Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Debate:Why should we be afraid of God?

2007-04-11T20:47:57Z

Kchittur:

God, as understood and accepted, is everywhere, knows everything, is all powerful, can do anything, to anyone, at anytime. So, why should God have to instil fear in humans? If God can do anything, to anyone, at anytime, why instill fear? There is nothing anyone can do about it anyway, according to that belief system. [[USer:Seekcommon]]

== Be Not Afraid ==

1 John 4:18 '''There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love.'''

== Be Very Afraid ==
Certainly we should love God for all the love he shows (and has shown) us. But you have to remember that God does set a standard of living that we should try to live up to. God choose to do many things to show his justice, he threw Adam and Eve out of the garden because they choose to sin. Because God is justice we should fear him because many times we choose sin which is unjust.

Double Edge

* What about all the rules to live by as stated in the Old Testament? If those rules are followed today, I wonder if anyone will be alive - since death seems to be the punishment for so many things, including, working on the sabbath. I wonder how long this post/response will last before it is moved/deleted. [[User:Seekcommon]]

Don't you think that if everyone were being killed for their sins, the amount of sins would decrease? Death is a powerful crime deterrent.

P.S. I don't know why you fear that your posts will be deleted. Posts will only be deleted if they are obscene. Your questions are welcomed, at least by me. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 23:18, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
* I am glad to find some interest. There have been deletions that do not make sense, I wish I had saved some of the posts. It has been my experience that on the right AND the left, often when discussion/debates veer into uncomfortable territory, wham, the hammer comes down. [[User:Seekcommon]]

* How can an infinite span of time suffering the torment of fire be justice for a mere 70 or 80 years on Earth spent under confusing circumstances with conflicting "gospels" to choose from? [[User:Teresita|Teresita]] 14:59, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
** Good question. Seems unreasonable to me. Then again, it's the issue of instilling FEAR, perhaps there is nothing to fear from the Almighty Himself but from the mortals that helped write the books/scriptures and changed them over the years. [[User:Seekcommon]] (Wonder what the life of these words will be? A day? Two perhaps?

Conservapedia:Debate Topics

2007-03-26T03:34:04Z

Kchittur:

Debate topic suggestions:
# [[Conservapedia:Was world war inevitable?|Was world war inevitable?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does "free trade" increase wealth rather than simply redistribute it?|Does "free trade" increase wealth or simply redistribute it?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should the United States have entered World War I?|Should the United States have entered World War I?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should the United States have entered World War II?|Should the United States have entered World War II?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should the United States have eliminated communism in North Korea|Should the United States have eliminated communism in North Korea]] as General Douglas MacArthur wanted?
# [[Conservapedia:Is it even possible to install democracy in a Muslim country?|Is it even possible to install democracy in a Muslim country?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is democracy even possible in Iraq?|Is democracy even possible in Iraq?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should President Jimmy Carter (at the urging of Henry Kissinger) have allowed the deposed Shah of Iran to enter the United States in 1979 to receive medical treatment, over the objections of the Iranian people?|Should President Jimmy Carter (at the urging of Henry Kissinger) have allowed the deposed Shah of Iran to enter the United States in 1979 to receive medical treatment, over the objections of the Iranian people?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should we have given the Panama Canal back to Panama?|Should we have given the Panama Canal back to Panama?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Are regulations by the government to keep private businesses in check necessary?|Should government allow an unchecked economy, or are regulations necessary in private business?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should the United States leave the United Nations?|Should the United States leave the United Nations?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Crusades... Good or Bad?|Crusades... Good or Bad?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is the theory of macroevolution true?|Is the theory of macroevolution true?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does bias impair Wikipedia's reliability?|Does bias impair Wikipedia's reliability?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should Creationism/Intelligent design be taught as a scientific alternative to evolution in public schools?|Should Creationism/Intelligent design be taught as a scientific alternative to evolution in public schools?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Did racism play a role in the decision to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?|Did racism play a role in the decision to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Was the United States right to drop atomic bombs so quickly on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?|Was the United States right to drop atomic bombs so quickly on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?]]
# If President Roosevelt had known about the Pearl Harbor attack in advance, [[Conservapedia:Was it wrong for him to allow the attack in order to wake up the American public and motivate Americans to fight and win the war?|would it have been wrong for him to allow the attack in order to wake up the American public and motivate Americans to fight and win the war?|Was it wrong for him to allow the attack in order to wake up the American public and motivate Americans to fight and win the war?|would it have been wrong for him to allow the attack in order to wake up the American public and motivate Americans to fight and win the war?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is gun-control the answer to crimes involving guns?|Is gun-control the answer to crimes involving guns?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should the term list entries be included in Conservapedia's entry count?|Should the term list entries be included in Conservapedia's entry count?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Was American soldier Michael New right to refuse to fight wearing part of a United Nations uniform?|Was American soldier Michael New right to refuse to fight wearing part of a United Nations uniform?]] See [[Michael New]]
# [[Henry Ford]] said, "I don't know much about history, and I wouldn't give a nickel for all the history in the world. History is more or less bunk. It is tradition. We want to live in the present, and the only history that is worth a tinker's [darn] is the history we make today." [[George Santayana]] said "Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." [[Conservapedia:Which was closer to being right?|Which was closer to being right?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Which is a more powerful ideology, Islam or communism?|Which is a more powerful ideology, Islam or Communism?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should the United States intervene in small countries to defeat communism there?|Should the United States intervene in small countries to defeat communism there?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should public displays of the 10 Commandments be allowed under the constitution?|Should public displays of the 10 Commandments be allowed under the constitution?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Were the Puritans right to banish (expel) people for religious reasons?|Were the Puritans right to banish (expel) people for religious reasons?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does the high abortion rate among African Americans explain the quadruple extreme premature birth risk among the same population?|Does the high abortion rate among African Americans explain the quadruple extreme premature birth risk among the same population?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Was the third crusade successful?|Was the third crusade successful?]]
# [[Conservapedia:How should Conservapedia work to avoid having a conservative bias?|How should Conservapedia work to avoid having a conservative bias?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is infinite regression ever valid as a form of reasoning, or acceptable as a way the universe works, or came to be?|Is infinite regression ever valid as a form of reasoning, or acceptable as a way the universe works, or came to be?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is a first cause of a process necessary, always possible, or sometimes impossible?|Is a first cause of a process necessary, always possible, or sometimes impossible?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Which has the best philosophy of education: the public school system, private schools, or the home school movement?|Which has the best philosophy of education: the public school system, private schools, or the home school movement?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Can Objectivism develop beyond Ayn Rand's original formulation?|Can Objectivism develop beyond Ayn Rand's original formulation?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Can any man live without some code of morality?|Can any man live without some code of morality?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does the universe include everything, or does something outside the universe exist?|Does the universe include everything, or does something outside the universe exist?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is global warming evident, and if so, is this the fault of man, and how must man stop it?|Is global warming evident, and if so, is this the fault of man, and how must man stop it?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is the Bible a reliable source of history against which one may check all other sources?|Is the Bible a reliable source of history against which one may check all other sources?]]
# [[Conservapedia:If the universe is young and it takes light millions of years to reach us from far off stars, how can we see them?|If the universe is young and it takes light millions of years to reach us from far off stars, how can we see them?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is it wrong to have a Christmas tree?|Is it wrong to have a Christmas tree?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Did God create evil?|Did God create evil?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should people genetically engineer a cure for homosexuality?|Should people genetically engineer a cure for homosexuality?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is it possible to be both Jewish and Christian at the same time?|Is it possible to be both Jewish and Christian at the same time?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Can Conservapedia Succeed?|Can Conservapedia Succeed?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is Conservapedia fair and balanced?|Is Conservapedia fair and balanced?]]
# [[Conservapedia:How can we protect Conservapedia by distinguishing real conservative encyclopedia articles from satires written by liberals?|How can we protect Conservapedia by distinguishing real conservative encyclopedia articles from satires written by liberals?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should Bush pardon Scooter Libby?|Should Bush pardon Scooter Libby?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should the USA and other industrialized nations resume the building of nuclear power plants, an activity that is now effectively suspended?|Should the USA and other industrialized nations resume the building of nuclear power plants, an activity that is now effectively suspended?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is the Pope the Antichrist?|Is the Pope the Antichrist?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is it easier to ask for permission, or for forgiveness?|Is it easier to ask for permission, or for forgiveness?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Do hardly any entries on conservapedia cite sources?|Do hardly any entries on conservapedia cite sources?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Which Christian denomination is the most true to the central teachings of Christianity?|Which Christian denomination is the most true to the central teachings of Christianity?]]
# [[Conservapedia:If Jesus was alive to day, where on the political spectrum would he fall?|If Jesus was alive to day, where on the political spectrum would he fall?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should We Support Democrats For Life.org?|Should We Support Democrats For Life.org?]]
# [[conservapedia:Women in the Military?|Women in the Military?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should Religion Play a Large Role in Modern Societies?|Is religion relevant in todays society? / Should Religion Play a Large Role in Modern Societies?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Corinthians 11:14 and the traditional image of Jesus|Corinthians 11:14 and the traditional image of Jesus]]
# [[Conservapedia:A poll requested by Aschlafly regarding the new color format|A poll requested by Aschlafly regarding the new color format]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does the Bible (Old and the New Testament) have the infallible words of God?|Bible (New and Old Testament) Words of God]]
# [[Conservapedia: AntiSemitism|AntiSemitism]]
# [[Conservapedia: Should students learn a foreign language?|Should students learn a foreign language?]]
# [[Conservapedia:What exactly is Conservapedia?|What exactly is Conservapedia?]]
# [[Conservapedia_Discussions#Quality_of_References|Quality of References]]
# [[Conservapedia:Could God create a rock so heavy that he himself could not lift it?|Could God create a rock so heavy that he himself could not lift it?]]
# [[Conservapedia:God, Earth and Global Warming|God, Earth and Global Warming]]
# [[Conservapedia:Why does the right side of the political spectrum tend to be more religous?|Why does the right side of the political spectrum tend to be more religous?]]
# [[Conservapedia:If there were no religion, would we find another reason to kill each other?|If there were no religion, would we find another reason to kill each other?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Was the media attention needed?|Was the media attention needed?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is NPOV and wiki culture an example of a postmodern culture?|Is NPOV and wiki culture an example of a postmodern culture?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Natural Disaster versus Act of God|Natural Disaster versus Act of God]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is Rush Limbaugh in touch with reality, or just an uneducated opinionated conservative mouthpiece ?|Is Rush Limbaugh in touch with reality, or just an uneducated opinionated conservative mouthpiece ?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Major bias in conservapedia]]
# [[Conservapedia:Why is the evidence in favor of evolution so darn convincing?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is the torture and mass murder of dissidents evil when a Communist leader like Stalin or Pol Pot does it, but not-so-bad if a free-market conservative like Augusto Pinochet or an evangelical Christian conservative like Rios Montt does it?|Is the torture and mass murder of dissidents evil when a Communist leader like Stalin or Pol Pot does it, but not-so-bad if a free-market conservative like Augusto Pinochet or an evangelical Christian conservative like Rios Montt does it?]]
# I heard a story on the news about an american company sending international mercenary troops into Iraq. [[Should American companies be allowed to send their own troops into a war which America is participating in?]]
# [[Why is there something rather than nothng?]]
# [[Conservapedia:What is the Sabbath day?]]
# [[Is it possible to be a conservative and not a religious person or even an atheist?]]

Feel free to add additional debate topics

Debate:Is the evidence in favor of evolution convincing?

2007-03-25T23:18:35Z

Kchittur:

I try and try to hold on to the truth I was taught by my family and the church, but the more I read and learn, the more strongly I become convinced - as if involuntarily - that Darwin, Dawkins and the rest of them are right. Is this Satan tempting me? What should I do to rid myself of the growing conviction that creationism is nonsense spun up by bigots to justify their social status?

creationism is used to promote the idea that " god' created everything, that is why there is a 6,000 year timeline generally cited. By as the proof of creationism is debunked, new ideas to try and cover the flaws in the creationism are floated, enter intelligent design. I'm sure that will be proved false too.

Science works best when theories are attacked - since it brings change, improves old theories or replaces them. "Falsifiability" remains the hallmark. Nothing is immune and so is subject to change because of new information and potentially new interpretation. The more vigorously evolution is attacked, the better it's position gets as the years go by - the attacks are so transparently terrible that it only serves to advance the very cause of science and the scientific process. It is not possible to continue to build a case against evolution using arguments that cannot be sustained except in those minds that will refuse to accept anything that contradicts what they fervently believe. The debate continues. That it is not necessary to attack evolution as a way to justify the presence of God is amply demonstrated by Francis Collins in his latest book "Language of God" or Kenneth R. Miller's "Finding Darwin's God" (and his articles). Perhaps many who were never aware of what evolution really is, may now make themselves aware - in trying to understand why there is so much venom against it. I mean, if something is being attacked so vigorously, it will pique more interest. So, bring it on.

The theory of evolution is just that, a theory. It has not been proved and it never will be. There is no need to investigate this topic using "science" when it is clearly answered in Genesis. Furthermore, science is a manifestation of the devil fabricated to undermine God and his beautiful gift to all mankind. My advice to you my Christian brother is: Love your god and your country in that order and never doubt the decisions of either.

: It's true, evolution is a theory. There are some other theories that you may have heard about. Theory of electromagnetic radiation and Maxwell's equation, theories that describe how electrons move and behave and ofcourse Einstein's Special and General Theory of Relativity. The internet and browsers and tcp/ip and dhcp and cable modems and phones and dsl are all completely unrelated to science and engineering advancements. Even these words are only a figment of your imagination.

