Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Conservapedia talk:Debate Topics

2007-03-15T19:21:43Z

Heidilaide: Spelling as a Commandment on here

i tried to edit the unicorn page but was unfortunately unable to do so. can u please inform about unicorns.........

Concerned intellectual

We put in 3 presidents from Texas, and had 3 wars; a real brain trust. Who supplied the monies to put these Texans into office? We all know the mentality of Texans; shoot first and ask questions later. We are also suppose to welcome illegals into this country, and help support them, says a man from Texass. I could care less about your stupid party affiliations; and A-Hole is an A-Hole no matter the party.
If a demogog was in office instead of a repugnant, he would have been impeached by now. This shows you the power of the repugnants.{{Unsigned|Take13}}

== Spelling as a Commandment on here ==

The Un-American spelling of the Constitution!

The US Constitution has words like “chuse” and “chusing,” “Pensylvania” (in fact so does the Liberty Bell!), “defence,” and there are more… Oh dear, maybe Conservapedia should edit the US Constitution in accordance to it’s spelling absolutism (hey don’t correct me, the Constitution “improperly” has “it’s” instead of “its” in there… Article 1, Section 10). I’m sure Conservapedia would garner plenty of support since spelling is such a big deal these days. I mean it IS one of the 6 Conservapedia Commandments.

The pinnacle of American ideals and identity is our Constitution, and still I think Conservapedia would find themselves in a rut trying to justify why their spelling should be reflected on there… even though their spelling standards claim to be American, and well, the US Constitution IS American.

Spelling is fluid… it would be interesting to see how American spelling changes. I would hope what it means to be an American doesn’t change as much as spelling…

Conservapedia talk:Does the high abortion rate among African Americans explain the quadruple extreme premature birth risk among the same population?

2007-03-15T18:25:09Z

Heidilaide: ridiculous question

Do prior induced abortions increase Black American Women's risk of
a future preterm or extremely premature baby? The responder informs
us (accurately) that 35% of U.S. IAs (Induced Abortions) are performed on
Black Americans. Since BAW (Black American Women) constitute roughly
13% of the U.S. female population, clearly, anyone with elementary
math skills realizes that 13% partaking in 35% of the total number
of abortions is very disproportionate.

Is there only ONE (1) risk factor for preterm birth? "No way, Jose".
One and all are cordially invited to read Professor Barbara Luke's
1995 classic book (endorsed by the truly great Dr. Emile Papiernik):
Every Pregnant Women's Guide to Preventing Premature Birth. Prof.
Luke (currently at U. Miami) lists 60 'preemie' risk factors. (More
risk factors will come to light in the future)

As to gum infections. Yes, there are studies linking gum infections
to higher preterm birth risk. Now, it has also come to my 'inattention'
that there are studies linking ORAL CONTRACEPTIVE use to higher
risk of peridontal disease (aka gum infection). Thus, one item for
future researche: Does long term use of OCs (Oral Contraceptives)
increase the risk of EARLY PRETERM BIRTH (birth under 32.0 weeks' gestation)?

== ridiculous question ==

Why does this target target African American women? I think that is disgusting. I don't even know if this "fact" is even true. Furthermore, there should be an entire analysis of women and the premature risks among ALL women before women OF ANY RACE who have had abortions are targeted. As far as I'm concerned, I know plenty of women who have had premature pregnanices without a history of abortion.

Atheism

2007-03-15T18:12:27Z

Heidilaide: Why state Islamic desires? Seems as though that pinpoints one "ridiculous" belief.

Atheism is disbelief in the existence of a [[God|god]] or gods, or any supernatural entity.

Some Atheists are tied with [[Secular Humanism]]. Popularly-known Atheists include [[Stephen Hawking]], [[Stephen Jay Gould]], [[Carl Sagan]], [[Richard Dawkins]], [[Douglas Adams]], [[William Borden]] and [[Sam Harris]].

== Atheist morality ==

Many atheists base their [[moral code]] upon [[emotion]], [[experience]] and empirically derived ethics, such as those promoted by secular humanism. Atheists hold that neither the [[Bible]], nor the [[Koran]], nor the [[Torah]], nor any religious text can be our only source of morality. This claim is made as all religious texts contain, and often ascribe to God, extremely immoral acts such as the Israelites driving out heathen nations from Canaan (i.e. [[ethnic cleansing]]), the stoning of homosexuals and adulterers to death, and the institution of slavery.

