Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Debate:Did God create evil?

2009-11-04T13:48:40Z

Nabroon: /* No */

Ans. Isaiah 45:6&7 "-----I am the Lord and there is none else. I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace and create EVIL: I the Lord do all these things".
Reason: Romans 9:22&23 "What if God, willing to show his wrath, and to make his power known,endured with much long suffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: and that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory".
It may be clearer if you read from ver. 10 to 24 of Romans Ch. 9.
I think such a God would want to create, and for a good purpose. Col.1:16 "All things were made by him and for him." Gen. 1:26 "Let US make man in OUR own image." John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word" (Christ) and, the word was with God, and the Word was God." It seems all was made for the glorification of Christ, and to exercize and exibit God's attributes.

http://www.tektonics.org/gk/godevil.html [[User:DanH|DanH]] 21:40, 20 October 2007 (EDT)

No he did not. He did not create darkness either. Darkness is merely the absence of light. He did not create cold, as cold is merely the absence of heat. And he did not create evil, as evil is only the absence of God. [[User:Lukecorlando|Lukecorlando]]

== According to you, he must have! ==

Did God create evil? He must have, since he created everything else! I believe that if this god does accualy exist, then he is of our own creation! The concept of good and evil is nothing more than our own attempt at rationalization. Isn't it so much more simple to pass the blame than it is to accept responsibility!?

If good and evil aren't real, then there was nothing wrong with the Holocaust. There must be good and evil, otherwise there's nothig wrong with anything, and you have no basis for speaking out against murder, rape, etc. Those things can only be wrong if they are evil. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 14:05, 17 May 2008 (EDT)

== It's complex (so is everything else) ==

God didn't create evil. He created the choice and temptation and the idea of evil. On a clean slate, a blank mind, no thoughts whatsoever, no matter how empty ones mind is, murder (for example) is always wrong (in a lucid state of mind). See, God planted the idea of evil, and to stay away from it and then he planted the temptation of it. choice. because if God simply gave things away, we'd be dependant, and that's not the way He rolls.

After all, what is evil? Is mudering fellow man evil, no, that is a choice the man makes. He gave us choice.

God can't tempt men to sin. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 22:09, 17 May 2008 (EDT)

==No==

Good is derived from God's character. God is everything that is good and holy. Evil is everything that is against God. For example, murder is wrong because God cannot murder. The same goes for lying, stealing, etc. But God gave people free will, and Adam rebelled against God. God gave us the ability to choose, but didn't make us choose it. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 14:03, 17 May 2008 (EDT)

well think about this.... if there was no concept of evil then there would be no concept of good, (kinda like if there are no losers then there are no winners) there fore he must have, or the Christian god doesn't exist. In this subject it is not logically possible to have your cake and eat it too. [[superstudent|superstudent]] 10:39 22 September 2008 (EDT)

:So light cannot exist without darkness, then? Since without darkness, there would be no light, right? Except, of course, that light does exist without darkness. God existed without evil for an eternity before He created mankind. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 23:35, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

::The brain of the believer .... --[[User:Nabroon|Nabroon]] 08:48, 4 November 2009 (EST)

Debate:Did God create evil?

2009-11-03T15:58:31Z

Nabroon: /* By definition */

{{Debate}}

Of course God made everything, but man sinned and that means evil came into the world by one man. Actually [[Satan]] sinned first but you could say that God created the opportunity for him to sin. Why do you think an omnipotent, omiscient God allowed Satan to rebel in the first place?
Better yet, why do you think God didn't just start over after Adam and Eve ruined his plans for a perfect society? [[User:StevenM]] Oct 20 2007 18:10

"Why do you think an omnipotent, omiscient God allowed Satan to rebel in the first place?" He didn't, Neither exist. [[User:ChillinBM]] Sept 29 2008 15:34

In terms of Adam and Eve you really have to ask where was god when they were talking to the talking snake. Also the basic logic being that if god made man and man sins then it would be the biproduct of god. [[User:Concretemuncher]]

One of the greatest gifts God gave his intelligent creations (angelic or human) was the capacity of free will ... the ability to make choices and to serve Him out of love and desire. Blaming God for the choices made by intelligent people would be like blaming parents who provide the best environment for their child, including an abundance of love and ensuring that nothing is lacking - including a positive purpose in life, and whose child then becames a criminal. The problem is not with the parent ... it is with the child. James 1:14-15 warns that sin is the result of someone allowing an improper desire to develop. Satan wanted the worship of humans, Eve wanted to be like God (able to independently decide what is good and bad), and Adam valued being with his wife more than obedience to God.

* God himself acknowledges his ability to foreknow the future. (Isaiah 46:10) Apparently He chooses to be selective when he uses the ability as is evidenced in other Bible accounts (e.g.., the test of Abraham's faith re: Isaac (Genesis 18:19; 22:11, 12)) and the fact that He extends the opportunity to ''all'' mankind to be reconciled to Him. (Acts 17:30, 31) It would be grossly unfair of God to invite ''all'' mankind to repent if He already ''knew'' which ones would not succeed.
** By selectively using his foreknowledge, God dignifies each of us with the opportunity to prove ourselves loyal to Him and provide an answer to Satan's challenge (Proverbs 27:11) and has the ability to find joy in His own life. Consider how boring your life would be if you knew every facet (the good, the bad and the mundane) of how others would treat you. What might seem advantageous to begin with would quickly grow dull.
* Why not start over after the rebellion in Eden? Satan called God a liar and challenged God's sovereignty (His ''right'' to rule), implying that mankind would be better off without God's rulership. Wiping out the three rebels at that time would not have answered the questions raised by Satan in a setting viewed by millions of angels.
** So God has allowed both Satan and mankind the opportunity to prove whether or not they can successfully rule independently of His guidance. (Jeremiah 10:23) At the same time he has made arrangements to allow those that want to serve Him an opportunity to learn about him (the Bible), to come into an approved relationship with him (the sacrifice of Christ Jesus) and enjoy the prospect originally offered to Adam & Even (eternal life in paradise on earth).
** Not to be overlooked is the fact that God immediately provided a means by which he would undo the effects of this rebellion. In the Bible's first prophecy (Genesis 3:15) God foretold that he would provide a Seed that would crush Satan (Romans 16:20). 1 John 3:8 tells us that Christ was made manifest to break up the works of the Devil. In short, there is no evil act that has been done or can be done that will not be undone. Isaiah 65:17 foretells that the "former things will not be called to mind" and Revelation 21:1-5 promise an end to tears, death, mourning, outcry and pain.
[[User:Brentleigh]]

I believe God ALLOWED evil to exist but did not CREATE it. He allowed Satan to rebel and for evil to exist in order that God be glorified. It's hard for mere mortal man to fathom such a concept. Without evil, Christ would not have needed to come to earth and die on the cross for the salvation of man. But in the end, God will become the ultimate victor, Satan will be destroyed, and God will be glorified for all eternity. --[[User:Watchman|Watchman]] 23:27, 8 January 2008 (EST)

This is the biggest issue with the whole bible, and christianity.
If you say that God is all powerful, and that there isn't anything he can't do..
Why did he then (if he created everything) create men on earth which were evil in their nature (at least after a while) and began to both destroy themself and everything else on earth, if god was allpowerful, he should have been able to create humans who did not have any hate in them and nothing of evil at all.

But since thats not the case, that only leave's us with two possible answers:
1) Good isn't allpowerfull and was newer able to create a perfect world, and the statement's in the bible most is obviously wrong.
2) The worst one, God is evil.
If God had all the powers in the world to create whatever he'd wanted, why did he create a humanity which has so many bad sides about them, like killing each other, killing other animals, torture, rape and everything like that.
If God truly is allpowerful and have the abilty to create whatever he want,
then God must, without no denying be the biggest sadist in the enitire world. --[[User:Nabroon|Nabroon]] 06:20, 5 March 2008 (EST)

It’s neither of those. God originally created the world and humanity in a perfect state. There was no evil at first. But, then people made the choice to sin and commit evil deeds. It’s because people have the freedom to choose that evil exists. God could have created a world where evil could not arise in it, but then He would have had to take away free will. Anytime you give a person a choice, you have to accept that fact that they may make the wrong choice. If you take away free will, then people would simply be pre-programmed robots. God want’s people to love Him, but He doesn’t want to force them to. God could either have robots who love Him only because they have no other alternative, or He could have people who love Him and freely choose to. Which would you prefer? Just about everyone would agree they would prefer somebody to choose to love them. That’s how God wants it, too. But that works under the premise that some will choose not too, and that people will choose evil. [[Ultimahero]] March 20 2008.

How, then, do you reconcile the Serpent? Did he not exist prior to man's choice? Was he not evil prior to that choice? I suppose an argument could be made that the Serpent was meant metaphorically, but that doesn't jibe well with the position that Genesis is meant to be read literally. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 17:28, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

The serpent, which is Satan, was created before the rest of the creation. And there was a was in Hevean where Satan and some of the angels rebelled, which caused them to be kicked from Hevean. Same kind of thing. They had a choice, they chose wrong. That's not God's fault. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 20:39, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

:...but it does establish that evil existed prior to the choice by humans. Moreover, we are still faced with the difficult quandry of why God created a universe in which evil was possible. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 20:45, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

Well, let's first define what evil is. God is good. So anything that goes against God's holy character is evil. Man sinned, which allowed evil to enter this world, affecting us and everything around us. But, evil did exist before that in the sense that Satan had already rebelled and chose to go against God. As far as when evil first began, I suppose it would be whenever the first choice to disobey God was made. Pressumabley this was Satan. And God createda world where evil exists because He wanted us to have free will. If people have the ability to choose, then they invariably have the ability to make wrong choices. God could have not given free will and eliminated the problem with evil, but then all He would have would be little robots who can't really choose Him. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 20:52, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

Yes...God created evil. That's a shocker; why did God, the perfect being that he is and only good and love comes through him, create evil? If there is no light, is there a such thing as dark? If there is no such thing as heat, is there a such thing as cold? If there is no evil, is there good? See, if evil didn't exist, we would be incapable of ever being good, since we would always be good, and that would put us as "average". No good can exist without evil. Love cannot exist without hate. Everything requires a contrast in order for it to exist. It's as simple as that. --[[User:Zerlock|Zerlock]]

== No ==
...but he created [[Liberal|Liberals]]. (poor attempt at fun by [[User:Leopeo|Leopeo]] 14:51, 10 December 2007 (EST))

What is evil? Evil is the one (Satan, or man) against God's will. Lucifer is created by God and was a fine angel. But because its pride, it wants to be God.
You said in your heart,
"I will ascend to heaven;
I will raise my throne
above the stars of God;
I will sit enthroned on the mount of assembly,
on the utmost heights of the sacred mountain.
I will ascend above the tops of the clouds;
'''I will make myself like the Most High.'''"

Isaiah 14:13-14

Because of this, Lucifer becomes Satan and fall.