:I think you may want to see [[Theistic Evolution]], the belief that Evolution took place, but God intervened to give humans souls, etc. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 14:27, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:Yes the theory of evolution is just that, a theory, so is gravity. You are right the theory will never be proven, theories are never proven, just tested until they are rendered false. What I do not understand is your statement about science being a manifestation of the devil, are people in the US that uneducated? Science is about finding logical reasons to what is observed. If someone were to tell you that the sun is blue, and you looked up to see the color then checked what you knew to be shades of yellow, just to make sure you were not confused about color, you would be using science. Perhaps you should think on this, also please post your name, Bart2461, it is rude to not do so.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 14:44, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Actually, as this is a sort of Essay, it is not customary to sign your name. In fact, discussion should be taking place on the discussion page, rather than on the actual page. [[User:GofG | GofG]] [[Special:Contributions/GofG||||]] [[User talk:GofG | Talk]] 16:35, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

: If God is benevolent, then He is not trying to trick you with what you see in the world around you. What you read in the Old Testament and Genesis is written by people with the same basic mindset as those who wrote about Egyptian gods and their creation stories, or Greek gods and their creation stories, or Hindu gods and their creation stories. They were trying to describe the world as best they can. Is it necessary that any of these be ''literally'' true? Or is it more of a way that each ancient culture justifies their connection to their gods? Think about what is necessary for salvation - is it a literal reading of Genesis? or belief in Jesus? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:42, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

: The urge to believe in somethings are so strong that no matter how many contradictions may exist, there is reluctance to accept that. Peter McWilliams in his book "It's No ones Business if you do" argues persuasively as to how, when examined the context of the time when it was written (like so many books in the history of man) the Bible does contain time immemorial words of wisdom and help. It is scary for many to imagine that such words of wisdom are in fact found in many different parts of the world in different ways and published in many ways. The refusal to see anything other than what one believes is what has led to the many horrors of man's inhumanity to man. -- [[User:kchittur|kchittur]] 21:50 (CDT) 22 March 2007

:: Evolution is so darn convincing because it is happening today. Life evolves to fit changing conditions of weather as science has shown us by carefully monitoring the life cycle of certain insects in northern Canada who are breeding a few weeks differently because of global warming. BUT, the question is not, "Does evolution happen" because it does. Instead, the question is: "Did man evolve from a batch of chemicals". The first point is not completely understood because we view a tiny slice of time. Our lack of complete understanding does not let us predict with certainty whether man evolved from a batch of hot chemicals within Earth's history. [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 11:52, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
'''Because it is a Fact'''

Evolution is the most verified, validated, proven, observed and observable scientific theories. Only those with an obvious agenda and willful ignorance in the face of clear concise proof still attempt to deny it.

Science and scientists understand what "theory" means. Even though scientists can write ad-nauseam about evidence pointing out to why evolution is supported by evidence, there will always be someone, somewhere pointing out some obscure item/fact that does not seem to agree with existing theories - and instead of asking for a revision of parts of the theory, want to throw the entire thing over ... Oh, yes, the alternatives offered cannot be challenged since the proof of the alternatives (whatever that may be) is axiomatic and consequently do not need anything resembling proof in the way science/scientists understand. Fear pervades a segment of the population that holds on to concepts/ideas that they will simply not let go no matter what the evidence is. And so it goes. Evolution versus Intelligent Design [http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf Read a Judgement by a Conservative Judge in the Dover Case from Pennsylvania]

Debate:Is the evidence in favor of evolution convincing?

2007-03-23T02:50:38Z

Kchittur:

Debate:Is the evidence in favor of evolution convincing?

2007-03-22T21:12:09Z

Kchittur:

Debate:Is the evidence in favor of evolution convincing?

2007-03-22T13:37:54Z

Kchittur:

Debate:God, Earth and Global Warming

2007-03-22T04:50:04Z

Kchittur:

All the talk of global Warming is absolutely mind numbing. Out of nowhere, this science is out to scare us all. The fact remains, the Global Warming scientists believe that humans must take the necessary steps to avoid a meltdown. It is ignorant to think humans can save the planet. God created this world, God alone can save this world from ourselves. Plus, do these scientists understand the ramifications of their sales pitch? The people of Earth would have to give up everything in order to succeed. By everything I mean combustion engines, factories, electricity, all meat, dairy, etc.

:That last comment is either supposed to be ironic, or from a very uninformed fundamentalist. I can't tell which.--[[User:Sm355|Sm355]] 20:14, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

The hypocrisy on this issue is overwhelming on both sides (Left and Right). Al Gore wants everyone to reduce their carbon footprint while his home uses order(s) of magnitude electricity than an average home - Why? '''BECAUSE I CAN AFFORD IT AND BUY CARBON ALLOWANCES''' (or some such rant). The right believes that they can do anything in their own backyard, as long as they can make money, while lecturing to everyone else as to how they may be polluting God's earth (or some such rant) (it gets worse). There have been changes in the average temperature - to conclude that ALL of this can be attributed to human activity is not clear. To ignore that what we may be seeing is a 1500 (?) year cycle is irresponsible. Weather models are complex and have many parameters that are difficult to estimate or calculate and so one can get any predictions one wants by tinkering. The left wants economic progress such that only the really rich can afford it, the right wants it for themselves but would like to deny the developing countries from developing (e.g. restricting the use of freon ("destroying the ozone layer") and discouraging the increased use of oil/gas (since the prices go up for everyone). So, is there really such a thing as Global warming? Perhaps. But after listening to Michael Crichton on CSPAN (?) about how even good journals can be biased in what they publish, I have NO idea what or who to believe. Too much noise, too much politics. OK, IF Al Gore leaves his HUGE mansion and moves to the middle of the desert and forsakes ALL modern conveniences including his car, electricity and whatever the heck he wears on his face and hair and such, and lives like a hermit, I will believe in Global Warming, what say you Mr. Gore? [[User:kchittur|kchittur]]
: Are you addressing the messenger? or the message? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 18:22, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
:: Both. I do not believe Mr. Gore, the science has been politicized, I wish I could remember the paper(s) cited by Michael Crichton and how he described his conversion from a believer of global warming to a skeptic (He is an M.D/scientist, in addition to being a successful novelist). That industrialization has wrought changes in our environment is clear, whether such changes are the direct/indirect cause for changes in the environment (whatever they may be) are dependent on models, which tend to be unreliable. I commented about Mr. Gore's own usage of electricity in his home (per news stories) since it exposes the fundamental hypocrisy in his position. And yes, I believe that mankind does have the wisdom to do the right thing, it is not clear what that has to be on the issue of "global warming". The Wall Street Journal has carried several articles that show the true costs of what Mr. Gore proposes and the cost to mankind - far different from what Mr. Gore would have us believe. [[User:kchittur|kchittur]] 19:10 (CDT), Mar 20, 2007
::: On the politicizing of global warming, I did a quick Google search for "global warming" and found a wealth of information. "Philip Cooney, an oil industry lobbyist now working for Exxon Mobil, conceded during a congressional hearing yesterday that while he was chief of staff of the White House Council on Environmental Quality he watered down reports on the adverse effects of man-made emissions on the planet's climate." [http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21418971-2703,00.html] Or a few more [http://environment.newscientist.com/article/dn11417-us-fudging-of-climate-science--details-revealed-.html] [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17704056/] [http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/scientists-muzzled/2007/03/20/1174153066947.html] [http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-climate20mar20,1,1483477.story?coll=la-headlines-nation&track=crosspromo] [http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/20/washington/20climate.html?_r=1&oref=slogin] [http://www.nzherald.co.nz/feature/story.cfm?c_id=26&objectid=10429750]. I do consider Gore a bit of an alarmist and buying carbon allocations (a reasonable way for dealing with things globally - dealing with tons rather than pounds) can be dodgy , however that does not change the underlying findings of human influence on the make up of the atmosphere and the impact of that. While he has energized some people into doing more to fight global warming on a personal and local level, he has unfortunately also added to the politicalness of the debate. One of the bits that was not taken into account in the various climate models until more recently is global dimming [http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sun/] [http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article15809.htm] [http://www.globalissues.org/EnvIssues/GlobalWarming/globaldimming.asp] which has masked the effect of global warming - now with cleaner burring cars and trapping ash from smoke stacks, this is becoming more of an issue and accelerating global warming. Backing off of the politics and even most of the science - lets look at the worst case situations (however far from reality they may be) - whats the worst that can happen if global warming is right and we do nothing about it? What is the worst that can happen if global warming is wrong and we try to do something about the incorrect model? Which is the world you want to live in? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 20:25, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: I am not, I will admit, familiar with ALL of the models - but I am aware work of a group that has consistently gone against the grain as it were - with the lead individual being on US national committees and all that - suffice it to say, he is often in the minority and sometimes shouted down - yet he is a man of integrity whose science and scientific method I do trust and understand ... (I will try and find some references/links and post them when I can) ... I agree that we ought to examine BOTH what if's - ... mostly, it is the global warming group that is yelling the loudest - What if they are wrong? What if we spend several hundred billion to trillions of dollars on "solutions" for nothing? What if all this is due to natural variations? Yes, rise in sea levels can destroy cities - significant climate change can wreak havoc - Some of the solutions being bandied about will prevent the development of many countries that are poor and wreak additional havoc on them - What are the rich countries prepared to do for them - IF they force them to accept restrictions on growth or other solutions that they do not consider palatable? And yes, what if we are indeed destroying the ecosystem and thereby affecting current and future generations ability to live/thrive? The global warming group has decided that ALL of the data is in, that there are NO uncertainties as to temperature measurements and predictions - and thus they claim WE MUST ACT NOW ... My position is - No, not yet - the data is not clear and acting to restrict CO2/methane emissions/whatever may not be necessary. I guess I find it troubling that reasonable groups tend to ignore the forest for the trees and decide to look at the forest when it suits them ... Just a few scant years ago, the word "nuclear" was anathema to most groups in the US - when many people were talking about it as a real solution to the energy crunch - Now, the word "nuclear" is used in the context of reducing the need to use coal/other hydrocarbons for generating energy ... Along the way, the scientific process gets muzzled to generate some specific conclusion to support some specific group - ... And yes, so much noise coming from Al Gore does give me reason to pause - since he did claim at one time that he invented the internet - or some such. "Everyone believes it" means nothing to me. [[User:kchittur|kchittur]] 23:25 (CDT), Mar 20, 2007
::::: There are two approaches to global warming, reducing the energy we use (switching to fluorescent lighting for example) and moving away from a hydrocarbon (coal, oil, gasoline) energy economy. Even if nothing else is done beyond these things, it would be a good thing. Consider that most of the oil is held in countries that are either hostile or at best unfriendly to the united states. An estimate is that by 2020, 83% of all of the remaining oil reserves in the world will be in the middle east [http://www.iags.org/futureofoil.html]. By 2025, there will be no oil left in Africa. Another good read is about the Hubbert peak [http://hubbertpeak.com/] which suggests that by 2050, the world will run out of cheap oil. Thus, by mid century it isn't a matter of "how can we reduce carbon emissions" but rather "what do we do now that there is no oil?" Both gloabl warming and the Hubbert predictions [http://hubbertpeak.com/campbell/cen21.htm] [http://www.daviesand.com/Perspectives/Forest_Products/Oil_Reserves/] [http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/] have a reduction of carbon emissions - the question is is how we react to it now? With respect to nuclear, it is a partial solution - if we were to build one reactor a week we would have the infrastructure to survive the oil crash (however, this does not take into account that using that much uranium, we would hit uranium shortages well before oil shortages). So I ask you, would the effort of spending trillions of dollars to remove our dependence on oil and carbon emissions be a good thing? Off topic - on the matter of claim of Al Gore claiming to invent the internet, [http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp snopes] is a good read. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 15:32, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::::::The best argument to reduce our dependence on hydrocarbon fuels (oil) is where the oil is located (as you point out, and as Tom Friedman of the NYTimes has so often written about also - giving our enemies the money with which they are hurting us). I have not seen the calculations for uranium supplies - and how that would change if we were to shift to nuclear power. A key problem with such calculations (including that of oil) is that the analyses are "static" - even as we seem to be "running out of oil" - newer reserves are being discovered/developed - yes, we ARE running out, but the calculations do have a margin of error that I have some trouble with. About Gore/Internet - yea, he may have chosen his words poorly, but given my own feelings about Gore, I suppose I found it easier to believe that he DID claim what the stories say he claimed! - But fair enough, I'll refrain on THAT issue, from now on! [[User:kchittur|kchittur]] 23:45 (CDT) 21 March 2007

The top comment reminds me of an oft told joke. A religious man is on the roof of a burning house. The fire company holds the trampolene and tells him to jump. He says: "No, God will save me." A helicopter and lowers a ladder to him and tells him to climb. He says: "God will save me." Then the house collapses, he dies and goes to heaven. He asks God why he didn't save him. God answers: "I sent the fire company and the helicopter. What more did you want?"

The Bible tells us that God gave man the tools to exploit the earth. It also tells what happens (the flood, the distruction of Judah, ..) when man lacks the wisdom to use those tools wisely. God gave us the brains to detect global warming in time to stop it. He gave us the means to stop it. The question is, do we have the wisdom?

::In response to the oft told joke, that does not ring with me. If he goes to heaven, he is saved. I understand the premise of thought behind the joke. However, to trust in mankind is foolish. Is there any problem too big that God could not solve? If we believe global warming caused by others, can by solved others, then we do not have the wisdom given to us. To worry is fruitless. --[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 03:04, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Debate:Why does the right side of the political spectrum tend to be more religous?

