Conservapædia declares their article on atheism to be "article of the year"

Would you believe he accuses wikipedia of bias, and then says that he founded Conservapædia to strengthen Christian faith?

Yes, easily.

Conservapedias article on atheism is one of the worst written and worst researched pieces I have ever read!

At least by their definition, they recognize that we are all atheists.

"Conservapedias article on atheism is one of the worst written and worst researched pieces I have ever read!"

Then you can't have read the other thousands of articles on Conservapedia. They're ALL awful.

Why are you people all misspelling Conservapædia? Remember, it's always written "Conservapædia". They hate that British English stuff -- it's unamerican.

Interestingly, they have the #5 Google search result for a search on [atheism]

Do you think Phyliss Schafly ever compares her own skills as the leader of a movement with those of her son and has doubts about the anti-feminist nonsense.

Conservapedia was stupid from the start, and not just in the obvious way. If you wanted an encyclopaedia suitable for home-schooled conservatards you could do it easily enough: GPL, a few committed activists copy and pasting from Wikipedia but censoring and changing where needed, start spreading the word once it has built up a bit. Instead they tell the whole world they are going to take on the pinkos at Wikipedia. Even the sheltered kids in that video should have known that they would get more Colbert wannabes than honest editors.

P.S. I went to Google to check the name of the competant, evil Scafley and this was the text of one of the links
"Phyllis Schlafly - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I just don't see why some people don't hit Phyllis Schlafly in the mouth. I don't think she would be damaged seriously, but I don't think it would hurt if ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phyllis_Schlafly - 73k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this"

OTHEIRG BIAS!!!!111

Nothing like that in the article now though.

They also have the #5 Google search result for "kangaroo" :)

Current top ten most viewed pages at Conservapedia, by their own statistics:

1. Homosexuality (3106655 views)
2. Main page (2711655)
3. Wikipedia (403511)
4. Homosexual agenda (333741)
5. Arguments against homosexuality (333339)
6. Ex-homosexuals (318162)
7. Homosexuality and choice (312466)
8. Federal Bureau of Investigation (300896)
9. Examples of bias in wikipedia (298716)
10. Homosexuality and health (293359)

Discounting the main page, the first of those has had 77 times as many views as the next most popular page. I think the message of those figures is pretty clear: Conservapedia readers use the site mainly for, uh, research on one topic of particular interest to them, and it isn't atheism.

Why would the "article of the year" require a special page dedicated to promoting public awareness of it?

Wow, what utter twaddle. If that is the site's "article of the year", I can only imagine what the rest look like. Clearly these Christards are very, very afraid of anyone who dares to laugh at their little reindeer games.

And frankly, I don't get the name "Conservapedia". There's nothing "conservative" about being superstitious and confusing fantasy with reality. I'm really not sure where that came from, but at least I'm glad they didn't try to usurp the label "liberal" instead.

Favorite quote from the atheism article (so far):

The theory of evolution played a prominent role in regards to atheistic communism. [20] [21] Communists, in particular Stalinists, favored a version of Lamarckism called Lysenkoism...

Uh, what? In the conservapedio universe, "was exactly counter to the party line" means "played a prominent role". Well now I know that.

(delurking)

Wow. Talk about setting the bar very, very low. What is this, online wiki limbo?

Thank you for the early morning laugh, Dr. Myers!

MadPanda, FCD

I am Jack's Complete Lack of Surprise. He contradicts himself right at the start? I give a shit, tell me more! ;)

OK, I really have to ask, other than the nonsense from Leviticus and a few other places, what IS the problem with homosexuals? As far as I can recall, it is not mentioned in the gospels at all, you know, the words of Jesus (I am sure someone will correct me if wrong, and welcome it). Really, why the big fear of homosexuals? Why do so many of these fundie types worry about it being "forced down their throat", yes, we all see the imagery and psycho-sexuality of that phrase.

All kidding aside, I really do not understand this issue. Can anyone make any sense out of it other than, 'my gawd said it were bad"? I just do not understand the fear of the different.

Ciao, y'all

They have a section entitled "Biblical statements regarding Atheism". Turns out the Bible is not in favour of atheism. Who'd have thunk it?

Why no section on statements about atheism from the Bhagvad Gita, or the Koran, or Dianetics, though?

Yes, I would believe Assfly would say something like that, it's very in character.

And of course they picked it as their best article; it reflects perfectly their own beliefs on the subject.

