing they do at Wimbledon is watch. Every single player there is by any reasonable definition an expert. --[[User:ECornwell|ECornwell]] 17:21, 7 July 2013 (EDT)

::::Why stop there? Why not say that the "public" are people who are playing tennis for the first time. Then we can be sure the public won't win.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:07, 7 July 2013 (EDT)
:ok so who isn't public? Just players who have won before?--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 18:31, 7 July 2013 (EDT)

::"Experts" are people like tenured college professors, a select few whom liberals claim know more than anyone else. For athletes, "experts" are the ones who get the big endorsements and hype. The public are those who try just as hard as the experts, but lack the recognition by liberals, sometimes due to political bias.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:59, 7 July 2013 (EDT)
:::You're insane.--[[User:ErinTH|ErinTH]] 19:17, 7 July 2013 (EDT)
:::::I'd have to second Erin here. You do understand that "effort" without results isn't rewarded in sports, right? Particularly tennis has nothing to do with effort - it has to do with who has had the most success in tournaments.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 02:06, 8 July 2013 (EDT)
:::I get what Mr Schlafly is saying, but I think I would label the concept differently. The public in this sense are those who are not well known within the general population but only within their own sport. Serena Williams is well known throughout the world. I would guess their are those who know who she is but unaware she is a tennis player whilst Marion Bartoli is not well known outside the tennis community and her home country. So maybe she is public-plus or expert-minus as she has made over 8 million dollars during her career--[[User:Tomqua|Tomqua]] 23:35, 7 July 2013 (EDT)
::::And I guess Serena Williams used to be "best of the public" before she became well known. After that she was an "expert". --[[User:HyramF|HyramF]] 23:44, 7 July 2013 (EDT)

== 15th seed ==

15th seed is best of the public?!?! So the 15th ranked expert in the world is now best of the public? [[User:JAnderson|Jacob]] [[User talk:Anderson|Anderson]] 10:23, 15 July 2013 (EDT)

== 15th seed ==

15th seed is best of the public?!?! So the 15th ranked expert in the world is now best of the public? [[User:JAnderson|Jacob]] [[User talk:Anderson|Anderson]] 10:23, 15 July 2013 (EDT)

:The 15th seed is far below the top four seeds who are expected by experts to produce the winner.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:11, 15 July 2013 (EDT)

::So a functioning definition of 'the best of the public' is anyone outside the top four recognized world experts in a particular field?--[[User:DHouser|DHouser]] 16:23, 16 July 2013 (EDT)

== "There are no black holes" ==

This is sensationalist. “The absence of event horizons means that there are no black holes — in the sense of regimes from which light can't escape to infinity.” If Hawking is correct, then black holes still exist, just not in the way previously thought. [[User:Darwon|Darwon]] 17:40, 14 December 2014 (EST)

Talk:Conservapedia proven right

2014-12-14T22:38:17Z

Darwon: /* "There are no black holes" */ new section

Counterexamples to Relativity

2014-12-14T22:19:29Z

Darwon: "just" dust is misleading. It's still an important discovery, not something to be downplayed.

Debate:If Jesus were alive to day, where on the political spectrum would he fall?

2014-12-14T22:16:26Z

Darwon: /* Conservative */

{{debate}}

If Jesus were alive today, what end of the political spectrum would he identify himself with? [[Conservative]] or [[Liberal]]? Please back up any assertions with references to the Gospels.

== "WTF?" ==
... would be the reply of Jesus. Seriously, the way Christianity has changed is sacrilegious. Basically all New Testament books are bunk. "St." Peter is pretty unChristly. The books of the Bible were written many years after the events and have been changed over the years. A little bit here and there creates a lot of change. I very much doubt that Jesus went around claiming some of the stuff he did in the later Gospels. How does this relate to politics? Not much, I was rambling...

I think Jesus would not care for what politics is now. He wouldn't align himself to any particular party. --[[User:Kirby|Kirby]] 23:57, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

I agree with Kirby; the very idea of left and right wing was non existant in those days. In fact, it is blasphemy for any group to claim him as their own. As a conscientious Christian, I find it nothing short of disgraceful when the Religious Right try to twist his word to legislate their own prejudices. There was no provision in the Bible for opposing slavery - this has been twisted by wingnuts in order to get a Christian endorsement of it. Some of the most extreme white supremacists in South Africa and America have used the Great Flood to demonstrate that Blacks come from one of the animals, as the only humans who travelled aboard the ship were clearly white, as their lineage can be traced to the caucasian King David.

Now, the Religious Right use Christianity in order to legislate against homosexuals. I believe that if Christ were around today, he would storm out of the houses of government in much the same way he stormed out of the Temple. [[User:Graham|Graham]] 20:26, 22 September 2007 (EDT)

== Communist ==
Since he thought everyone deserved a second chance, he would want that to apply to our economic system as well! That way, anyone who desired wealth and was willing to contribute productive to society should be held equal to all other such people.
To allow a "redeemed" person to suffer for past poor financial decisions is to hold back forgiveness.

Besides, the notion of God today is so reminiscent of Lenin's cult of the personality.

== Conservative ==
Where else would he find a home? [[Liberal]]s deny him. They deny his [[creation|creative]] role,<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Genesis|chap=1|verses=1|version=NASB}}</ref> and they deny the need for Him as Lord and personal Savior. They actually think that if they're good, they'll go to heaven--and that is simply wrong.<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Romans|chap=3|verses=10-12|version=KJV}}</ref>
:Few liberals would deny him ''if he were still alive'' (and doing miracles, otherwise he'd be thrown in the crazy bin) [[User:Darwon|Darwon]] 17:16, 14 December 2014 (EST)
1. Not all "liberals" deny Christ. There are many of us who are quite orthodox in our Christian faith and yet support some (not all) liberal causes. [[User:Burgeson|Burgy]] 15:04, 4 February 2009 (EST)

2. Jesus didn't want people to revere him, like said before not all liberals deny christ in reality many liberals are christian. also, didn't Jesus want people to give money to the poor and try this one "But when you give a feast, invite the poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind, and you will be blessed, because they cannot repay you. You will be repaid at the resurrection of the just." [Luke 14:13 &14.] The argument that Liberals would hate him is completely invalid. And if the moto for this wiki is "The Trustworthy Encyclopedia", you really need to get your facts straight.

Moreover, [[Jesus]] would never countenance the behaviors in which [[liberal]]s routinely engage, and encourage others to engage.<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Matthew|chap=5|verses=27-30|version=NASB}}</ref>
Jesus never said that a man could divorce his wife with a word. He did mention a specific circumstance that applied only to the [[Judaism|Jewish]] custom of engagement, which was less than a marriage but far more than the engagement we know today.<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Deuteronomy|chap=24|verses=1-4|version=KJV}}</ref> Jesus now practically abolished divorce entirely.<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Luke|chap=16|verses=18|version=KJV}}</ref> Liberals think divorce ought to be free and easy.

The "rehabilitation" of the thief consisted of salvation, and ''not'' of returning him to human society. Jesus was demonstrating that anyone could gain salvation if he would but repent--as this thief did.<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Luke|chap=23|verses=42|version=KJV}}</ref>

Lastly: the reference to stumblingblocks<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Romans|chap=14|verses=13|version=KJV}}</ref> has nothing to do with "affirmative action." Rather it has to do with not putting temptation to [[sin]] in one another's way. But to a liberal, no one commits sin by engaging in the traditionally decried vices. Rather, one commits sin merely by having too much money (a thing Jesus never said) or by making the world less wild or by otherwise disagreeing with a liberal.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 22:07, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
: It is dangerous to use Matthew 5:27-30 to condemn liberals - one need only look at the current set of conservatives running for election to see multiple marriages and the occasional affair.
: You appear to have misread what I said about divorce - "In Jesus's time, it was possible for a man to divorce his wife with a word." Jesus was against divorce. Again, one need only look at the current conservatives running for election to show that divorce is quite common outside of the liberal circle.
: Let us look at [[Conservative]] to see what the stance there is and how this relates to Jesus's ministry.
:* National defense and high military spending -- Jesus did not side with the Jewish sect that was trying for military overthrow of Rome. All of his acts were non-violet.
He didn't use violets?!--[[User:The vigilante|The vigilante]] 10:40, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
:* Economic allocative efficiency (as opposed to popular equity) -- I would suggest reading Mark 10:21-25 to see the stance on what the rich should do.
:* Stronger law enforcement and anti-crime laws, including the death penalty -- Look at John 8:3-11 to see Jesus speaking out against the death penalty (and further rehabilitation of those who commit crimes).
:* Abandonment of public schools in favor of private, particularly using tuition vouchers -- Jesus taught any who came to him without asking for payment. He much more closely resembles a public school teacher than someone advocating only private institutions to teach school.
: Given these it is reasonable to say that he was a very progressive individual for his time and even today his teachings show himself to be much more in line with the liberal platform than the conservative one. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 18:53, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

::Well put, Mtur. I can't help thinking that if Jesus were alive today and tried that "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" bit in front of a crowd of angry Fundamentalists, the symbol of His death would be a rock. --[[User:Scrap|Scrap]] 00:13, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
I can't help thinking that if Jesus were alive today, he'd read some of the posts here and rush to the nearest mosque to convert.-Neuro

HE IS DEAD GET OVER IT!{{Unsigned|Leninrules}}
:No, He isn't. But He knew you would think that, and said so to His Apostles.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 14:23, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Would Jesus consign to any party? I do not believe so. The combination of politics and religion was never meant to be. And besides, Jesus would never force any of his laws on anyone. You cannot force a person to love Jesus, and Christ knowing this would not force anyone to follow his teachings. Christ was about personal choice. --

----Erm, hello majority of verses here?----
Multiple thousands of verses on poverty can't simply be omitted because some one has a fascination with a few choice ones in Leviticus. Social, you can argue up and down all day, because he lived thousands of years ago, but economically, there's no debate: liberal.{{Unsigned|Applestooranges}}
:That's not all there is to it. Never once did Jesus say that the king ought to keep a royal welfare roll and pay for it out of the people's taxes. Taxes, in fact, exist to pay the full-time salaries of the police and the military. {{Bible ref|book=Romans|chap=13|verses=6-7|version=NASB}}--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 11:30, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:: In ancient Rome, there was a program called the ''annona''. This was an attempt by the Roman leaders to eliminate poverty in Rome and in part had the government give free grain to about 1/3 of the population of the city. The question of "is it the government's role or the church's role or the individual's role to do charity and take care of people" we see it is a combination of all three. In particular, [http://www.ontheissues.org/celeb/George_W__Bush_Welfare_+_Poverty.htm George Bush] advocates transferring of tax money to religious and non-religious charities with no strings attached. It is unfortunate that in today's world many churches have forgotten their roots in charity and benefactors to the community[http://www.tyndale.cam.ac.uk/Tyndale/staff/Winter/Seek-wc.htm] and instead spend their resources trying to convert people by speaking of damnation rather than showing them compassion and living the right way themselves. There is a difference between paying people who are able to work but don't to get away with laziness and helping those who cannot work for whatever reason (If you want Paul's take on this, read 2 Thessalonians 3:8-15). --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 21:04, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:::That's all very well. But would Jesus say that ''the government'' ought to involve itself in charity, or lay and collect taxes for that purpose? That is the distinction that conservatism makes. And it is a distinction that Paul would have made.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 21:58, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

There is ''no way'' that Jesus would come out on the side of the [[abortion]]ists. He'd be pro-life for sure. [[User:Vossy|Vossy]][[User_talk:Vossy|speak]] 02:03, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

If he would have any political affiliation, he would definitely be a conservative.