2007-03-22T04:40:15Z

Kchittur:

Its just a thought I had. At their core element, political parties are economic. You have the right, which favors the rich, and the left, which favors the poor. One strives to keep things the same, the other tries to change the system so it is more equal. So why does the right seem to embrace religion more?--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 09:30, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:I'd say it's a bit more complicated than that. Politicians, by definition have no qualms about anything, do not hold any principles really - whatever will get them elected and allow them to keep their power. Religion has worked for the right (often) and economic disparity has worked to the left (class warfare). The Rev Ted Haggard is but the most recent example of the hypocrisy of the "right" and on the "left" Nancy Pelosi's efforts at exempting the American Samoa from the minimum wage hike (lobbying by companies headquartered in San Francisco). In a very broad sense, Milton Friedman was right (and as believed by President Reagan) - the best way to protect our freedoms is to keep the pie that the politician rascals control as small as possible and give them as little power as possibly we can. The "left" and the "right" loves Governmental control when it suits their purpose - the left for economic reasons (mostly), the right for social/religious/related agendas that they can enforce. [[User:kchittur|kchittur]] 12:10 PM, 20 March 2007 (CDT)

::If politicians have no principles, as you seem to be suggesting, then why run for political office in the first place? In other words, if you don't have an agenda that you wish to advance, why run for office? Power in and of itself is useless unless you turn it to advancing your own beliefs. "Government Control" only gets us halfway. Control over what? I suppose the recognition and money are nice, but there are a lot better ways than running for political office to make money. Politicians only seem unprincipled because they are often forced to compromise with the other side to advance their beliefs at all. --[[User:Rustybutterknife|Rustybutterknife]] 18:28, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::A rush, a high, the desire to grab power (OK, perhaps there IS a principle, "grab power") - When I hear about "Public service to give back" - I puke. Many who are in office have, I am guessing, no other better way to make money than wheel/deal - trade/back stab/whatever ... True, that many may try to do what they want to do, but such do not survive - leaving us with the scoundrels. I am watching the story of Congressman Jeff Flake of Arizona, who is STILL fighting a losing battle on the issue of pork/ear marks - he was on 60 minutes a while ago. I do sound like such a cynic. [[User:kchittur|kchittur]] 23:45 (CDT) 21 March 2007

:I dont believe that the right does embrace religion more. The Left is full of religion. For example, environmentalism taken to its extreme is a religion. [[User: kara]]

:I'm talking about religion in the classical sense of modern Abrahamic religions. Let me rephrase. In any society, when you have a SMD|Plurality voting system like the US, 2 political parties emerge. One party favors the business sector or the rich. The other party favors the working class or the poor. This will always happen under these circumstances. So why is it that in America, the right have taken up God as a member of their party?--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 10:31, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

I would not say that the right has taken up God more than the left. What about Jesse Jackson?There are plenty of preachers on the left. To say that the left favors the poor and that the right favors the rich is not accurate. Things are not that clear cut. For example, some would say that the Roman Catholic church is far right. However, the Church has taken a clear pro-illegal immigrant stand in the United States. Most people (that would include politicians) are right on some issues and left on others. [[User: kara]]

Perhaps it is only that what is "right" and what is "left" is all a matter of perspective? Religion certainly plays a role in shaping perspective, though that does not mean that it is the only thing. I for one, do not consider myself a conservative, but I do consider myself religiously a Christian. I think the reason people think the "right" is more religious is because more people on the right voice their religion as justification, and claim unity among their religion to back their claim. I think the good example of this is the Creation Theology branch that I've seen on this site and elsewhere. It's pretty much a "Christians believe this, or else they are not real Christian" kind of claim. Then it's a simple matter of taking a poll and asking people if they consider themselves Christians or not. If they say "yes," then it appears they believe what you do. You can follow the same pattern with any religion, or even with any group or folk. "I am a republican, I believe abortion is wrong. All republicans believe this, therefore if anyone else is a republican, they also believe this. If they do not, they are not a real republican." 'Tis all a matter of opinion. -- [[user:Dikaiosune|Dikaiosune]] 21 March 2007

Debate:God, Earth and Global Warming

2007-03-21T04:23:10Z

Kchittur:

All the talk of global Warming is absolutely mind numbing. Out of nowhere, this science is out to scare us all. The fact remains, the Global Warming scientists believe that humans must take the necessary steps to avoid a meltdown. It is ignorant to think humans can save the planet. God created this world, God alone can save this world from ourselves. Plus, do these scientists understand the ramifications of their sales pitch? The people of Earth would have to give up eveything in order to succeed. By everything I mean combustion engines, factories, electricity, all meat, dairy, etc.

:That last comment is either supposed to be ironic, or from a very uninformed fundamentalist. I can't tell which.--[[User:Sm355|Sm355]] 20:14, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

The hypocrisy on this issue is overwhelming on both sides (Left and Right). Al Gore wants everyone to reduce their carbon footprint while his home uses order(s) of magnitude electricity than an average home - Why? '''BECAUSE I CAN AFFORD IT AND BUY CARBON ALLOWANCES''' (or some such rant). The right believes that they can do anything in their own backyard, as long as they can make money, while lecturing to everyone else as to how they may be polluting God's earth (or some such rant) (it gets worse). There have been changes in the average temperature - to conclude that ALL of this can be attributed to human activity is not clear. To ignore that what we may be seeing is a 1500 (?) year cycle is irresponsible. Weather models are complex and have many parameters that are difficult to estimate or calculate and so one can get any predictions one wants by tinkering. The left wants economic progress such that only the really rich can afford it, the right wants it for themselves but would like to deny the developing countries from developing (e.g. restricting the use of freon ("destroying the ozone layer") and discouraging the increased use of oil/gas (since the prices go up for everyone). So, is there really such a thing as Global warming? Perhaps. But after listening to Michael Crichton on CSPAN (?) about how even good journals can be biased in what they publish, I have NO idea what or who to believe. Too much noise, too much politics. OK, IF Al Gore leaves his HUGE mansion and moves to the middle of the desert and forsakes ALL modern conveniences including his car, electricity and whatever the heck he wears on his face and hair and such, and lives like a hermit, I will believe in Global Warming, what say you Mr. Gore? [[User:kchittur|kchittur]]
: Are you addressing the messenger? or the message? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 18:22, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
:: Both. I do not believe Mr. Gore, the science has been politicized, I wish I could remember the paper(s) cited by Michael Crichton and how he described his conversion from a believer of global warming to a skeptic (He is an M.D/scientist, in addition to being a successful novelist). That industrialization has wrought changes in our environment is clear, whether such changes are the direct/indirect cause for changes in the environment (whatever they may be) are dependent on models, which tend to be unreliable. I commented about Mr. Gore's own usage of electricity in his home (per news stories) since it exposes the fundamental hypocrisy in his position. And yes, I believe that mankind does have the wisdom to do the right thing, it is not clear what that has to be on the issue of "global warming". The Wall Street Journal has carried several articles that show the true costs of what Mr. Gore proposes and the cost to mankind - far different from what Mr. Gore would have us believe. [[User:kchittur|kchittur]] 19:10 (CDT), Mar 20, 2007
::: On the politicizing of global warming, I did a quick Google search for "global warming" and found a wealth of information. "Philip Cooney, an oil industry lobbyist now working for Exxon Mobil, conceded during a congressional hearing yesterday that while he was chief of staff of the White House Council on Environmental Quality he watered down reports on the adverse effects of man-made emissions on the planet's climate." [http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21418971-2703,00.html] Or a few more [http://environment.newscientist.com/article/dn11417-us-fudging-of-climate-science--details-revealed-.html] [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17704056/] [http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/scientists-muzzled/2007/03/20/1174153066947.html] [http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-climate20mar20,1,1483477.story?coll=la-headlines-nation&track=crosspromo] [http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/20/washington/20climate.html?_r=1&oref=slogin] [http://www.nzherald.co.nz/feature/story.cfm?c_id=26&objectid=10429750]. I do consider Gore a bit of an alarmist and buying carbon allocations (a reasonable way for dealing with things globally - dealing with tons rather than pounds) can be dodgy , however that does not change the underlying findings of human influence on the make up of the atmosphere and the impact of that. While he has energized some people into doing more to fight global warming on a personal and local level, he has unfortunately also added to the politicalness of the debate. One of the bits that was not taken into account in the various climate models until more recently is global dimming [http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sun/] [http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article15809.htm] [http://www.globalissues.org/EnvIssues/GlobalWarming/globaldimming.asp] which has masked the effect of global warming - now with cleaner burring cars and trapping ash from smoke stacks, this is becoming more of an issue and accelerating global warming. Backing off of the politics and even most of the science - lets look at the worst case situations (however far from reality they may be) - whats the worst that can happen if global warming is right and we do nothing about it? What is the worst that can happen if global warming is wrong and we try to do something about the incorrect model? Which is the world you want to live in? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 20:25, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::: I am not, I will admit, familiar with ALL of the models - but I am aware work of a group that has consistently gone against the grain as it were - with the lead individual being on US national committees and all that - suffice it to say, he is often in the minority and sometimes shouted down - yet he is a man of integrity whose science and scientific method I do trust and understand ... (I will try and find some references/links and post them when I can) ... I agree that we ought to examine BOTH what if's - ... mostly, it is the global warming group that is yelling the loudest - What if they are wrong? What if we spend several hundred billion to trillions of dollars on "solutions" for nothing? What if all this is due to natural variations? Yes, rise in sea levels can destroy cities - significant climate change can wreak havoc - Some of the solutions being bandied about will prevent the development of many countries that are poor and wreak additional havoc on them - What are the rich countries prepared to do for them - IF they force them to accept restrictions on growth or other solutions that they do not consider palatable? And yes, what if we are indeed destroying the ecosystem and thereby affecting current and future generations ability to live/thrive? The global warming group has decided that ALL of the data is in, that there are NO uncertainties as to temperature measurements and predictions - and thus they claim WE MUST ACT NOW ... My position is - No, not yet - the data is not clear and acting to restrict CO2/methane emissions/whatever may not be necessary. I guess I find it troubling that reasonable groups tend to ignore the forest for the trees and decide to look at the forest when it suits them ... Just a few scant years ago, the word "nuclear" was anathema to most groups in the US - when many people were talking about it as a real solution to the energy crunch - Now, the word "nuclear" is used in the context of reducing the need to use coal/other hydrocarbons for generating energy ... Along the way, the scientific process gets muzzled to generate some specific conclusion to support some specific group - ... And yes, so much noise coming from Al Gore does give me reason to pause - since he did claim at one time that he invented the internet - or some such. "Everyone believes it" means nothing to me. [[User:kchittur|kchittur]] 23:25 (CDT), Mar 20, 2007

The top comment reminds me of an oft told joke. A religious man is on the roof of a burning house. The fire company holds the trampolene and tells him to jump. He says: "No, God will save me." A helicopter and lowers a ladder to him and tells him to climb. He says: "God will save me." Then the house collapses, he dies and goes to heaven. He asks God why he didn't save him. God answers: "I sent the fire company and the helicopter. What more did you want?"

The Bible tells us that God gave man the tools to exploit the earth. It also tells what happens (the flood, the distruction of Judah, ..) when man lacks the wisdom to use those tools wisely. God gave us the brains to detect global warming in time to stop it. He gave us the means to stop it. The question is, do we have the wisdom?

Debate:God, Earth and Global Warming

2007-03-21T00:09:39Z

Kchittur:

Debate:God, Earth and Global Warming

2007-03-21T00:09:17Z

Kchittur:

Debate:Why does the right side of the political spectrum tend to be more religous?

2007-03-20T17:07:49Z

Kchittur:

Its just a thought I had. At thier core element, political parties are economic. You have the right, which favors the rich, and the left, which favors the poor. One strives to keep things the same, the other tries to change the system so it is more equal. So why does the right seem to embrace religion more?--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 09:30, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

I'd say it's a bit more complicated than that. Politicians, by definition have no qualms about anything, do not hold any principles really - whatever will get them elected and allow them to keep their power. Religion has worked for the right (often) and economic disparity has worked to the left (class warfare). The Rev Ted Haggard is but the most recent example of the hypocrisy of the "right" and on the "left" Nancy Pelosi's efforts at exempting the American Samoa from the minimum wage hike (lobbying by companies headquartered in San Francisco). In a very broad sense, Milton Friedman was right (and as believed by President Reagan) - the best way to protect our freedoms is to keep the pie that the politician rascals control as small as possible and give them as little power as possibly we can. The "left" and the "right" loves Governmental control when it suits their purpose - the left for economic reasons (mostly), the right for social/religious/related agendas that they can enforce. [[User:kchittur|kchittur]] 12:10 PM, 20 March 2007 (CDT)

Debate:Why does the right side of the political spectrum tend to be more religous?

2007-03-20T17:07:35Z

Kchittur:

Its just a thought I had. At thier core element, political parties are economic. You have the right, which favors the rich, and the left, which favors the poor. One strives to keep things the same, the other tries to change the system so it is more equal. So why does the right seem to embrace religion more?--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 09:30, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
I'd say it's a bit more complicated than that. Politicians, by definition have no qualms about anything, do not hold any principles really - whatever will get them elected and allow them to keep their power. Religion has worked for the right (often) and economic disparity has worked to the left (class warfare). The Rev Ted Haggard is but the most recent example of the hypocrisy of the "right" and on the "left" Nancy Pelosi's efforts at exempting the American Samoa from the minimum wage hike (lobbying by companies headquartered in San Francisco). In a very broad sense, Milton Friedman was right (and as believed by President Reagan) - the best way to protect our freedoms is to keep the pie that the politician rascals control as small as possible and give them as little power as possibly we can. The "left" and the "right" loves Governmental control when it suits their purpose - the left for economic reasons (mostly), the right for social/religious/related agendas that they can enforce. [[User:kchittur|kchittur]] 12:10 PM, 20 March 2007 (CDT)

Debate:AntiSemitism

2007-03-20T12:51:00Z

Kchittur:

The central belief in Christianity is that Jesus Christ died for the sins of all mankind. Thus the path to Heaven and God is through Christ alone. Given that God sent His only begotten Son to save humanity, the event leading to Christ's crucifixion and death were anticipated. Many Christians still believe that the Jews killed Christ, using Romans (or others) to do the deed [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2027;&version=9;]. If the Jews were indeed responsible for killing Christ (I understand that this is NOT true), were they not doing God's bidding? After all, was not Christ's human sacrifice to save humanity from our sins? Why is that even after 2000 years, there is still simmering and often overt anti-semitism? And why is it that the children of Abraham - Jews, Christians and Muslims forget their common ancestry? [[User:kchittur|kchittur]]

:I've heard the same said about Judas-- that he made the ultimate sacrifice-- his own eternal soul in order to fulfill Jesus's plans. Or something like that. Also, I'm not sure if it's policy here, but it'd be helpful if you signed your posts with four tildes. [[User:IMFromKathlene|IMFromKathlene]] 03:37, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
:: (Oops, yes, I should have signed my name - policy OR not ...I noticed that someone edited MY post (look above) by adding the reference to biblegateway - but he/she DID NOT sign his/her name - It is one thing not to sign your name to your own post, quite another (worse IMHO) to edit someone's and not take credit/blame - so whoever posted that reference to biblegate, 'fess up) [[User:kchittur|kchittur]] 7:35, 20 March 2007 (CDT)
:::Sorry! Thought this was an article page. Didn't realise it was folks comments. I thought the [[Conservapedia_talk:AntiSemitism|Discussion]] page was for that. I'm confused.
:::"If I be wicked, woe unto me; and if I be righteous, yet will I not lift up my head. I am full of confusion; therefore see thou mine affliction;" (Job 10:15)
:::[[User:BillyBoy|BillyBoy]] 08:47, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
:::And your point is? [[User:kchittur|kchittur]] 07:55, 20 March 2007 (CDT)

Debate:AntiSemitism

2007-03-20T12:38:38Z

Kchittur:

Debate:AntiSemitism

2007-03-20T12:37:14Z

Kchittur:

Debate:God, Earth and Global Warming

2007-03-20T12:35:12Z

Kchittur:

Debate:Could God create a rock so heavy that he himself could not lift it?