Yipes.

Just yipes.

If the illogic of these articles isn't enough to make you lose sleep, just imagine these nitwits voting.

oy... what a tool... of Jebus...

~Dan

I knew the thing's content was dreck, but the atheism article is completely incoherent -- I mean, to the point I couldn't tell what their point was in a lot of the topics.

I put on my safety equipment and braced for impact when I went over there, but OMG, the stupid, it burns my eyes! These goggles, they do nothing!!111!

(I got to use the meme. Yay me!)

Everyone does realize that Andy's older brother, John, is homosexual, right?

Andy, you know that, don't you?

fusilier, who lost to John, in 1970, when running for the Notre Dame YAF chapter presidency
Jmaes 2:24

It's still sensible to wear the goggles when reading blogs and news items. You never know. :-)

Wait, I always thought Conservapædia was a joke site. Is it pretend lunacy, like the Colbert Report, or is it actual lunacy?

Also, lol @ comment #9

@Jay #22: A little from column a, a little from column b, and their is no way of anyone telling which is which. This leads to them going nuts and banning each other as suspected parody vandals. A lot of the enjoyment of that site is on the talk pages.

In the conservatorpedio universe, "was exactly counter to the party line" means "played a prominent role". Well now I know that.

Sure, sure. All you need to make an argument these day are: 2 cups equivocation, 1 argument from consequences, and 1 famous historical bogeyman. Add blatant disinformation to taste. Simmer over low heat, stirring vigorously, until warmed-over. Serves your agenda and thousands of ignorant fools.

Conservapædia, your complete information source for the conservative alternate reality.

i must say i'm surprised their "top article" didn't involve homosexuality.

JPF posted: "They also have the #5 Google search result for "kangaroo" :)"

The last half of the "Kangaroo" article is particularly loony. And for another treat, take a look at "Baraminology."

"Other views on kangaroo origins include the belief of some Australian Aborigines that kangaroos were sung into existence by their ancestors during the "Dreamtime" [8] and the evolutionary view that kangaroos and the other marsupials evolved from a common marsupial ancestor which lived hundreds of millions of years ago"

Including some at the arithmetic, I'm afraid - I think that figure should be 7.7.

Conservapaedia was a new experience for me. I particularly enjoyed the part that explained that atheists are guilty of self-deception; we all believe in god really, apparently.

All kidding aside, I really do not understand this issue. Can anyone make any sense out of it other than, 'my gawd said it were bad"? I just do not understand the fear of the different.

Gender and the maintenance of masculinity. "Real Men" don't get penetrated, that's what women are for. Can't have men being penetrated, turning them into women. A fate worse than death, apparently, having something shoved down your throat--again, that's what women are for because femininity is by definition about being penetrated.

If I remember correctly, the reason they accuse Wikipedia of bias and then makes something even more biased is because they believe it's impossible to make an online encyclopedia without bias. So, they think that people should have the opportunity to see both biases.

Hee hee hee!
Perfect, MAJeff! Perfect! And oh so very right on target.

One suspects a massive lack of security in their collective masculine identity, yes?

And, at the risk of committing the No True Scotsman fallacy, a site like this might lead to Conservatives feeling the need to rebrand themselves just to avoid association with Teh St00pid Whut Burnz. (Mentioning Conservapedia around my more conservative friends and relations leads to shaking of heads and muttings of disbelieving nonassociation with such tripe.)

The MadPanda, FCD

The information age! Vast amounts of data available at the click of a mouse. Information Technology setting us free from the constraints of ignorance and superstitions and propelling humankind into a future of enlightenment!

No, not necessarily.

Including some at the arithmetic, I'm afraid - I think that figure should be 7.7

Yes, that was a ridiculous typo on my part. With my level of checking, I ought to be a Conservapedia contributor.

Could someone please tell me why conservatives aren't able to detect conservative bias? I consider myself a liberal, but I can easily detect articles, news etc. with a liberal bias. When I watch a Michael Moore documentary, I can appreciate that it has a liberal bias and that he may emphasize some facts and ignore others to suit that bias. Why does it seem that when right-wingers see Expelled or read Conservapedia articles or watch Fox News they believe they are getting the straight unadulterated facts?

Conservapedia's articles on mathematical topics are hilarious. If Andy Schlafy is normally funny when he is claiming prosecution and accusing others of bias, when he does so about mathematics , of which he knows nothing, he is plain hysterical.