== Liberal ==
As stated in [[liberal]] he would clearly fall in the liberal end.
* equal rights for men and women, including participation by men and women in the military
** Starting at Mark 5:25, you have Jesus administering a woman who was menstruating for twelve years. This woman was unclean in Judaic tradition and it was not proper for a man to be talking to a woman who was not family.
** Beginning at John 4:7 Jesus talks to a Samaritan woman. It was not proper for a Jewish man to talk to a foreign woman - there were three strikes against her, unclean, foreign and a woman. In Matthew 15:22 Jesus again talks to a foreign woman, this time a Canaanite for whom he healed her daughter.
** Jesus also accepted women as students. With Luke 10:38, Jesus instructed Mary, the sister of Martha.
** In Luke 13:16, Jesus refers to a woman as a "daughter of Abraham". This phrase occurs no where else in the Bible and parallels the term "son of Abraham" that is often used to describe men.
** With Luke 7:35, Jesus forgives the sins of a woman and refers to all people as children of wisdom.
** Many of the stories that Jesus told and later was mentioned in Acts has a man and a woman (rather than just a man). Luke 2:25-38 Luke 4:25-38 Luke 4:31 Luke 7:36 Luke 17:34
** In Jesus's time, it was possible for a man to divorce his wife with a word. In Mark 10:11-12 Jesus says that a man does not have this right and treats men and women as equal.
* distributing wealth from the rich to the poor
** It should not be necessary to iterate the number of times Jesus's ministry is helping the poor. One need only read the Beatitudes in Luke 6:20 and 6:24 to see his take on this subject.
* government programs to rehabilitate criminals
** The most famous rehabilitation of a thief on the cross to whom he says "To day shalt thou be with me in paradise." Luke 23:43.
** There are other accounts of Jesus talking with criminals and outcasts from society.
*taxpayer-funded rather than private medical care
** Again, it should not be necessary to iterate the number of times that Jesus healed people who were poor and could not afford proper care. If anyone is sick, they should be healed.
* support of government programs such as welfare
** This closely relates to the distribution of wealth to the poor.
* support of affirmative action
** Much like that mentioned in equal rights (above), Jesus spent much time with foreigners - people of other races. He makes no distinction in teaching them, and most famously in the story of the good Samaritan.
** Moving from the Gospels to the writings of Paul, Romans 14:13 says "Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother's way." Affirmative action seeks to remove these stumbling blocks that have been placed by society in the past.
--[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 16:30, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:This page has a colossal joke on it, and you're it.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 22:07, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
::I thought Mtur made some very clear well sourced argument and that this rebuttal is a little uncivil. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 17:10, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
:::You thought wrong. We see here some classic misconstructions of Scripture of the type that always comes from unbelievers.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 00:04, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
::::Well you are certainly the model of Christian humility Terry.--[[User:Tehstone|Tehstone]] 17:01, 12 September 2007 (PST)
:::::I meet error by firm and swift correction. You're more than a little late replying to my point, anyway.
:::::The one thing that Jesus ''would not'' do is to task the civil government with enforcement of "being nice to people," or even suggest that that was any of the civil government's business.
:::::He ''would'' say that the civil government exists to restrain evil--and you do not restrain evil by letting it run amuck.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 20:22, 12 September 2007 (EDT)
::::Whoa, whoah. You called for cites from the Gospels to support positions; you said nothing about about the constructions to be placed on the quotes. How is it that you get to decide whether or not these are correct interpretations? [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 03:15, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

While a few of the beatitudes are in Luke chapter 6:20-24, the complete sermon of the beatitudes can be found in Matthew chapter 1:1-12. --[[user:steponme1623|steponme1623]] 11:15, 16 March 2007

Though I'm guessing Jesus wouldn't want to get involved in our ugly political system at this point in time, I would imagine that he would tilt left. I can't imagine him supporting the war; in Romans 12:19, he says:
<blockquote>
Romans 12:19 Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written: "It is mine to avenge; I will repay," says the Lord.
</blockquote> Even more simply, one of the commandments is not to kill. There is no way he would support the way our conservative president has sanctioned both revenge and killing.

Also of the government, the Bible says:
<blockquote>
Isaiah 10:1-3 – "Ah, you who make iniquitous decrees, who write oppressive statutes, to turn aside the needy from justice and to rob the poor of my people of their right, that widows may be your spoil, and that you may make the orphans your prey! What will you do on the day of punishment, in the calamity that will come from far away?"

And of helping people in general:
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
Deuteronomy 15:7-11 -- If there is among you anyone in need, a member of your community in any of your towns within the land that the Lord your God is giving you, do not be hard-hearted or tight-fisted toward your needy neighbor. You should rather open your hand, willingly lending enough to meet the need, whatever it may be. Be careful that you do not entertain a mean thought, thinking, "The seventh year, the year of remission, is near," and therefore view your needy neighbor with hostility and give nothing; your neighbor might cry to the Lord against you, and you would incur guilt. Give liberally and be ungrudging when you do so, for on this account the Lord your God will bless you in all your work and in all that you undertake. Since there will never cease to be some in need on the earth, I therefore command you, “Open your hand to the poor and needy neighbor in your land.”
</blockquote>
So Jesus would also agree with the notion that politicians should not marginalize the poor and that people should help the poor in general. Although no mention of government is made in the last verse I mentioned, government is not excluded from helping people. And that eliminates any argument that the government should not help the poor because they are lazy and don't deserve it.

So, without a doubt, I would say that Jesus, if he'd even vote, would be Liberal. --[[User:Arod|Arod]] 01:58, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

He'd have to be on the left -- all those stories about giving away all but the rags on your back and working for the poor. Though he would probably be anti-abortion, pornography and so on. It's quite possible, after all, to be a religious Left-winger with some or many conservative views. --[[User:AppalledBystander|AppalledBystander]] 06:47, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::Jesus was the original Bobby Kennedy. How could he support corruption, deceit, republicans? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 15:00, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

If God loved the world, as Jesus said in John 3:16, and if you should treat your neighbor as you do yourself, than Jesus would be liberal. He would advocate for the government to help the poor and to legalize [[same-sex marriage]]. [[User:Dave07|Dave07]] 18:10, 5 December 2012 (EST)

Matthew 21:12-13 "And Jesus entered the temple of God and drove out all who sold and bought in the temple, and he overturned the tables of the money changers and the seats of those who sold pigeons. He said to them, It is written, My house shall be called a house of prayer; but you make it a den of robbers." From this verse, I conclude that Jesus would be for government regulation of businesses, so that the businesses do not cheat their customers or monopolize the market.

Mark 2:15 "And as he sat at table in his house, many tax collectors and sinners were sitting with Jesus and his disciples; for there were many who followed him." This sounds like a liberal thing to do, to associate with sinful people and outcasts. [[User:Userafw|Userafw]] 22:21, 5 December 2012 (EST)

== Neither ==
Jesus was a religious figure, not a political figure. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 21:06, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:Just because he was a religious figure does not mean that he did not have a stance on various social issues that can be placed on a political spectrum. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 21:09, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Considering what was said above, and also his own teachings (as according to the bible), I don't think Jesus would claim a political status. Although I could see him leaning more to a conservative side as far as abortion and gay marriage is concerned. (No one is quite sure what Jesus thought of gay marriage but with biblical allusions I would say he was against it)--[[User:Goose89|Goose]] 22:56, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I would have to say, he'd probably be more neutral, and be like your average American and have a little mix of both. He'd be for gun control, as he didn't promote violence and certainly wouldn't embrace the right for someone to take the life of someone else. Abortion, he'd be against of course. Gay marriage... well he didn't tell hookers to stop being hookers did he? I think that would be an interesting thing to think about. I really don't think he'd give a hard-lined no. He would certainly think though that both liberals and conservatives need to be much kinder to each other. And he honestly... probably wouldn't like our president. If anyone is wondering why, I'll gladly tell you why I think so.--[[User:Ronnyreg|Ronnyreg]] 06:04, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
:Actually, He ''did'' tell hookers to stop being hookers. In the same breath He told men to stop picking them up, and He ''also'' told men to stop looking at women ''as if'' they (the men) wanted to pick them (the women) up.<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Matthew|chap=5|verses=28-30|version=NASB}}</ref>
:And as regards weapons control, He once said that any man who didn't carry a sword ought to get one.<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Luke|chap=22|verses=35-37|version=NASB}}</ref> That doesn't sound like being a proponent of gun control to me.
:And why wouldn't He like our President? On the contrary, He'd say that George W. Bush was and is doing exactly what a man in governing authority should do.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 09:31, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
::I think he'd be telling Dubya to get the mote out of his own eye before he tried taking a beam out of another's. Or, to paraphrase, 'sort yourself out first.' [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 03:17, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
:::You got your motes and beams mixed up, but that's a minor quibble. The major point is this: you seem to be suggesting that the [[United States]] deserved to be attacked in the [[World Trade Center incident]]. That incident was the start of a war of [[Islam]] against [[Christianity]].--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 10:18, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
::::Not for a minute do I think the United States 'deserved' to be attacked as it was on 9-11 (and a damned tense day it was - we were stood-to within minutes of the first strike and reverted to a lower alert status about three days later). However I do think Mr. Bush's response was not appropriate. The first principle of war is to correctly identify and locate the target. Target identification was not a problem - bin Laden and al-Qaeda promptly claimed responsibility for the attack - but localizing the target was and still is. And Iraq was entirely peripheral to the attack, particularly since the existence of WMDs in that country has become increasingly doubtful. As for your assertion that this is a war between Islam and Christianity, I also call that into question. There are any number of devout Muslims living and working in America, and serving in her armed forces. This is asymetric warfare against a numerically small band of extremists who came up with an effective way to strike at a powerful nation. At that, they didn't originate the idea; Tom Clancey did, in his book '''Debt of Honor''' - and he got raked over the coals by some who considered him to be almost a co-conspirator, because he had the nerve to write a fictional work exposing and discussing a potential weakness. Myself, I think if the administration of the day had paid attention to what he said, there might have been some thought given to how to avoid or deflect such an attack. [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 16:11, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
:::You need to publish this on the Talk page of the article on the Iraq War. Not that I agree entirely with your analysis, but it still needs to be where a lot of people can read it and comment on it. That's all I have time to say right now, but I wanted you to know that I had seen it--and that I appreciate your intellectual honesty.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 16:22, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

I think if Jesus was alive today he would be very disappointed in all of us for arguing and bickering so much about a religion with care, compassion, and love as its fundamental principles. Not sure what he would say about politics except that it must be the devil's work.
-Gasmonkey

Totally agreed. He didn't really follow any set authority. He might identify with causes of both sides, but he would never become involved in something as corrupt as politics, on either side.
-mikeyc252

He won't need to. When he returns, he'll just take over. --[[User:Scrap|Scrap]] 00:11, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

Scrap? That's the most logical thing I've seen on here so far. And I must say that I agree. --[steponme1623|steponme1623]] 11:22, 16 March 2007

It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of Heaven.[http://www.plyrics.com/lyrics/reaganyouth/jesuswasacommunist.html]]

Politics are human. Jesus is devine.--[[User:Mister Bug|Mister Bug]] 19:59, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

::According to Revelations 19 Jesus is Lord of lords and Kings of kings so if he were here he would be setting up his own kingdom. And this is what is taking place in Revelations 19. Jesus is coming to the earth and when he gets here he will establish his kingdom. This is what we see Jesus doing in the Gospels of the Bible; he is establishing his kingdom by shedding his blood for his followers. Jesus is a king. [BJE]
Jesus would be independent. he would not support the war, so he might vote liberaly to insure it's end[[User:Pastafarian2|Pastafarian2]] 22:36, 8 January 2008 (EST)

Luke 6:35-36 "But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return; and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High; for he is kind to the ungrateful and the selfish. Be merciful, even as your Father is merciful." Neither the liberal president nor the conservative House of Congress seems to be paying much attention to this verse right now, for neither side will give an inch, and the fiscal cliff will overtake us. [[User:Userafw|Userafw]] 22:34, 5 December 2012 (EST)

== Anarchist ==
Jesus would realize that politics keep about 49% of the country unhappy with each decision. And what would Jesus want for his people other than to be happy? {{unsigned|Caboose84}}

I don't think Jesus cared about politics. Give Caesar back his money, and live a Christian life. The early disciples ran small anarchist communes according to Acts, but I think Jesus was too much concerned with having his followers feed the hungry voluntarily rather than creating efficient government programs to do it. Because of this, I think the lack of government and private property was his eventual goal, since if people are kind and voluntarily accept the authority of God, you wouldn't need either. -[[User:Danq|danq]] 18:45, 19 September 2009 (EDT)

== Socialist ==
Jesus was clearly embroiled in politics. Furthermore, Jesus was also set against the hierarchy of the time. Jesus was a radical, he may not have advocated violence, but he was certainly associated with leading Jewish "terrorists" of the time, even if it was to convince them to be pacifist.