For the one (and many others) who said "No good can exist without evil", I hope you won't think this way if you got robbed next time you are on the street, and still think it is necessary.[[User:Kmcheng|Kmcheng]] 12:17, 25 December 2008 (EST)

== By definition==

If God is everything , thus God is good and evil - [[User: tehliberator| tehliberator]]

Who said that God is everything? [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 16:26, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

Well, if God isn't everything, or if not everything is of God's creation, than there must exist other powers than God.
Mabye God is just created by some higher powers of creators and that he is just a pice of a puzzle in their play...
Or perhaps god is more of a way to express everything which exists, and which in its divine prinsiple, both gives life and takes life, both allows happyness and wisdom, but also allows sadness primitivity.
Life couldn't be either "White" or "Black", but to allow every being existing in God's creation to live and learn, they must feel both the dark sides of life aswell as the light sides of it, and the dark will allways come from our own mistakes and not anyone elses. And Jusus also explained it so very well by his well known statetment that; "What you sow you will reap".

Said plainly and easly, the best thing you can do for yourself is to do as much good as you possibly can do to others, that is the way of God, and that is the way that man will appear in "God's immage, after his likness".--[[User:Nabroon|Nabroon]] 21:37, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

How are you defining "other powers"? I would argue that evil is result of man's choice to rebel against God. So, man could fit into the "other powers" section, by that definition. But nothing exists that God didn't either directly bring about or allowed to come about. (Ex: Man is a result of God directly bringing him into existence; man's evil is a result of God allowing man to choose to sin.) But this doesn't mean that God '''is''' everything. I can paint a picture, but that doesn't make me the painting. God can create but that doesn't make Him the creation. [[User:BillyJ|BillyJ]] 22:04, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

Well...
I think the biggest mistake all of you on this site has made, and that counts for every christian person which have the same view too, is that God once upon a time in the beginning of his creation chose to abandon the human race because of an error they persumably made.
Allthough you talk about free will, if God had all the possible powers in the world to create whatever he wanted, than one would think that the first highly intellegent creature he created (namely humans), should have been been a little more wise and perfected than what was obviously the case (since they choosed to go against the will of god and to be cast out from the Garden of Even, which in some way can be looked on as heaven).

Either it really sounds like God wasn't fully capeable of creating only divine creations, or else, the darkness which came when the humans choose to abandon god (which I think you mean is only for as long as humans exists on this earth) wasn't either a mistake from god, and neither from the humans.
Because, if god created us with minds that are only capeable to think selfishly and ruthlessly, then it isn't we that should be blammed. (I hope some of you can see the logic in that).

I think that god created us in the unperfect way we were in from the beginning, so that we could experiance what the effects of our mistakes would be, and so, gradualy, to become more in harmony with the world, and in absolute, more in harmony with god.

I think that it is the misson of "free will", so that the humans can learn what is right and what is wrong, and the more you understand this, the closer to god you will get.

A lot of wrabble mabye, but I see the creation of everything god has made as a complete logical creation, which in you viewpoint normally is totally oppisite, since you feel that all humans have been born with guilt and are obviously not a creation that god is proud of, so you hope that god can forgive you be pleeding him for forgivness.

Btw, that thing I said about "other powers" was just an example to show that god isn't so much a existing person or angry being as he is both a prinsiple of all that is created and also the divine creator of all. --[[User:Nabroon|Nabroon]] 10:18, 8 July 2008 (EDT)

Alright. I think you’re misunderstanding what Christians (or at least what I) believe. You make it sound like the Christian perspective is that God made people, they sinned, and He abandoned them. But that’s not true. The Christian perspective is that God created people with the knowledge that they would sin. He didn’t cause it, but He knew it would happen. He used His knowledge to take it into account. So, God’s plan from the beginning and purpose in creation was to show His mercy by being merciful to man. People sin and have no possible way to escape from it, so God takes on flesh as Jesus Christ and dies on the cross for sin. God never abounded people. He provided them the way to escape.

People are responsible for sin. God isn’t, because He doesn’t make us sin. We just choose to sin. It’s our fault, as we are responsible for the decisions we make.

I would agree that creation is logical and makes sense. I don’t know why you feel that I wouldn’t accept that, seeing as I never said that it wasn’t. All people are born sinners, yes. Is God proud of His creation? I don’t know that “proud” is the best descriptive word. He was pleased with it in the beginning, saying it was “good”. And we know He doesn’t want people to sin, but He cares enough about His creation to go through the process of redeeming them.

I agree that God is the divine creator of all. But He is an actual being with emotions like anger. May I ask you what religion, if any, you are of? [[User:BillyJ|BillyJ]] 13:23, 8 July 2008 (EDT)

I am NOT of any religion, neither am I any kind of atheist, allthough I am very interested in finding the truth, or at least, as far as my mind is able to perceive.

And will tell you, so that it can stick hard enough into your brain, it is NOT your or anyone elses fault that god created you with a "weakness".
If God in the beginning created you with an intellegence and wisdom that wasn't sufficient enough to keep you in the "track" or "path" that god whished you to stay in, than it WAS god's fault.

Our free will is actually not as free as you would have liked it to be, becouse how free we are to think, and how logically we are able to percive, is directly tied to how "evolved" or "completed" our mind is.
God could have used his ablility to create a world of only brilliant, god and angel like beings, were no form of violence or hate could ever have existed.
But since that is not the case, he must have had a reason to why he didn't create our world into such a place, and it is not becouse God didn't have the ability or skill to do it, and it is neither becouse his creation "rebelled" on him, becouse if that was so, than it would have meaned that his creations wasn't so perfect, since they didn't mannage to do what god had wanted them to do.

But that is the way that the normal christian person looks at it, only that he chooses to look away from one half of it, namely the part were god's acts could only have been a evidence of weakness...

In reallity, god created absollutly everything in the most perfect way that you could have ever imagined.
And as I partly said earlier, the apperance of darkness on this planet, in the form of violence, hate, murder and everything of damaging form, is not a evidence of anyone's rebellion against god or his whishes, but is in fact a part of god's plan.

And in trying to make you understand this, I am gonna give you an example which wasn't really made by me:
But lets say that the entire world was a picture, (a picture made by god) then it wouldn't be a specially interesting picture if it was only painted white, as you could not really see anything.
Likewise, the picture would be just as meaningless if it was only painted black, as nothing could really be seen in it.

However, if you suddenly painted it full with all kinds of collors, and used just all kinds of variations, the image could suddenly become quite interesting to look at, since the were plenty of variations to the two main collors: Black and White.

That is also in a way how life exists, and the only way it could exist, since if you got to a point in life were it was allmost so dark and full of pain and missery that it was allmost impossible to see anything else, life would allmost have ceased there and no experiance could have been made becouse there was no variations to the light that was let down there.

The same is with the fact that if you got to a place were you only experianced the "heavenly" passion all the time and only could see and feel the pure light, there would be nothing to make a contrast to it, and therefore where there is no contrasts there is not sensing, and where there is no sensing there is no life.

And the final key to life is this; that if life is to exist, and if the beings which life consists of is to be allowed to live and experience, then life must be an ever changing cycle between darkness and light, and the degree of how close you are to god is the direct deciding factor to how much light your life consists of, just as how far away you are from god, decides how dark you life and fate will be.

It is an endless cycle, and to experience, there must allways be a change in the object of which is experienced, and from forever past to forever in the future, you will allways experience both sides of god's creation and will allways have the chance to feel the light which is closest to him.
--[[User:Nabroon|Nabroon]] 09:36, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

It would be man’s fault for sinning, not God’s. God creates people with free will. If they choose to do something that is against God, it that their fault or God’s? It’s theirs. They make the choice, they did it. God gives people the ability to choose, but man is still responsible for his choices.

Yes God could create a world with no evil. No problem. But, He decided He wanted a world where people have the free ability to choose. As long as people choose, they can choose wrong. To take away evil, God must take away our ability to choose evil. God could do that, but didn’t feel like it.

That’s not an imperfection on God’s part. It’s just not.

So evil is part of God’s creation? He wants there to be evil? Does God like murder and rape? Of course not. This was never part of God’s desire.

I don’t see the how your painting example has any logical implications. Your saying that if there’s too much good or too much evil, then it wouldn’t be “specifically interesting”. Well, so what? (Forgive me if that comes across as rude.) Just because it wouldn’t be interesting doesn’t mean that it is logically impossible. Tell me why it is logically impossible for there to be all good or all evil. God is all good. Why Can’t he be? Man is all evil. Why can’t he be? Give me a logical reason that makes it impossible.

Finally, let me ask you something. You said that you don’t belong to any religion. Fair enough, that’s fine. But, how then do you know that anything you say is true? Someone might ask me how I could know Christianity to be true, and I could point out that Jesus is a historical figure, that the resurrection account is incredibly reliable, etc. The validity of the Bible is a debatable issue, but at least I have something to point to that’s outside of myself. At least I have some objective standard to look to. But what do you have? Where are you deriving your views? Are you just getting everything from your subjective opinions and feelings? And, if that’s the case, do your feelings determine truth? [[User:BillyJ|BillyJ]] 15:08, 10 July 2008 (EDT)

Firstly, God created a world where His children may have free will to serve Him as they wish. That is one of the greatest He gave us, and it makes no sense to complain about it. Secondly, evil was not created by God. Evil is the absence of God, and were people to follow His guides from the beginning, from Genesis, there would have been no evil in humans. [[User:JDelaney|JDelaney]] 21:57, 12 July 2009 (EDT)

:Where is the logic in this belief? If God had created humans with free will, couldn't he also decide how smart and faithful they would be, so that they could make the right choice and stay in the garden? Another question often asked if why God planted a poisonous apple tree there to begin with.
:We know that children have free will, but they lack experience and knowledge from life, and thus they need to be protected by someone, like their parents or relatives. The same thing could have been said about the new human race, and that God was irresponsible for leaving them on their own to find out what was right and what was wrong. Do not any of you here see a problem behind justifying the mass course of the entire human race, because of what two inexperienced humans made as a choice? This is one of many reasons to why there are fewer people in the churches today than there was before, people want more logic and less doctrine...... --[[User:Nabroon|Nabroon]] 10:58, 3 November 2009 (EST)

Talk:Socialism

2009-05-14T19:05:43Z

Nabroon:

"This correlates with a rise in atheism," I think it should be noted that correlation does not show causation. What is the correlation coefficient? Is there a positive or a negative correlation?
-Gasmonkey

"Socialism has caused more deaths…" What, really? A reference would go great with that opinion. --[[User:Prometheus|Prometheus]] 01:19, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

== Laughable bias ==

"Leading European Socialists are very critical of America."

Of America? Of the american government? Some of the american governments? Some of the american goverments policies? American corporations? American food? American anti-americans? American republicans, democrats, liberals, jews, muslims, african americans, hispanics? I assume you mean all those things since you just say America? Do you have a valid point somewhere buried under that mountain of prejudice and generalisation? [[User:Messpm|Messpm]] 15:25, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Also, the source that backs it up mentions America ''once''.

