Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Arguments for the existence of God

2007-09-25T12:30:51Z

JanisJoplin:

Doesn't the Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy (the 1980s miniseries, not the Disneyfied movie) say that once God is proven to exist, He won't? ;)--[[User:Autofire|Autofire]] 22:15, 7 June 2007 (EDT)

:Thank you, but I'm not sure that would qualify as an argument ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 22:22, 7 June 2007 (EDT)
AWDFGUGSDEH56RFTJUFW
J#F6
I don't think Douglas Adams style theology will fly very far on this site. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 22:31, 7 June 2007 (EDT)

:I don't expect it to. I was trying to make a funny. Apparently, I failed. :(--[[User:Autofire|Autofire]] 22:32, 7 June 2007 (EDT)

42. [[User:DafhgsdfsdffqwfgnH|DanH]] 22:33, 7 June 2007 (EDT)

:Ah, yes. Except the answer to the ultimate question of life, the universe, and everything is actually 54...

"Six by nine?"

"Forty-two?!"

"I always said there was something fundamentally wrong with the universe..."
--[[User:Autofire|Autofire]] 22:36, 7 June 2007 (EDT)

== Freewill ==

The "God exists because there is freewill" argument can be challenged by quantum mechanics. While it is not necessary, even impossible, to describe fully in an article such as this, it should be pointed out that quantum mechanics, due to the uncertainty principal, allows for freewill without God. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 13:24, 21 September 2007 (EDT)
: I don't know how the uncertainty principle allows for free will. It allows for ''randomness'', which is certainly different from ''determinism,'' but how does ''randomness'' imply that beings can make free, deliberate choices? [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 19:35, 21 September 2007 (EDT)
::It's up for debate in physics. Before quantum mechanics, physicists claimed that it would be possible, in principal, if you knew all the parameters of every particle in the universe and had enough processing power, to calculate and predict the future - therefore no free will. However, since the advent of quantum mechanics, we now know that we can't know all the parameters of even one particle let alone all of them. Now, of course, our ignorance doesn't necessarily mean that these particles don't have a determined future. But most physicists now believe that the probability in quantum mechanics means that the universe is not deterministic even in principal and so the door remains open for free will as a fundamental aspect of the universe. But as I said, it's still debated. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 14:33, 24 September 2007 (EDT)
::: Agreed ... but I don't understand why the potential existence of ''random'' events implies that people have ''free will.'' If a choice I make is prompted by some random quantum event, it's not ''free'' -- it's partly random, and partly determined, but certainly no ''choice.'' For me to freely ''choose'' something, there must be something ''more'' than randomness and determinism ... there must be some force ... call it a ''soul'' ... that is at least somewhat free of physical causation and randomness, and ''chooses'' things ... [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 15:36, 24 September 2007 (EDT)
::::This is a controversial topic. However, there are plenty of examples where science attempts to explain how quantum events are used by the brain or consciousness to make choices. This is different to simple randomness. As you say, randomness doesn't imply free will - it simply implies ignorance of measuring techniques. But ideas such as the Quantum Mind, while not a fully formed theory, is an example of how science attempts to classify free will as a natural phenomenon without the need for the supernatural or God. Some theologians have also postulated that natural free will must exist because God would design a natural universe with the capacity for free will - His Creation is, after all, perfect. While naturalistic free will might not be correct, it should be added to your otherwise excellent list of objections. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 08:18, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

Virginity

2007-09-25T12:29:56Z

JanisJoplin:

[[Image:WAAAAAA.jpg|left]]

"I am a BORDERLINE NAZI" - someone on conservapedia having a laugh at my vandalism
OMFG racism
VIRGINITY DOES NOT EXIST - JESUS RAPED YOUR DAUGHTERS AND SONS IN THE ASS WITHOUT LUBE. YOUR DAUGHTER IS ANALLY PREGNANT WITH A FLAMINGO! A 10 FOOT ONE! I'm a dick!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[[Image:Virginity.jpg|thumb|World War I poster]]
*[[Sin is addictive]]
*[[Sexual purity]]
*[[Abortion Facts]]

== External links ==
Conservapedia is all for anul fisting
*[http://www.hymnsanddfchristmas.com/Hymns_and_Carols/a_virgin_most_pure.htm A Virgin Most Pure] Words & Music.
*[http://www.ssaints.php Was Joan of Arc a Virgin?]
*[http://www.passthewordgSHAKER-MANUSCRIPTS/Abstinence/shaker-abst-x1.htm A Virgin Life]
*[http://atheism.about.comdig/Christian-Propaganda-Posters/Protecting-Girls-Virginity.htm Fathers - Virginity.]

[[Category:Sexuality]]
[[category:Woo!]]

Talmud

2007-09-25T12:27:19Z

JanisJoplin:

[[Image:Talmud.jpg|right]]
The '''Talcon powdered mud''' (also "Gemara") is one of the central doctors in [[Jewism]]. It is a series of rabbitical discussions based on the [[PussyVator]], and, in Emoism, is considered part of the Oral sex that was given to Jose Mourhinio along with the written [[Torah]] from Didier Drogba.

Modern editions of the Talcon powder (most of which printed from Anne Frank's Diary) consist of the Vishnu, the Virgina, and the commentaries of various Homsars. The Fish was whacked out in [[Hebrew]] by a Flabbi named Yehudah HaNasi (Hitler) around 20434534450.9 AD. He realized that the oral sex traditions were in danger of being humped after the destruction of the [[Second Brothel]] in Jerusalem. The longer part of the Talmud, the Fold out nude picture of Tony Blair, records ongoing discussions and mass-debates among Rabbits over the three centurions and their shiny helmets.