Jesus main perogative was to address the failures of the market system established by Judaism, this does not mean Judaism was evil or anything of the sort. He simply developed the humanitarian aspect of the market. As such, Jesus was the first "socialist", or to a secularist, a leading left-wing thinker. there could be an arguement he simply reasserted aspects of Judaism, which he felt were not being upheld by the leaders of the faith.

From this perspective, a socialist would believe that if Jesus were here, he would be shocked at the idolisation of one person. That he was the cause of so many wars, and his work could be used against the people he sought to help. To Jesus, it would be the community that is most important. {{unsigned|JamesII}}

::A great place to see this is on the [[Social Democracy of America]], SDoA [http://www.socialdemocraticpartyofamerica.org/politicalspectrum.htm political spectrum] page which clearly shows the different levels from left to right within Christianity. {{AtleeYarrow}}

==Libertarian==
I get the definite feeling from the Sermon on the Mount that Jesus would be in favor of [[free trade]] and yet I think he'd be a pretty hippy dippy supporter of [[peace and love]]. [[User:Babbit|Babbit]]

== Stop it everyone ==
I'm fairly sure that trying to 'claim' Jesus in a political point-scoring game is fairly sacreligious. 'He would say' is putting words into his mouth; 'he did say' (eg Matt 5:43-48) is better. [[User:Wikinterpreter|Wikinterpreter]]
: Is the question of what the ministry of Jesus says about the social issues are facing us in today's world not a valid one? That it is perfectly acceptable to quote the Bible as fact for historical references but not for social and moral ones? If the Bible is to be taken as literal truth or the source of salvation then it is important to look at what is said.
: The Old Testament is full of fire and Brimstone, but the New Testament is one of love and compassion - a new covenant with the Lord. In Galatians 5:6 we see Paul saying that one part of the Jewish law is not key to being saved (and by extension nor is the rest of it), that Jesus is part of a new covenant.
: I would be most disappointed if it was only acceptable to quote the Bible when it supports one vision and not others. How else is one to learn what salvation as a Christian means? Is it not the right thing to do to try to rehabilitate criminals? to protest the death penalty? to give to the poor? to make health care available to everyone?
: It is one thing to try to stamp out that which we do not like. It is quite another to try to promote that which is good. I would contend that it is better and more in tune with the new covenant to first promote good within ourselves and others than attempting to damn them. Matthew 5:44 is an excellent example of this. Luke 9:52-56 (especially verse 56) is an important read - "For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them."
: And so, I say again, that it is appropriate to look at the ministry of Jesus and how our own elected officials live up to that ideal and promote it in their legislation. It is this way, promote his ministry to the rest of the country and set an example of that love of all our citizens as an example for the rest of the world. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 20:54, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

:: I'll say this for you, [[User:Mtur|Mtur]]: in the above presentation, you're scrupulously honest. I cannot agree that Jesus would side with you as regards the death penalty, government-enforced charity, or the proper policy regarding prisons and prisoners. (I can't use the actual, official word for this last discipline, because it sounds, frankly, obscene. But I'm sure you know what I'm talking about.) But I know now, from the above, that your theories arise from confusion as to exactly Who Jesus is, and the nature of His ''actual'' Mission.

:: That Mission is not primarily about charity; nor is it about the redistribution of wealth. That's a common-enough mistake. But Jesus' displeasure was not about the mere ''possession'' of great wealth but rather the ''worship'' of wealth. Some people actually think that money will buy them happiness. It won't, and it certainly won't buy them salvation--a thing that Jesus attempted to tell people again and again. But no reading of Scripture convinced me that He would confiscate people's substance for confiscation's sake.

:: Nor is charity the mission of government. {{Bible ref|book=Romans|chap=13|verses=1-7|version=NASB}} tells us what the mission of government is: to stop by force people who employ force to do wrong against others.

:: Charity is an individual's business. Furthermore, I would argue--purely inductively, I admit--that God does not bless government welfare programs.

:: You spoke of rehabilitation. In this connection, let me quote the actor Burt Lancaster, in his romanticized portrait of Robert Stroud, the ''Birdman of Alcatraz''. Rehabilitation means ''to re-invest a person with dignity''. Where is the ''dignity'' in being an habitual client of the government? An empty belly can be as strong a chain as tempered steel. I see nothing ''dignified'' about the dormitory-style "housing projects," or the spectacle of people lining up at grilled windows for their latest allotment of food coupons and so on. Yes, people do line up--and they vote for those who will keep that money coming, with no thought to where the money is coming ''from''--but they pay a price more terrible than you can imagine. I know it, because I have seen it--up close and personal, as a temporary clerk in a welfare office, and as a clinical clerk in a charity hospital.

:: But for all that, at least in your last presentation you asked the right questions.

:: Be assured of this: a day will come when Jesus will rule directly on this earth. What place any of us will have in His regime, I will not speculate here. But on the ''nature'' of his regime I don't have to speculate; I have Scripture to give me some very strong hints. He will probably own all means of production, distribution, and exchange. He will build that "True Communism" of which the [[Union of Soviet Socialist Republics|Soviet Union]] long boasted--and ''only'' He will be able to make it work. Why? Because only He can be trusted with that kind of authority. Only He can examine qualifications, and ''assign'' people to various tasks, and make sure that everyone gets just what he needs, no less and no more than is good for him.

:: Any human who thinks he's up to that task is a strutting pretender, and not to be trusted. That's why we support [[capitalism]]--because it is the worst economic system ever invented, ''except'' for all the others that have human beings running them. (Furthermore, the Parables of the Talents and the Minas depend on a form of capitalism being in place, so no, Jesus did not condemn capital ''per se''.)

:: Until the day that Jesus rules directly on this earth, we do the best we can. But we do not do it by vesting in any government such powers as belong properly only to Him.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 21:32, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

::: Give Unto Caesar What Is Caesars, Give Unto God What Is Gods. Give Unto Republican & Democrats What Is Republicans & Democrats, Give Unto God What Is Gods.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 10:35, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
Was Jesus a politician? No!! Would he be a politician today? Of course not!! All politics lays on a bed of corruption.... did Jesus say, "the Roman laws are bad, let's petition the Romans to change the law"? Of course not, the thought is absurd -- Jesus said "render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's" because Jesus intended for his followers to work outside the corruption of any political system.... supporting a set of values and using the coercive power of the state to enforce those values on non-believers are two different things.... [[User:Pandeism|Pandeism]] 12:50, 9 October 2007 (EDT)

== Political words of Jesus ==
This debate is pretty ridiculous. Here is the political position of Jesus:

:Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them. But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister; And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant

:"Give to Ceasar what is Ceasars and to god what is gods"
:--[[User:Yellowlamp|Yellowlamp]] 18:48, 28 January 2008 (EST)

==Ahem==
Do you people have any idea why there are atheists? It isnt because of a broken home, or gays or anything. It is because of conversations like this. Attempting to turn Jesus into a political figure is the reason Gandhi said "I like your Christ, not your Christians. Your christians are so unlike your christ." With this argument, you are turning Jesus into a glorification of yourself. You are saying, "I AM JESUS". This debate is completely outside of respect and common sense. You claim you are trying to be more like this Jesus fellow you always blab about, but you are actually trying to turn jesus into yourself. You are just like Huckabee. "Jesus would support the death penalty, get drunk, watch nascar, and shoot the homasexuals". You are all idiots. And it makes me sick that you ACTUALLY belive what you are saying is right. And makes me want to move to Canada.

Yours, in all ways.
--[[User:MrSmiley|MrSmiley]] 15:09, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

Well said! --[[User:Sforzando|Sforzando]] 12:32, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

==Monarchist==

Hey, his official title '''is''' "King of Kings". --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 15:46, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

==Honestly,==

Personally, I see him as a liberal. Now, it's not to be rude or mean or going against the wind here, but seriously, I've always seen Jesus more as a friend than as my King. I respect him, but I don't fear him. God is love, and you cannot fear that.

Anyway, back to the controversy, I find him a liberal because according to what I've read he was a reasonably layed-back guy. He preached equallity, [[Hippie|peace and love]]. Not that Jesus was a hippie, I also see him as very moralistic and very conservative in that sense. I just see.. a liberal believing in democracy and absolute freedom (the only thing God gave only to man was the ability of choice, absolute freedom).

But the Bible says that Christians are specifically supposed to fear God. How do you get around that? [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 23:57, 15 May 2008 (EDT)

Agreed. Jesus went against convention: Liberal -Nonobu

==Faulty Question==

Jesus is alive today. (The Resurrection.) [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 00:00, 16 May 2008 (EDT)

== References ==
<references/>

== He wouldn't. ==
He'd probably be a beggar, or a helper of the poor. He'd laugh and scoff at the televangelists making millions, who live in houses covered in gold.