Favorite quote from the video:

"We've added all of the scripture against homosexuality. You're not going to get that kind of fair treatment on Wikipedia."

Awesome athiest logo used in the conservapedia article, by the way. Why have I never seen that before?

MAJeff, re your #30, afraid you probably do have the best answer (both sighing and smiling). Oh, but wait a minute, then it must be OK to be a lesbian because...hmmmm, ok move on, nothing to see here.

I know there is no good answer. The stupid does burn sometimes and the goggles only make it painful instead of excruciating.

Ciao, y'all

PZ Myers:

Why are you people all misspelling Conservapædia? Remember, it's always written "Conservapædia". They hate that British English stuff -- it's unamerican.

Thanks for the reminder. I keep trying to establish the, ahem, proper usage, but it never quite sticks.

randytoad, King of Ferrets touched on that very topic at 31. I think it might be a little of what he said, and a little of people assuming their own views are not biased. Plenty of self-deception going, that's for sure. I feel like I fall into the Confirmation Bias trap too often myself.

Current top ten most viewed pages at Conservapedia, by their own statistics:

To be fair (not that they deserve it), the numbers are distorted by bot-bombing. For a while, "Gay Bowel Syndrome" was on there as well (my favorite). You can find a discussion archive through Google where the people behind it talk about it. But even before then, "Homosexuality" was number 2, just behind the main page and far ahead of the third-ranked page; I think that was where they got the idea for making all the top 10 slots gay-related articles.

Not one mention of Normal Bob Smith! Or PZ Myers, for that matter.

Moral depravity has been demonstrated in the atheist community through history and through various studies.

Hmm. So moral depravity isn't just the bailiwick of Catholic priests?

@14
OK, I really have to ask, other than the nonsense from Leviticus and a few other places, what IS the problem with homosexuals? As far as I can recall, it is not mentioned in the gospels at all, you know, the words of Jesus (I am sure someone will correct me if wrong, and welcome it). Really, why the big fear of homosexuals?

IIRC most of it actually comes from Paul's various letters (Corinthians and such). The guy was a crank, and had a big problem with sex. He's really the source of most of the "sex is for procreation, pleasure is a sin" concepts in Christianity. Specifically in Romans he goes into :

"24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator--who is forever praised. Amen.

26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion."
...
"32 Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them."

Emphasis mine. This guy really had his hate-on for anything he considered wrong.

From The Onion:

Area Homosexual Saves Four From Fire

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/38942

"Falmouth resident Kevin Lassally, who likes to hold and kiss other men, is being hailed as a hero after rescuing a family of four from a deadly blaze."

I wonder if conservatives will take it as "straight" news?

If anyone feels like taking a public swipe at any of this RationalWiki is working on building up a counter article.

Bluegrass Geek, thank for your #45, had forgotten about old misanthrope Paul. Paul really does seem like someone who could have benefited from therapy, or at least medications. I guess getting smacked on the road to Tarsus might have done a little more damage than thought.

Beach time! Ciao, y'all

Why do the most biased people always claim that the people they are biased against are so biased?

Conservapedia has a very long entry on Liberal Bias ("Liberal bias is everywhere on American university campuses," etc.).

The Conservative bias entry is much shorter and consists of a bullshit quote from Roger Ailes of Fox News:

"I think conservatives were underserved, that does not make us a conservative channel. I think a lot of conservatives watch our channel, that does not make us a conservative channel. If we're conservative, what does that make the other channels? Liberal. Reporters are very interesting, they keep coming at me and saying aren't you more conservative, and I say yes well, you mean they're more liberal? The answer is you see both on our channel. In the last 25 years you CNN had Bob Novack and they thought that was balanced. One half hour they had Bob and the rest of the time they had liberals. We decided to balance all the arguments and treat the conservative view with the same respect as we have for the liberal view, and that is really irritating some people. We're not promoting the conservative point of view on Fox News, we're merely giving them equal time and access. Why would that offend journalists, to have another point of view? We don't quite get that. Dragged kicking and screaming the rest of the media is now saying oh my god maybe we should be a little more balanced than the way we were doing things. It hasn't much affected the New York Times....No, it's driven them even further to the left in a kind of strange, bizarre way. We're not firing our reporters for making up the news, and they are...."

What gives, Andy?

#44:

Hmm. So moral depravity isn't just the bailiwick of Catholic priests?

