Conservapedia

[toasty]

Check it out -- Wikipedia for (really far right) conservatives:

http://www.conservapedia.com/Main_Page

Conservapedia is a much-needed alternative to Wikipedia, which is increasingly anti-Christian and anti-American. On Wikipedia, many of the dates are provided in the anti-Christian "C.E." instead of "A.D.", which Conservapedia uses. Christianity receives no credit for the great advances and discoveries it inspired, such as those of the Renaissance. Read a list of many Examples of Bias in Wikipedia.

Make sure you follow the link to the examples of bias in Wikipedia. For other laughs, search on "Evolution" (which will quickly correct/redirect you to "Theory of Evolution").

[88Mariner]

Re: Conservapedia

christianity deserves props for great advances? lol, now THAT is laughable!

[BSully828]

Re: Conservapedia

Finally, an objective online resource...


[edit]

This site is a riot, I could be on this for days. I did a search for the term "Buddhism" and this is what came up:

Buddhism is the fourth largest religion in the world. It is a belief system which teaches that desire causes suffering and if desire is eliminated, Nirvana is attained.

Legend has it that Budhism's foundations lie with an Indian prince, Siddhartha Gautama, who, after observing the suffering of his people, longed to discover the reason for suffering and pain. There are many romanticized accounts and theories as to the course of Gautama's life. One particularly simplified story proclaims that he went into meditation for a long time seated under a tree, and after finishing his period of meditation formed Buddhism.

Buddhism teaches that in order to attain Nirvana (a complete contentment, and separation from suffering), you must follow the Eightfold Path.

Buddhism benefited most from trading and/or commercial activity.(<- can someone justify this?)

And that's it - that's the entire entry. A belief system older than Christianity summed up in a few short sentences, brilliant. I especially like the usage of phrases like "Legend has it" and "romanticized accounts".


Also - check out the first line on the page for "Homosexuality":

Homosexuality is a sexual attraction between members of the same sex. It is condemned by the Bible as an egregiously sinful act.

Seriously, that's comedy right there.

Great find toasty, this is going to keep me entertained for hours!

[RiseandShine]

Re: Conservapedia

christianity deserves props for great advances? lol, now THAT is laughable!

yes it is true that Christianity did not help today society advancement at all


you moron

[88Mariner]

Re: Conservapedia

The growing list of examples of bias and errors on Wikipedia. Please add to this, and also contribute entries to Conservapedia.

Wikipedia allows the use of B.C.E. instead of B.C. and C.E. instead of A.D. The dates are based on the birth of Jesus, so why pretend otherwise? Conservapedia is Christian-friendly and exposes the CE deception.

Deception? or trying to use a term more palatable for anyone anywhere?

Wikipedia's entry for the Renaissance denies any credit to Christianity, its primary inspiration.

Really? Primary inspiration? Or limiting force of this period? You decide....

Polls show that about twice as many Americans identify themselves as "conservative" compared with "liberal", and that ratio has been increasing for two decades. But on Wikipedia, about three times as many editors identify themselves as "liberal" compared with "conservative" That suggests Wikipedia is six times more liberal than the American public.

Suggests, perhaps, but does not prove. Actually, this proves jack squat. What does this make conservapedia, then? Neutral? Objective? Or just one-sided?

Wikipedia's entry on abortion reads like a brochure for the abortion industry. Wikipedia denies and omits the results of 16 out of 17 statistically significant studies showing increased risk of breast cancer from abortion. Wikipedia's entry also omits the evidence of abortion causing increased premature birth of subsequent children.

Well, at least there was no objection to the rest of the entry! (note: the short list on the religion of Buddhism...)

Initially a Wikipedia admin named "Nearly Headless Nick" deleted, without explaining his decision, an entry about Conservapedia. Later, in response to publicity, Wikipedia posted a new entry about Conservapedia. Wikipedia's entry is filled with obvious bias, numerous errors, out-of-date citations, and self-serving false statements.[5] For example, the Wikipedia entry made the absurd claim that Conservapedia says the "General Theory of Relativity" has "nothing to do with physics." Wikipedia's claim was completely false and unsupported by its citations. After this example was posted here, Wikipedia removed its error but has left other false and outdated claims in its entry, reflecting Wikipedia's pervasive bias.

So you spin this theory in the other direction...and commit the same error. After reading this entry, the byline of "nothing to do with phsyics" really sticks!

Wikipedia's entry for conservative physicist Edward Teller promotes the liberal attempt to blame him for the government taking away the security clearance of J. Robert Oppenheimer. Teller testified, "If it is a question of wisdom and judgment, as demonstrated by actions since 1945, then I would say one would be wiser not to grant clearance." Wikipedia first called this statement "damning", and after criticism here replaced its term with "problematic".[6] In light of how multiple spies leaked secrets under Oppenheimer's supervision in the Manhattan Project and spying even worsened afterwards, Wikipedia's spin on Teller's statement is unjustified bias.

Ok, in comparing both entries, conservapedia still has very little on Teller, only making a few points about how he was conservative and the liberals hate him. Thanks for uh...clearing that up? Now, what about this guy, specifically?

i would do more...but maybe for fun on a rainy day. This site may be laughable until you realize that VOTERS are actually reading it for information.

[88Mariner]

Re: Conservapedia

yes it is true that Christianity did not help today society advancement at all


you moron

well if by "society advancement" you mean christian theocracy...i guess we could agree.

How exactly did Christianity 'help'? Was god divinely inspiring inventors? Or....

[RiseandShine]

Re: Conservapedia

Christianity comes with an insitution right? (basic thinking)
true that institution did some bad things (I'm reading your mind)
but it did a lot of good things, just think about it

[RiseandShine]

Re: Conservapedia

and yes, theocracy is part of Christianity, it's a religion, remember?

[Jenks]

Re: Conservapedia

yes it is true that Christianity did not help today society advancement at all

held society back is more like it.

[RiseandShine]

Re: Conservapedia

you guys must be trolling me

[superdave]

Re: Conservapedia

Check it out -- Wikipedia for (really far right) conservatives:

http://www.conservapedia.com/Main_Page

Make sure you follow the link to the examples of bias in Wikipedia. For other laughs, search on "Evolution" (which will quickly correct/redirect you to "Theory of Evolution").

Finally a good source of information along with Fox News.

[88Mariner]

Re: Conservapedia

held society back is more like it.

this is true.

[Morgan]

Re: Conservapedia

held society back is more like it.

The chicken and egg debate.

Without Christianity would there have been the enviroment for the development of enlightened thinking?

Not that i'm saying Christianity (really Roman Catholicism) has been the best over the last 2000 years. Last 600 years have not shown Christianity in a good light at all, tbh we would have been better off without it.

[Kobe]

Re: Conservapedia

well if by "society advancement" you mean christian theocracy...i guess we could agree.

How exactly did Christianity 'help'? Was god divinely inspiring inventors? Or....

I am the furthest thing from a Christian apologist, but to be fair, Christianity can be credited with preserving literacy in Europe in the 9th Century. Of course they were also rewriting much of history in the process, but still... western culture might not have survived the Dark Ages if not for Christianity.

[RiseandShine]

Re: Conservapedia

Chistianity was thefounding for most institutions in Europe
they were the ones educating people
they were the ones redistributing wealth
has anyone of you opened a history book?
why is that people have to critisize chistianity for its conservatism?
yes, there's a lot of bad about it - extremely bad.
but I can tell you one thing, you certainly wouldn't be sitting here without it
for the enlightement, of course it helped and was the foundation for it - and as like a lot of situations, the creation killed its creator

you guys really leave me speechless