' One thing is clear: the unilateral military style approach of the Bush-administration has failed'

I'm removing it with the ridiculous 'vastly superior' remark. [[User:Wikinterpreter|Wikinterpreter]]

[[User:AmeriCan]] keeps reverting my edits saying that it stresses the rights of the many over the priveliges of the few, as opposed to vice versa. I'm tired of edit warring and don't want to get blocked for something that is not worth it. [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 01:32, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
:Okay, this article is just [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Socialism&diff=next&oldid=135051 ridiculous]. I give up. [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 13:49, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
== Incentives ==

I couldn't find anywhere in this article where socialism lacks incentives. Should I add it in? The lack of incentives is a crucial reason to why socialism doesn't work in societies. [[User:AdrianP|AdrianP]] 01:40, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

This article's lack of knowledge is laughable and as an evil limey toothéd bastard who can spell things right (color=LOL) who is also a European Socilaist who is critical of America (the whole world is socialist by that standard) I must correct this issue.
LOL at the moron who re-edited my work, they do not know history well enough to try and battle me over Atlee.

== "Socialist" Britain ==

Rob, re your revision to Socialism. First, you make a large assumption about how socialist New Labour is (they aren't), second, the Conservatives would be far less likely to change the rules than any Socialist party, partly because thirdly, it would require disestablisment of the Church of England, which in any case could almost certainly not be achieved in the ten years New Labour have been in power, even if it was something they intended to do. Based on this I think the phrase "Socialist Britain" is inappropriate and removing it would not be liberal bias. In fact, retaining it is conservative bias. --[[User:Olly|Olly]] 15:23, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:So the Socialists do not oppose religious discriminition then? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:30, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
::Which socialists? New Labour do - they have in fact introduced legislation outlawing discrimination based on religious belief. But as I said - they're not Socialists in the sense that you would use. And as the article says - Catholics are not barred from being Prime Minister. They are barred from holding one of the ceremonial offices associated with the post - an office which could be renounced without having any impact on the powers intrinsic to the post of Prime Minister.--[[User:Olly|Olly]] 15:35, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:::This article gives a glowing description of what Socialism has done for Britian since 1945; it does not differentiate between Brand X Socialism and Brand Z; together, whatever stripe, along with all those great things they've done, you'd think eliminating bigotry would be high on the list. Must be a case where they are willing to compromise their principles in exchange for real political power. Nonetheless, they never stop talking about things like oppression, etc. Oh, I forgot, people who beleive in God are fair game for discrimination -- that's one of the basic tenets of Socialism. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:44, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
::::Socialism in Britain has done more to eliminate bigotry in Britain than any other movement. In fact so much that it is accused of political correctness. That this singular example remains is not an indictment of socialism - in fact that such a small example seems to raise your ire so much shows just how far bigotry has been eliminated.

::::People who believe in God are not discriminated against in this case. Adherants to '''any faith or denomination''' except Catholic are eligible; and the restriction to Catholics applies only to one essentially irrelevant ceremonial office associated with the post. Can you please address the points I make in the way I have yours?--[[User:Olly|Olly]] 15:53, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::So Britian, under various Socialist governments since 1945, has continued to discriminate against Roman Catholics. Why should this be surprising? It is very much in keeping with Socialist doctrine. And we can certainly conclude, Socialism ''does not'' respect equality. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:04, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
::::::Everything you say can be repeated for Conservatism in this case, and you continue to ignore all of my points. Forget it.--[[User:Olly|Olly]] 16:08, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::::Ignore which points? Are arguing discrimination against Catholics is not discrimination? Why? Because they're Catholic? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:15, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::::: I have to reiterate Olly's point here. I live in Britain, and I know that the Labour Party, since the [[Third Way]] (the third way, see? Not socialism, not conservatism, but a middle), is not a socialist party. ergo, blaming discrimination on socialists is false. --Wikinterpreter'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Wikinterpreter talk?]

::::::::: I rarely comment on politics but I have to agree with the British users here (being one myself). The Labour Party ceased to be a socialist party with the move to becoming New Labour (their proper title) and the implementation of the [[Third Way]]. New Labour seem to be in the strange position of trying to appeal to both the left and the right at the same time with neither Conservative nor Liberal values other than those required to win the popular vote. What is more worrying to the British conservative is that the Conservative Tory party seem to be following the same path required to win the mass vote leaving Britain in the strange position that both our main left and right parties have moved to the centre leaving nothing that would reflect either conservative or liberal views other than some rather, errr, I'll be polite here and say odd, fringe political groups such as the detestable BNP (no policies other than those of racism) and the pointless UKIP (too insular by far). Socialism has been dead since Labour morphed into New Labour (best described as a "Labour scented party") and traditional conservatism seems to be following the same path --[[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 17:54, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:: new labour is certainly not socialist in nature! --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 17:56, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:::I have to confess, I get lost in leftist ideological fever swamps. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:00, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:::: I have no idea what that means but nothing about modern britain or it's govt fits anything that resembles "socialism" in any significant manner - fees and loans for students, PFI, Invasion of iraq etc etc. The current govt is actually further to the right in many ways that Mrs. T government! was Thatch a socialist! I think not! --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 18:02, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

::::: Similarly, our Conservative party is no longer traditional conservatism. Think two parties both using the same elastic ideologies to chase the same fickle voters and appeal to conservative and liberal alike and there you have recent British politics. No left or right, just two sets of "middle". --[[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 18:05, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
::::::Yep. I was just reading how Socialist leaders in Britian send their kids to private schools. Very similiar to American liberals -- who then give us the Cain vs Abel speil about getting even with the rich! [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:21, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

Which socialist leaders? You mean the leader of the socialist workers party? I doubt it. I'm really struggling to understand what's going on here - Britain does not have a socialist government and if the catholic thing is meant to be an indication of socialist discrimination then Mrs. Thatcher was a socialist because she did nothing about it either! --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 18:25, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:Here. [http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,1970902,00.html] At least now we know why Blair's popularity has shrunk; it's not the War in Iraq, it's all those compassionate liberals and socialists who found out he was thinking of converting to Catholicism. [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/10/15/ncath15.xml] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:35, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

eh? Do you think this is a big issue in the UK? That someone is a catholic? Can I suggest in a friendly manner that maybe your understanding of the UK is slightly lacking and you are looking at it via the lens of the US? I'll leave it at that stage because you want the article to say that Britain is a socialist nation and as a sysop - well you win straight out of the box. --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 18:38, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:It was somebody elses idea to trumpet the glories of British Socialism, whatever for. What is obvious from this is, Socialist do not care at all about equality and human rights. It's simply fraud to pretend that they do. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:46, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

Thing is, we have no true socialist leaders or true conservatives anymore. Ideology is dead, long live chasing after anyone that will vote for you. And I come from a very long line of Catholics who were also passionate supporters of the NHS, minimum wages and other socialist ideals. I happen to be Christian and Conservative but there are many good Christians who hold to what are considered socialist values. Many many many shades of grey here. Very hard to pin down to a few neat paragraphs. One thing holds true though, New Labour are not and never were Socialist. This is why most of my extended family stopped voting Labour as they felt it was a betrayal of their values. --[[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 18:48, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

::The only limitation that Blair would face if he became a Catholic would be that he would be unable to suggest the appointment of Bishops in the Church of England to the Crown. This restriction came about from the Catholic Relief Act of 1829, which repealed earlier laws outlawing Catholic participation in voting and government. There is also a law prohibiting the King or Queen from being a Catholic or married to a Catholic, the Act of Settlement of 1701. British anti-Catholic laws have nothing to do with Socialism or the Labour party, but instead are due to the English Civil War, the Restoration, and resistance by Protestant Britain to Catholic rule. The Act of Settlement and that provision of the Catholic Relief Act aren't still in force due to strong anti-Catholic sentiment in Britain, but just due to inertia and the fact that the law doesn't really come up. I don't think it's true to say that these restrictions have anything at all to do with socialism in Britain, either currently or historically.--[[User:Epicurius|Steve]] 18:50, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:::This BBC article quotes Blair, "changing the law would be hugely complicated involving changes to nine different pieces of legislation." [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/529227.stm] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 19:13, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

We still have a great number of old laws that technically still apply (policemen in certain counties are still supposed to walk in the gutter for example) that no one adheres to, very few remember and no one cares to repeal due to the fact that they are archaic and pretty much forgotten. Hardly tantamount to discrimination, more a quirk of history. [[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 18:54, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:Right...that's my point. I'm agreeing with you. It's an old law that has never been changed because it's never been an issue.--[[User:Epicurius|Steve]] 19:02, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

Would it be more correct to rephrase the final sentence in this article thus. "''In Britain, Catholics are discriminated against by being barred from holding certain offices associated with the post of Prime Minister. These offices can be renounced without any practical inhibition to the powers of the post, but no government, socialist or otherwise has done so since 1829."'' Or better yet, remove it. Or am I just tired from a long day down t'pit? --[[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 19:07, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:Sounds good, but we should add, "a reform measure was voted down as recently as 1999." [[User:RobS|RobS]] 19:16, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
::Well, the 1999 reform measure you're citing doesn't have anything to do with religious restrictions of the Prime Minister...just religious restrictions for the monarch. But, still, I don't really see what this has to do with socialism.--[[User:Epicurius|Steve]] 23:52, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:::It evidently isn't that easy. Blair says it affects nine pieces of legislation, some it appears affecting his office. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:08, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

If that is the case then please do. No shame in the truth providing all governments since 1829 share the blame equally. --[[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 19:20, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:Go ahead and do it. That is indeed how a democracy works, even when socialists are dominant. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 19:47, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

My only issue with making these amendments to an article on Socialism is that, as all governments since 1829 are complicit in this lack of reform, it is no longer purely a Socialist issue and, as such, should have no place here. I'd like other people's views on this but, as it is not soley a Socialist failing, I think the entire reference to this Catholic discrimination should be removed. Other people, the floor is yours ; ) --[[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 19:56, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

I think this section illustrates the folly of applying a US conservative-liberal axis to the political culture of other countries. There's an interesting article to be written about socialism in Britain but it doesn't belong in an article that puts anyone who supports universal health care in the same camp as Stalin and Hitler.--[[User:Jalapeno|Jalapeno]] 01:05, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
:Yes and no. It all depends on the conduct of the British Socialists. Name calling, and outrageous assertions can be a two way street. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 01:13, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

Hang on a minute. The information about the Act of Settlement is correct, but it has absolutely nothing to do with Socialism. What on earth is it doing here? If nobody else removes it I will.

how are catholics discriminate against by labour? there are catholic schools funded by the state, the only part of the UK that discriminates against catholics is Northern Ireland and if you called men like paisley a socialist he'd knock your teeth out.[[User:Foxley|Foxley]] 15:18, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

:How many decades over the past century has the labour/left coalition dominated British politics? Why haven't they acted on this? Being the self-appointed defenders of the oppressed and against injustice, how come no one speaks up?