Or conservative Republican Senators from Idaho, for that matter?

These people are desperately trying to put the monkey on our backs. If it weren't for the words "deny" and "denial," the article wouldn't be half as long.

The bottom line is that the evidence for God is lousy. Consequently, I don't believe in deity. If the "official" definition of "atheist" doesn't match that, then I'm not an official atheist. So what?

But we all know it's not that cut and dried, don't we? The definition of a word becomes as it is used. Furthermore, etymologically, "atheist" as "one who lacks belief in deity" is spot on.

And frankly, I don't get the name "Conservapedia". There's nothing "conservative" about being superstitious and confusing fantasy with reality.

Yes, clearly they should have named it "Wackapedia".

The atheism of notable people who claimed to be atheists has had the characteristic of tenuousness in regards to maintaining thoughts in accordance with atheism.

Yeah! Now that's what I call a prose-style.

Zipi (#36):

Conservapedia's [sic] articles on mathematical topics are hilarious. If Andy Schlafy [sic] is normally funny when he is claiming prosecution and accusing others of bias, when he does so about mathematics, of which he knows nothing, he is plain hysterical.

It's funny that Schlafly has such a vendetta gainst complex numbers, since elsewhere in wingnuttia, people are saying that evilutionists are excluding God from science just like mathematicians used to exclude i from algebra. No joke.

As an administrator on Wikipedia and erstwhile editor on Conservapedia, I do know a bit about this topic.

I have more or less given up contributing to Conservapedia, because I don't think it will ever become a genuinely useful informational resource. For one thing, it actually has very few articles (fewer than 20,000); there are CD-ROM encyclopedias which have a better depth of coverage. Few Conservapedians bother writing about non-controversial topics, or, indeed, non-American topics (before I started work on it, the article on the Royal Navy simply read "The military navy of the United Kingdom.")

The other big problem over there is sysop abuse. Unlike Wikipedia, where admins are expected to follow a number of rules - in particular, we can't just push our own viewpoint in content disputes by blocking everyone who disagrees and locking the page - Conservapedia sysops have no such restraint. Thus all the controversial pages are locked, and only the sysops (who predominantly conform to a hardline creationist viewpoint) can actually edit them. The sysops are not elected, but appointed by Andrew Schlafly, and there's no appeal against their decisions (unlike Wikipedia, where we have the Arbitration Committee). Sysop abuse is also largely responsible for Conservapedia's failure to grow and develop a healthy community; lots of people who could have been productive editors are blocked by trigger-happy sysops who suspect them of being liberal.

Wikipedia isn't perfect, and it does have something of a systemic liberal bias, due mainly to the demographic groups from which editors tend to be drawn. But it is still unrivalled as a resource, and the Wikipedia community has evolved reasonably effective methods for dealing with conflict.

The moral of the story is that when one doesn't like something, creating a separate conservative (or, indeed, liberal) version of it tends not to be effective.

Of course Wikipedia has a liberal bias, but then again, as the great philosopher Steven Colbert teaches us, so does reality.

One of my favourite articles on Conservapædia is still the one about the frog. One (minor) error was corrected but it has been replaced by a much better one.

Check out the entry on materialism:

In the United States, Democrats tend to be materalistic, with particularly heavy emphasis placed on race and gender. Republicans, in contrast, tend to focus on principles such as pro-life or economics.

Wow.

I rather resent theists defining me in terms of their own beliefs. I am adopting the policy that any religious person who calls me an "atheist" shall be called an "irrationalist". Seems fair to me.

If I remember correctly, the reason they accuse Wikipedia of bias and then makes something even more biased is because they believe it's impossible to make an online encyclopedia without bias. So, they think that people should have the opportunity to see both biases.

Well, on the video Schlafly says that Wikipedia did start out kinda unbiased with American good intentions and the good American unbiased spirit that welcomes all, just the way Americans do. But then later on Wikipedia got taken over like, you know, how when a lynch mob takes over an American town in the American old West. So consequently Schlafly decided it was about time somebody started a site that could present unbiased evidence against evolution and homosexuality.

Somebody on the video claims that Wikipedia doesn't talk about Isaac Newton's religious views. Well I think she may have overlooked http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton's_religious_views but they probably really busy over there what with their own research and whatnot.

To Walton:

Thanks for your comment, it's interesting to read your perspective.