2007-03-20T12:34:50Z

Kchittur:

Could God create a rock so heavy that he himself could not lift it?
Discuss--[[User:Sm355|Sm355]] 18:08, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

This old one... its supposed to be a paradox showing the omnipotence is impossible: If God can create the rock, He must not be all-powerful because He cannot lift it. If He cant create the rock, then He still isn't all powerful. Either way, no all-powerful being. Personally, I think God just has no reason to create such a rock, so why would He? - BornAgainBrit

Because he wants to disprove his own existence. --[[User:Huey gunna getcha|Huey gunna getcha]] 18:17, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

But you can't assume that God is temporally limited like us mere mortals. He can create the rock so heavy he can't lift it one minute, then, the next minute, he lifts it. Just because we can't conceive of it, doesn't mean God can't lift it. -mittromney

Could God create a rock so heavy that he himself could not lift it?
Discuss--[[User:Sm355|Sm355]] 18:08, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:He'd get YOU to lift it. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 18:51, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

== Absurd ==

This question is absurd and this revolves around the question of what omnipotence is. If you use the definition of "omnipotence is the ability to do anything" then you hit this problem. If you use the definition of "omnipotence is the ability to do anything that may be done" then the problem does not exist.

Lets take an alternative form of this argument:
# If God is omnipotent, then God can create a square circle
# God cannot create a square circle
# Therefore, God is not omnipotent

This is of the form
#p -> q
#~q
#therefore ~p
which is a valid argument form known as modus tollens. To attack this argument it is necessary to look at the premises. The second premise is fair so the first must be examined. This can be broken down into:
##God is omnipotent
##Therefore God can create or do anything
##A square circle is a thing
##Therefore God can create a square circle

Theistic scholar/philosophers do not claim the omnipotence of God, but rather that God is the maximally powerful being. That God can do anything that can be done. With the modified argument:
##God the maximally powerful being
##Therefore God can create or do anything
##A square circle is a thing
##Therefore God can create a square circle
It falls apart and the first premise of the argument fails. Ultimately, this does not limit God's power - He can do anything that can be done and create anything that can exist.

This can then be summed up in:
* God is the maximally powerful being.
* That which cannot exist, cannot be created.
There is no paradox here, and any claim otherwise rests on absurdity.
--[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 18:25, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

So - god is too weak to create a squared circle. I get that - but what about the rock?

"Any claim otherwise rests on absurdity"? You seem fairly confident that by using a lot of logical jargon and organizing your post in a way that intimates you know what you're talking about, you can circumvent the inherent logical fallacy that you're assuming you can conceptualize what can exist and what can be created. If you claim to know what can and what cannot be created, such as, for example, a rock that God can't lift, shouldn't that be in the entry for hubris? -mittromney
: I am simply stating the solution to the paradox of omnipotence that was given back as an answer in one of the religious studies classes I took at a Catholic highschool and again in a university class on "Philosophy and Religion." At best, the paradox of omnipotence is a strawman argument. [http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/impossiblerock.html] [http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/omnipotence.html] [http://www.skepticwiki.org/wiki/index.php/Omnipotence_Paradox] [http://www.greatplay.net/uselessia/articles/omnipyparadox.html] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence_paradox] Thomas Aquinas said it well "Since the principles of certain sciences, such as logic, geometry and arithmetic are taken only from the formal principles of things, on which the essence of the thing depends, it follows that God could not make things contrary to these principles. For example, that a genus was not predicable of the species, or that lines drawn from the center to the circumference were not equal, or that a triangle did not have three angles equal to two right angles." - granted this is founded on euclidean space, but it goes back to the question of can God break the laws of the universe that He created. Alternatively, you can go to Augustine of Hippo and read "For He is called omnipotent on account of His doing what He wills, not on account of His suffering what He wills not; for if that should befall Him, He would by no means be omnipotent. Wherefore, He cannot do some things for the very reason that He is omnipotent." [http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf102.iv.V.10.html] --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 18:54, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Isn't the fact that your quote from Aquinas included a notion that was later proved to be totally incorrect by Einstein absolutely damning for your argument that humans can adequately perceive and evaluate logical concepts? I guess I'm curious how any of what you say deals properly with the idea that God is totally superior in every way, and therefore to say He can or can't do something is pointless hubris a fortiori? -mittromney
: It depends if you take it literally or what he was trying to say. The question is can God do something that is against the rules of logic? If you don't like the triangle example that Aquinas gave, then use four sided triangles or square circles in place of them. Read the first sentence again and you will see that these are perfectly valid substitutions - "Since the principles of certain sciences, such as logic, geometry and arithmetic are taken only from the formal principles of things, on which the essence of the thing depends, it follows that God could not make things contrary to these principles." --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:01, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
::So you're saying that we should just choose a new facially contradictory idea, and go ahead with that, while my whole point was that we're totally incapable of evaluating what's consistent and what's contradictory? I'm not sure how choosing new examples of things we assume to be not true helps you at all... -mittromney
::: You are suggesting that Aquinas is proven wrong because he used a definition of a triangle that only worked in euclidean space. This false-paradox is a straw man for an atheistic world view that is based on a particular definition of omnipotence - it is just as bad as creationists giving straw man arguments that are counter evolution (do note, I am not a creationist). If you wish to argue that a logical impossibility is not beyond omnipotence, then you can work from the Cartesian viewpoint of the trickster god or demon that allows 2+2=5, though that is more a question of belief and knowledge than omnipotence. If you wish to argue about omnipotence with a theistic philosopher, then it is necessary to work from that definition of omnipotence. I am presenting that definition and showing how the rest of the question falls to absurdity when this definition is used - which does not limit omnipotence. Simply said, God can do anything that can be done. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:15, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Again, I don't think you properly respond to what I'm saying. I claim the idea of a logical impossibility is a hobgoblin of mediocre minds: We have no idea what's logically possible or impossible. To say we do, and subsequently to claim that somehow human logic limits the omnipotence of god, is foolhardy. What I was suggesting with your Aquinas example is that things which may at one point in time appear to be facially and obviously contradictory can, in the future, be shown to actually be possible, and the original belief was therefore just an incorrect human assumption and not "logic". How that argument is a false-paradox straw man is beyond me: It appears you just throw those terms around to try to demonstrate that you're familiar with logical jargon in the hopes that the other side will assume you know better than they do. When you argue through implicit authority (not to even bring up the Descartes reference), you sound like a liberal who belongs at wiki... -mittromney
: I would urge you to ask your priest or minister the question of the rock so heavy. You will likely get a similar answer to mine (and that of Aquinas and Augustine of Hippo). Omnipotence is a human definition with words that are constrained by our language. Head to the seminary and you will find half a dozen different definitions of omnipotence and various theologians arguing for and against each one being the correct interpretation of the word. You will even find Judaism (which also asserts the omnipotent God) claims that God works through persuasion rather than action - the creation of possibility rather than miracles or violations of natural law - that His omnipotence is shown through that means. Other branches of Christianity use "God cannot make you sin" as part of its philosophy, that if God was to make you sin then you would not have free will and thus would not be sinning. The only reason to pose the paradox of omnipotence is to try to assert that God does not have such power. My take on it (and I agree with those sources I have linked above) is that the proper definition of omnipotence is "to have any power that can be had" or to be the maximally powerful being and as such the question of the rock or a square circle or a four sided triangle becomes a silly question - that which cannot exist cannot be created. If you wish to assert a different definition and solution to this question, then by all means do so. However, I have not seen any reasonable argument against this position from you yet. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 20:41, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
----

Can God predict the future? [[User:kchittur|kchittur]]

How heavy do you think the rock that god can't lift would be? --[[User:Huey gunna getcha|Huey gunna getcha]] 18:48, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Maybe 1*10^abs(1/0) kg.--[[User:Sm355|Sm355]] 18:49, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:Shhhhh, you supposed to use lbs.! --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 19:06, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Debate:AntiSemitism

2007-03-20T12:33:49Z

Kchittur:

Debate:God, Earth and Global Warming

2007-03-20T00:46:57Z

Kchittur:

Debate:What exactly is Conservapedia?

2007-03-20T00:32:12Z

Kchittur:

What exactly is conservapedia?

==Original discussion from UserTalk:Aschlafly==

I bring this up as a topic of discussion, not a criticism. I wonder if ASchlafly needs to consider reconciling the goals of this site in regards to its format. A wiki is an inherently democratic format...anyone can contribute, and errors are theoretically diluted as more and more people become involved. Over time, experts' edits will outnumber those of vandals and non-experts. The stated goals here, based on what is explicitly written and what has taken place in edits, appears to be less democratic, with an agenda being set from the top down. ASchlafly insists on expert opinion, but when it disagrees with his worldview, he edits articles which fall out of his own expertise. I do not mean in any way to impugn his morals or objectives, but perhaps a wiki is not the best format for him to accomplish his needs. If he wants an online extension of his textbooks, wiki is definitely a poor format to use. IMHO.
Id be interested in comments/responses, and will also post this on my discussion page.

[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 11:04, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

: A wiki need not be a direct democracy, just as most countries are not. It is essential to avoid mob rule. Wikipedia fails in this essential regard. Consevapedia, in contrast, is based on [[rules]], just as the United States is. The democratic forces are properly restrained by the good rules. Likewise here. Thanks. Over time, rule-based democracies (i.e., constitutional republics) are more successful than direct democracies.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:27, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Your idea of "mob rule" seems to be "statements of facts that disagree with your opinions," see e.g. [[Theory of evolution]]. Will you allow commentary on articles that are currently quite poor? That seems a reasonable "goal."--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 11:29, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:Palmd001, I agree with your basic point, and your observation seems to be quite correct. (However, from a technical point of view, a wiki system is very good for publishing a project like this. It has tons of technical advantages.)
:In a way, Aschlafly wants to have the best of all worlds. He wants the popularity/fame that comes from having a frequent editor/visitor base, he wants activity, he wants people contributing as much as possible in a wide variety of topics, but he also wants everybody to stick to his personal worldview. And that last part simply doesn't work when you have open registrations. But with a by-application or by-invitation system, growth and popularity become major issues. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 11:42, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Aschlafly, not to be argumentative, but Wikipedia [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_democracy doesn't at all intend to be a pure democracy]. Also, perhaps I'm misunderstanding, but are you suggesting that Wikipedia has ''fewer'' rules than Conservapedia? If anything, I'd describe Wikipedia as a large bureaucracy compared to Conservapedia's "[[Conservapedia:Commandments|there is only one rule page]]". --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 11:44, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::I would add that the simplification of the commandments has added to confusion over what is (subtle) vandalism, what is a source, what is opinion, what is appropriate or inappropriate content. The inconsistent enforcement of these commandments has made for an uncomfortable work environment. For instance, here is the February 17 version of the [[John McCain]] page [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=John_McCain&oldid=14293]... every edit to that point was made by Aschlafly and it clearly violates many of the commandments. Nothing is sourced, a good deal is opinion and not verifiable. When I cleaned it up by taking out the unsourced opinion, but leaving the unsourced fact, I was accused of removing factual information.

::Further, I would direct you to the revert war going over on [[Physics]]: [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Physics&action=history]. The subject of the reverts is whether or not to call the universe "God's Universe" or not. The commandment "give full credit to Christianity" is unclear and the user in favor of "God's universe" seemed to receive confirmation from Aschlafly that this would be appropriate. So ''that'' is the primary reason given for "God's" inclusion with the article. That is not indicative of constitutional republic or a rules based democracy, it is indicative of monarchy. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 12:17, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

''''I was trying to find the reverts - or are they gone permanently since someone decided that it was inappropriate/wrong/whatever?''''[[User:kchittur|kchittur]] 2:50, 19 March 2007 (CDT)

::Check the history, maybe I linked it incorrectly. The gist of the revert war is whether or not physics should be described as "the study of nature, and is the science of studying the laws of the universe" or "the study of nature, and is the science of studying the laws of God's universe." ''(OK, I'll try and navigate the reverts)''

This kind of discussion is exactly what I'm hoping for. Thanks especially to Mr. Schlafly for contributing. If, as you say, Wikipedia is more like a constitutional/representative democracy, then, to carry the analogy further, there should be a limited set of elected or appointed contributors who are trained to follow the commandments and who are true experts in their fields. The "people" would be the subscribers to the site. This still would not be a true Wiki. I am not arguing against your goals--that is your business. I am simply saying that the chosen format does not seem consistent with your goals. For instance, this discussion...
[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 11:55, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::: Folks, true Wiki's have simple, clear rules. Otherwise it is a mobocracy. Wikipedia has complex, senseless, and arbitrarily enforced rules. Check out [[Bias in Wikipedia]] to see the result. We're like the constitutional republic of the United States. Wikipedia is like the French Revolution.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:32, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::::May I butt in? I'm new here, but "old" at Wikipedia.