:We don't have to look far to see how deeply rooted and respectable anti-Catholicism is in British culture. Why, one of the ''Beatles'' greatest hits, ''Lady Madonna'' is a celebration of despicable anti-Catholic attitudes & stereotypes. And several Beatles have been, if recollection serves me correct, Knighted for their achievements and service. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:47, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

Right. Just one Beatle -- Paul -- has been knighted and both he and John Lennon were themselves raised as Catholics. I really don't think Lady Madonna can be seriously regarded as a criticism of ANYTHING.
:Read the lyrics. [http://www.lyrics007.com/The%20Beatles%20Lyrics/Lady%20Madonna%20Lyrics.html] George Harrison, too. John Lenin didn't live long enough, and everybody knows Ringo's a bit slow. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:48, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

:Facts are, for all criticism of the US, the treatment of Catholics, by law, in Great Britain, as second class citizens, or the open, naked prejudice and ridicule they suffer, would never ever be tolerated in the United States. And truth be told, there is anti-Catholic prejudice in the US, but nothing like the respectability it has gained over the centuries in Great Britain. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:54, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

What do you mean "George Harrison too"? Are you under some delusion that he, too, was knighted. You are wrong. All of them did, of course, get MBEs, though Lennon -- "Lenin"? Oh, you are SO witty -- returned his in protest at the Vietnam War. As for Lady Madonna, speaking as an Irish Catholic myself, I am flabbergasted that you could regard this as a recognisable criticism of that community.
:Read the lyrics. I was raised Catholic but left the Church many years ago. But I ''still'' get deeply offended by the blatant intent, and ridicule of the message in that song. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:15, 6 June 2007 (EDT)
::Paul McCartney, a lapsed Catholic, said he wrote ''Lady Madonna'' in response to seeing a photograph of a woman and child entitled ''Mountain Madonna''.[http://www.iamthebeatles.com/article1208.html] It's bizarre to read an anti-Catholic sentiment into that song -- it's an expression of sympathy for a struggling mother. In answer to an earlier question you posed Labour has governed the UK for about 30 of the last 100 years and has traditionally enjoyed strong support from Catholics[http://www.ipsos-mori.com/publications/rmw/the-catholic-vote.shtml]; The greatest opposition to changing the constitution to allow a Catholic monarch comes from traditionalist Conservatives who want to retain the privileges of the Church of England. --[[User:Jalapeno|Jalapeno]] 13:21, 6 June 2007 (EDT)
:::Sympathy? On what planet? ''Labour has governed the UK for about 30 of the last 100 years'' And we are really discussing Socialists here, and their record of being defenders of the "oppressed", and rectifying injustice. Even if it's only 30 years, what is the record of rectifying this injustice? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:01, 6 June 2007 (EDT)
::::Sigh.[http://www.psr.keele.ac.uk/area/uk/pm.htm] Catholics in Britain have traditionally favoured Labour for a number of reasons, not least of which is that Labour has been more sympathetic towards Nationalism and the Conservatives more sympathetic to Unionism -- it's more to do with green vs. orange than red vs. blue. Perhaps we could have a cite for the "oppression" that has somehow escaped the attention of those living in Britain who have contributed to this thread? --[[User:Jalapeno|Jalapeno]] 15:17, 6 June 2007 (EDT)
:::::Cough. Sneeze. [http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/0000000CA992.htm][http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article512736.ece] Thank God she's not a Catholic. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:17, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

== DAB's version ==

DAB's version on 'succesful socialism' has already resisted 9 minutes. How long before a SysOp comes? I guess someone will be blocked for a long long time... (and no, I have no affiliation with DAB)[[User:Leopeo|Leopeo]] 13:38, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

== Let's not get carried away here, please ==
The picture at the very top of the page right away makes a direct visual attachment of communism and socialism as if they are one in the same. As the vast majority of editors and sysops here are quite cleary well educated people, I am shocked that the picture in question remains. Communism is not the equal of socialism, nor is the reverse true either. Communism is socialism taken to the far extreme. For example, Finland is socialist, but try labeling them communists and see what happens, lol... I'm all for removing that picture, and perhaps replacing it with something more indicative of socialism in general rather than Marxism/Leninism/Communism in specific. [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 16:35, 23 June 2007 (EDT)
:Oh, umhh, I see. Care to explain how [[Hitler]] was misunderstood, too? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:39, 23 June 2007 (EDT)
::Rob, he never said anything about "misunderstanding" the ideology. He made the valid point that socialism and communism are ''not'' the same thing. Canada, Finland, Sweden, etc. They are socialist, but ''not'' communist. Do you wish to dispute that? This conversation had nothing to do with Hitler. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 16:50, 23 June 2007 (EDT)
:::Pardon me for not wading into a [[leftist]] ideological fever swamp, but I really don't care to decipher the degrees of complicity in [[democide]] based upon an avowed [[atheistic]] philosophy. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:05, 23 June 2007 (EDT)
::::So then don't contribute to the article. Your responses do not address the complaints, but rather your refusal to accept anything other than what you think you already know. Your defense for completely screwing up the distinction between two ideologies is a refusal to even ''attempt'' to understand the distinction. That makes ''perfect'' sense. I'd be glad to wade into that "leftist ideological fever swamp" for you, Rob, seeing how scared you are of it. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 18:13, 23 June 2007 (EDT)
We are not in the position of advocating, defending, or apologizing for [[democidal]] ideologies. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:18, 23 June 2007 (EDT)
:No, we are in the position to write an '''encyclopedia article''' about them. And saying that communism and socialism are identical ideologies is completely false. Once again, you change your reasons for wanting to include the misleading picture. How is being factual "apologetic", "advocating for", or "defending" socialism? Are you suggesting we deliberatly mislead readers? And the ideology is not democidal. Last I heard, Canada, Finland, Sweden, etc. don't commit democide. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 18:27, 23 June 2007 (EDT)

Quite so Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ. If I seek to distinguish between a shark and a barracuda I am not taking sides with either. Rob seems pathologically incapable of listening to reason and seems to view any considered response of this subject to be an act of Marxist-Leninist subversion. Ignore him.

RobS it appears you misunderstood what I was saying and clearly the fault is on me as I should have explained my position better.My apologies on giving the impression that I was apologizing for communism. Was not my intention. I think however you should really think about what Hojimachong is saying though, since he has explained it perfectly =) [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 23:33, 24 June 2007 (EDT)

:: I went ahead and removed the picture in question. I do apologize to you RobS however, in truth it was misleading and out of place. It would PERFECT for the article on Communism, or articles about the old Soviet Union and presently existing communist regimes. But this is the socialism page. Let me put it this way: Having that picture represent socilism in general is like making an article about the primary colors and only showing blue. It is misleading. But this is in no way a reflection of any supposed sympathy for communism in specific or even socialism in general. And as for democide, well, isn't that getting a bit off track? I know one of the key principles of communism is an athiestic society, but that's all part of the package, I don't see how making your major argument revolve around democide makes sense. Also, again, that's communist specific. There are SOCIALIST countries that are Christian by LAW, as a STATE RELIGION (something that America has avoided as we all know), regardless of the denomination. So applying democide to socialism is another exercise in ignorance. But I digress; I simply removed a misleading graphic. I would like to add something more illustrative of socialism in general, however while I could find such a thing, I sadly am not well versed in editing yet, specificaly when it comes to posting images. Yes, that IS a call for help by the way, =) [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 00:06, 25 June 2007 (EDT)
:::That's odd, I thought the name of the state Stalin & Lenin presided over was, "The Union of Soviet '''Socialist''' Republics, not "the Union of Soviet Communist Republics". I must have been sleeping in class again the day they set that straight, I guess. [[User:RobS|RobS]]
00:23, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

::::"What's in a name? That which we call a rose, by any other name would smell just as sweet," or in this case "would be just as red." hahaha, sorry, bad joke. But here is my response: That was simply a name. If I call a ka-bar a fluffy teddy bear, does that make it any less lethal a weapon? No. Granted, the USSR itself may not have been total communism, however it was far closer to communism than it was to the "ordinary" socialist idealology that spawned it. As I stated earlier, "socialism" is a generalism, while "communism," "USSR," etc. are specifics. If you're talking about a broad issue like socialism, it's not academically responsible to, whether accidently or otherwise, make the specific general broad issue appear to others as nothing more than one single specific. [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 00:38, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

If you have two children, and the children are quite different from one another in most respcts, but naturally they are both YOUR children, do you take any more pride in the one, than you do the other? Is socialism nothing more than communism that spawns from it? Of your two hypothetical children, does only one of them represent you? [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 00:43, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

::As a side note, I truly do believe in at least replacing that image, and I do notice it is back up, though I'd rather not take it back down again unless some sort of consensus is reached or I get solid support for my argument. I do not wish to be accused of starting an edit war or seem like I have a vendetta against RobS now :) [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 00:52, 25 June 2007 (EDT)
Also I am pleased to see the "different strands of socialism" section. I completely support that. The existence of that section lends even more to my argument that that graphic on the socialism article in general ought to be removed. The section listing different strands of socialism clearly indicates the author knows communism is not the entirety of socialism. So why the communist specific graphic? =)

Just to go back to socialism and atheism for a minute, while it's true that Marxist Communism certainly is atheistic, socialism isn't neccesarily. In fact, there was a strong Christian Socialist movement in Britain in the 19th century that helped lead to the British Labour party, and there was certainly a Jewish Socialist movement that contributed to the Zionist movement.--[[User:Epicurius|Steve]] 01:22, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

:Very good points Steve! [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 01:25, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

==Compromise?==
RobS, I would greatly apreciate it if you would take a look at my most recent edit. I didnot remove the graphic. I did however edit the text in the caption slightly, in that I added a bitmore detail which makes it less misleading, in my opinion, and I would greatly value your thoughts on this =) [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 04:53, 25 June 2007 (EDT) (anyone else reading also lol)

::Well scratch that. It seems Fox has provided a graphic that suits the article. Cheers to Fox, good find and good edit. [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 13:54, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

::RobS if you gave up debating I do not see the virtue in reverting Fox's edit. His picture makes much more sense than the previous. I reverted it back to HIS. You seem to want to cram your opinion down peoples's throats. On the other hand, Fox and I and many others would rather have this be accurate and academic. [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 02:46, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

:::I'm no supporter of Socialism by any means, but I genuinely feel this image is more illustrative for the article's subject, particularly as the main body sems to concentrate on British socialism. I know how easy it can be to choose an image to make a general point rather than to illustrate the point of the article - you should see the dozens of pics I'm itching to use to illustrate Israel's fight for survival - but I resist the temptation to use them because: we all accept that articles here are going to be representative of a broadly, if only small "c", conservatism, so using a soviet commie poster to illustrate the article is somewhat like cracking hazelnuts with a sledgehammer. Welded to an anvil. :D [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 04:17, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

::::Agreed. That's how I felt on it. I'm not a supporter of socialism either, but I do support sticking to the point, rather than the point of view. [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 15:46, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

==Inaccurate==
The article currently lists Tony B.liar as the Prime Minister. [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 19:08, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

*No points given for something that only happened earlier today, Fox! ROFL! We can change it when you know who the new man is, eh? --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 19:10, 27 June 2007 (EDT)
::LoL - I would have changed it, but it was protected. The new <strike>village idiot</strike> PM is [[Gordon Brown]]. [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 19:47, 27 June 2007 (EDT)
:::Check your offline Yahoo's. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 20:13, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

== Poor Move ==
I am saddened to see the page is locked for editing after being reverted back to misleading picture. This is quite unfortunate and I am afraid it will refelect poorly for CP. [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 19:02, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

== This article lacks a basic understanding of what socialism is ==

This article begins by stating.