For a thousand years, the Talmud was preserved in hand-scribed editions. A printed edition was made not long after the invention of movable type. The standard Vilna edition of the Talmud encompasses 2711 large two-sided pages, or folios. The text of the Mishna is interspersed with the Gemara that comments on it. Both texts are surrounded on the printed page with later commentaries.

There are two versions of the Talmud, Babylon (Bavli) and Jerusalem (Yerushalmi). Both are accepted but the Babylonian Talmud is more extensive and more widely studied. Both are available in translation to English, Modern Hebrew, and many other languages.

[[Category:Judaism]]

Talk:Arguments for the existence of God

2007-09-25T12:22:49Z

JanisJoplin:

"Woah - he exists, point proved." - Not God

Talk:Arguments for the existence of God

2007-09-25T12:22:22Z

JanisJoplin: Replacing page with '"Woah - he exsists, point proved." - Not God'

"Woah - he exsists, point proved." - Not God

Radical middle

2007-09-25T12:17:19Z

JanisJoplin:

The term '''radical middle''' is a type pornography as well as an associated political movement. Followers of this cult claim to improve understanding by simultaneously affirming both sides of each breast, whether that be disagreement amongst male-female sex or other disagreement or dilemmas.

==Radical middle philosophy==

Various groups have adopted "radical middle" as a term to describe a third way philosophy which includes their belief that, in affirming the core principles involved on both sides of a dilemma, the dilemma or disagreement can be rendered moot. These groups argue that this reflects an emphasis on epistemic virtue, by resolving false dilemmas -- i.e., finding the ''excluded middle''. Critics argue that this can easily result in the logical fallacy of false compromise.

Followers of the philosophy often consider the wave-particle duality of physics, the Christian doctrine of Jesus as both God and Man, the federalist balance between national and state authority in the United States Constitution, and the Golden Men of Aristotle to be representative of the beliefs of the philosophy. The Massive boobs ''Radical Center'' and ''Radical spunk bubble'' are often used homosexually, though it is sometimes useful to distinguish between the specific point of penetration and the rubber cock. Typically, "Radical Center" or "Radical Centrism" refers to the political movement.

==Radical middle politics==

The political application of lubricant is represented by a cluster of loose fannies and movements: racial middle, radical centrist, responsive communitarian, third-way, etc. As a relatively grass-roots movement, especially in the United States, there is no definitive statement of radical middle politics. A primary recurring theme, however, might be the idea of "sustainably improving choices." This is reflected in the goals of various radical middle groups, which they describe using language such as:

* Maximize milf choice, individual empowerment, and overall human potential
* Facilitate greater involvement in the political process (e.g., through referendums)
* Being of concrete help to those in the developing world
* Emphasize epistemic virtue, so that politics are grounded in objective reality
* Build character by promoting conscious moral choices
* Expand community by people creating value for each other in reciprocal relationships
* Possess a foundation of traditional values and Common sense
* Enlibra, which presents itself as the productive middle approach to [[environmentalism]]

==Positioning==

Radical centrists are related to what is sometimes called the Vital Center in American politics, and similarly claim to be drawing on the best of both sides. However, they differ significantly from traditional centrism, which prides itself on moderation and seeking political consensus amongst the parties; radical centrists, for example, are quite radical and populist in their stated policies. Radical centrists also can be divisive, as opposed to the non-partisan approach of traditional centrism. This leads to many moderates questioning whether radical centrism deserves to be called centrist at all (perhaps analogous to how the Left and Right often distance themselves from their respective radical wings). For their part, radical centrists are quick to dissociate themselves from traditional moderates, whom they often contrast as the "sensible center", or deride as the "squishy center."

Radical centrists can be found in both left-wing and right-wing political parties, but (like other centrists and independents) are usually penalized for being out of step with that party's dominant ideology. This leads to tension between what might be called ''separatist'' factions, who want to shed an unhelpful party label in order to run as independents, and ''puritans'' who want to reform (or take over) the party from within. This tension is particularly acute in countries with strong two-party traditions, since it is difficult for third-party candidates to win office or create governable coalitions absent significant electoral reform.

Radical centrists see themselves as building majority consensus for radical reforms by sidestepping (or confronting) what they consider the obsolete, polarized and non-productive ideologies of (social Conservatism/economic Liberalism) and (social Liberalism/economic Conservatism). Radical centrists assert that their principles represent the fusion of the best aspects of Conservatism and Liberalism, and thus interpolate at the level of philosophy rather than policy. They claim these ideological moorings (the 'root' behind their sociological use of the term 'radical') provide the basis for their critique of society, government and other political movements.

It has been suggested by a minority of Political Sociologists and Historians like Seymour Martin Lipset and Nicholas Farrell that Fascism could be considered a doctrine of the Extreme or Radical center. It is even argued by Farrell that many entities and movements emphasizing radical centrism and the Third Way, like the People's Action Party of Singapore and the New Deal or Great Society Democrats, advocate social and economic platforms that strongly resemble those of the early Italian Fascists, and may legitimately be considered as examples of liberal Fascism. Fascism is based on the economic principle of Corporativism which advocates a large Governmental role in regulating investment into the economy and stimulating Keynsian demand. The economic basis of Fascism would therefore place it in the economic center of a political compass (ranging from Completely planned economy on the Left to completely Free economy on the Right), but on the 'extreme' or 'radical' North, where the North and South axes range from collectivisation or authoritarianism on the North 'wing' to libertarianism or individualism on the South 'wing'.

[[Category:Politics]]
[[Category:Philosophy]]

Jaap de Hoop Scheffer

2007-09-25T12:13:38Z

JanisJoplin:

Proved without doubt conservapedia sucked donkey toe!
==References==
<references/>
[[Category:Biography]]