::::I can agree with the "complex" part, but the rules are not entirely senseless. One rule I like is [[Wikipedia:Attribution]], which requires contributors to provide verifiable references for 'facts' which aren't common knowledge or are matters of dispute.
:::::: I have proposed we go one further step toward quality with our attributions. Discussion at [[Conservapedia_Discussions#References]]. [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 15:26, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Enforcement of rules is another matter. I'm "on probation" because of supposedly "tendentious" edits on some issues which are hotly debated by liberals and conservatives, but I haven't appealed that decision. I'd rather just become more congenial. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:37, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
::::: Heh ! I knew that small group of editors had someone in mind when they initiated the "tendentious editing" policy. Good luck [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 15:26, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Thanks for creating this as a separate article...I think that will be useful.
In response to Mr. Schlafly, I would say that having more, complex rules, as you say Wikipedia does, should help, rather than hurt, as that is what this site seems to need. The Commandments are vague and confusing, leading to arbitrariness.
Another interesting point inherent in the wiki process is this--if someone is "patrolling an agenda", their influence will eventually be diluted out. As thousands of users begin to contribute, "mainstream" voices will predominate, and only an enormous army of sysops/admis will be able to maintain a particular character. If the site attracts mainly conservatives, then there will likely be a bit of a conservative bias, but not more than that.

[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 13:40, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

==Once more==
I'm putting in a header to both inform and to make the page a bit easier to navigate. And once more invite whoever wants to to come to freenode.net via Chatzilla or mIRC or whatever and be able to talk in real-time. [[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]]

==Is Conservapedia a Christian Website==
There seems to be a strong predisposition towards Christianity and Biblical literalism. References to works that contradict a literal interpretation of the Bible seem to be deleted on a regular basis. Is this a Christian website? [[User:Myk|Myk]] 18:19, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

An excellent question to which I would like a yes or no answer, but I probably won't get one.
[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 18:29, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Debate:Could God create a rock so heavy that he himself could not lift it?

2007-03-20T00:30:34Z

Kchittur:

Could God create a rock so heavy that he himself could not lift it?
Discuss--[[User:Sm355|Sm355]] 18:08, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

This old one... its supposed to be a paradox showing the omnipotence is impossible: If God can create the rock, He must not be all-powerful because He cannot lift it. If He cant create the rock, then He still isn't all powerful. Either way, no all-powerful being. Personally, I think God just has no reason to create such a rock, so why would He? - BornAgainBrit

Because he wants to disprove his own existence. --[[User:Huey gunna getcha|Huey gunna getcha]] 18:17, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

But you can't assume that God is temporally limited like us mere mortals. He can create the rock so heavy he can't lift it one minute, then, the next minute, he lifts it. Just because we can't conceive of it, doesn't mean God can't lift it. -mittromney

Could God create a rock so heavy that he himself could not lift it?
Discuss--[[User:Sm355|Sm355]] 18:08, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:He'd get YOU to lift it. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 18:51, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

== Absurd ==

This question is absurd and this revolves around the question of what omnipotence is. If you use the definition of "omnipotence is the ability to do anything" then you hit this problem. If you use the definition of "omnipotence is the ability to do anything that may be done" then the problem does not exist.

Lets take an alternative form of this argument:
# If God is omnipotent, then God can create a square circle
# God cannot create a square circle
# Therefore, God is not omnipotent

This is of the form
#p -> q
#~q
#therefore ~p
which is a valid argument form known as modus tollens. To attack this argument it is necessary to look at the premises. The second premise is fair so the first must be examined. This can be broken down into:
##God is omnipotent
##Therefore God can create or do anything
##A square circle is a thing
##Therefore God can create a square circle

Theistic scholar/philosophers do not claim the omnipotence of God, but rather that God is the maximally powerful being. That God can do anything that can be done. With the modified argument:
##God the maximally powerful being
##Therefore God can create or do anything
##A square circle is a thing
##Therefore God can create a square circle
It falls apart and the first premise of the argument fails. Ultimately, this does not limit God's power - He can do anything that can be done and create anything that can exist.

This can then be summed up in:
* God is the maximally powerful being.
* That which cannot exist, cannot be created.
There is no paradox here, and any claim otherwise rests on absurdity.
--[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 18:25, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

So - god is too weak to create a squared circle. I get that - but what about the rock?

"Any claim otherwise rests on absurdity"? You seem fairly confident that by using a lot of logical jargon and organizing your post in a way that intimates you know what you're talking about, you can circumvent the inherent logical fallacy that you're assuming you can conceptualize what can exist and what can be created. If you claim to know what can and what cannot be created, such as, for example, a rock that God can't lift, shouldn't that be in the entry for hubris? -mittromney
: I am simply stating the solution to the paradox of omnipotence that was given back as an answer in one of the religious studies classes I took at a Catholic highschool and again in a university class on "Philosophy and Religion." At best, the paradox of omnipotence is a strawman argument. [http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/impossiblerock.html] [http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/omnipotence.html] [http://www.skepticwiki.org/wiki/index.php/Omnipotence_Paradox] [http://www.greatplay.net/uselessia/articles/omnipyparadox.html] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence_paradox] Thomas Aquinas said it well "Since the principles of certain sciences, such as logic, geometry and arithmetic are taken only from the formal principles of things, on which the essence of the thing depends, it follows that God could not make things contrary to these principles. For example, that a genus was not predicable of the species, or that lines drawn from the center to the circumference were not equal, or that a triangle did not have three angles equal to two right angles." - granted this is founded on euclidean space, but it goes back to the question of can God break the laws of the universe that He created. Alternatively, you can go to Augustine of Hippo and read "For He is called omnipotent on account of His doing what He wills, not on account of His suffering what He wills not; for if that should befall Him, He would by no means be omnipotent. Wherefore, He cannot do some things for the very reason that He is omnipotent." [http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf102.iv.V.10.html] --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 18:54, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Isn't the fact that your quote from Aquinas included a notion that was later proved to be totally incorrect by Einstein absolutely damning for your argument that humans can adequately perceive and evaluate logical concepts? I guess I'm curious how any of what you say deals properly with the idea that God is totally superior in every way, and therefore to say He can or can't do something is pointless hubris a fortiori? -mittromney
: It depends if you take it literally or what he was trying to say. The question is can God do something that is against the rules of logic? If you don't like the triangle example that Aquinas gave, then use four sided triangles or square circles in place of them. Read the first sentence again and you will see that these are perfectly valid substitutions - "Since the principles of certain sciences, such as logic, geometry and arithmetic are taken only from the formal principles of things, on which the essence of the thing depends, it follows that God could not make things contrary to these principles." --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:01, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
::So you're saying that we should just choose a new facially contradictory idea, and go ahead with that, while my whole point was that we're totally incapable of evaluating what's consistent and what's contradictory? I'm not sure how choosing new examples of things we assume to be not true helps you at all... -mittromney
::: You are suggesting that Aquinas is proven wrong because he used a definition of a triangle that only worked in euclidean space. This false-paradox is a straw man for an atheistic world view that is based on a particular definition of omnipotence - it is just as bad as creationists giving straw man arguments that are counter evolution (do note, I am not a creationist). If you wish to argue that a logical impossibility is not beyond omnipotence, then you can work from the Cartesian viewpoint of the trickster god or demon that allows 2+2=5, though that is more a question of belief and knowledge than omnipotence. If you wish to argue about omnipotence with a theistic philosopher, then it is necessary to work from that definition of omnipotence. I am presenting that definition and showing how the rest of the question falls to absurdity when this definition is used - which does not limit omnipotence. Simply said, God can do anything that can be done. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:15, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Again, I don't think you properly respond to what I'm saying. I claim the idea of a logical impossibility is a hobgoblin of mediocre minds: We have no idea what's logically possible or impossible. To say we do, and subsequently to claim that somehow human logic limits the omnipotence of god, is foolhardy. What I was suggesting with your Aquinas example is that things which may at one point in time appear to be facially and obviously contradictory can, in the future, be shown to actually be possible, and the original belief was therefore just an incorrect human assumption and not "logic". How that argument is a false-paradox straw man is beyond me: It appears you just throw those terms around to try to demonstrate that you're familiar with logical jargon in the hopes that the other side will assume you know better than they do. When you argue through implicit authority (not to even bring up the Descartes reference), you sound like a liberal who belongs at wiki... -mittromney
----

Can God predict the future?

How heavy do you think the rock that god can't lift would be? --[[User:Huey gunna getcha|Huey gunna getcha]] 18:48, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Maybe 1*10^abs(1/0) kg.--[[User:Sm355|Sm355]] 18:49, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:Shhhhh, you supposed to use lbs.! --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 19:06, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Debate:What exactly is Conservapedia?

2007-03-19T19:56:56Z

Kchittur: /* Original discussion from UserTalk:Aschafly */

==Original discussion from [[UserTalk:Aschafly]]==

I bring this up as a topic of discussion, not a criticism. I wonder if ASchlafly needs to consider reconciling the goals of this site in regards to its format. A wiki is an inherently democratic format...anyone can contribute, and errors are theoretically diluted as more and more people become involved. Over time, experts' edits will outnumber those of vandals and non-experts. The stated goals here, based on what is explicitly written and what has taken place in edits, appears to be less democratic, with an agenda being set from the top down. ASchlafly insists on expert opinion, but when it disagrees with his worldview, he edits articles which fall out of his own expertise. I do not mean in any way to impugn his morals or objectives, but perhaps a wiki is not the best format for him to accomplish his needs. If he wants an online extension of his textbooks, wiki is definitely a poor format to use. IMHO.
Id be interested in comments/responses, and will also post this on my discussion page.

[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 11:04, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

: A wiki need not be a direct democracy, just as most countries are not. It is essential to avoid mob rule. Wikipedia fails in this essential regard. Consevapedia, in contrast, is based on [[rules]], just as the United States is. The democratic forces are properly restrained by the good rules. Likewise here. Thanks. Over time, rule-based democracies (i.e., constitutional republics) are more successful than direct democracies.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:27, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Your idea of "mob rule" seems to be "statements of facts that disagree with your opinions," see e.g. [[Theory of evolution]]. Will you allow commentary on articles that are currently quite poor? That seems a reasonable "goal."--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 11:29, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:Palmd001, I agree with your basic point, and your observation seems to be quite correct. (However, from a technical point of view, a wiki system is very good for publishing a project like this. It has tons of technical advantages.)
:In a way, Aschlafly wants to have the best of all worlds. He wants the popularity/fame that comes from having a frequent editor/visitor base, he wants activity, he wants people contributing as much as possible in a wide variety of topics, but he also wants everybody to stick to his personal worldview. And that last part simply doesn't work when you have open registrations. But with a by-application or by-invitation system, growth and popularity become major issues. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 11:42, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Aschlafly, not to be argumentative, but Wikipedia [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_democracy doesn't at all intend to be a pure democracy]. Also, perhaps I'm misunderstanding, but are you suggesting that Wikipedia has ''fewer'' rules than Conservapedia? If anything, I'd describe Wikipedia as a large bureaucracy compared to Conservapedia's "[[Conservapedia:Commandments|there is only one rule page]]". --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 11:44, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::I would add that the simplification of the commandments has added to confusion over what is (subtle) vandalism, what is a source, what is opinion, what is appropriate or inappropriate content. The inconsistent enforcement of these commandments has made for an uncomfortable work environment. For instance, here is the February 17 version of the [[John McCain]] page [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=John_McCain&oldid=14293]... every edit to that point was made by Aschlafly and it clearly violates many of the commandments. Nothing is sourced, a good deal is opinion and not verifiable. When I cleaned it up by taking out the unsourced opinion, but leaving the unsourced fact, I was accused of removing factual information.

::Further, I would direct you to the revert war going over on [[Physics]]: [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Physics&action=history]. The subject of the reverts is whether or not to call the universe "God's Universe" or not. The commandment "give full credit to Christianity" is unclear and the user in favor of "God's universe" seemed to receive confirmation from Aschlafly that this would be appropriate. So ''that'' is the primary reason given for "God's" inclusion with the article. That is not indicative of constitutional republic or a rules based democracy, it is indicative of monarchy. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 12:17, 19 March 2007 (EDT) '''''I was trying to find the reverts - or are they gone permanently since someone decided that it was inappropriate/wrong/whatever?'''''[[User:kchittur|kchittur]] 2:50, 19 March 2007 (CDT)

This kind of discussion is exactly what I'm hoping for. Thanks especially to Mr. Schlafly for contributing. If, as you say, Wikipedia is more like a constitutional/representative democracy, then, to carry the analogy further, there should be a limited set of elected or appointed contributors who are trained to follow the commandments and who are true experts in their fields. The "people" would be the subscribers to the site. This still would not be a true Wiki. I am not arguing against your goals--that is your business. I am simply saying that the chosen format does not seem consistent with your goals. For instance, this discussion...
[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 11:55, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::: Folks, true Wiki's have simple, clear rules. Otherwise it is a mobocracy. Wikipedia has complex, senseless, and arbitrarily enforced rules. Check out [[Bias in Wikipedia]] to see the result. We're like the constitutional republic of the United States. Wikipedia is like the French Revolution.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:32, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::::May I butt in? I'm new here, but "old" at Wikipedia.

::::I can agree with the "complex" part, but the rules are not entirely senseless. One rule I like is [[Wikipedia:Attribution]], which requires contributors to provide verifiable references for 'facts' which aren't common knowledge or are matters of dispute.
:::::: I have proposed we go one further step toward quality with our attributions. Discussion at [[Conservapedia_Discussions#References]]. [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 15:26, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Enforcement of rules is another matter. I'm "on probation" because of supposedly "tendentious" edits on some issues which are hotly debated by liberals and conservatives, but I haven't appealed that decision. I'd rather just become more congenial. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:37, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
::::: Heh ! I knew that small group of editors had someone in mind when they initiated the "tendentious editing" policy. Good luck [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 15:26, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Thanks for creating this as a separate article...I think that will be useful.
In response to Mr. Schlafly, I would say that having more, complex rules, as you say Wikipedia does, should help, rather than hurt, as that is what this site seems to need. The Commandments are vague and confusing, leading to arbitrariness.
Another interesting point inherent in the wiki process is this--if someone is "patrolling an agenda", their influence will eventually be diluted out. As thousands of users begin to contribute, "mainstream" voices will predominate, and only an enormous army of sysops/admis will be able to maintain a particular character. If the site attracts mainly conservatives, then there will likely be a bit of a conservative bias, but not more than that.