Socialism is an economic system where the means of production are seized and monopolized by the government without compensation to the builders of the capital, and where investments, production, distribution, income, prices, and economic justice are administered by a government nomenklatura that regulate the transfer of money, goods (including capital goods), and services primarily through taxation and regularized and institutionalized aggressive coercion.

There are a number of things wrong with this. It seems like the author has failed to actually read socialist tracts. I will try to list most of the fallacies I see offhand.

1. "are seized and monopolized by the government" this phrase betrays a lack of knowledge about how socialism views the state. For example, "means of production" aren't seized, and cannot be seized. The worker is a human being not a commodity or "capital". As a human being he is a part of the state. Finally, Marxism actually is anti-state and in the culmination of the dialectical processes would lead to its removal. (Also, no mention of Hegelian dialectics are present in the article. This is a key point concerning socialism. To abandon the dialectic is similar to discussing Christianity without the crucifixion.)
:So the human being is an [[untermensch]], state property, and without rights, correct? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
2. The authors seem to fail to realize that there are vast differences within socialism just as there are within Christianity e.g. Catholicism, Protestantism, Mormonism...etc each differing vastly but similar in appearance to an outsider.
:True; Jesse Jackson for example, may be described as a God-fearing Socialist. Problem is, we need more sources. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

::In Wikipedia one may find: ''Socialism refers to a broad array of doctrines or political movements that envisage a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to control by the community for the purposes of increasing social and economic equality and cooperation. This control may be either direct—exercised through popular collectives such as workers' councils—or indirect—exercised on behalf of the people by the state... A diverse array of doctrines and movements have been referred to as "socialist." '' --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 01:53, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

::*Well, Wikipedia is never an acceptable source or citation at CP, so perhaps another definition can be found, Joaquín. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 06:31, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

3. The statement that "religion is the opium of the masses" is taken out of context. It wasn't meant to be a pejorative statement. The common misunderstanding of this quote is that religion is a tool used by the state to force an otherwise unruly population into line through fear, propaganda, religious mysticism, and thus religion is ultimately evil.
:So under this theory, the state gets people hooked on narcotics in order to control them. Thanks for clarifying that. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
The actual meaning is that religion is created by the people for the people as an expression of their desire for some form of justice in an evil world. This may be viewed through a Christian perspective of mankind longing for God and thereby creating rituals and religion etc.. to reach Him.
:Ok, so then Marxism or Socialism (or whatever code word you wish to use), Socialists seek to restrict the fundemental, God-given, [[human right]] of [[worship]]. Further, this an excellent example of [[leftist]]s seeking to impose ''their'' [[morality]] on the rest of us, is it not? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
Really, the major lack of information concerning Hegel's influence and the respective influence of the French, Germans, and British on Marx as he lived throughout Europe in his formulation of his ideas (French utopianism etc...) suggest an overly simplified method of viewing socialism.
:Yes, I understand. It truelly is a more intellectual exercise than we give it credit for. [[Charles Manson]] wasn't much of an intellectual, but his recruiting talents and demonstrated abilities to persuade young minds would have made a valuable member of the [[nomenklatura]]. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
It is a multifaceted philosophy and this article does it great injustice by explaining it in terms you would have expected from a farmboy filled with American propaganda from the 1950s.
:Multifacted. Yes. Some advocate murder and lawlessness, others only certain degrees of it. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
Socialism does not necessarily attempt to create a manmade utopia atheistically (some forms have however). Instead, the historical process is viewed as evolving. Just as the Roman system of government worked better than the Greeks, and feudalism evolved from that. In turn industrialized capitalistic colonial government worked better than feudalism. None of these forms of government were perfect but in every case they were better (arguably worse depending on whose perspective you take.) Similarly, socialism is ultimately a democratic movement wherein the workers (i.e. the means of production) cease to be exploited by the privelaged classes.
:Marxist mumbo-jumbo. Feudalism was at one time the solution to mankinds problems of homelessness and unemployment, and other social problems. Conservapedia is not interested in spewing more Marxist trash to another generation. We need some straight forward reporting on human history. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
Also, one last misconception is that socialism is against private property or the earning of wages. It is quite the opposite small business men were sympathetically viewed by Marx as ultimately destroyed by the industry (Analogy: mom and pop stores being eaten by Walmart). Socialism is often viewed as a welfare state, but Marx's view was contrary to this. He viewed the owners of corporations etc... as those who benefited from the welfare of the production made by those who worked. Thus, the worker (means of production) produced and the owner (businessman) consumed.
:So we are back to the issue of [[Economic planning]]; yes, we are working on that. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
This article expresses a really uneducated opinion. I'm not claiming socialism is the greatest thing ever. I'm not denying communism and thus mass murders and authoritarian government came from it. But its a logical fallacy to claim that socialism is therefore wrong. Take the French Revolution. Maximillian Robespierre was a democrat and the revolution was a democratic one and yet it is known as the Reign of Terror. Is democracy evil? Also, consider Christianity and the crusades, the inquisition, the wars fought between the reformationists and the Catholics. Is Christianity therefore wrong?
:The revolution was democratic? Yes, and as our sources show, violating price controls set by economic planning boards was a capital offense warranting the guillotine. Glad to see democracy works. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
You do yourself and the reader great injustice. [[User:Jstanierm|Jstanierm]] 15:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
:Good luck, son. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

::I don't understand. Are you saying the French radicals in charge of the Reign of Terror were not liberals (in the international sense) who were in favor of a democracy as opposed to the monarchy? How novel and how very uninformed. [[User:Jstanierm|Jstanierm]] 16:21, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

::Please don't debate me within my own text it's hard to respond. Concerning the opium statement if you actually read my sentence I said that's the common misconception.
:::There's little evidence the French Revolution was "democratic;" it was a lynch mob that turned on each other. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:54, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
"So the human being is an [[untermensch]], state property, and without rights, correct?"

No that's incorrect Marx actually wrote of the end of the concept of statehood. I get the notion that you believe Communism is socialism and you have a limited understanding of what Marx wrote. Concepts such as government, statehood, etc.. are absent from socialism as a philosophy. [[User:Jstanierm|Jstanierm]] 16:26, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
:::Bukharin read Marx correct; he saw through the fraud. While I do not advocate or agree with Bukharin's philosophy, as an eyewitness, his historical reporting on Marx is accurate. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:54, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
You say I'm using code words. That would be similar to me denying Christianity on the grounds that I find the Pope offensive. When you claim that not all Christians are Catholics I accuse you of using propaganda and code words.

Please be a bit more rational. I am not a Marxist propagandist. I am a Christian. I feel like this article could use a little more truth in it and little less of the common American anti-communism uninformed dialogue in it. [[User:Jstanierm|Jstanierm]] 16:28, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
::What's so uninformed? Americans have stood on the sidelines and watched how Socialism has ravaged other contintents with [[democide]], and have clearly articlated a [[foreign policy]] to oppose it. Yes, Socialism has made vast inroads in the [[public school]]s, [[media]], entertainment, and [[law]]. But American foreign policy for decades has been fairly consistent in opposing it, despite opposition and subversion along the way. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:54, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

:::What are you talking about? Which continent was ravaged by SOCIALISM? SOCIALISM NOT COMMUNISM. THEY ARE DIFFERENT. READ A BOOK, PLEASE, AND LEARN A LITTLE. Are you talking about Europe and Canada? Two very SOCIALIST places, or are you talking about Russia and China two very COMMUNIST places.

:::The Reign of Terror was a DEMOCRATIC revolution. Communism came from socialism but it is NOT socialism. The Reign of Terror was founded on liberal ideas like anti-monarchy, freedom of speech, democracy, BUT IT WAS NOT DEMOCRACY. [[User:Jstanierm|Jstanierm]] 17:02, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

==British socialism==
The second paragraph of the British socialism section should be removed. It really has nothing to do with socialism (though some of it might be useful in a different article). Additionally the sentence describing how Catholics are barred from certain offices appears to be untrue, or at least misleading. The "offices" in question are the mostly ceremonial positions of Monarch and spouse. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 15:42, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
:oh, so you don't deny the existence of discriminatory laws? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 15:50, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
::Other than barring a Catholic from becoming king or queen? I don't know of any. If there are point them out. In any case it has nothing to do with socialism. Put it in the [[United Kingdom]] article; I didn't notice it there. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 15:55, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
:::Dodi Fayed's kid could become king, but not Tony Blair's. In the US, this is not only unconstitutional, most living American's would be outraged at the even the suggestion of such a law. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:08, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
::::Again, WHAT DOES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH SOCIALISM? [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 16:25, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
:::::What did the Socialist do to repeal this law when it was last taken up? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:30, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
::::::"The Socialist"? Who might he be? In any case, the law has been on the books for 300 years, and in that time no party has repealed it (it's mostly a non-issue; neither Fayed's nor Blair's kids are going to become king, the Queen's kid will. He's an Anglican), should it be mentioned in the articles on Tories, Whigs, and the Britsh Liberal Party? How about every in the article on every Prime Minister ("Benjamin Disraeli did not repeal the Act of Settlement"; "Earl Grey did not repeal the Act of Settlement"; "Ramsay MacDonald did not repeal the Act of Settlement"...). According the the cited article "Mr Blair said altering the law would be a hugely complicated process involving changes to nine separate pieces of legislation. The government has already embarked on a heavy legislative programme with 28 bills to see through." If Prince William gets engaged to a Catholic I'll bet we'll see the issue taken up, but in the meantime it's a lot of work for a something that is not going to be an issue. And ''it has nothing to do with socialism''. It might be relevant in another article, but not this one. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 16:43, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
:::::::Blair's wife is Roman Catholic, and the kids are too as I understand. Fayed was a Muslim, and the child Princess Di was carrying at the time of her death would have a had a rightful claim to the throne under certain circumstnces.
:::::::The logic of your argument above appears quite anti-progressive, and [[reactionary]], does it not? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 17:14, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
::::::::Hmmm. Perhaps it would help if you actually read what I wrote. But that might be too much to ask. Fayed and his offspring would have zero claim to the throne, nor does Blair's kids. None of that matters, in any case, as we're discussing the article, and the connection between the Act of Settlement and socialism, which is zero. I'm not sure what's "reactionary" about pointing that out. I'm not here to defend the Act of Settlement, or any other remnant of Britian's bygone era. Just explain its significance to this article. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 18:18, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
:::::::::We saw the same thing when Chuck remarried; the wedding was delayed because Parker-Bowles had at onetime been married to a Catholic. "Thank God she's not a Catholic" [http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article512736.ece] How these Enlightened Socialists can look us straight in the eye, fail to condemn this hypocracy, shrug their shoulders and say there's nothing that can be done about it, I'll never understand. It all proves the point: Socialism stands for nothing but political opportunism. And if it something doesn't serve Socialists immediate politcal opportunism, like standing up for religious freedom and against religious bigotry, they fall back on reactionary arguments. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 12:23, 11 August 2007 (EDT)
:::::::::'''Bottom line''': Don't tell me Socialism stands for social progess, change, opposition to the exiting order, levelling the playing field, and against discriminition until British Socialists take on this issue. Absent that, Socialism is just a complete [[fraud]]. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 12:32, 11 August 2007 (EDT)

*See [[deceit]], Rob. You don't really expect to get a straight answer, do you? --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 18:19, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

== Just Plain Wrong ==

Socialism is an economic system where the means of production are seized and monopolized by the government without compensation to the builders of the capital, and where investments, production, distribution, income, prices, and economic justice are administered by a government nomenklatura that regulate the transfer of money, goods (including capital goods), and services primarily through taxation and regularized and institutionalized aggressive coercion.