Atheists often subscribe to the secular humanist idea that it is far more ethical to do what is right because you believe that it is right, rather than because you fear divine punishment or desire divine reward. One example is illustrated in the following quote from [[Albert Einstein]]:

:“A man’s ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death”.

Atheists condemn religious desires for exclusive reward (and the punishment of others) such as are found in all religious texts.

== Origins ==

It is difficult to trace the origins of atheism as a result of the incomplete historic record. It is known that ancient Greece produced a theory of materialism as early as the 5th century BC. The materialist world view was essentially mathematical and had no room for gods{{fact}}.

The writer of the Book of Psalms knew of atheists and atheism and registered disapproval in Psalm 14: "The Fool hath said in his heart, There is no God." The book of Psalms precedes the 5th century BC by hundreds of years.

== The Problem of Evil==

A central argument against religious belief in all powerful entities ('gods') is the problem of evil. First identified by the philosopher and materialist Epicurus (341-270 BCE), this problem points out the difficulty created by the mere existence of evil:

:Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
:Is he able, but not willing? then he is malevolent.
:Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
:Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

A number of responses to this logical paradox have been put forth including those which assert human ignorance as the culprit, the concept of free will and the specific writings in some faiths which discuss the co-existence of good and evil (such as the book of Job in the Christian and Jewish faiths).[http://www.iep.utm.edu/e/evil-log.htm]

== Atheism and Agnosticism ==

Atheism and agnosticism are logically distinct concepts. Whilst atheist reject the existence of a god or gods, agnostics do not do so. [[Richard Dawkins]] has contrasted the two positions as follows:

:“There may be fairies at the bottom of the garden. There is no evidence for it, but you can’t prove that there aren’t any, so shouldn’t we be agnostic with respect to fairies?”.

An agnostic is on the fence regarding the truth value of certain unverifiable claims. It can be said that an agnostic thinks that there's about a 50-50 chance of a claim being true. For example, if you asked me if it's going to rain in a week, I'd say I was agnostic. I just don't know, but it's definitely likely and possible. It's rained before and it will probably rain again. I've observed it many times so it's a reasonable conclusion that it ''may'' rain next week.

If a claim is arbitrary and has no method of verification, we must be atheistic about it. Anyone can be creative and invent some sort of imaginary circumstance. It doesn't make it true; it just makes it creative. This is excellent for the arts, a field in which subjective flights of fancy are valued and no objective verification is required for a claim to be valuable. If there are fairies at the bottom of the well, a Flying Spaghetti monster, supernatural gods that act as proxies for our human weaknesses, and other creative phenomena, we cannot take them seriously as actually having independent existence. What stops anyone from inventing a religion then which makes that person the center of the universe? How can his be disproved? If that person is emphatic enough, his creativity can morph into dogma due to psychosocial processes that have been observed throughout the history of mass belief. Scientology and Mormonism are only recent examples of this.

For example, even people who ascribe to a religious belief that is premised on faith in facts or events that they have no specific experience with are atheists regarding ''other'' religions. They regard the tenets of other religions as if they were arbitrary heresay that could only be believed by a gullible fool. The irony here is striking.

A full on atheist evaluates an individual claims on its face. If it seems arbitrary, then he/she is an atheist about it. If it's likely, but not easily verified, then he/she's agnostic. And if it's based on something that resonates with common sense or has been consistently true in the past, then he/she has ''faith'' that it'll probably be true in the future.

==References==

<references/>

[[Category:Religion]]

Atheism

2007-03-15T18:10:19Z

Heidilaide: Atheism is not the denial of Gods, that implies Atheists are in a state of denial, when really it is disbelief: quite a difference.

Atheism is disbelief in the existence of a [[God|god]] or gods, or any supernatural entity.

Some Atheists are tied with [[Secular Humanism]]. Popularly-known Atheists include [[Stephen Hawking]], [[Stephen Jay Gould]], [[Carl Sagan]], [[Richard Dawkins]], [[Douglas Adams]], [[William Borden]] and [[Sam Harris]].