Conservepedia has degenerated into an absurd parody of a Wikipedia, but then again, it was right from the outset. Its goal was never to be an open community but was established by people who cannot tolerate the free exchange of knowledge and ideas--that was the heart of their problem with Wikipedia. You seem surprised at sysop abuse and that controversial pages are locked, but that is no surprise to me. I wouldn't expect anything less from them.

And the most hilarious thing on the site is their slogan, "The Trustworthy Encyclopedia". That has to rank right up there with "Fair and Balanced"...

I have just been to Rationalwiki to see what they had to say in their entry on "Jesus Christ". Most of it is just reiterating what the gospels are saying. It has absolutely nothing to say on the argument that Jesus never actually existed. That is truly pathetic.

Belated D'oh!

"...mutterings of disbelieving nonassociation..." not "muttings of disbelieving nonassociation"

Must remember to use preview.

(/headbutts keyboard)

The MadPanda, FCD

@56: One (minor) error was corrected but it has been replaced by a much better one.

Glad to hear the new error is much better than the old error.

Wow.

They have an entire section on their Atheism and Debate article entitled Creation Scientists Tend to Win the Creation-Evolution Debates".

Wow.

They have an entire section on their Atheism and Debate article entitled "Creation Scientists Tend to Win the Creation-Evolution Debates":

http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism_and_Debate#Creation_Scientists_Ten…

Wow.

They have an entire section on their Atheism and Debate article entitled "Creation Scientists Tend to Win the Creation-Evolution Debates"

Ummm...no.

Wow, when I want to get some serious misinformation I'll go to crapa, er conservapedia. Not only was the Atheism page full of crap but I went to their American one, the one supposedly written to counter anti-American bias.

Let's see, the nation was founded on July 4, 1776 with the signing of the Declaration of Independence which I'm guessing formed the 13 states into one nation and officially declared the nation as Christian. Never mind the Continental Congress developing a system of laws and a form of government because an official rejection of the Crown's rule is what established the government. Oh, and never mind that Christianity was never mentioned in the Declaration.

Jimminy, these people are stupid. No wonder America is so dumbed down if this is what they teach in all the religious schools and to homeschoolers. Bible thumpers are bringing down the intelligence level of America.

George Strombolopolous had them on his show 'the hour' the other day, i was happy when the video was done, and the audience was laughing at them

that andy guy sounds like a moron when he's speaking - it was painful for me to watch

ugh that atheism article was so bad i couldnt read it all, i mean, why bother?

lol they wanna talk about wiki's bias, compare each site's article on jesus and u can see who's biased and who's not

Etha Williams wrote at #64:

"Creation Scientists Tend to Win the Creation-Evolution Debates"
Ummm...no.

Maybe if somebody added a page to Conservapædia that defined "winning" as "Saying that God says so, and that you have the right to believe what you want, then sticking your fingers in your ears and saying neener neener neener, can't hear you until the atheists go away".

Damn. That article makes me want to go and punch a Christian. Which, I suspect, is the sort of thing they think atheists do, but also probably isn't the intended effect of that article.

They've outdone
Something Awful

To Paul Ferguson (#60 above).

I agree that, at times, it reads like an absurd parody, though it certainly isn't intended to be. I do think it started with a legitimate goal, and FWIW I have interacted online with Andrew Schlafly and a few of the other senior Conservapedians, and found them mostly to be reasonable people.

But the problem is that Conservapedia is stuck in a vicious circle to some extent. Because of the small community and relative lack of activity, a small number of sysops wield great power. They use that power in jealously guarding the more controversial articles from interference, and in ensuring that their point of view (which tends to be hardline fundamentalist/creationist, and is certainly not representative of all conservatives or of all Christians) is preserved. This, in turn, coupled with the trigger-happy blocking policy, drives away editors and prevents the community from growing larger and more dynamic.

For instance, check the article on the term "Gay". http://www.conservapedia.com/Gay An article which defines the "gay lifestyle" as being "contrary to established morality" is not an objective encyclopedia article, even if one accepts that it's written from a Christian conservative perspective. It's simply a statement of opinion. Furthermore, even leaving aside the bias, there is so much more one could say about the term and its cultural history and use in literature (the current article is a couple of paragraphs long). I wanted to rewrite that particular article - it's not within my field of expertise, but there are plenty of sources out there - but my requests for unprotection have, thus far, gone unheeded, and so I can't edit it.