And the vast majority of people here are just taking the idea of Jesus (Atheist here) and going "Yeah, he'd love this or this or this!" mostly because, well, he can't speak for himself. It's like when a person dies and people go "He'd be okay with this or this or this." I oughta know, I've seen in firsthand. --[[User:GunnerRecall|GunnerRecall]] 16:52, 17 August 2008 (EDT)

== The Fact That This Would Even Be Asked... ==
...is sickening. It shows that certain types of "christians" are fake, or naive. We have politicians claiming to be so religious to incite all the funementalists to go vote for them. It's disturbing. These religious and "family values" politicians are totally fake, ad these fundies who vote simply for religion have no concept of what it really takes to be a government official. As for this debate specificly... Jesus would laugh in your face. Politics have no business in what He would concern Himself with, which is most certainly NOT who to vote for.[[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 19:22, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

== He already answered ==

In the Synoptic gospels, there is the account of Jesus being tempted by the devil following his baptism. One of the temptations that Satan used was political power, which Jesus refused. Although, if he came back and were asked today, I do not think that he would care. --[[User:LincolnShuddered|LincolnShuddered]]

==Wait Till He Returns==
You will get a pretty good picture of His style of Government in Heaven. [[Baronvonbob]]

== Socially conservative, economically moderate ==
One can only speculate, I believe Christ would be highly conservative with social issues and moderate on economic issues. Now when I say moderate on economic issues, I say that because nearly all modern economic systems lead to a certain degree of sin. Communists and socialists aren't generous at all; under communism and socialism, you likely end up with a greedy government where officials live a life of luxury whereas the rest of the citizens are poor. Under communism and socialism in its purest form, the government owns '''everything'''. Under capitalism, it's easy to end up with greed in the private sector. I don't think Jesus would want to tax people to help the poor, but rather I believe Jesus would want people to choose to help the poor out of the goodness of their heart. Social issues are a no brainier; while Jesus was a forgiving man, that doesn't mean he outright supported sinful activities like homosexuality, adultery, and paganism, and I doubt he would approve of abortion and contraception either. [[User:DMorris|DMorris]] 19:14, 5 December 2012 (EST)
:Can you please point me to biblical passages where Jesus clearly and unambiguously expressed an opinion on homosexuality? [[User:MattyD|MattyD]] 19:43, 5 December 2012 (EST)

Counterexamples to Relativity

2014-12-14T21:56:20Z

Darwon: Undo revision 1123478 by Darwon (talk) Reverted another unfair edit.

Counterexamples to Relativity

2014-12-14T21:55:20Z

Darwon: Undo revision 1123480 by Darwon (talk) I made edits without discussing them on the "essay" page first. Oopsies!

Essay:Rebuttal to Counterexamples to Relativity

2014-12-14T21:52:42Z

Darwon:

This is intended as an article rebutting the points in the [[Counterexamples to Relativity]] article. That article's talk page has proven to be less than satisfactory for this purpose, because it gets archived, and much of its material has degenerated into personal disputes. We believe that the two sides of the issue are better handled in two articles—this one and [[Counterexamples to Relativity]], rather than a talk page.

Unlike most essay pages, anyone is welcome to contribute. We ask that you abide by the usual guidelines—do not remove non-vandal, non-parody, non-libelous material without discussing it first on the talk page, or explaining after-the-fact for serious problems.