[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 13:40, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

==Once more==
I'm putting in a header to both inform and to make the page a bit easier to navigate. And once more invite whoever wants to to come to freenode.net via Chatzilla or mIRC or whatever and be able to talk in real-time. [[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]]

Debate:What exactly is Conservapedia?

2007-03-19T19:54:57Z

Kchittur: /* Original discussion from UserTalk:Aschafly */

==Original discussion from [[UserTalk:Aschafly]]==

I bring this up as a topic of discussion, not a criticism. I wonder if ASchlafly needs to consider reconciling the goals of this site in regards to its format. A wiki is an inherently democratic format...anyone can contribute, and errors are theoretically diluted as more and more people become involved. Over time, experts' edits will outnumber those of vandals and non-experts. The stated goals here, based on what is explicitly written and what has taken place in edits, appears to be less democratic, with an agenda being set from the top down. ASchlafly insists on expert opinion, but when it disagrees with his worldview, he edits articles which fall out of his own expertise. I do not mean in any way to impugn his morals or objectives, but perhaps a wiki is not the best format for him to accomplish his needs. If he wants an online extension of his textbooks, wiki is definitely a poor format to use. IMHO.
Id be interested in comments/responses, and will also post this on my discussion page.

[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 11:04, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

: A wiki need not be a direct democracy, just as most countries are not. It is essential to avoid mob rule. Wikipedia fails in this essential regard. Consevapedia, in contrast, is based on [[rules]], just as the United States is. The democratic forces are properly restrained by the good rules. Likewise here. Thanks. Over time, rule-based democracies (i.e., constitutional republics) are more successful than direct democracies.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:27, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Your idea of "mob rule" seems to be "statements of facts that disagree with your opinions," see e.g. [[Theory of evolution]]. Will you allow commentary on articles that are currently quite poor? That seems a reasonable "goal."--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 11:29, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:Palmd001, I agree with your basic point, and your observation seems to be quite correct. (However, from a technical point of view, a wiki system is very good for publishing a project like this. It has tons of technical advantages.)
:In a way, Aschlafly wants to have the best of all worlds. He wants the popularity/fame that comes from having a frequent editor/visitor base, he wants activity, he wants people contributing as much as possible in a wide variety of topics, but he also wants everybody to stick to his personal worldview. And that last part simply doesn't work when you have open registrations. But with a by-application or by-invitation system, growth and popularity become major issues. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 11:42, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Aschlafly, not to be argumentative, but Wikipedia [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_democracy doesn't at all intend to be a pure democracy]. Also, perhaps I'm misunderstanding, but are you suggesting that Wikipedia has ''fewer'' rules than Conservapedia? If anything, I'd describe Wikipedia as a large bureaucracy compared to Conservapedia's "[[Conservapedia:Commandments|there is only one rule page]]". --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 11:44, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::I would add that the simplification of the commandments has added to confusion over what is (subtle) vandalism, what is a source, what is opinion, what is appropriate or inappropriate content. The inconsistent enforcement of these commandments has made for an uncomfortable work environment. For instance, here is the February 17 version of the [[John McCain]] page [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=John_McCain&oldid=14293]... every edit to that point was made by Aschlafly and it clearly violates many of the commandments. Nothing is sourced, a good deal is opinion and not verifiable. When I cleaned it up by taking out the unsourced opinion, but leaving the unsourced fact, I was accused of removing factual information.

::Further, I would direct you to the revert war going over on [[Physics]]: [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Physics&action=history]. The subject of the reverts is whether or not to call the universe "God's Universe" or not. The commandment "give full credit to Christianity" is unclear and the user in favor of "God's universe" seemed to receive confirmation from Aschlafly that this would be appropriate. So ''that'' is the primary reason given for "God's" inclusion with the article. That is not indicative of constitutional republic or a rules based democracy, it is indicative of monarchy. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 12:17, 19 March 2007 (EDT)''I was trying to find the reverts - or are they gone permanently since someone decided that it was inappropriate/wrong/whatever?''[[User:kchittur|kchittur]] 2:50, 19 March 2007 (CDT)

This kind of discussion is exactly what I'm hoping for. Thanks especially to Mr. Schlafly for contributing. If, as you say, Wikipedia is more like a constitutional/representative democracy, then, to carry the analogy further, there should be a limited set of elected or appointed contributors who are trained to follow the commandments and who are true experts in their fields. The "people" would be the subscribers to the site. This still would not be a true Wiki. I am not arguing against your goals--that is your business. I am simply saying that the chosen format does not seem consistent with your goals. For instance, this discussion...
[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 11:55, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::: Folks, true Wiki's have simple, clear rules. Otherwise it is a mobocracy. Wikipedia has complex, senseless, and arbitrarily enforced rules. Check out [[Bias in Wikipedia]] to see the result. We're like the constitutional republic of the United States. Wikipedia is like the French Revolution.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:32, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::::May I butt in? I'm new here, but "old" at Wikipedia.

::::I can agree with the "complex" part, but the rules are not entirely senseless. One rule I like is [[Wikipedia:Attribution]], which requires contributors to provide verifiable references for 'facts' which aren't common knowledge or are matters of dispute.
:::::: I have proposed we go one further step toward quality with our attributions. Discussion at [[Conservapedia_Discussions#References]]. [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 15:26, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Enforcement of rules is another matter. I'm "on probation" because of supposedly "tendentious" edits on some issues which are hotly debated by liberals and conservatives, but I haven't appealed that decision. I'd rather just become more congenial. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:37, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
::::: Heh ! I knew that small group of editors had someone in mind when they initiated the "tendentious editing" policy. Good luck [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 15:26, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Thanks for creating this as a separate article...I think that will be useful.
In response to Mr. Schlafly, I would say that having more, complex rules, as you say Wikipedia does, should help, rather than hurt, as that is what this site seems to need. The Commandments are vague and confusing, leading to arbitrariness.
Another interesting point inherent in the wiki process is this--if someone is "patrolling an agenda", their influence will eventually be diluted out. As thousands of users begin to contribute, "mainstream" voices will predominate, and only an enormous army of sysops/admis will be able to maintain a particular character. If the site attracts mainly conservatives, then there will likely be a bit of a conservative bias, but not more than that.

[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 13:40, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

==Once more==
I'm putting in a header to both inform and to make the page a bit easier to navigate. And once more invite whoever wants to to come to freenode.net via Chatzilla or mIRC or whatever and be able to talk in real-time. [[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]]

Debate:Should Religion Play a Large Role in Modern Societies?

2007-03-19T00:34:50Z

Kchittur: /* Yes */

I think that religion is just a tool to make people feel safe and not alone in this world. However, many religious doctrines have been proven wrong by modern science. In the case of Christianity, science has disproved the biblical teaching that the world is flat. Science has shown us that the world cannot be 6,000 years old as the bible teaches through methods such as carbon dating with fossils. So now that we know how most of the world works there is no need for it anymore. I mean the world isnt flat right and we know the world isnt 6000 years old. So basically in this day in age we dont need an ancient book to tell us how the world works. i would like to think of myself as more intelligant then people who were alive 2000 years ago. All major religions (with the exception of buddhism which does not worship a higher being) were created to outline specific mores and give simple comprehendable explanations for things as complex as the creation of the universe. In today's world, religion can really only serve one of those two purposes effectively, that is to provide moral codes and societal rules. An ever increasing amount of "history" provided in the Bible has been proven to be false, and it seems unlikely that the entire universe was created by a being living in the third dimension and shaped like a human being (it also seems like an egocentrical thing to believe but that's beside the point). So religion's only real significant purpose today is to set up moral code. However, this is not to say that laws should be based on such moral codes. The moralities set up in each religion are different. Mores are not universally accepted or shared. Furthermore, many rules set up in the bible cause the infringement upon the rights of others (i.e. banning of gay marriage, bans on abortion etc.). If religion serves a purpose today than it is a considerably smaller one than it did a thousand years ago.
==Yes==
Religion has to be relevant in that so many people are influenced by it.
Religion is not relevant in discovering scientific truth and has only served to impede scientific understanding.
Religious truth is necessarily contradictory to factual understanding as the particular notion of truth only becomes the purview of religion is unsubstantiated or contradictory to physical or natural truth otherwise it is a general truth. Therefore the focus of conservipedia is the aspects of Christianity that focus on the discrepancies between reason and logic based on observable, quantifiable, understandable phenomenon and an interpretation of Christian text biased towards the Conservative Agenda.

So many inaccuracies and assumptions in your statement that I can't address them all without turning what should be a forum into a dialogue. Anyway, if by religion you mean faith in God and reacting to your faith in a manner similar to many others, then yes, it is of critical and eternally lasting importance. If you mean the highly ritualized practices of organized religion such as in Roman Catholic or Anglican services, then I would say it's less important, as the decline of "religion" in Western Europe over the last 50 years has shown. --[[User:Daniel B. Douglas|Daniel B. Douglas]] 18:15, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

I'd say that Religion has always been relevant (or important or destructive) or whatever you choose to say. In my own view, Religion has been, by far, the Most destructive of all weapons of mass destruction. Arguing that the killings of humans by other humans in the name of religion is by a few zealots/crazies is missing the point. Today, we look at the extremists of the Islamic world with horror, a few centuries ago, it was the Christians slaughtering the non-believers in the Crusades. I do not believe that any part of the world, any religion has been insulated from the killings in the name of THAT religion. To dismiss this as the acts of a few, to grab power/money or whatever is not sufficient. We ought to examine why men have historically used religion as a weapon and not as they claim it is supposed to be used - show the path to eternal truths using persuasion and words and not the sword.

==No==
Religion is not relevant in todays society because Truth is absolute and not relative. Religion is a concept created to make false belief systems seem the same as the one true beleif system that the one true God allowed his only son to die for our sins.

So, if I understand what you're saying, you believe the very concept of religion gives rise to false beliefs and somehow grants them legitimacy? [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 16:16, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

'''Response'''
The use of the concept of religion allows nonchristians to marginalize the truth and accept their falsehoods as alternative versions of the truth. [[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 17 March 2007

I am curious - does that mean that in your opinion, Christians do not use the concept of religion? Perhaps you meant, Christians use the word religion correctly (i.e. accept the truth of God and Jesus) while Non Christians do not accept THE truth? [[User:kchittur|kchittur]] 18 March 2007

:The thing about science is that it is flexible and open to change, using the latest evidence. Religion isn't as flexible. I mean, a few centuries ago, we still thought the earth was the center of the universe. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 18:16, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

Debate:Should Religion Play a Large Role in Modern Societies?

2007-03-19T00:29:05Z

Kchittur: /* No */

I think that religion is just a tool to make people feel safe and not alone in this world. However, many religious doctrines have been proven wrong by modern science. In the case of Christianity, science has disproved the biblical teaching that the world is flat. Science has shown us that the world cannot be 6,000 years old as the bible teaches through methods such as carbon dating with fossils. So now that we know how most of the world works there is no need for it anymore. I mean the world isnt flat right and we know the world isnt 6000 years old. So basically in this day in age we dont need an ancient book to tell us how the world works. i would like to think of myself as more intelligant then people who were alive 2000 years ago. All major religions (with the exception of buddhism which does not worship a higher being) were created to outline specific mores and give simple comprehendable explanations for things as complex as the creation of the universe. In today's world, religion can really only serve one of those two purposes effectively, that is to provide moral codes and societal rules. An ever increasing amount of "history" provided in the Bible has been proven to be false, and it seems unlikely that the entire universe was created by a being living in the third dimension and shaped like a human being (it also seems like an egocentrical thing to believe but that's beside the point). So religion's only real significant purpose today is to set up moral code. However, this is not to say that laws should be based on such moral codes. The moralities set up in each religion are different. Mores are not universally accepted or shared. Furthermore, many rules set up in the bible cause the infringement upon the rights of others (i.e. banning of gay marriage, bans on abortion etc.). If religion serves a purpose today than it is a considerably smaller one than it did a thousand years ago.
==Yes==
Religion has to be relevant in that so many people are influenced by it.
Religion is not relevant in discovering scientific truth and has only served to impede scientific understanding.
Religious truth is necessarily contradictory to factual understanding as the particular notion of truth only becomes the purview of religion is unsubstantiated or contradictory to physical or natural truth otherwise it is a general truth. Therefore the focus of conservipedia is the aspects of Christianity that focus on the discrepancies between reason and logic based on observable, quantifiable, understandable phenomenon and an interpretation of Christian text biased towards the Conservative Agenda.

So many inaccuracies and assumptions in your statement that I can't address them all without turning what should be a forum into a dialogue. Anyway, if by religion you mean faith in God and reacting to your faith in a manner similar to many others, then yes, it is of critical and eternally lasting importance. If you mean the highly ritualized practices of organized religion such as in Roman Catholic or Anglican services, then I would say it's less important, as the decline of "religion" in Western Europe over the last 50 years has shown. --[[User:Daniel B. Douglas|Daniel B. Douglas]] 18:15, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

==No==
Religion is not relevant in todays society because Truth is absolute and not relative. Religion is a concept created to make false belief systems seem the same as the one true beleif system that the one true God allowed his only son to die for our sins.

So, if I understand what you're saying, you believe the very concept of religion gives rise to false beliefs and somehow grants them legitimacy? [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 16:16, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

'''Response'''
The use of the concept of religion allows nonchristians to marginalize the truth and accept their falsehoods as alternative versions of the truth. [[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 17 March 2007

I am curious - does that mean that in your opinion, Christians do not use the concept of religion? Perhaps you meant, Christians use the word religion correctly (i.e. accept the truth of God and Jesus) while Non Christians do not accept THE truth? [[User:kchittur|kchittur]] 18 March 2007

:The thing about science is that it is flexible and open to change, using the latest evidence. Religion isn't as flexible. I mean, a few centuries ago, we still thought the earth was the center of the universe. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 18:16, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

Debate:Should Religion Play a Large Role in Modern Societies?