== Atheist morality ==

Many atheists base their [[moral code]] upon [[emotion]], [[experience]] and empirically derived ethics, such as those promoted by secular humanism. Atheists hold that neither the [[Bible]], nor the [[Koran]], nor the [[Torah]], nor any religious text can be our only source of morality. This claim is made as all religious texts contain, and often ascribe to God, extremely immoral acts such as the Israelites driving out heathen nations from Canaan (i.e. [[ethnic cleansing]]), the stoning of homosexuals and adulterers to death, and the institution of slavery.

Atheists often subscribe to the secular humanist idea that it is far more ethical to do what is right because you believe that it is right, rather than because you fear divine punishment or desire divine reward. One example is illustrated in the following quote from [[Albert Einstein]]:

:“A man’s ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death”.

A modern example is the absurdity with which we view Islamic suicide bombers acting on a desire for 72 virgins in the afterlife. Atheism condemns this desire, along with other religious desires for exclusive reward (and the punishment of others) such as are found in all religious texts.

== Origins ==

It is difficult to trace the origins of atheism as a result of the incomplete historic record. It is known that ancient Greece produced a theory of materialism as early as the 5th century BC. The materialist world view was essentially mathematical and had no room for gods{{fact}}.

The writer of the Book of Psalms knew of atheists and atheism and registered disapproval in Psalm 14: "The Fool hath said in his heart, There is no God." The book of Psalms precedes the 5th century BC by hundreds of years.

== The Problem of Evil==

A central argument against religious belief in all powerful entities ('gods') is the problem of evil. First identified by the philosopher and materialist Epicurus (341-270 BCE), this problem points out the difficulty created by the mere existence of evil:

:Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
:Is he able, but not willing? then he is malevolent.
:Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
:Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

A number of responses to this logical paradox have been put forth including those which assert human ignorance as the culprit, the concept of free will and the specific writings in some faiths which discuss the co-existence of good and evil (such as the book of Job in the Christian and Jewish faiths).[http://www.iep.utm.edu/e/evil-log.htm]

== Atheism and Agnosticism ==

Atheism and agnosticism are logically distinct concepts. Whilst atheist reject the existence of a god or gods, agnostics do not do so. [[Richard Dawkins]] has contrasted the two positions as follows:

:“There may be fairies at the bottom of the garden. There is no evidence for it, but you can’t prove that there aren’t any, so shouldn’t we be agnostic with respect to fairies?”.

An agnostic is on the fence regarding the truth value of certain unverifiable claims. It can be said that an agnostic thinks that there's about a 50-50 chance of a claim being true. For example, if you asked me if it's going to rain in a week, I'd say I was agnostic. I just don't know, but it's definitely likely and possible. It's rained before and it will probably rain again. I've observed it many times so it's a reasonable conclusion that it ''may'' rain next week.

If a claim is arbitrary and has no method of verification, we must be atheistic about it. Anyone can be creative and invent some sort of imaginary circumstance. It doesn't make it true; it just makes it creative. This is excellent for the arts, a field in which subjective flights of fancy are valued and no objective verification is required for a claim to be valuable. If there are fairies at the bottom of the well, a Flying Spaghetti monster, supernatural gods that act as proxies for our human weaknesses, and other creative phenomena, we cannot take them seriously as actually having independent existence. What stops anyone from inventing a religion then which makes that person the center of the universe? How can his be disproved? If that person is emphatic enough, his creativity can morph into dogma due to psychosocial processes that have been observed throughout the history of mass belief. Scientology and Mormonism are only recent examples of this.

For example, even people who ascribe to a religious belief that is premised on faith in facts or events that they have no specific experience with are atheists regarding ''other'' religions. They regard the tenets of other religions as if they were arbitrary heresay that could only be believed by a gullible fool. The irony here is striking.

A full on atheist evaluates an individual claims on its face. If it seems arbitrary, then he/she is an atheist about it. If it's likely, but not easily verified, then he/she's agnostic. And if it's based on something that resonates with common sense or has been consistently true in the past, then he/she has ''faith'' that it'll probably be true in the future.

==References==

<references/>

[[Category:Religion]]