#''Computer simulations based on the theory of relativity predict far more black holes than are observed''.
#:The cited article says absolutely nothing about the ''number'' of black holes, modeled or observed. It is about a discrepancy between computer models predicting the ''masses'' of black holes at the centers of galaxies and the observed masses. The article suggests a heretofore-unmodeled mechanism whereby galaxy evolution would cause less mass to go into the black holes. The article in no way suggests that black holes don't exist.
#''The orbital radius of the Moon's orbit is increasing, contrary to what Relativity predicts''.
#:This could be a counterexample to both GR and Newtonian gravity--in both, the radius is defined in terms of conserved quantities.
#::The objection has been raised that this would still be a counterexample to Relativity.
#:::Yes, if it were actually true that the Moon's orbit is undergoing some kind of anomalous perturbation, it would indeed be a disproof of Relativity, Newtonian mechanics, and, in fact, all of physics since Galileo.
#::::Actually, the average radius of the Moon's orbit is in fact increasing. By 38mm a year. This was first predicted in the late 19th century and actually measured since at least the early 1970's and more accurately thereafter thanks to the mirrors left for that purpose by the Apollo astronauts. The reason for this is well-known and simple enough to be explained on science-oriented TV shows from time to time. To put it simply: the Moon pulls on the Earth, causing the tides and slowing down its rotation slightly, lengthening it's day by 2 milliseconds every 100 years. Reciprocally, the Earth pulls on the Moon and accelerates it slightly thus increasing the height of its orbit and energy is conserved. For a more complete explanation see <ref>http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=124</ref>. This behavior, predicted over 100 years ago, observed and measured, is in no way "anomalous" and relativity, general, special or otherwise doesn't really concern itself with tidal mechanics so on that point at least physics, Galilean, Newtonian and Einsteinian, are quite safe for now.
#''The Pioneer anomaly.''
#:The "Pioneer anomaly" is the deviation in the motion of the Pioneer 10 and Pioneer 11 spacecraft from their predicted motion, at the distance of Saturn and beyond. It should be noted that the anomaly is about 1000 times greater than the difference between the classical Newtonian prediction and the prediction of relativity, so this is not a problem with relativity ''per se''; it is more general than that.
#:Calculating the force caused by heat (that is, miniscule amounts of infrared radiation) from the radioactive power source was one of the first effects that was examined. The anomaly arose when this and other known effects could not fully explain the deviation.
#:The problem is believed to have been solved by taking into account the reflection of the radiation from the power source off of the back of the antenna dish<ref>http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/26589/</ref>. The solution is sometimes described as an application of "Phong shading", a technique of computer graphics that is now considered imprecise. But Phong shading itself is not what is important. The "ray tracing" computer graphics technique that underlies Phong shading was what inspired the scientists to take reflection into account.
#:<blockquote>The most detailed analysis to date, by some of the original investigators, explicitly looks at two methods of estimating thermal forces, then states "We find no statistically significant difference between the two estimates and conclude that once the thermal recoil force is properly accounted for, no anomalous acceleration remains."<ref name="thermal">{{cite journal|doi=10.1103/PhysRevLett.108.241101|title=Support for the Thermal Origin of the Pioneer Anomaly|year=2012|last1=Turyshev|first1=Slava G.|last2=Toth|first2=Viktor T.|last3=Kinsella|first3=Gary|last4=Lee|first4=Siu-Chun|last5=Lok|first5=Shing M.|last6=Ellis|first6=Jordan|journal=Physical Review Letters|volume=108|issue=24|arxiv = 1204.2507 |bibcode = 2012PhRvL.108x1101T|pmid=23004253|pages=241101}}</ref></blockquote> [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_anomaly]
#''the solar flattening is ... too small to agree with that predicted from its surface rotation.''
#:This observation is interesting, but the predictions of oblateness come from analysis of fluid mechanics; relativity is not involved, and the cited paper makes no mention of relativity.
#:
#:We expect a very large rotating body to show oblateness according to well-known principles involving centrifugal force. This is particularly easy to observe with Jupiter, though the other planets, including Earth, show it too. Scientists do not know why the Sun exhibits nearly zero oblateness, but relativity is not believed to be the cause.
#:
#:Now it happens that there ''is'' a connection between solar oblateness and the calculation of the precession of the perihelion of Mercury, and that involves General Relativity. When checking the observed precession against the effect predicted by Relativity, one needs to subtract the effect of solar oblateness, along with the other effects, such as equinoctial precession and the gravitational effects of other planets. The effect of solar oblateness is a mere .0254 arcseconds per century, insignificant in comparison with precession (about 5500) and other planets' gravity (about 550). The figure of .0254 was calculated based on what fluid dynamics predicted, and was subtracted in the figures quoted below in item #9. When that tiny effect is removed, the error bars still overlap that for the GR prediction.
#''Quantum entanglement near the event horizon of a black hole ....''
#:It is well known that quantum gravity (that is, the "Theory of Everything") is an unsolved problem, and it is the subject of much discussion in the physics community. The whole topic of string theory, for example, revolves around this. Among the places where General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics collide most notoriously is within the Planck length of a black hole's event horizon. Among the issues involved is the notion of "quantum loss of information", that was the subject of a famous bet among Stephen Hawking, Kip Thorne, and John Preskill. (Hawking and Thorne lost.) Basically, physicists do not know just what happens within quantum-mechanical distances (the Planck length) of a black hole. But no one doubts the behavior of black holes at reasonable distances, or, for that matter, General Relativity at reasonable distances.
#''The speed of light in a vacuum is slower than expected''
#:
#:It is unfortunate that, whenever a sensational-headline-hungry writer writes anything relating to the propagation of light, they are tempted to scream something along the lines of "Einstein proved wrong." Such sensationalist headlines can be seen in both the popular press and here at Conservapedia.
#:
#:But relativity never said anything about vacuum polarization.
#:
#:The factor "c" appearing in equations of relativity (E=mc^2, the Lorentz factor, etc.) is the calibration constant for space vs. time. While it was perceived as the "speed of light" back in 1905, that depended on the classical theory of light, from Faraday, Maxwell, et. al., at that time. Under the classical theory, Maxwell's equations were considered to be '''exactly''' correct, and light was considered to travel at '''exactly''' the speed indicated by those equations, which speed is denoted "c". The speed "c" would be better described as "that speed that all observers, even those in relative motion, will consider to be the same." The experimental basis for relativity (Michelson-Morley experiment) was that light obeyed that property. That, plus the fact that "c" appears in Maxwell's equations in a way that makes it independent of an observer's state of motion, made it clear that "c" was in fact the speed of light. But that depended on the belief that Maxwell's equations were exactly correct. But that was before Quantum Mechanics and gauge interactions. Under Quantum Mechanics, the propagation of light is determined by the behavior of photons, not by Maxwell's field equations. Of course the two results are almost identical, as is required by the Correspondence Principle. But, under the modern "Standard Model" of Quantum Electrodynamics, photons can interact with the vacuum, due to "vacuum polarization", leading to extremely tiny higher-order corrections to the equations governing the behavior of photons. This can cause photons to travel at a speed slower than "c".
#:
#:Now the situation is made more complex by the fact that models of supernova behavior indicate that the light is emitted after the neutrinos, because the neutrinos are emitted at the instant of the core collapse, and the light must wait until the effect of the collapse reaches the surface. After taking that into account, the cited article says that the extra delay for supernova SN1987A was 4.7 hours. That discrepancy is only 53 parts per trillion, and hence can only be observed in light from very distant supernovas.
#:
#:Calculating the speed of the neutrinos is interesting, because the observation is that light traveled '''slower''' than the neutrinos, even though neutrinos have nonzero mass. Since neutrinos do not participate in the electromagnetic interaction, they are not subject to the same vacuum polarization as photons. Their retardation comes only from their mass and the normal equations of relativity.
#:
#:Taking the mass of an electron neutrino as 0.25 eV (using the usual E=mc^2 formula that all scientists use for this), a neutrino would have to have a kinetic energy of about 0.025 MeV to experience a retardation of 53 parts per trillion. Since the energy of astronomical neutrinos is generally believed to be in the range of 0.5 to 20 MeV (it's really hard to measure) the expected retardation of the neutrinos from SN1987A is much '''less''' than that of the light.
#:
#:It's interesting that the issue of whether neutrinos travel faster than light actually '''did''' come up in another round sensationalist headline-grabbing articles, from an experiment at Gran Sasso, in the popular press and here at Conservapedia. The first headline was that neutrinos traveled '''faster''' than light, a claim retracted after a cable was fixed, but then reported here that someone (erroneously) had said they had traveled at '''exactly the same speed''' as light, which also violates relativity because neutrinos have nonzero mass. In any case, that discrepancy would have been several orders of magnitude too small to measure in the Gran Sasso experiment, and the discrepancy from vacuum polarization several orders of magnitude smaller still.
#''Celestial signals defy Einstein''.
#:It shouldn't be surprising that, when Einstein died nearly 60 years ago, he didn't know ''everything'' that there is to know about spacetime. Newton didn't know everything there is to know about calculus (Hilbert spaces) or classical mechanics (Lissajous orbits), and Bohr and Schrödinger didn't know everything there is to know about Quantum mechanics (entanglement). What Einstein knew, at the time, about spacetime was how to give a precisely relativistically correct formula for how matter and energy (and momentum and stress) give curvature to spacetime, which in turn gives rise to gravity. These equations have been confirmed, with great accuracy, repeatedly.
#:
#:Einstein's equations are known to work for "ordinary" interactions at the planetary and galactic level, but don't work at the quantum level, and may not be fully correct at the deep cosmic level. The cited article says "Every object there is, from a planet orbiting the sun to a rocket coasting to the moon or a pencil dropped carelessly on the floor, follows its [spacetime's] imperceptible contours." This is a confirmation of what Einstein said. The article says that there may be more subtlety to spacetime than was previously known. Of course this has been hinted at for some time with recent developments in cosmology. "Breaking relativity" is an unfortunate choice of subtitle.
#''Relativity breaks down at high energies''.
#:This is interesting. We look forward to seeing whether this plays out the same way that the supraluminal neutrinos did. Until then, note that the discrepancy, 33 picoradians, is such that, if you were to shine a laser beam at the Sun, with that amount of angular error, it would miss its target by about 5 meters. We hope the author will explain how he measured an angle that precisely.
#''Subatomic particles have a speed observed to be faster than the speed of light, which contradicts a fundamental assumption of Relativity. The Italian lab that "shocked the scientific world" has announced more precise results, confirming their previous announcement''.
#:This is an interesting observation. The world's best scientific minds are looking into it. That relativity is incorrect is not being taken seriously as a possible explanation.
#:'''Update:''' The problem seems to have been caused by a faulty cable connection between a computer and a GPS unit. When the connection was repaired, the travel time increased by 60 nanoseconds, which had been the amount of the anomaly <ref>http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2012/02/22/technology-faster-than-light-neutrinos.html</ref> <ref>http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/02/22/loose-wire-led-to-stunning-faster-than-light-particle-finding/?intcmp=features</ref>. The claims of faster-than-light neutrinos have now been refuted very thoroughly<ref>http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2012/02/breaking-news-error-undoes-faster.html</ref><ref>http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2012/06/once-again-physicists-debunk.html</ref>.
#:The objection has been raised that a recent news report from the BBC ("now we are 100% sure that the speed of light is the speed of neutrinos") is also contradictory, since neutrinos have mass and are therefore forbidden by relativity to travel at exactly the speed of light. Since the neutrino energies were 17GeV, and the current estimate for the neutrino mass is about 0.25eV, the deviation from the speed of light would be about 1 part in 1022. This means that the neutrinos would arrive at the detector about .26x10-24 seconds (.26 yoctoseconds) later than the speed of light itself. This is one quarter of a billionth of a femtosecond, or about .26x10-15 of a nanosecond. The accuracy of the GPS units and cesium clocks used in the measurement is greater than a nanosecond, so the discrepancy cannot possibly be detected. It is unfortunate that the claim "the speed of light is the speed of neutrinos" was taken so literally.
#:::A "counter-rebuttal" has been made: ''The politicized rush to rehabilitate the Theory of Relativity was far from convincing, and the "resolution" was a clear statement that is flatly contrary to the Theory''. Just what statement is being referred to as the "resolution" is not clear, but our best guess is that it is the statement by Sandro Centro, quoted by Jason Palmer in the cited BBC article. As noted above, that statement is in error by about 15 orders of magnitude less than the resolution of the measurement. None of the assertions of relativity denies that anyone could ever make a statement that is not precisely correct.
#''Anomalies in the locations of spacecraft that have flown by Earth ("flybys").''
#:This may be another case of the Pioneer anomaly, or it may be something else. However, it is very unlikely that it shows that relativity is wrong and Newtonian mechanics is correct. Saying that, every time someone finds some phenomenon that is puzzling, that shows that relativity is wrong, is not a convincing way to do science. The cited paper is about unexpected behavior of some spacecraft as they use "gravity assists" in near-Earth flybys. The hypothesized causes involve errors in the mathematical models to calculate such effects as relativistic effects (the detailed calculation of them, not the question of whether they exist), tidal effects, Earth radiation pressure, or atmospheric drag. The paper suggests that most of those can be ruled out, though there could be round-off and integration errors, or errors in the spherical harmonic representation of Earth's gravity field.
#''Spiral galaxies confound Relativity, and unseen "dark matter" has been invented to try to retrofit observations to the theory.''
#:Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it due to the acceleration of various parts of galaxies that accelerated funny that led to dark matter (based on simple Newtonian dynamics)?
#''The acceleration in the expansion of the universe confounds Relativity, and unseen "dark energy" has been invented to try to retrofit observations to the theory.''