This is the definition of COMMUNISM, not SOCIALISM. The writer of this article is laughably politicaly incoherent. (and the bias is thick enough to cut with a bundle of sticks tied to an axe)
:If you think you can do better, Silvanus, by all means do so...but don't make it hard on yourself by demeaning others. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 17:35, 14 November 2007 (EST)

::I think we have to distinguish between the various types of socialism, but this is not easy to do. Many partisans write about socialism as if their pet variety is the only (or main) kind.

::The kind which conservatives oppose is the totalitarian [[Communist]] type. But not every form of socialism is as bad as that. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:26, 4 January 2008 (EST)

:::Well, in the European tradition at least, communism has always been extremely distinct from socialism - perhaps this is not clear in the USA. For instance, the Labour Party has always been committed to democratic socialism, and was strongly critical of the USSR. It is self-evident that democratic socialism is hugely more widespread as a faith than communism in the present day, and has never implied totalitarianism - the Labour Party has traditionally been far more committed to freedom than the Conservatives here in the UK.

::::If there countries having a "socialist" system with less than totalitarian control, we can describe them also. I just thought it would be good to start by describing the Communist approach, since that is the model or ideal that most people look to when comparing [[capitalism and socialism]]. The Nazi variant permitted individual ownership, but [[von Mises]] says the results were similar because the state maintained price controls and so on.

::::We also need to distinguish between the economic aspects of socialism and the political aspects of "socialist" countries. For example, in Sweden people are allowed to emigrate, but in Cuba they are not. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 07:28, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

== Would like to add a paragraph about my country (Norway) ==

If its all the same to you I'd like to write about our system wich is currently socialist-democratic. Then again most of our parties are socialist to some degree. Any objections?

Also, the article seems to have mixed up communism with socialism. I assure you, socialism in this day and age bears a much stronger resemblance to the US govermental system than the dictatorship that was soviet russia.

LOL this again. [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 15:35, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

:Can you be more specific? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:42, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

== Also Add Ethiopia ==

Someone needs to add Ethiopia to this article as Ethipia used to be socialist. Also, include the Ethio-Somalia War.

==Liberal propaganda about Chile==

Removed from article:

:In the first year of Allende's, the economic policy showed decidedly positive results, including a 12% industrial growth an 8.6% increase in GDP, as well as major declines in inflation (down from 34.9% to 22.1%) and unemployment (down to 3.8%). However, these gains were only temporary due to American intervention. American copper interests in Chile, which controlled 80% of Chile's copper production, reacted violently to Allende's nationalization. The United States set about placing an economic stranglehold on Chile designed to, in a famous quote by Richard Nixon, "make the (Chilean) economy scream". Classified documents have also revealed the extent of the United States' involvement in the 1973 coup d'etat that overthrew Allende, installing and supporting dictator [[Augusto Pinochet]] in power. Pinochet is known to have detained and tortured thousands of domestic dissidents by its secret police.<ref>http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB8/nsaebb8i.htm</ref>

This is a typical kind of one-sided argument. The point being made is that Chile was doing fine under Allende until the US helped Pinochet thwart his "reforms". Actually, Allende was trying to make Chile like Cuba, and Pinochet stopped Allende's attack on Chile's economic and political freedom.

We need to cover all this in [[History of Chile]]. Perhaps, like Wikipedia, we should also create a [[1973 Chile coup]] article. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:20, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

*Pinochet loyalists ... still revered him for implementing the macroeconomic reforms, which eventually raised the standards of living nationwide.
*Pinochet lost power in a renewal of democratic elections. [http://nylatinojournal.com/home/eagles_in_fall,_lions_in_spring/analysis/a_divided_chile_contemplates_pinochet_s_passing.html]

There's a [[Chile: Two Visions|book]] which covers the mess Allende made of the economy:
:This book is a study of Chile's turbulent recent history. It covers Salvador Allende's socialist revolution and explains how it sank Chile into chaos, economic deprivation, political turmoil, and illegality. It covers Chileans' repudiation of the Allende government three years later and their call to the military to intervene after the August 1973 congressional censure of Allende failed to stop Allende or convince him to resign.
:By winter 1973, Chileans were desperate, as famine loomed in Chile and disorder reigned in the streets. Allende's government had so destroyed the productive apparatus that on Sept. 6, 1973, President Allende announced: "We do not have the most minimal supply of flour, at most for three or four days." [http://www.policyofliberty.net/HPdA/RobertsAraujo.html]

Even the ultra-Liberal [[NPR]] agrees that Allende was botching things up:
*Allende was implementing socialist economic policies in Chile, with disastrous results. Gen. Pinochet finally agreed with other military officers that they had to stop Allende . . . [http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6606013]

Liberals never fail to label Allende "democratically-elected", but he got less than a majority of the vote and:

:the Chilean parliament denounced Allende for abrogating the Chilean constitution. [http://www.vdare.com/roberts/050607_guilty.htm]
::Remind me, who was it sent the tanks onto the streets and the planes into the air to overthow a democratically elected Government? Pinochet or Allende? And which major superpower supported that overthrow? [[User:BrianTS|BrianTS]] 10:12, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

:::If you're not going to read the references or respond to what I actually wrote, then you should limit your comments to our [[debate pages]]. This page is for improving the article. Try [[Debate:When is revolution justified?]] or something like that. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:19, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

==Grammatical Edit and Rebuttal==
I made a small grammatical edit and included a brief rebuttal of pro-socialist sentiments expressed in "Controversy" section. [[User:JeffC|JeffC]] 23:38, 30 April 2009 (EDT)

:You thought the article was pro-socialist? Please don't revert the edits of Administrators, that is against our policy, JeffC. There were paragraphs removed, so it captured my attention. Please explain further. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 23:47, 30 April 2009 (EDT)

::I didn't remove any content. The 'controversy' section offers some brief pro-socialist nonsense that I thought could use a short rebuttal to support the overall message of the article. I apologize for reverting your edit. If you have time, please review the content I added and re-revert if appropriate. Thanks! [[User:JeffC|JeffC]] 23:57, 30 April 2009 (EDT)

:::Since the piece is mainly Richard's now, I have asked him look into this. Thanks for explaining, JeffC! --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 00:08, 1 May 2009 (EDT)

== Need section on Socialistic Democracy ==
Democratic socialism and socialistic democracy is not the same, you should also represent the economic system which is used in Scandenavia, you know, that region in Europa which wasn't so heavily beaten by the global financial crisis.--[[User:Nabroon|Nabroon]] 15:05, 14 May 2009 (EDT)

Talk:Socialism

2009-05-14T19:05:01Z

Nabroon:

Debate:What is the real love?

2008-08-18T21:32:16Z

Nabroon:

Well, I have talked with a couple of different people on the net, there seems to be quite different meanings on what love really is. Also, I must say that I thnk there are two different forms of love, the first one being the one a man feels to a woman or oppisite and the love that Jesus talked about (which is the one I am interested to talk about).
Can somebody give a clear and honest explanation on what true love is, without fearing to be critizised for their view, I am open to ideas. --[[User:Nabroon|Nabroon]] 18:51, 16 August 2008 (EDT)

:I'm not much of a biologist or neuroscientist but from what I understand all feelings of love and affection are caused by the chemical (or hormone :S) oxytocin. This is responbsible for the love between mother and child, lovers in a relationship, other family love, friendship and in some cases, lust. What causes this hormone (or chemical!) to be released into the brain is something I am not certain of. But that's pretty much my limited understanding of the matter. [[User:Bolly|Bolly]] 13:51, 17 August 2008

::Well, that's more or less the funny way our religion/christianity book told us about the subject of love, that it sure is sad to express something as fundamental as love as simply some reaction caused by our hormones and that that's the only thing it is, a chemical recation, (as some would claim all of human evolution is, only a simple reaction of chaos and coincidence).
::To me I feel that the cause for our love toward each other (both couple realations and unselfish love) is a product of a much deeper level, that in the plane of our spiruality, perhaps just as our physical world there exists other worlds which are connected to us, and which work on all our other senses. :)
::Even though I'm not religious, I think that simply explaining all of our feelings and creative powers as a result of a chemical coincidence (which of course the whole Darwin idea is based upon) is like creating something out of nothing. Impossible ;) --[[User:Nabroon|Nabroon]] 17:32, 18 August 2008 (EDT)

Debate:Propaganda in childrens' television

2008-08-16T23:18:30Z

Nabroon:

I was editing the article on the Wombles a while ago, and it occured to me that the program is in some ways liberal propaganda. I didn't want to sound paranoid so I didn't give much further thought to it, until it occured to me that a lot of childrens' programs seem to be suspicious in that regard. There is the very blatent Captain Planet, for a start. Then while reading the article on starfish here I noticed some have concerns regarding Spongebob Squarepants - though I cannot verify this myself as I refuse to watch such trash. Even the classic Sesame Street has that couple who appear worryingly like cohabiting homosexuals, and it's famous episode on death had a distinct lack of Christian worldview. Perhaps Conservapedia members should investigate for other examples? Parents rarely pay great attention to childrens' entertainment, so it's quite possible we are missing this hidden way in which values counter to our own culture are being slipped under the radar. I'm not suggesting that there is a great conspiricy here (Maybe a tiny one) - only that program producers tend to include their own values in the programs, and most people working in childrens' TV production seem to be leftists and lukewarm christians at best. - [[User:NewCrusader|NewCrusader]]

Yes!!!!
Ugh! Soon they are gonna talk about how bad and evil war is, I'm allmost about to throw up! --[[User:Nabroon|Nabroon]] 19:18, 16 August 2008 (EDT)

2008-07-08T14:18:27Z

Nabroon: /* By definition */

Debate:Did God create evil?

2008-07-08T01:40:03Z

Nabroon: /* By definition */ kinda stupid....

Debate:Did God create evil?