2007-03-19T00:28:47Z

Kchittur: /* No */

I think that religion is just a tool to make people feel safe and not alone in this world. However, many religious doctrines have been proven wrong by modern science. In the case of Christianity, science has disproved the biblical teaching that the world is flat. Science has shown us that the world cannot be 6,000 years old as the bible teaches through methods such as carbon dating with fossils. So now that we know how most of the world works there is no need for it anymore. I mean the world isnt flat right and we know the world isnt 6000 years old. So basically in this day in age we dont need an ancient book to tell us how the world works. i would like to think of myself as more intelligant then people who were alive 2000 years ago. All major religions (with the exception of buddhism which does not worship a higher being) were created to outline specific mores and give simple comprehendable explanations for things as complex as the creation of the universe. In today's world, religion can really only serve one of those two purposes effectively, that is to provide moral codes and societal rules. An ever increasing amount of "history" provided in the Bible has been proven to be false, and it seems unlikely that the entire universe was created by a being living in the third dimension and shaped like a human being (it also seems like an egocentrical thing to believe but that's beside the point). So religion's only real significant purpose today is to set up moral code. However, this is not to say that laws should be based on such moral codes. The moralities set up in each religion are different. Mores are not universally accepted or shared. Furthermore, many rules set up in the bible cause the infringement upon the rights of others (i.e. banning of gay marriage, bans on abortion etc.). If religion serves a purpose today than it is a considerably smaller one than it did a thousand years ago.
==Yes==
Religion has to be relevant in that so many people are influenced by it.
Religion is not relevant in discovering scientific truth and has only served to impede scientific understanding.
Religious truth is necessarily contradictory to factual understanding as the particular notion of truth only becomes the purview of religion is unsubstantiated or contradictory to physical or natural truth otherwise it is a general truth. Therefore the focus of conservipedia is the aspects of Christianity that focus on the discrepancies between reason and logic based on observable, quantifiable, understandable phenomenon and an interpretation of Christian text biased towards the Conservative Agenda.

So many inaccuracies and assumptions in your statement that I can't address them all without turning what should be a forum into a dialogue. Anyway, if by religion you mean faith in God and reacting to your faith in a manner similar to many others, then yes, it is of critical and eternally lasting importance. If you mean the highly ritualized practices of organized religion such as in Roman Catholic or Anglican services, then I would say it's less important, as the decline of "religion" in Western Europe over the last 50 years has shown. --[[User:Daniel B. Douglas|Daniel B. Douglas]] 18:15, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

==No==
Religion is not relevant in todays society because Truth is absolute and not relative. Religion is a concept created to make false belief systems seem the same as the one true beleif system that the one true God allowed his only son to die for our sins.

So, if I understand what you're saying, you believe the very concept of religion gives rise to false beliefs and somehow grants them legitimacy? [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 16:16, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

'''Response'''
The use of the concept of religion allows nonchristians to marginalize the truth and accept their falsehoods as alternative versions of the truth. [[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 17 March 2007

I am curious - does that mean that in your opinion, Christians do not use the concept of religion? Perhaps you meant, Christians use the word religion correctly (i.e. accept the truth of God and Jesus) while Non Christians do not accept THE truth? [[User:kchittur|kchittur] 18 March 2007

:The thing about science is that it is flexible and open to change, using the latest evidence. Religion isn't as flexible. I mean, a few centuries ago, we still thought the earth was the center of the universe. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 18:16, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

Mohandas K. Gandhi

2007-03-19T00:02:13Z

Kchittur:

'''Mohandas K. Gandhi,''' also known by the honorific title ''Mahatma Gandhi,'' was a great leader who obtained India's independence from Britain. He urged peaceful civil disobedience to the British, calling on Indians to refuse to pay taxes to Britain and refuse to attend British schools. He also called for a boycott of British manufactures, especially for the cloths that Indian weavers are so famous for. The Indians heeded Gandhi’s leadership and stopped buying British cloth. Gandhi also called for the Indian National Congress to change from an elite or wealthy group into more of a people’s voice that could advocate independence. Gandhi drew upon Christian concepts as well as his native Hinduism. His education included studying law at the University College London, though Gandhi makes little mention of that in his autobiography and details are unclear.

One of Gandhi’s acts of protest was to lead the Salt March in 1930 for 240 miles to the sea, so that Indians could obtain salt from evaporated salt water rather than buy it from (and pay taxes to) Britain. A law required Indians to buy salt from the British government, but Gandhi’s march peacefully disobeyed that law and created much publicity. Gandhi and many of his supporters were eventually arrested for some of their protests.

At one point a British leader agreed to meet with Gandhi, who then attended with the simple Hindu clothing of a single cloth gown. Offended by this, some British demanded an explanation. Gandhi responded that the British official, who was dressed in the customary suit and tie, was wearing enough clothes for both of them!

Eventually Gandhi’s protest efforts paid off, as the British Parliament enacted the Government of India Act in 1935. This established self-rule at a local level and allowed some democratic elections. Muslims, however, feared majority Hindu rule and requested a separate state for Muslims. The Muslim League endorsed the creation of a new country called “Pakistan” for the predominantly Muslim population of that region. India and Pakistan are fully independent today.

Gandhi is famous for this quote:

First they ignore you.
Then they ridicule you.
Then they fight you.
Then you win.

==Motion picture==

Richard Attenborough's 1982 film, entitled simply ''Gandhi,'' won eight Academy Awards, including "best picture," as well as BAFTA and Golden Globe awards. It is a biographical film that stays close to the historical facts of Gandhi's life. FIlm critic Roger Ebert said that actor Ben Kingsley "makes the role so completely his own that there is a genuine feeling that the spirit of Gandhi is on the screen."

==Spelling==

Gandhi's last name is very frequently spelled incorrectly as "Ghandi," perhaps because "g-h" is a common digraph in English while "d-h" is not.

It is correctly spelled G-a-n-d-h-i.

He was called the Mahatma, or the Great Soul

[[Category:Biographies]]

Debate:AntiSemitism

2007-03-18T23:32:20Z

Kchittur: New page: The central belief in Christianity is that Jesus Christ died for the sins of all mankind. Thus the path to Heaven and God is through Christ alone. Given that God sent His only begotten S...

Conservapedia:Debate Topics

2007-03-18T23:26:57Z

Kchittur:

Debate topic suggestions:
# [[Conservapedia:Was world war inevitable?|Was world war inevitable?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does "free trade" increase wealth rather than simply redistribute it?|Does "free trade" increase wealth or simply redistribute it?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should the United States have entered World War I?|Should the United States have entered World War I?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should the United States have entered World War II?|Should the United States have entered World War II?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should the United States have eliminated communism in North Korea|Should the United States have eliminated communism in North Korea]] as General Douglas MacArthur wanted?
# [[Conservapedia:Is it even possible to install democracy in a Muslim country?|Is it even possible to install democracy in a Muslim country?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should we have given the Panama Canal back to Panama?|Should we have given the Panama Canal back to Panama?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Are regulations by the government to keep private businesses in check necessary?|Should government allow an unchecked economy, or are regulations necessary in private business?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should the United States leave the United Nations?|Should the United States leave the United Nations?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Crusades... Good or Bad?|Crusades... Good or Bad?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is the theory of macroevolution true?|Is the theory of macroevolution true?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does bias impair Wikipedia's reliability?|Does bias impair Wikipedia's reliability?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should Creationism/Intelligent design be taught as a scientific alternative to evolution in public schools?|Should Creationism/Intelligent design be taught as a scientific alternative to evolution in public schools?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Did racism play a role in the decision to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?|Did racism play a role in the decision to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Was the United States right to drop atomic bombs so quickly on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?|Was the United States right to drop atomic bombs so quickly on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?]]
# If President Roosevelt had known about the Pearl Harbor attack in advance, [[Conservapedia:Was it wrong for him to allow the attack in order to wake up the American public and motivate Americans to fight and win the war?|would it have been wrong for him to allow the attack in order to wake up the American public and motivate Americans to fight and win the war?|Was it wrong for him to allow the attack in order to wake up the American public and motivate Americans to fight and win the war?|would it have been wrong for him to allow the attack in order to wake up the American public and motivate Americans to fight and win the war?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is gun-control the answer to crimes involving guns?|Is gun-control the answer to crimes involving guns?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should the term list entries be included in Conservapedia's entry count?|Should the term list entries be included in Conservapedia's entry count?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Was American soldier Michael New right to refuse to fight wearing part of a United Nations uniform?|Was American soldier Michael New right to refuse to fight wearing part of a United Nations uniform?]] See [[Michael New]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is democracy even possible in Iraq?|Is democracy even possible in Iraq?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should President Jimmy Carter (at the urging of Henry Kissinger) have allowed the deposed Shah of Iran to enter the United States in 1979 to receive medical treatment, over the objections of the Iranian people?|Should President Jimmy Carter (at the urging of Henry Kissinger) have allowed the deposed Shah of Iran to enter the United States in 1979 to receive medical treatment, over the objections of the Iranian people?]]
# [[Henry Ford]] said, "I don't know much about history, and I wouldn't give a nickel for all the history in the world. History is more or less bunk. It is tradition. We want to live in the present, and the only history that is worth a tinker's [darn] is the history we make today." [[George Santayana]] said "Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." [[Conservapedia:Which was closer to being right?|Which was closer to being right?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Which is a more powerful ideology, Islam or communism?|Which is a more powerful ideology, Islam or Communism?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should the United States intervene in small countries to defeat communism there?|Should the United States intervene in small countries to defeat communism there?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should public displays of the 10 Commandments be allowed under the constitution?|Should public displays of the 10 Commandments be allowed under the constitution?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Were the Puritans right to banish (expel) people for religious reasons?|Were the Puritans right to banish (expel) people for religious reasons?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does the high abortion rate among African Americans explain the quadruple extreme premature birth risk among the same population?|Does the high abortion rate among African Americans explain the quadruple extreme premature birth risk among the same population?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Was the third crusade successful?|Was the third crusade successful?]]
# [[Conservapedia:How should Conservapedia work to avoid having a conservative bias?|How should Conservapedia work to avoid having a conservative bias?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is infinite regression ever valid as a form of reasoning, or acceptable as a way the universe works, or came to be?|Is infinite regression ever valid as a form of reasoning, or acceptable as a way the universe works, or came to be?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is a first cause of a process necessary, always possible, or sometimes impossible?|Is a first cause of a process necessary, always possible, or sometimes impossible?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Which has the best philosophy of education: the public school system, private schools, or the home school movement?|Which has the best philosophy of education: the public school system, private schools, or the home school movement?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Can Objectivism develop beyond Ayn Rand's original formulation?|Can Objectivism develop beyond Ayn Rand's original formulation?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Can any man live without some code of morality?|Can any man live without some code of morality?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does the universe include everything, or does something outside the universe exist?|Does the universe include everything, or does something outside the universe exist?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is global warming evident, and if so, is this the fault of man, and how must man stop it?|Is global warming evident, and if so, is this the fault of man, and how must man stop it?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is the Bible a reliable source of history against which one may check all other sources?|Is the Bible a reliable source of history against which one may check all other sources?]]
# [[Conservapedia:If the universe is young and it takes light millions of years to reach us from far off stars, how can we see them?|If the universe is young and it takes light millions of years to reach us from far off stars, how can we see them?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is it wrong to have a Christmas tree?|Is it wrong to have a Christmas tree?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Did God create evil?|Did God create evil?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should people genetically engineer a cure for homosexuality?|Should people genetically engineer a cure for homosexuality?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is it possible to be both Jewish and Christian at the same time?|Is it possible to be both Jewish and Christian at the same time?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Can Conservapedia Succeed?|Can Conservapedia Succeed?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is Conservapedia fair and balanced?|Is Conservapedia fair and balanced?]]
# [[Conservapedia:How can we protect Conservapedia by distinguishing real conservative encyclopedia articles from satires written by liberals?|How can we protect Conservapedia by distinguishing real conservative encyclopedia articles from satires written by liberals?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should Bush pardon Scooter Libby?|Should Bush pardon Scooter Libby?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should the USA and other industrialized nations resume the building of nuclear power plants, an activity that is now effectively suspended?|Should the USA and other industrialized nations resume the building of nuclear power plants, an activity that is now effectively suspended?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is the Pope the Antichrist?|Is the Pope the Antichrist?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is it easier to ask for permission, or for forgiveness?|Is it easier to ask for permission, or for forgiveness?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Do hardly any entries on conservapedia cite sources?|Do hardly any entries on conservapedia cite sources?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Which Christian denomination is the most true to the central teachings of Christianity?|Which Christian denomination is the most true to the central teachings of Christianity?]]
# [[Conservapedia:If Jesus was alive to day, where on the political spectrum would he fall?|If Jesus was alive to day, where on the political spectrum would he fall?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should We Support Democrats For Life.org?|Should We Support Democrats For Life.org?]]
# [[conservapedia:Women in the Military?|Women in the Military?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is religion relevant in todays society?|Is religion relevant in todays society?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Corinthians 11:14 and the traditional image of Jesus]]
# [[Conservapedia:A poll requested by Aschlafly regarding the new color format|A poll requested by Aschlafly regarding the new color format]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does the Bible (Old and the New Testament) have the infallible words of God?|Bible (New and Old Testament) Words of God]]
# [[Conservapedia: AntiSemitism|AntiSemitism]]

Feel free to add additional debate topics

Conservapedia:Debate Topics

2007-03-18T23:26:33Z

Kchittur:

Debate topic suggestions:
# [[Conservapedia:Was world war inevitable?|Was world war inevitable?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does "free trade" increase wealth rather than simply redistribute it?|Does "free trade" increase wealth or simply redistribute it?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should the United States have entered World War I?|Should the United States have entered World War I?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should the United States have entered World War II?|Should the United States have entered World War II?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should the United States have eliminated communism in North Korea|Should the United States have eliminated communism in North Korea]] as General Douglas MacArthur wanted?
# [[Conservapedia:Is it even possible to install democracy in a Muslim country?|Is it even possible to install democracy in a Muslim country?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should we have given the Panama Canal back to Panama?|Should we have given the Panama Canal back to Panama?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Are regulations by the government to keep private businesses in check necessary?|Should government allow an unchecked economy, or are regulations necessary in private business?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should the United States leave the United Nations?|Should the United States leave the United Nations?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Crusades... Good or Bad?|Crusades... Good or Bad?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is the theory of macroevolution true?|Is the theory of macroevolution true?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does bias impair Wikipedia's reliability?|Does bias impair Wikipedia's reliability?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should Creationism/Intelligent design be taught as a scientific alternative to evolution in public schools?|Should Creationism/Intelligent design be taught as a scientific alternative to evolution in public schools?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Did racism play a role in the decision to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?|Did racism play a role in the decision to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Was the United States right to drop atomic bombs so quickly on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?|Was the United States right to drop atomic bombs so quickly on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?]]
# If President Roosevelt had known about the Pearl Harbor attack in advance, [[Conservapedia:Was it wrong for him to allow the attack in order to wake up the American public and motivate Americans to fight and win the war?|would it have been wrong for him to allow the attack in order to wake up the American public and motivate Americans to fight and win the war?|Was it wrong for him to allow the attack in order to wake up the American public and motivate Americans to fight and win the war?|would it have been wrong for him to allow the attack in order to wake up the American public and motivate Americans to fight and win the war?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is gun-control the answer to crimes involving guns?|Is gun-control the answer to crimes involving guns?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should the term list entries be included in Conservapedia's entry count?|Should the term list entries be included in Conservapedia's entry count?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Was American soldier Michael New right to refuse to fight wearing part of a United Nations uniform?|Was American soldier Michael New right to refuse to fight wearing part of a United Nations uniform?]] See [[Michael New]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is democracy even possible in Iraq?|Is democracy even possible in Iraq?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should President Jimmy Carter (at the urging of Henry Kissinger) have allowed the deposed Shah of Iran to enter the United States in 1979 to receive medical treatment, over the objections of the Iranian people?|Should President Jimmy Carter (at the urging of Henry Kissinger) have allowed the deposed Shah of Iran to enter the United States in 1979 to receive medical treatment, over the objections of the Iranian people?]]
# [[Henry Ford]] said, "I don't know much about history, and I wouldn't give a nickel for all the history in the world. History is more or less bunk. It is tradition. We want to live in the present, and the only history that is worth a tinker's [darn] is the history we make today." [[George Santayana]] said "Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." [[Conservapedia:Which was closer to being right?|Which was closer to being right?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Which is a more powerful ideology, Islam or communism?|Which is a more powerful ideology, Islam or Communism?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should the United States intervene in small countries to defeat communism there?|Should the United States intervene in small countries to defeat communism there?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should public displays of the 10 Commandments be allowed under the constitution?|Should public displays of the 10 Commandments be allowed under the constitution?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Were the Puritans right to banish (expel) people for religious reasons?|Were the Puritans right to banish (expel) people for religious reasons?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does the high abortion rate among African Americans explain the quadruple extreme premature birth risk among the same population?|Does the high abortion rate among African Americans explain the quadruple extreme premature birth risk among the same population?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Was the third crusade successful?|Was the third crusade successful?]]
# [[Conservapedia:How should Conservapedia work to avoid having a conservative bias?|How should Conservapedia work to avoid having a conservative bias?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is infinite regression ever valid as a form of reasoning, or acceptable as a way the universe works, or came to be?|Is infinite regression ever valid as a form of reasoning, or acceptable as a way the universe works, or came to be?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is a first cause of a process necessary, always possible, or sometimes impossible?|Is a first cause of a process necessary, always possible, or sometimes impossible?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Which has the best philosophy of education: the public school system, private schools, or the home school movement?|Which has the best philosophy of education: the public school system, private schools, or the home school movement?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Can Objectivism develop beyond Ayn Rand's original formulation?|Can Objectivism develop beyond Ayn Rand's original formulation?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Can any man live without some code of morality?|Can any man live without some code of morality?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does the universe include everything, or does something outside the universe exist?|Does the universe include everything, or does something outside the universe exist?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is global warming evident, and if so, is this the fault of man, and how must man stop it?|Is global warming evident, and if so, is this the fault of man, and how must man stop it?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is the Bible a reliable source of history against which one may check all other sources?|Is the Bible a reliable source of history against which one may check all other sources?]]
# [[Conservapedia:If the universe is young and it takes light millions of years to reach us from far off stars, how can we see them?|If the universe is young and it takes light millions of years to reach us from far off stars, how can we see them?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is it wrong to have a Christmas tree?|Is it wrong to have a Christmas tree?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Did God create evil?|Did God create evil?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should people genetically engineer a cure for homosexuality?|Should people genetically engineer a cure for homosexuality?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is it possible to be both Jewish and Christian at the same time?|Is it possible to be both Jewish and Christian at the same time?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Can Conservapedia Succeed?|Can Conservapedia Succeed?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is Conservapedia fair and balanced?|Is Conservapedia fair and balanced?]]
# [[Conservapedia:How can we protect Conservapedia by distinguishing real conservative encyclopedia articles from satires written by liberals?|How can we protect Conservapedia by distinguishing real conservative encyclopedia articles from satires written by liberals?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should Bush pardon Scooter Libby?|Should Bush pardon Scooter Libby?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should the USA and other industrialized nations resume the building of nuclear power plants, an activity that is now effectively suspended?|Should the USA and other industrialized nations resume the building of nuclear power plants, an activity that is now effectively suspended?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is the Pope the Antichrist?|Is the Pope the Antichrist?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is it easier to ask for permission, or for forgiveness?|Is it easier to ask for permission, or for forgiveness?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Do hardly any entries on conservapedia cite sources?|Do hardly any entries on conservapedia cite sources?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Which Christian denomination is the most true to the central teachings of Christianity?|Which Christian denomination is the most true to the central teachings of Christianity?]]
# [[Conservapedia:If Jesus was alive to day, where on the political spectrum would he fall?|If Jesus was alive to day, where on the political spectrum would he fall?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should We Support Democrats For Life.org?|Should We Support Democrats For Life.org?]]
# [[conservapedia:Women in the Military?|Women in the Military?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is religion relevant in todays society?|Is religion relevant in todays society?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Corinthians 11:14 and the traditional image of Jesus]]
# [[Conservapedia:A poll requested by Aschlafly regarding the new color format|A poll requested by Aschlafly regarding the new color format]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does the Bible (Old and the New Testament) have the infallible words of God?|Bible (New and Old Testament) Words of God]]
# [{Conservapedia: AntiSemitism|AntiSemitism]]

Feel free to add additional debate topics

Conservapedia:Debate Topics

2007-03-18T23:20:59Z

Kchittur:

Debate topic suggestions:
# [[Conservapedia:Was world war inevitable?|Was world war inevitable?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does "free trade" increase wealth rather than simply redistribute it?|Does "free trade" increase wealth or simply redistribute it?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should the United States have entered World War I?|Should the United States have entered World War I?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should the United States have entered World War II?|Should the United States have entered World War II?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should the United States have eliminated communism in North Korea|Should the United States have eliminated communism in North Korea]] as General Douglas MacArthur wanted?
# [[Conservapedia:Is it even possible to install democracy in a Muslim country?|Is it even possible to install democracy in a Muslim country?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should we have given the Panama Canal back to Panama?|Should we have given the Panama Canal back to Panama?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Are regulations by the government to keep private businesses in check necessary?|Should government allow an unchecked economy, or are regulations necessary in private business?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should the United States leave the United Nations?|Should the United States leave the United Nations?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Crusades... Good or Bad?|Crusades... Good or Bad?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is the theory of macroevolution true?|Is the theory of macroevolution true?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does bias impair Wikipedia's reliability?|Does bias impair Wikipedia's reliability?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should Creationism/Intelligent design be taught as a scientific alternative to evolution in public schools?|Should Creationism/Intelligent design be taught as a scientific alternative to evolution in public schools?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Did racism play a role in the decision to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?|Did racism play a role in the decision to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Was the United States right to drop atomic bombs so quickly on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?|Was the United States right to drop atomic bombs so quickly on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?]]
# If President Roosevelt had known about the Pearl Harbor attack in advance, [[Conservapedia:Was it wrong for him to allow the attack in order to wake up the American public and motivate Americans to fight and win the war?|would it have been wrong for him to allow the attack in order to wake up the American public and motivate Americans to fight and win the war?|Was it wrong for him to allow the attack in order to wake up the American public and motivate Americans to fight and win the war?|would it have been wrong for him to allow the attack in order to wake up the American public and motivate Americans to fight and win the war?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is gun-control the answer to crimes involving guns?|Is gun-control the answer to crimes involving guns?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should the term list entries be included in Conservapedia's entry count?|Should the term list entries be included in Conservapedia's entry count?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Was American soldier Michael New right to refuse to fight wearing part of a United Nations uniform?|Was American soldier Michael New right to refuse to fight wearing part of a United Nations uniform?]] See [[Michael New]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is democracy even possible in Iraq?|Is democracy even possible in Iraq?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should President Jimmy Carter (at the urging of Henry Kissinger) have allowed the deposed Shah of Iran to enter the United States in 1979 to receive medical treatment, over the objections of the Iranian people?|Should President Jimmy Carter (at the urging of Henry Kissinger) have allowed the deposed Shah of Iran to enter the United States in 1979 to receive medical treatment, over the objections of the Iranian people?]]
# [[Henry Ford]] said, "I don't know much about history, and I wouldn't give a nickel for all the history in the world. History is more or less bunk. It is tradition. We want to live in the present, and the only history that is worth a tinker's [darn] is the history we make today." [[George Santayana]] said "Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." [[Conservapedia:Which was closer to being right?|Which was closer to being right?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Which is a more powerful ideology, Islam or communism?|Which is a more powerful ideology, Islam or Communism?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should the United States intervene in small countries to defeat communism there?|Should the United States intervene in small countries to defeat communism there?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should public displays of the 10 Commandments be allowed under the constitution?|Should public displays of the 10 Commandments be allowed under the constitution?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Were the Puritans right to banish (expel) people for religious reasons?|Were the Puritans right to banish (expel) people for religious reasons?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does the high abortion rate among African Americans explain the quadruple extreme premature birth risk among the same population?|Does the high abortion rate among African Americans explain the quadruple extreme premature birth risk among the same population?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Was the third crusade successful?|Was the third crusade successful?]]
# [[Conservapedia:How should Conservapedia work to avoid having a conservative bias?|How should Conservapedia work to avoid having a conservative bias?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is infinite regression ever valid as a form of reasoning, or acceptable as a way the universe works, or came to be?|Is infinite regression ever valid as a form of reasoning, or acceptable as a way the universe works, or came to be?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is a first cause of a process necessary, always possible, or sometimes impossible?|Is a first cause of a process necessary, always possible, or sometimes impossible?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Which has the best philosophy of education: the public school system, private schools, or the home school movement?|Which has the best philosophy of education: the public school system, private schools, or the home school movement?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Can Objectivism develop beyond Ayn Rand's original formulation?|Can Objectivism develop beyond Ayn Rand's original formulation?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Can any man live without some code of morality?|Can any man live without some code of morality?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does the universe include everything, or does something outside the universe exist?|Does the universe include everything, or does something outside the universe exist?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is global warming evident, and if so, is this the fault of man, and how must man stop it?|Is global warming evident, and if so, is this the fault of man, and how must man stop it?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is the Bible a reliable source of history against which one may check all other sources?|Is the Bible a reliable source of history against which one may check all other sources?]]
# [[Conservapedia:If the universe is young and it takes light millions of years to reach us from far off stars, how can we see them?|If the universe is young and it takes light millions of years to reach us from far off stars, how can we see them?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is it wrong to have a Christmas tree?|Is it wrong to have a Christmas tree?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Did God create evil?|Did God create evil?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should people genetically engineer a cure for homosexuality?|Should people genetically engineer a cure for homosexuality?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is it possible to be both Jewish and Christian at the same time?|Is it possible to be both Jewish and Christian at the same time?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Can Conservapedia Succeed?|Can Conservapedia Succeed?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is Conservapedia fair and balanced?|Is Conservapedia fair and balanced?]]
# [[Conservapedia:How can we protect Conservapedia by distinguishing real conservative encyclopedia articles from satires written by liberals?|How can we protect Conservapedia by distinguishing real conservative encyclopedia articles from satires written by liberals?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should Bush pardon Scooter Libby?|Should Bush pardon Scooter Libby?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should the USA and other industrialized nations resume the building of nuclear power plants, an activity that is now effectively suspended?|Should the USA and other industrialized nations resume the building of nuclear power plants, an activity that is now effectively suspended?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is the Pope the Antichrist?|Is the Pope the Antichrist?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is it easier to ask for permission, or for forgiveness?|Is it easier to ask for permission, or for forgiveness?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Do hardly any entries on conservapedia cite sources?|Do hardly any entries on conservapedia cite sources?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Which Christian denomination is the most true to the central teachings of Christianity?|Which Christian denomination is the most true to the central teachings of Christianity?]]
# [[Conservapedia:If Jesus was alive to day, where on the political spectrum would he fall?|If Jesus was alive to day, where on the political spectrum would he fall?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should We Support Democrats For Life.org?|Should We Support Democrats For Life.org?]]
# [[conservapedia:Women in the Military?|Women in the Military?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is religion relevant in todays society?|Is religion relevant in todays society?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Corinthians 11:14 and the traditional image of Jesus]]
# [[Conservapedia:A poll requested by Aschlafly regarding the new color format|A poll requested by Aschlafly regarding the new color format]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does the Bible (Old and the New Testament) have the infallible words of God?|Bible (New and Old Testament) Words of God]]

Feel free to add additional debate topics