#:This is the dark energy/cosmological constant argument. The cosmological constant was added by Einstein after he discovered that his field equations (<math>\mathbf{G}=8\pi \mathbf{T}</math>) predicted that the universe was expanding, contradicting his firm philosophical belief in a static universe. So he inserted <math>\Lambda \mathbf{g}</math> to the LHS so that it would predict a static universe. A few years later, Hubble showed the universe to be expanding, and Einstein called the cosmological constant the worst mistake of his career. So, it sort of had a bad reputation, and people didn't want to seriously consider it, until recent observations have shown the universe's expansion to be accelerating forced them to do so. It could have had a very different history. Einstein could have had that term in the EFE's from the start, and pointed out that it would determine if the universe's expansion was accelerating (or not expanding at all!) and it would take further observation to determine its value.
#''Increasingly precise measurements of the advance of the perihelion of Mercury show a shift greater than predicted by Relativity, well beyond the margin of error.''
#:A footnote goes on to say that "In a complicated or contrived series of calculations that most physics majors cannot duplicate even after learning them, the theory of general relativity's fundamental formula, <math>G_{\mu\nu} = 8 \pi K T_{\mu\nu}\,</math>, was conformed to match Mercury's then-observed precession of 5600.0 arc-seconds per century. Subsequently, however, more sophisticated technology has measured a different value of this precession (5599.7 arc-seconds per century, with a margin of error of only 0.01) ..."
#:Considering only the ''anomalous'' precession, that is, the precession that remains after all known other factors (other planets and asteroids, solar oblateness) have been accounted for, general relativity predicts 42.98 ±0.04 arcseconds per century. Some observed values are:
#::: 43.11 ± 0.21 (Shapiro et al., 1976)
#::: 42.92 ± 0.20 (Anderson et al., 1987)
#::: 42.94 ± 0.20 (Anderson et al., 1991)
#::: 43.13 ± 0.14 (Anderson et al., 1992)
#::: [Source: [http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/9804/9804258v1.pdf Pijpers 2008]]
#:These error bars, and that of the relativity formula, all overlap.
#:The formula for mechanics under general relativity is complicated, but it is not contrived or conformed. "Conformed" suggests that it was somehow adjusted or "tweaked" to match the 42.98 figure. The formula is
#:::<math>G_{\mu\nu} = 8 \pi K T_{\mu\nu}\,</math>
#:To begin to explain the formula, Newton's law of gravity, combining F = ma and <math>F = \frac{KMm}{r^2}\,</math>, is
#::<math>a = \frac{KM}{r^2}\,</math>
#:In Einstein's equation, <math>T_{\mu\nu}\,</math> is the "stress-energy tensor", and <math>8 \pi T_{\mu\nu}\,</math> gives the density of the Sun, taking the place of <math>\frac{M}{r^2}\,</math>. <math>G_{\mu\nu}\,</math> is the "Einstein curvature tensor", and says how spacetime curves to create an apparent gravitational acceleration.
#:There is nothing to tweak to get a value of 42.98 arcseconds. 8 is 8. <math>\pi\,</math> is <math>\pi\,</math>. K is Newton's constant of gravitation in both formulas.
#:
#::::The above discussion notwithstanding, more sophisticated technology has measured a precession of 5599.7 arc-seconds per century, with a margin of error of only 0.01, which disproves the prediction of the [[Theory of Relativity]]. Notice how publication of data stopped two decades ago when the observations diverged from the theory.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:50, 14 April 2012 (EDT)
#:Measurements of planetary motion are now calculated relative to the "International Celestial Reference Frame" (ICFR), replacing the older, and much less accurate "equinoctial" frame. The older measurements got a value of about 5600 arcseconds/century for the precession of Mercury, nearly all of which (5025 arcseconds) was because of the rotation of the "equinoctial" frame. The ICFR frame removes that source of uncertainty, and, with the very accurate radar measurements conducted by NASA between 1987 and 1997<ref>[http://trs-new.jpl.nasa.gov/dspace/bitstream/2014/19295/1/98-0601.pdf]</ref>, gets a value of 574.10±0.65 arcseconds observed, in good agreement with the predicted 574.64±0.69 value.
#:
#:The ICFR is described in [http://www.iers.org/IERS/EN/Publications/TechnicalNotes/tn32.html this] document, dated 2003.
#''Despite wasting millions of taxpayer dollars searching for gravity waves predicted by the theory, none has ever been found. Sound like global warming?''
#:True, the ''direct'' searches for gravitational waves have not yet yielded any clear results, though indirect observations have been made (the Hulse/Taylor observations.) Before people dismiss indirect observations, recall that no one has ever seen an electron.
#:The Earth-based LIGO detectors have, so far, not detected any unambiguous gravitational wave signatures from such events as a black-hole merger. It is barely sensitive enough to find such things in the Milky Way or very nearby galaxies. It is being upgraded in a plan that should complete in 2014. It is hoped that, after the upgrade, it will be able to see these events clearly and unambiguously.
#:The space-based LISA detectors have not been built yet, and the original proposal has been scrapped because of budgetary problems. A new version, called "eLISA" has been proposed, and should be sensitive to events as far away as redshift 15.
#:Whether these experiments are a good use of money is another question, one that has no bearing on whether relativity is correct.
#::The objection has been raised that the experiments should not have been funded if scientists were going to ignore negative results.
#:::The results are only partly negative. The scientists knew all along that a certain amount of luck would be involved in finding a sufficiently strong signal within the time frame of the experiment. The failure so far does not mean that black-hole mergers do not emit gravitational waves; just that they haven't been lucky enough to find them. They will continue to search.
#:'''Update:''' Another, much more commonplace observation of gravitational wave emission has neen reported<ref>http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19408363 BBC article</ref>. The article suggests that, since it shows detectable gravitational waves are more common than previously thought, there is optimism that the eLISA detector, when completed, might find one source per week.
#:This has nothing to do with global warming.
#''The discontinuity in momentum as velocity approaches "c" for infinitesimal mass, compared to the momentum of light.''
#:The formulas for velocity, momentum, and mass can in fact be written in such a way that they appear to have discontinuities, just as the tangent function has discontinuities while the underlying sine and cosine functions do not. But they can also be written in a form that does not show discontinuities.
#:All particles, with or without mass, can have any value of momentum. The formula for the velocity of a particle, in terms of its mass and momentum, is
#:::<math>v = \frac{pc}{\sqrt{m^2c^2+p^2}}</math>
#:For a particle with mass, this means that momentum of zero gives a speed of zero, and, as the momentum approaches infinity, the speed approaches c.
#:For a massless particle, the speed is always c.
#''observations don't match predictions'' and cosmic causality.
#:The fact that "observations don't match predictions" has shown up many times in the history of science. That is, the accepted wisdom of the day was found to be false, leading to improved theories:
#:*There were once assumed, by Aristotle and many others, to be four elements: earth, air, fire, and water. Subsequent experimental investigation, by numerous people, replaced that theory.
#:*The ancient notion of gravity, that objects fall at a speed proportional to their mass (often ascribed, perhaps imprecisely, to Aristotle), was found to be contrary to experimental evidence, and was replaced by Galilean/Newtonian mechanics.
#:*The geocentrism of Ptolemy lasted a long time until it was found to be contrary to experimental evidence, and was replaced by the Heliocentric theory of Copernicus, Galileo, and Newton.
#:*The "phlogiston theory" of combustion was accepted until it proved to be contrary to experimental evidence, and was replaced by the modern oxidation theory by Antoine Lavoisier.
#:*The "caloric theory" supposed that heat was a material substance called "caloric", and that that substance was conserved. It took a long time for Joule and others to develop the modern "kinetic theory" as a replacement.
#:
#:The current "counterexample" is about the "horizon problem", a problem of cosmology which has been known for a few decades. Under the kind of expansion of the universe that non-quantum-mechanics would require, there are places in the universe that are not causally connected and yet have nearly the same temperature. The classical expansion of the universe would have magnified early nonuniformities by about 50 orders of magnitude, an impossible situation. The currently accepted theory dealing with this problem is "inflation". Not all scientists accept this, but most do; other explanations are more exotic than most scientists are willing to accept.
#:
#:An interesting thing about inflation is that it was formulated to solve a different problem—the dominance of matter over antimatter. It was found to address the flatness problem as well. When a theory explains phenomena other than what it was intended for, that of course lends it additional credence.
#:
#:Whether cosmic inflation is implausible is not for us to say. The existence of subatomic particles was once considered implausible.
#:
#:The cited National Geographic article was in fact not about the problem of temperature uniformity, but about various hypotheses, much less widely accepted than inflation, about alternate universes, and whether black hole singularities might connect them. The issue is not about the existence of black holes, but about the connectedness of their singularities. This is really fascinating stuff. The book ''The Hidden Reality'', by Brian Greene, is a fascinating account of these issues. We highly recommend it.
#''The logical problem of a force which is applied at a right angle to the velocity of a relativistic mass - does this act on the rest mass or the relativistic mass?''
#:The simple answer is, unequivocally, that it acts on the 'relativistic' mass. The question seems to relate to a simple misunderstanding of Special Relativity. Einstein's theories lead to the conclusion that observers in different inertial frames of reference (i.e. observers with differing, but constant velocities relative to the thing being observed) will observe different inertial masses in the body being observed. However, there is no variance in the body's mass with regard to the direction of the force. Thus to a given observer, a force in any direction will operate on the same mass. However, to a different observer, this mass may be different, although still the constant with regard to the direction of the force.
#''The observed lack of curvature in overall space.''
#:Spacetime has very definite curvature near any massive object—this is what makes gravity work. The '''global''' curvature of spacetime is an altogether different issue. Whether the average global curvature is zero has consequences for cosmological theories, but it has essentially no effect on the curvature that keeps the Earth in its orbit. If it did have an effect, the issue would have been settled long ago.
#''The universe shortly after its creation, when quantum effects dominated and contradicted Relativity.''
#:We're still working on a quantum theory of gravity; this isn't so much a counter-example as saying that (classical) GR isn't valid in that domain.
#''The action-at-a-distance of quantum entanglement.''
#:Special Relativity only forbids the transmission of matter, energy or information at a speed faster than light. There are plenty of other things that can move faster than light. Consider a laser on Earth which is rotating on a pivot, whose light shines onto the hull of a satellite 200,000Km away (2e8 metres). If the laser rotates at a sedentary one revolution ever four seconds, the speed of the laser beam's tip crossing the satellite's hull is 3.14e8 metres per second - faster than the speed of light. However, this is not a transfer of information. Any information is travelling from Earth to the satellite, obeying the universal speed limit. Similarly, the only information that can be transmitted by the quantum entanglement of two particles is from the originator of the particles to the two observers, not from one observer to another. Faster than light transmission of information using quantum entanglement has never been observed, nor has even conceived how such a mechanism might work.<ref>http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=612</ref>
#''The action-at-a-distance by Jesus, described in John 4:46-54, Matthew 15:28, and Matthew 27:51.''
#:As an argument against relativity, there are two reasons that this is invalid (beyond simply questioning the evidential validity of the Bible):
#::a) These passages clearly refer to a [[miracle]]. A miracle, being an act of God, is not subject to the laws of physics.
#::b) It is highly debatable as to whether the verses do describe [[action-at-a-distance]] in the sense of an action whose influence travels instantaneously (and therefore faster than the speed of light). This itself may be argued from two viewpoints:
#:::i) When reading these passages, as with consideration of many apparent relativistic anomalies, the true picture of causality must be considered. In each case there are two apparent events. Event A - Jesus does something (says 'thy son liveth', says 'be it unto thee even as thou wilt', or Christ's spirit leaving His body). Event B - the apparent result (the son lives, her daughter is made whole, or the earth quakes). However, it is not the case in any of these examples that A causes B. Both A and B are caused by a third event. In the first two cases it is Christ's thought that causes the miracle and that causes His lips to announce the miracle. This thought would have occurred fractions of a second before either event, and is the non-instantaneous cause of both. In the last case it is Christ's death that is the precursor and cause of both events.
#:::ii) It must be considered that at the time when the Gospels were written, neither their authors nor their intended readers were aware of any concept of the speed of light and were unable to measure the billionths of a second difference between the events being considered here. Thus just as in modern parlance the phrase 'at the same moment' has a tolerance of milliseconds (unless specifically couched to mean otherwise) so do the various terms used by the Evangelists. They would never have considered it an important issue, and would therefore not have worried about the degree of precision.
#::::Miracles do not violate logic, and the [[Theory of Relativity]] asserts that these [[action-at-a-distance]] miracles described in the [[Gospels]] are impossible. No plausible medium for these miracles, even if they were non-instantaneous action-at-a-distance, has been proposed.
#''The failure to discover gravitons, despite wasting hundreds of millions in taxpayer money in searching.''
#:Gravitons are a prediction of [[Quantum Theory]], not of relativity, although the concept is an extension of the relativistic idea that forces take a finite time to be transmitted over a distance.
#:No one expects to observe gravitons. Calculations show that it is well-nigh impossible with any conceivable detector that we could build. No one is designing, funding, or building any apparatus to search for gravitons.
#:Now it happens that theoretical physicists discuss and speculate on the existence and nature of such things as gravitons as part of their theoretical work. Some of these discussions take place among scientists who receive their salaries from various government agencies that are funded by taxpayers. Whether all of the things that scientists think about, talk about, and write about constitute a good use of money is not for us to say.
#''Newly observed data reveal that the fine-structure constant, α (alpha), actually varies throughout the universe, demonstrating that all inertial frames of reference do not experience identical laws of physics as claimed by Relativity''
#:Whilst this observation is unconfirmed, if true it would still not invalidate relativity. Many things may vary with position in space, and relativity does not deny this. There is no suggestion that the fine-structure constant is different at the same point in space for observers in different non-inertial frame, as the 'counterexample' implies.
#''The double star "W13" weighs "40 times as much as the sun—more than enough to form a black hole. So why is it not a black hole? The only explanation [a leading scientist] can think of ... does not make astrophysical sense."''