2008-07-08T01:37:29Z

Nabroon: /* By definition */

Debate:What is the relationship between religion and the human tendency to kill each other?

2008-03-05T14:14:48Z

Nabroon:

==No Religion?==
This sounds like John Lennons Imagine song. For those who don't know what the definition of religion is, you'd better look it up. What the question really should be asking is that if people didn't believe in anything would they have reason to kill each other. Maybe if they were indoctrinated to the point where they weren't allowed to take a stance on anything. Like if people ever really needed a reason. Don't worry, if there wasn't any religion I'm one hundred percent sure people would come up with a reason to kill, or go to war. Oh, and for you Humanist out there, that's right, Humanism is a religion too.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 18:37, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
::communism Vs. capitalism. [[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 18:40, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
::"Humanism is a religion too"
::How can you possibly call humanism a religion?
::Religions is about dogmas and belifs (often in one divine god) and almost allwas has bunch of traditions which everyone must follow.
::Humanism is about trying to make a positive life for yourself and everybody else by following your own conscience, making the best out of everything and showing support to thoes who need it.
::There isn't anything supernatural or other accpect of it which can be realted to religion in it, it is only way of describing someone, and mabye describing youself. --[[User:Nabroon|Nabroon]] 05:52, 5 March 2008 (EST)
::: You can call humanism a religion because it is. Your definition of "religion" is a humanistic one. Try reading [[religion]]. Humanism includes the ''belief'' that there is no god. That is, humanism has beliefs also. And Christianity has very little if anything in the way of necessary traditions. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:57, 5 March 2008 (EST)
:::You go to church doesn't you? :)--[[User:Nabroon|Nabroon]] 09:14, 5 March 2008 (EST)
Of course we would. Not all conflicts are really about religion. Oh, there may be some rhetoric about “God
being on our side” and all that, but most conflicts have been over territory, and the control of resources.

Well of course people would still kill each other, however a lot of killing would not have happened and there would be less conflict today. The crusades, purely religious motives. The Northern Ireland situation was caused by politics, however if there was no religion, then there would be no labels by which the two sides could remain two sides, and the whole conflict would now be over. [[Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 18:20, 20 April 2007

Kaine murdered Able because of jealousy.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 10:48, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

I think we would've found a reason to kill each other. But the reality is that now, conservative americans put the faith of the people as an excuse to get what they want.
===Some other reasons===
Well, there's money, pride, oil... [[User:Totnesmartin|Totnesmartin]] 16:58, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

hey did anyone forget jeffery dahmer? he was just hungry...
--[[User:Wally|Wally]] 19:50, 26 June 2007 (EDT)

There are a bunch of reason to fight wars that aren't based on religion. Genocide would be rarer though. It is either religiously or ethnically based and without faith the distinction between ethnic groups would be less.

==Lebensraum==

Whatever reasons humanity has to fight amongst each other, one fact will always be certain: Humans are creatures with an ever expanding population, living on a planet with limited living space. Therefore, if you remove every other reason for fighting wars, we will still need to fight wars simply to make room for people to live.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 17:06, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

Debate:What is the relationship between religion and the human tendency to kill each other?

2008-03-05T14:14:18Z

Nabroon: /* No Religion? */

==No Religion?==
This sounds like John Lennons Imagine song. For those who don't know what the definition of religion is, you'd better look it up. What the question really should be asking is that if people didn't believe in anything would they have reason to kill each other. Maybe if they were indoctrinated to the point where they weren't allowed to take a stance on anything. Like if people ever really needed a reason. Don't worry, if there wasn't any religion I'm one hundred percent sure people would come up with a reason to kill, or go to war. Oh, and for you Humanist out there, that's right, Humanism is a religion too.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 18:37, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
::communism Vs. capitalism. [[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 18:40, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
::"Humanism is a religion too"
::How can you possibly call humanism a religion?
::Religions is about dogmas and belifs (often in one divine god) and almost allwas has bunch of traditions which everyone must follow.
::Humanism is about trying to make a positive life for yourself and everybody else by following your own conscience, making the best out of everything and showing support to thoes who need it.
::There isn't anything supernatural or other accpect of it which can be realted to religion in it, it is only way of describing someone, and mabye describing youself. --[[User:Nabroon|Nabroon]] 05:52, 5 March 2008 (EST)
::: You can call humanism a religion because it is. Your definition of "religion" is a humanistic one. Try reading [[religion]]. Humanism includes the ''belief'' that there is no god. That is, humanism has beliefs also. And Christianity has very little if anything in the way of necessary traditions. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:57, 5 March 2008 (EST)
::You go to church doesn't you? :)--[[User:Nabroon|Nabroon]] 09:14, 5 March 2008 (EST)
Of course we would. Not all conflicts are really about religion. Oh, there may be some rhetoric about “God
being on our side” and all that, but most conflicts have been over territory, and the control of resources.

Well of course people would still kill each other, however a lot of killing would not have happened and there would be less conflict today. The crusades, purely religious motives. The Northern Ireland situation was caused by politics, however if there was no religion, then there would be no labels by which the two sides could remain two sides, and the whole conflict would now be over. [[Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 18:20, 20 April 2007

Kaine murdered Able because of jealousy.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 10:48, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

I think we would've found a reason to kill each other. But the reality is that now, conservative americans put the faith of the people as an excuse to get what they want.
===Some other reasons===
Well, there's money, pride, oil... [[User:Totnesmartin|Totnesmartin]] 16:58, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

hey did anyone forget jeffery dahmer? he was just hungry...
--[[User:Wally|Wally]] 19:50, 26 June 2007 (EDT)

There are a bunch of reason to fight wars that aren't based on religion. Genocide would be rarer though. It is either religiously or ethnically based and without faith the distinction between ethnic groups would be less.

==Lebensraum==

Whatever reasons humanity has to fight amongst each other, one fact will always be certain: Humans are creatures with an ever expanding population, living on a planet with limited living space. Therefore, if you remove every other reason for fighting wars, we will still need to fight wars simply to make room for people to live.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 17:06, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

Debate:What is the relationship between religion and the human tendency to kill each other?

2008-03-05T11:49:03Z

Nabroon: fixes

==No Religion?==
This sounds like John Lennons Imagine song. For those who don't know what the definition of religion is, you'd better look it up. What the question really should be asking is that if people didn't believe in anything would they have reason to kill each other. Maybe if they were indoctrinated to the point where they weren't allowed to take a stance on anything. Like if people ever really needed a reason. Don't worry, if there wasn't any religion I'm one hundred percent sure people would come up with a reason to kill, or go to war. Oh, and for you Humanist out there, that's right, Humanism is a religion too.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 18:37, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
::communism Vs. capitalism. [[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 18:40, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
::"Humanism is a religion too"
How can you possibly call humanism a religion?
Religions is about dogmas and belifs (often in one divine god) and almost allwas has bunch of traditions which everyone must follow.
Humanism is about trying to make a positive life for yourself and everybody else by following your own conscience, making the best out of everything and showing support to thoes who need it.
There isn't anything supernatural or other accpect of it which can be realted to religion in it, it is only way of describing someone, and mabye describing youself. --[[User:Nabroon|Nabroon]] 05:52, 5 March 2008 (EST)

Of course we would. Not all conflicts are really about religion. Oh, there may be some rhetoric about “God
being on our side” and all that, but most conflicts have been over territory, and the control of resources.

Well of course people would still kill each other, however a lot of killing would not have happened and there would be less conflict today. The crusades, purely religious motives. The Northern Ireland situation was caused by politics, however if there was no religion, then there would be no labels by which the two sides could remain two sides, and the whole conflict would now be over. [[Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 18:20, 20 April 2007

Kaine murdered Able because of jealousy.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 10:48, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

I think we would've found a reason to kill each other. But the reality is that now, conservative americans put the faith of the people as an excuse to get what they want.
===Some other reasons===
Well, there's money, pride, oil... [[User:Totnesmartin|Totnesmartin]] 16:58, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

hey did anyone forget jeffery dahmer? he was just hungry...
--[[User:Wally|Wally]] 19:50, 26 June 2007 (EDT)

There are a bunch of reason to fight wars that aren't based on religion. Genocide would be rarer though. It is either religiously or ethnically based and without faith the distinction between ethnic groups would be less.

==Lebensraum==

Whatever reasons humanity has to fight amongst each other, one fact will always be certain: Humans are creatures with an ever expanding population, living on a planet with limited living space. Therefore, if you remove every other reason for fighting wars, we will still need to fight wars simply to make room for people to live.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 17:06, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

2008-03-03T13:06:23Z

Nabroon: New page: Hey, I'm just trying too add usefull edits and mabye create a little debate. Hopefully, that can make this place grow a litte.

Hey, I'm just trying too add usefull edits and mabye create a little debate.
Hopefully, that can make this place grow a litte.

Conservapedia:Debate Topics

2008-03-03T12:27:31Z

Nabroon: Opening up a new debate

'''Debate topic suggestions, organized so that it's not necessary to delete them.'''

(Note: If some topic is miscategorized, it can be cut and pasted without affecting the relevant links.)

==Philosophical debates==
# [[ Can conservapedia become the next wikipedia, is this good or bad]]
# [[Conservapedia:If there is no objective truth, then is the claim "there is no objective truth" also not an objective truth?|If there is no objective truth, then is the claim "there is no objective truth" also not an objective truth?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does History Matter?|Does History Matter?]]
# [[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: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 known physical universe exhaust all that can exist, or does something exist beyond known physical boundaries?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Why is there something rather than nothing?|Why is there something rather than nothing?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Stem Cells| Embryonic Stem Cells: Why or why not?]]
# [[Debate:Why Reason?]]
# [[Debate:Why does the conservative media often an ugly undertone?]]
# [[Debate:Is mastrubation harmfull in any way?]]