#:When physicists encounter something puzzling, their first reaction is usually not to assume that it shows that relativity is wrong. In fact the cited article never mentions relativity at all. It is about "magnetars", a type of neutron star about which very little is known, other than their extremely strong magnetic fields.
#:Many scientific discoveries have arisen from observations that were puzzling at first. Edwin Hubble's observations of galactic redshift led to the realization that the universe is expanding isotropically. The observations by Jocelyn Bell and Antony Hewish, of periodic pulsation in the radio emissions of a star, were so puzzling at first that they seemed to suggest transmissions from intelligent extraterrestrials. They had actually discovered pulsars. When Carl Anderson saw unexplained particle tracks in a cloud chamber, he had discovered antiparticles.
#:None of these people assumed that the explanation for these observations was that relativity was wrong. They were all astrophysicists and were quite familiar with relativity. In fact, Anderson's antiparticles had been predicted by the Dirac equation, a synthesis of special relativity and the Schrödinger equation of quantum mechanics, from a few years earlier.
#''The inability of the theory to lead to other insights, contrary to every verified theory of physics.''
#:It is utterly baffling how anyone could make such an assertion. The insights from relativity are multitudinous. Relativity forms the basis for astronomy, cosmology, electrodynamics, and many other fields. The interconnection between the electric and magnetic forces is now seen to be a straightforward consequence of relativity. Relativity combined with quantum mechanics are the basis of all of contemporary physics.
#:The Dirac equation, which gives rise to antiparticles and the theory of spinors, was an early example of introducing relatitivity into the Schrödinger equation.
#:More generally, special relativity was combined with quantum theory to produce [[quantum field theory]] (QFT). An example of a QFT is [[quantum electrodynamics]], the most precise theory in physics. Furthermore, string theory is Lorentz invariant and produces general relativity in the low energy limit.
#''The change in mass over time of standard kilograms preserved under ideal conditions.''
#:We are baffled that anyone would connect this problem with relativity. The non-relativity principle of conservation of mass has been known, in general, for hundreds of years, going back to the time of the alchemists, and has been a fundamental and accurate principle since the 19th century. The principle of conservation of energy has also been a fundamental and accurate principle since the 19th century. Relativity simply generalizes this to a principle of both together, with even greater precision. So, in principle, it is recognized that the mass of the standard kilogram could change if an energy transfer took place. But no combustion, corrosion, or nuclear decay is suspected of having taken place. In any case, the amount of energy that would have to have been released is 1.25 megawatt-hours, which would certainly have been noticed.
#:Relativity does not promise uniformity of the universe any more strongly than classical physics did. The apparent change in mass of the standard kilogram is simply a mystery.
#''The uniformity in temperature throughout the universe.''
#:The cited article is fascinating, and is about a fascinating aspect of contemporary physics. Like item 23, it would have been useful to say what the article is about.
#:The cited article is about speculation that the constant "alpha" (see item 17 above) may not be constant. It might have decreased, by 45 parts per billion, as recently (in cosmic time) as two billion years ago, based on data from the Oklo "natural fission reactor". Other measurements have been made of alpha at earlier times, such as measurement of light from distant quasars. These measurements suggest that alpha has increased by a few parts per 105 in 12 billion years.
#:There is plenty of literature on theories about change in alpha, and some of it indicates that this may be due to change in the speed of light. Specifically, the Oklo data may suggest that the speed of light may have been increasing slightly. (This is the opposite of the direction of change claimed by fundamentalists, but is much smaller in any case.)
#:Speculation on a different speed of light in the past may relate to theories of "cosmic inflation", which touches on the question of why the Cosmic Background Radiation is so nearly isotropic, which indicates a near-uniformity of temperature, which requires inflation or some equivalent mechanism.
#:None of the scientists working in this area seem to doubt the fundamental correctness of relativity.
#''"According to Einstein's view on the universe, space-time should be smooth and continuous" but observations instead show "inexplicable static" greater than "all artificial sources of" possible background noise.''
#:The cited article is fascinating, and is about a fascinating aspect of contemporary physics. Like item 23, it would have been useful to say what the article is about.
#:The cited article is about a very recent and exciting development in fundamental theoretical physics, generally called the "holographic principle". This proposes that our perceived 3-dimensional space actually arises from a "hologram" on a 2-dimensional space. Much has been written about this recently, including the best-selling book ''The Hidden Reality'' by Brian Greene. This hologram manifests itself in the "foamlike" ripples of spacetime, at the scale of the Planck length, which is so small that there seemed to be no way to detect it directly.
#:But it seems that some "inexplicable static" in the results of another unrelated experiment, searching for gravitational waves, may be the first hints of the holographic nature of space. If so, this is a lucky and serendipitous result.
#:Serendipitous scientific discoveries have been made many times, as when Henri Becquerel put a photographic plate in a dark drawer because the weather was cloudy, and thereby discovered radioactivity.
#:That the "foamlike" nature of space at short distances is contrary to the continuous nature presumed by classical mechanics and relativity has been known for some time. This is the problem that quantum gravity seeks to solve.
#''"The snag is that in quantum mechanics, time retains its Newtonian aloofness, providing the stage against which matter dances but never being affected by its presence. These two [QM and Relativity] conceptions of time don't gel."''
#:Quoting things without explaining the context is often a bad idea, and the indicated item is a good example of this. It gives no hint of what the article from which the quote was taken is about. The article is about one scientist's contribution to the problem of unifying relativity and quantum mechanics. The scientist, Petr HoYava of Berkeley, has come up with an approach that he says eliminates the infinities that have plagued other unification attempts.
#:The two quoted sentences are HoYava's ''statement of the problem''. So it comes as no surprise that he says that there is a conflict between relativity and quantum mechanics. The very next paragraph begins:
#::The solution, HoYava says, is to snip threads that bind time to space at very high energies .... At low energies, general relativity emerges from this underlying framework ..."
#:It is well known that, just as classical mechanics emerges from quantum mechanics at non-microscopic scales, and classical mechanics emerges from relativity at low speeds, both relativity and quantum mechanics should emerge from the Grand Unified Theory (whatever that turns out to be) at the appropriate scales.
#''The theory predicts wormholes just as it predicts black holes, but wormholes violate causality and permit absurd time travel.''
#:The topology of wormholes is an interesting topic, widely discussed among theoretical physicists and mathematicians. There is much speculation about what they would be like (if they could exist at all under quantum gravity), and what kind of "cosmic censorship" or "chronology protection" theorems might make practical time travel impossible. The nature of these theorems seems to be intertwined with theories of quantum gravity and "grand unification", so the exact form of the "cosmic censorship", if it exists, can't be known until quantum mechanics and relativistic geometry are unified. It is an exciting field of research. No one believes that the "cosmic censorship" will take the form of relativity not being a true non-quantum approximation to reality.
#''The theory predicts natural formation of highly ordered (and thus low entropy) black holes despite the increase in entropy required by the Second Law of Thermodynamics.''
#:Since the 70's much work has been done on the subject of black hole thermodynamics<ref>http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1973CMaPh..31..161B</ref><ref>http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/9307035v1.pdf</ref>, most notably by the Lucasian Professorship of Mathematics at Cambridge [[Stephen Hawking]]. When quantum field theory is added to the analysis of black holes it is found that they do not possess "low entropy" (quite the opposite, in fact) and are consistent with the laws of thermodynamics<ref>http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1973PhRvD...7.2333B</ref>. The [[Counterexamples to Relativity]] article has labelled this work in a footnote as "[c]ontrived explanations", with no explanation for this characterization given.
#''Data from the PSR B1913+16 increasingly diverge from predictions of the General Theory of Relativity such that, despite a Nobel Prize in Physics being awarded for early work on this pulsar, no data at all have been released about it for over five years.''
#:Please read the cited paper carefully. It is a survey of their observations over a 30 year period. They point out that their data matches general relativity to within 0.2 percent, and is now down in the "noise" of other effects, such as lack of accurate knowledge of just how far away the pulsars are, and lack of accurate knowledge of galactic constants. As they say in the abstract, "tighter bounds will be difficult to obtain." The paper, written in 2004, also notes that, because the pulsar beams are slowly tilting out of the line of sight to Earth, "A core component [of the emission] is quite prominent in the data taken in 1980-81, but it faded very significantly between 1980 and 1998 and was nearly gone by 2003."
#:That is why they are not releasing further data. 30 years is a fairly long time to watch a pair of pulsars. They're not doing the experiment any more—it did its job, and it's finished. No one drops cannonballs off the Leaning Tower of Pisa any more either.
#:The data are not diverging from the predictions.
#''The lack of useful devices developed based on any insights provided by the theory; no lives have been saved or helped, and the theory has not led to other useful theories and may have interfered with scientific progress. This stands in stark contrast with every verified theory of science.''
#:The Global Positioning System (GPS) uses general relativity to achieve greater accuracy<ref>http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html</ref>.
#:In fact, relativity is what makes the magnetic force necessary. The magnetic force is used in, among other things, electric motors and generators.
#:Even if it were the case that no practical applications have come from relativity, that is irrelevant. The validity of a theory is not based on the creation of useful devices. It is based on its ability to accurately predict the results of an experiment. Relativity "has held up under extensive experimental scrutiny" <ref>http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2006-3/</ref>.
#:If scientific theories were judged by their application in useful devices, the following Nobel-worthy theories would be rejected:
#::cosmic inflation
#::parity violation in the weak force
#::the "standard model", with strange/charm/top/bottom/mu/tau
#::the Chandrasekhar limit for white dwarf stars
#''Relativity requires different values for the inertia of a moving object: in its direction of motion, and perpendicular to that direction. This contradicts the logical principle that the laws of physics are the same in all directions.''
#:The rules for calculating inertia and other questions of mechanics are well known. The inertia, that is, the way that a force affects an object's momentum, is well known. Hundreds of physics textbooks discuss this in great detail, in terms of the Lorentz transform and the concepts of the force and momentum 4-vectors. The "inertia" comes from what is now called the mass, which used to be called the "rest mass". Archaic treatments formulated this in terms of the "relativistic mass", which was different. The mass is a scalar, and has no direction. The formulas for calculating the motion in terms of forces, in the direction of motion or transverse to it, are well known.
#''Relativity requires that anything traveling at the speed of light must have mass zero, so it must have momentum zero. But the laws of electrodynamics require that light have nonzero momentum.''
#:This seems to be another basic misunderstanding of relativity, from someone who gave up halfway through the textbook. Newtonian momentum (p = mv) does certainly indicate that a body with zero mass (''m'') must have zero momentum whatever its velocity (''v''). However, the relativistic equation for momentum is:
#::<math> p = \gamma m_0v\,</math>
#:where ''m''0 is the [[invariant mass|rest mass]] of the object and ''?'' is the Lorentz factor, given by
#::<math>\gamma = \frac{1}{\sqrt{1 - (v/c)^2}}\,,</math>
#:where ''c'' is the [[speed of light]].
#:For the case of a photon, where rest mass is zero and ''v'' is equal to ''c'', this gives ''p'' as zero divided by zero - an undetermined value.
#:However, with the substitution of the famous E=mc2, where E is the energy of the body, the momentum equation can be rearranged to:
#::<math>pc = \sqrt{E^2 - m_0^2c^4}</math>
#:With a photon of zero rest mass, this gives:
#::<math>p = E/c\,</math>
#:Finally, substituting Planck's Equation for the energy of a photon <math>E = hf\,</math> where ''h'' is [[Planck's Constant]] and ''f'' is the frequency of the photon, we get the familiar (and experimentally demonstrated) value for a photon's momentum of:
#::<math>p = hf/c = h/\lambda\,</math>
#:where <math>\lambda</math> is the photon's wavelength.<ref>http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/relmom.html</ref>
#''Unlike most well-tested fundamental physical theories, the theory of relativity violates conditions of a conservative field. Path independence, for example, is lacking under the theory of relativity, as in the "twin paradox" whereby the age of each twin under the theory is dependent on the path he traveled.''
#:There are no "conditions of a conservative field". A conservative field is one that has a curl of zero. Perhaps what was meant was that the gravitational field around the Sun, under Newtonian mechanics, is conservative. This is true because it is the gradient of an inverse-square scalar field, and all gradients have a curl of zero. Under relativity, the curl is also zero, due to the Bianchi identity and the symmetries of Riemann's tensor. See the extensive discussion [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk%3ACounterexamples_to_Relativity&action=historysubmit&diff=801452&oldid=799266 here].
#:The reference to the twin paradox suggests that the author thought that the passage of time is some kind of scalar field that should be obtainable as the path integral of a conservative vector field. It is not. Passage of time is a property of one's path through spacetime, and is similar to path length. (In fact, under the Lorentz/Minkowski metric, it is exactly path length.) Just as two paths from point A to point B on a sheet of paper can have different lengths, the paths of the twins can have different lengths, and hence different elapsed local times.
#''The Ehrenfest Paradox: Consider a spinning hoop, where the tangential velocity is near the speed of light. In this case, the circumference (2πR) is length-contracted. However, since R is always perpendicular to the motion, it is not contracted. This leads to an apparent paradox: does the radius of the accelerating hoop equal R, or is it less than R?''
#:The "Ehrenfest paradox" is not an actual paradox. Non-inertial relativistic motion of solid bodies is quite complicated, involving such concepts as "Born rigidity", "Langevin observers", the "Langevin-Landau-Lifschitz metric", and "quotient manifolds". In general, the subject is complicated, and has provided physicists with much food for thought. But it does not disprove relativity.
#''Based on Relativity, Einstein predicted in 1905 that clocks at the Earth's equator would be slower than clocks at the North Pole, due to different velocities; in fact, all clocks at sea level measure time at the same rate, and Relativists made new assumptions about the Earth's shape to justify this contradiction of the theory; they also make the implausible claim that relativistic effects from gravitation precisely offset the effects from differences in velocity.''
#:The claims of that item are preposterous. Read the cited paper (or its abstract) carefully. Einstein's statement that clocks would run slower at the equator, due to time dilation, was correct according to special relativity alone. What Einstein didn't realize, because he wouldn't discover general relativity for another 10 years, was that the gravitational time shift would offset that.
#:A "geoid" (the shape dicussed in the paper) is a theoretical shape used in mathematical physics, that is in equilibrium between the effects of centrifugal force (from rotation) and gravity. It is essentially an oblate spheroid. It can be thought of as the shape a rotating planet would take if it were completely fluid. Or it could be thought of as the shape of "global sea level". Jupiter, because of its rapid rotation, has a very pronounced flattening at the poles. Since Jupiter is not solid, its shape is a geoid. The Earth is ''very nearly'' a geoid, of course. But not exactly, because of gravitational nonuniformities, and things like mountains, that can exist because of the Earth's rigidity. No one "made new assumptions about the Earth's shape" to justify anything. The assumption that the Earth's shape is a geoid is a theoretical assumption due to the ''approximately'' fluid nature of the Earth. But no one claims that the Earth's shape is anything other than what it is observed and measured to be.
#:What the paper is about is the fact that the effects of rotational speed and gravitational time dilation happen to cancel each other on an ideal geoid. So all clocks at "sea level" on an ideal geoid-shaped planet run at the same speed. Whether this result is implausible is not for us to say.
#:The cited paper does not refute relativity.
#''The Twin Paradox: Consider twins who are separated with one traveling at a very high speed such that his "clock" (age) slows down, so that when he returns he has a younger age than the twin; this violates Relativity because both twins should expect the other to be younger, if motion is relative. Einstein himself admitted that this contradicts Relativity.''
#:The physics and mathematics underlying the "twin paradox" are well known. That one of the twins will have had to undergo different accelerations from the other before returning to the same point is what enables them to perceive different passage of time. This does not contradict relativity, and Einstein never said that it does. His explanation in terms of different acceleration is correct.
#:The comment about extending the length of the trip so that the acceleration would be ''de minimis'' is wrong. It seems to suggest that the acceleration could be reduced until it is negligible. It can be reduced by lengthening the trip, but it is not negligible. The Lorentz transform, and the equations of motion, are mathematically exact. The integral of a very small function over a long period is still significant. If the twins followed different paths in spacetime, which they must in order to measure different elapsed proper time, they must have undergone different accelerations, however small those differences may have been.
#:Of course, if they never come back to the same point, they could both undergo zero acceleration.
#''Based on Relativity, Einstein claimed in 1909 that the aether does not exist, but in order to make subatomic physics work right, theorists had to introduce the aether-like concept of the Higgs field, which fills all of space and breaks symmetries.''
#:Quantum field theory abounds with fields. The Higgs particle has a Higgs field. It has nothing to do with the "luminiferous aether".
#''Minkowski space is predicated on the idea of four-dimensional vectors of which one component is time. However, one of the properties of a vector space is that every vector have an inverse. Time cannot be a vector because it has no inverse.''
#:Time isn't a vector. It is a component of the vector space known as "spacetime". Vectors have negatives; the word "inverse" is not typically used here. While there are thermodynamic and other reasons for not allowing time to go backwards in the real world, the mathematics of spacetime allow vectors with any components, even negative ones. Mathematicians define a 4-dimensional vector space as having two operators: addition and scalar multiplication. There is also the identity vector (0,0,0,0). So, to the extent that one asks what vector can be added to (0,0,0,t) to produce (0,0,0,0), the answer is (0,0,0,-t), but that has nothing to do with relativity.
#''In Genesis 1:6-8, we are told that one of God's first creations was a firmament in the heavens. This likely refers to the creation of the luminiferous aether.''
#:That a Bible verse "likely" refers to a scientific phenomenon does not make good science. The objection appears to be claiming that the Bible contradicts the Michelson-Morley experiment, so the latter must be wrong. The Michelson-Morley experiment is very well known, has been repeated countless times, and is incontrovertible. To suggest that the Bible verse in Genesis contradicts such an incontrovertible phenomenon does a disservice to both the Bible and to science.
#''It is impossible to perform an experiment to determine whether Einstein's theory of relativity is correct, or the older Lorentz aether theory is correct. Believing one over the other is a matter of [[faith]].''
#:Modern formulations of the Lorentz aether theory may very well make it completely equivalent to relativity, both special and general. But that doesn't make relativity wrong; it just means that another theory is just as correct. The universal preference of the scientific community for relativity over the Lorentz theory is probably not based on religious faith, but on simplicity, as expressed in [[Occam's razor]]. The Lorentz theory postulates an aether that no experiment can possibly determine the properties of, while relativity postulates no aether.
#''Despite a century of wasting billions of dollars in work on the theory, "No one knows how to solve completely the equations of general relativity that describe gravity; they are simply beyond current understanding."''
#:They are not "beyond understanding". They are simply beyond closed-form solution. Cosmologists work with approximate solutions, calculated by extensive computer calculations, all the time. A well-known example of this is the simulation of galaxy dynamics. Particle physicists do this also, in, for example, quantum chromodynamics (QCD) calculations. It is fortunate that the equations of Keplerian/Newtonian planetary motion were solvable by the mathematical methods of the 17th century—a closed-form solution to a second-order differential equation. Modern physics problems are much harder. But, with modern computers, we can solve the equations of gravity to enormous precision.
#''Experiments in electromagnetic induction contradict Relativity: "Einstein's Relativity ... can not explain the experiment in graph 2, in which moving magnetic field has not produced electric field."''
#:The first cited reference, from which the quote was taken, is a totally crackpot web page, from a web site that seems to specialize in hosting crackpot papers. The writing is utterly illiterate and incoherent, as in this sentence: "According to Faraday's Law it can be explained as that, duo to the magnetic flux in conductor line changing, firstly induced electromotive force dU coming from the line-winded conductor to bring out voltage, then based on differential form <math>I = \frac{-\sigma s dU}{dl}</math> of Ohm's Law, the physical natural would be regarded as 'voltage before electric current' "
#''Relativity breaks down if a solenoid is traveling at or near the speed of light.''
#:The equations of electrodynamics (Maxwell's equations), and their connection with relativity, are well known. Hundreds of electrodynamics textbooks cover this subject. The equations are correct at all realizable speeds, even relativistic (''near'' the speed of light) speeds. (Maxwell's equations are said to be the only equations from classical physics that did not need to be modified for relativity.) The equations correctly describe the behavior of magnets (this is presumably what was meant by "solenoids"), charges, and electric and magnetic fields, even at speeds near the speed of light. Of course the equations don't work ''at'' the speed of light. The cited article never discussed speeds ''near'' the speed of light, only ''at'' the speed of light. The questioner was rightly taken to task for his physically unrealizable assumption.
#''General Relativity predicts how the gravitational fields of the Sun and Moon generate ocean tides. However, in the summer of 2009, tides along the East Coast of the United States were higher than expected.''
#:This one is utterly absurd. The calculation of the gravity of the Sun and Moon in producing tides has been known for hundreds of years, explained by Newtonian gravity. The effect of relativity on this is microscopic.
#:
#:The cited article is about the many things affecting the gross behavior of tides. Keep in mind that the factors affecting the tides involve a lot of hard-to-precisely-quantify things such as wind and ocean currents, and the melting of glaciers. As an example of how imprecise things are, the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans differ in mean height by about 8 inches at the Panama Canal, and the tides are about 20 feet on the Pacific side and 1 foot on the Atlantic side. As another example, tides in the Bay of Fundy are as high as 53 feet. Tides are not a simple calculation from Newtonian or Einsteinian mechanics. The difference between Newtonian gravitation and Einsteinian gravitation is utterly insignificant in comparison to these gross effects.
#''The supermassive black hole within the Andromeda galaxy puzzled researchers by increasing in brightness by a factor of 100 in 2006.''
#:This item is about unexpected behavior of the supermassive black holes at the centers of many galaxies. Black holes are a prediction of relativity. The fact that people are still learning new things about them is hardly surprising.
#:
#:The cited article never mentions relativity or the possibility that relativity is wrong. In fact, the entire discussion is in the context of black holes. The second study was about a black hole at the center of a galaxy apparently wandering out of place. The hypothesis is that a merger of two galaxies was involved, and "the theoretical prediction is that when two black holes merge, the newly combined black hole receives a 'kick' due to the emission of gravitational waves ..." Gravitational waves are, of course, a specific prediction of general relativity.
#''Scientists are unable to explain a June 2012 cluster of earthquakes in Ireland.''
#:This one is even more absurd than the one above about tides. We cannot fathom why anyone would think earthquakes are a counterexample to relativity.
#''Apparently, the equations of General Relativity do not apply to the motions of extra-solar planets.''
#:This refers to a recently discovered planetary system in which another star is closer than had previously been seen in such a system. Systems involving two stars and a planet constitute the "three body problem", which has never been solved analytically. But if only one of the objects is massive, such as the Sun, the system can be stable for all practical purposes, which is why the solar system is effectively stable even though it is a many-body problem. But two stars make the system much more problematical. In the past, such systems have had the other star far enough away that it has essentially no effect. The Gamma Cephei system is different, and scientists are eager to analyze it in detail. They are frustrated in this by the extremely scant data about the planet's orbit, since that information has to be gleaned from tiny spectroscopic shifts (in only one dimension!) of the two stars.
#:
#:The effect of Relativity on this is, of course, the precession of the "perihelion" due to the effects of General Relativity. From the information that has been gathered, the precession should be about 1.14 arcseconds per Earth century, or about 1/37th that of Mercury. The precession of Mercury was established with accurate visual observations. Measuring something 1/37th as large, from the Doppler shift in spectroscopic measurements, is utterly beyond current technology. Other than that, there is no reason to consider relativity. Classical mechanics will do just fine.
#''General Relativity fails to predict the Allais Effect.''
#:A quick Google search will show that there is no "concerted effort to suppress knowledge about the phenomenon". Tom van Flandern (no darling of those who accept relativity; he has been cited at Conservapedia in the "Lack of evidence for Relativity" section) explains the phenomenon in his 2003 paper [http://prd.aps.org/abstract/PRD/v67/i2/e022002 Allais gravity and pendulum effects during solar eclipses explained]: "Here we show that an unusual phenomenon that occurs only during solar eclipses, rapid air mass movement for the bulk of the atmosphere above normal cloud levels, appears to be a sufficient explanation for both the magnitude and behavior of the anomaly previously reported in these pages."
#:The fact that "attempts to duplicate the result have been reported as failures" is certainly consistent with an effort to suppress knowledge, but it's also consistent with the effect not existing.
#''The Pauli Exclusion Principle states that no two electrons...''
#:This is wrong on many levels. If there were exactly as many quantum-mechanical states (eigenfunctions) as there are particles, then, indeed, a fermion particle could only go to another state if the particle already in that state moved. But there are many more available states than there are particles.
#:
#:The cited article was a lecture by Brian Cox, a "popularizer" of physics, and the comments on the web page take him to task over a great many points, including a confusion between "quantum states" and "energy states", and what quantum-mechanical interconnectedness really means. People would be well advised to read those comments, as well as the analysis by Sean Carroll [http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2012/02/23/everything-is-connected/#.UdzP9KwWSSo here], which points out the many flaws in Brian Cox's reasoning.
#:
#:In any case, this is about quantum mechanics, not relativity.
#''The recent findings of gravitational waves are actually just dust.''
#:This is about the observations by the "BICEP2" telescope early in 2014. The claim was that analysis of the polarization of the [[Cosmic microwave background]] (CMB) would show that the CMB had been influenced by gravitational waves in the first fraction of a second after the big bang. That is, if noise from interstellar dust grains didn't confound the measurements. It is now believed that the dust grain noise is too high to make this a reliable measurement.
#:Please read the cited article. It indicates that, based on observations by the Planck satellite, it should be possible to make a cleaner observation. The balloon-borne "Spider" telescope is slated to be launched later this year, and it might be successful.
#:Taking the failure of the BICEP2 observations as a counterexample to relativity is like saying "I thought of a new and clever proof of the existence of God last week, but unfortunately there was a flaw in my logic, so therefore God doesn't exist."
#:In any case, another indirect observation of gravitational waves has already been made, in the Hulse-Taylor observations of binary pulsar [[PSR B1913 16]] in the 1990's.

Unless someone can come up with a sensible example, we will not be posting further rebuttals. The recent ones have been hideously pointless, and not worth replying to. Many of them have cited articles that have ''nothing to do with relativity''. Tides, and earthquakes, do not disprove relativity. It's possible that, because of the rather famous nature of the "counterexamples" page (it is cited around the world, and has nearly 2 million web views), people are simply putting in parody, or trolling, or humor, or whatever, in an attempt to see their work on a world-famous page.

== References ==
<references />

[[Category:relativity]]
[[Category:physics]]
[[Category:science]]

Counterexamples to Relativity

2014-12-14T21:21:39Z

Darwon: That isn't even relevant to relativity!

Counterexamples to Relativity

2014-12-14T21:17:53Z

Darwon: The total acceleration is not "de minimis" when you consider the extreme length of travel. One trillionth times a trillion is still 1, not 0.

Counterexamples to Relativity

2014-12-14T21:10:27Z

Darwon: See comment

Counterexamples to Relativity

2014-12-14T20:51:32Z

Darwon: Anecdotal evidence is not sufficient.