==Religious debates==
# [[Should the first story of creation be read allegorically or literally?]]
# [[Debate:Is Scientology a false religion]]
# [[Why do Moses, Ezra, Jesus, and Paul all disagree on divorce? Moses allowed divorce, Jesus disallowed it and also allowed it, Paul allowed it, and Ezra actually commanded it to appease God (Ezra 10)??? im confused!! whats a christian to do??]]
#[[Did Jesus ever claim to be God?]]
# [[Conservapedia: Grave errors/inconsistencies in the Bible make literal translation worthless.]]
# [[Conservapedia:Was Jesus born in the right time and place?| Was Jesus born in the right time and place?]]
# [[Conservapedia : What does Christianity say about homosexuality?]]
# [[Conservapedia:If God does not exist, can anything be morally wrong?|If God does not exist, can anything be morally wrong?]]
# [[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: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?]]
# [[Debate:If Jesus were alive to day, where on the political spectrum would he fall?|If Jesus were alive to day, where on the political spectrum would he fall?]]
# [[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: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]]
# [[Does Intelligent Design deny the Existence of God?]]
# [[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: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:Natural Disaster versus Act of God|Natural Disaster versus Act of God]]
# [[Conservapedia:What is the Sabbath day?|What is the Sabbath day?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is it possible to be a conservative and not a religious person or even an atheist?|Is it possible to be a conservative and not a religious person or even an atheist?]]
# [[Debate:Why do we still perform Baptisms?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does_the_Resurrection_negate_Gods_Sacrifice_of_his_only_son%3F|Does the Resurrection negate Gods Sacrifice of his only son?|Does the Resurrection negate God's Sacrifice of his only son?]]
# [[Conservapedia:If_most_Muslims_learned_their_religion_from_their_parents%2C_just_like_us_Christians%2C_they_will_probably_be_hard_to_convert._So_what_can_we_do_to_save_their_souls%3F|If most Muslims learned their religion from their parents, just like us Christians, they will probably be hard to convert. So what can we do to save their souls?]]
# [[Conservapedia:If_most_Christians_learned_their_religion_from_their_parents%2C_just_like_us_Muslims%2C_they_will_probably_be_hard_to_convert._So_what_can_we_do_to_save_their_souls%3F|If most Christians learned their religion from their parents, just like us Muslims, they will probably be hard to convert. So what can we do to save their souls?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does_mainstream_Islam_endorse_violence%3F|Does mainstream Islam endorse violence?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is religion morally wrong?|Is religion morally wrong?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does the Bible display poor ethics and morals?|Does the Bible display poor ethics and morals?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Why the Bible|What makes the Bible a reliable source of knowledge besides tradition?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Why should we be afraid of God?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Do conservative Christians have an unquestioning faith which is comparable to that of the Party in the book 1984?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Antisemitism]]
# [[Conservapedia:Are Christianity and the Bible superior to other religions and scriptures?]]
# [[Conservapedia: Is "Coercive Interrogation" consistent with Christian Values?]]
# [[Should all access to Conservapedia be banned on Sundays?]]
# [[Either God is indecisive or the world's major religions have ALL got it wrong]]
# [[Mary Magdalene - First Witness to the Resurrection - Significance?]]
# [[Debate:Was Christ a fundamentalist?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Atheism vs. Deism]]
# [[Atheism vs. Pastafarianism]]
# [[Why is homosexuality so bad?]]
# [[Debate:Are Young Earth Creationists detracting others from the Faith?]]
# [[If Noah only brought two of every animal on the ark, wouldn't subsequent generations of animals have become increasingly inbred?]]
# [[Debate:Is there 1 God or are there many gods?]]

==Historical debates==
# [[Conservapedia:Was Benjamin Franklin a deist?]]
# [[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 European colonization of the Americas good for the native people?]]

==Political debates==
# [[Conservapedia:Has Britain Declined?| Quoting Conservapedia's front page; "The British government just affirmed its ban on mentioning Intelligent Design to students.[3] No one there seems to notice how Britain's decline coincided with its promotion of evolution frauds like the Piltdown Man." - Has Britain REALLY declined?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is illegal immigration control the answer to illegal immigration?|Is illegal immigration control the answer to illegal immigration?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Has Britain become the 51st State of the US?|Has Britain become the 51st State of the US?]]
# [[Conservapedia:You think these Phd's are nuts?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does the European Union pose a threat to the United States?| Does the European Union pose a threat to United States Security?]]
# [[Which is true; progressive Liberal or regressive liberal]]
# [[Define torture]]
# [[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: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?]]
# [[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?|If President Roosevelt had known about the Pearl Harbor attack in advance, 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: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: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 we have given the Panama Canal back to Panama?|Should we have given the Panama Canal back to Panama?]]
# [[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: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: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: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:Should people genetically engineer a cure for homosexuality?|Should people genetically engineer a cure for homosexuality?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should Bush pardon Scooter Libby?|Should Bush pardon Scooter Libby?]]
# [[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 students learn a foreign language?|Should students learn a foreign language?]]
# [[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 religious?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should there be a consistent standard on human rights applied to left and right?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should American companies be allowed to send their own troops into a war which America is participating in?|Should American companies be allowed to send their own troops into a war which America is participating in?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Giuliani's lack of social conservative viewpoints should not stop you from voting for him.|Giuliani's lack of social conservative viewpoints should not stop you from voting for him.]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is_President_Bush_good_for_America?|Is President Bush good for America?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is_the_Iraq_War_a_success%3F|Is the Iraq War a success?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does_single_sex_schooling_promotes_homesexuality%3F|Does Single sex schooling promotes homosexuality?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is_the_murder_of_3%2C000_people_just_a_few_or_is_it_a_lot%3F_Does_it_make_a_difference_if_the_murdered_people_are_Americans%3F|Is the murder of 3,000 people just a few or is it a lot? Does it make a difference if the murdered people are Americans?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does the media really have a liberal bias?|Does the media really have a liberal bias?]]
# [[Who was the last Democrat to quit due to ethics and what year was it? Is it fair for Republicans to due the same?]]
# [[What kind of leader will Democrats make if they run from debates on Fox?]]
# [[Are the Democrats capable of fighting terrorism?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Porn or guns?|Does porn actually cause (not merely correlate to) violence?]]
# [[Can a rogue nation be thought of as a sovereign nation?]]
# [[ Has Russia reinstalled stealth communism?]]
# [[Do we all know what Democrat Presidential candidates stand for yet?]]
# [[Define Civil War]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should gun sales to terror suspects be allowed?|Should gun sales to terror suspects be allowed?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Who would you support for President in 2008?|Who would you support for President in 2008?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is Darwinism liberal or is it conservative?|Is Darwinism liberal or is it conservative?]]
# [[Debate:Why did God place most of the world's oil in politically unstable places?|Why did God place most of the world's oil in politically unstable places?]]
# [[Restoring the USA image in the world, just a fancy phrase that means zilch?]]
# [[Placing the blame on how America got polarized]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is most government criticism really patriotic?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is environmentalism mostly about preserving natural resources?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is the conservative stance on illegal immigration going to loose the Hispanic vote for the GOP in the 08' election?]]
# [[Should President Bush Condemn Armenian Genocide? ]] ''New as of October 10, 2007''
# [[Third Party Debate]]
# [[Debate:Who kills more innocent people: religious believers or atheists?]]
# [[Was congress right to override president Bush's veto on the water projects bill?]]
# [[Is opening the borders the solution to the social security crisis?]]
# [[Debate:Preferred Democrat for the White House?]]
# [[Does Republican equal conservative? Does Democrat equal liberal?]]

==Scientific debates==

# [[Conservapedia:Does Darwinian natural selection suggest that bigotry is a necessary self-defense mechanism?|Does Darwinian natural selection suggest that bigotry is a necessary self-defense mechanism?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does Darwinian natural selection suggest that homosexuality is bad for the survival of a species?|Does Darwinian natural selection suggest that homosexuality is bad for the survival of a species?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is Darwinian natural selection compatible with Marxism?|Is Darwinian natural selection compatible with Marxism?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is the theory of macroevolution true?|Is the theory of macroevolution true?]]
# [[Conservapedia: Is Giving Birth the Bible Way Better?]]
# [[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: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: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:God, Earth and Global Warming|God, Earth and Global Warming]]
# [[Conservapedia:Why is the evidence in favor of evolution so darn convincing?]]
# [[Conservapedia:If the Bible didn't contain a creation story, would anyone even consider the idea of a young earth?|If the Bible didn't contain a creation story, would anyone even consider the idea of a young earth?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is Relativity in direct conflict with the Genesis account?|Is Relativity in direct conflict with the Genesis account?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Who feels that scientific related articles should only reference published research papers instead of websites when dealing with research instead of application?]]
# [[Conservapedia: If it could be unambiguously demonstrated that man is NOT the most evolved animal, then would this support or refute ther idea of Creation by God?]]
# [[Why are God's works always questioned?]]
#[[Conservapedia:Are there any elements of choice, when it comes to carrying out homosexual acts?]]
# [[Listing the Earth's most pressing needs in urgent order of fixing]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is homosexuality a mental illness?]]

==Debates about Conservapedia==
# [[Conservapedia:Is Conservapedia representing a conservative POV or a Young Earth Creationist POV?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is Conservapedia anti-British?|Is Conservapedia anti-British?]]
# [[The liberal quotient of Conservapedia; what is it? Does it matter?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does bias impair Wikipedia's reliability?|Does bias impair Wikipedia's reliability?]]
# [[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:How should Conservapedia work to avoid having a conservative bias?|How should Conservapedia work to avoid having a conservative bias?]]
# [[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:What exactly is Conservapedia?|What exactly is Conservapedia?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Was the media attention needed?|Was the media attention needed?]]
# [[Conservapedia Debate Topics full of far left liberal netroots]]
# [[Which is true; progressive Liberal or regressive liberal]]
# [[Conservapedia:Where do you personally look for facts and information on topics "When did Brahms live" or "Why did Monet paint grainstacks?"]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is it okay for Conservapedia to have biased articles?]]
# [[Conservapedia:On whether certain articles on human anatomy should be pre-emptively blanked and protected]]
# [[Conservapedia:Who deletes entire discussion items from here? And why?]]
# [[Why do users, who contribute substantially, choose to leave this community?]]
# [[Why do the creators of conservapeida see wikipedia as un-American?]]
# [[Is the use of copyrighted photographs without permission stealing?]]
# [[Conservapedia: Are there too many debates on Conservapedia? | Are there too many debates on Conservapedia?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is it tasteless for Conservapedia to critique the Virginia Tech poem on the Main Page?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Has anyone ever been been banned for pointing out that many of the other entries on this site are in need of citation and evidence to back up statements?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does an encyclopedia define complex subjects, or insert more bias into them?]]
# [[Conservapedia: Do sysops block editing on pages when it seems their opponents are making strong points?]]
# [[Conservapedia: Is Conservapedia a 'Trustworthy Encyclopedia'?]]
# [[Conservapedia: Does altering the record of debate in a wiki 'Encyclopedia' render the entire thing a farce?]]
# [[Democrats next move, link more stories of heartache like those from Kansas to Gulf Coast.]]
# [[Do quotes used to support a theory just make an article look stupid?]]

==Funny, maybe?==

# [[Conservapedia:Are cats just useless Dogs|Are cats just useless dogs?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is the Platypus evidence that God has a sense of humour?|Is the Platypus evidence that God has a sense of humour?]]
# [[Conservapedia: Was the shooting at Virginia Tech somehow President Bush's fault?|Was the shooting at Virginia Tech somehow President Bush's fault? (kind of like he caused hurricane Katrina)]]
# [[Are video games getting better or worse as graphics, sound, and gameplay complexity improve?]]

==Other==
# [[Conservapedia:Are alcohol, marijuana, and nicotine gateway drugs?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is Rap music torture?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should weed be legalized?]]
# [[Debate:What are the lessons that we should take away from the Milgram Experiment]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does the Theory of Evolution promote atheism?]]
# [[Discussion:Colorado Mall Shootings]]
# [[Discussion:Creationist]]
# [[Debate:Is the Theory of Evolution a conspiricy?]]
# [[Debate:How should we view the fact leading scientists do not believe in god?]]

[[Category:Conservapedia]]