I have contributed a fair few articles to Conservapedia in the past, mostly on the British military. But I've basically lost interest.

Conservapædia and Creationwiki are hi-larious. I browse them both occasionally for the laughs.

In my humble estimation, they are right up there with Landover Baptist & The Onion for pure comedy.

doov

You mean to say it's a legitimate site, and it's not satire?

The sad thing is that Conservapedia used to be even worse; I remember reading the article on Fox News a year ago which stated that "The success of Fox news over every other news channel is because it is fair and balanced. It has many people on it who work to spread truth such as Sean Hannity who is a great American." They've since toned down the rhetoric, slightly.

But my favorite entry? Unicorns! Aside from some rearranging of sentences, the current entry is mostly unchanged from the March '07 article I transcribed this from: "The existence of unicorns is controversial. Secular opinion is that they are mythical. However, they are referred to in the Bible nine times, which provides an unimpeachable de facto argument for their once having been in existence."

Am I the only one to notice that one of his 'home-schooled', 'conservative' students was wearing a T-shirt with Che Gueverra's face on it? :) That made my day :)

Hank Fox:

Thanks for the link. That article cracked me up. My favourite line: "Doctors describe his condition as stable but homosexual." I must just have to start using that one...

MaJeff [#30]. Now, if the external genitalia were placed on opposite sexes, masculinity would be all about capturing and femininity would be all about being engulfed.

Geral [#72]. Let's just say it's not intentional satire. It's a far cry from legitimate, if we define legitimate as based in reality.

MaJeff [#30]. Now, if the external genitalia were placed on opposite sexes, masculinity would be all about capturing and femininity would be all about being engulfed

Have you read Emily Martin's "The Sperm and the Egg"? Great example of this.

Jeffrey D #14 wrote:

OK, I really have to ask, other than the nonsense from Leviticus and a few other places, what IS the problem with homosexuals?

I think one of the major reasons conservative Christians focus so much on homosexuality is to display their specific identity as "moral." Virtually all religions and philosophies are against things which harm other people -- theft, rape, murder, and so on. And most religions and philosophies share the same basic virtues -- honesty, courage, compassion, etc. There is nothing there that makes Christians stand out as being different, as having a higher, more sensitive understanding of right and wrong in comparison to the rest of humanity. A special revelation needs to reveal something you couldn't just figure out rationally on your own, or it hasn't revealed anything special.

Thus the emphasis on homosexuality as a "sin." It identifies you as a moral Christian in a way which helping others or fighting crime does not. I suspect the same sort of rationale fuels a lot of bizarre religious taboos and mandates in other religions. WE are special. WE see evil where other people do not. And I belong to THIS team.

@ Jonathan Martin #73,

You can't see it in the video clip, but that t-shirt is actually an anti-che shirt.

http://www.thoseshirts.com/noche.html

Thanks for the tip about the kangaroo article. My favorite line,
"In accordance with their worldviews, a majority of biologists regard evolution as the most likely explanation for the origin of species including the kangaroo."

If I remember correctly, the reason they accuse Wikipedia of bias and then makes something even more biased is because they believe it's impossible to make an online encyclopedia without bias. So, they think that people should have the opportunity to see both biases.

Because there are exactly two biases on teh whole wide intarwebz.

TSIB.

Furthermore, etymologically, "atheist" as "one who lacks belief in deity" is spot on.

No. Etymologically atheos means "godless". Literally. Except that Greek uses a pre- instead of a suffix.

From the Conservapedia article on the Moon. Harmless, right?

"Atheistic theories of the origin of the Moon, widely taught for decades despite lacking the falsifiability requirement of science (see Philosophy of science), have been proven false."

WTF?

Here's the conservapedia entry on PZ. If it were any more biased, it would have said he is a suspected child molester and alleged axe murderer.

For your entertainment-

Paul Zachary Myers a.k.a. PZ Myers is an activist in the creation-evolution controversy contributing to The Panda's Thumb and Pharyngula blogs. Myers is also an associate professor of biology at the University of Minnesota Morris (UMM)[1]

Myers commented, while listening to Michael Behe lecture on Intelligent design, that "In science, we scream a lot."[1] According to Evolution News, he opposes democratically elected school boards deciding how evolution should be taught.[2]

References
1.0 1.1 The Mad Scientist City Pages, Volume 26 - Issue 1303, November 23, 2005 Cover story
Egnor, Michael P.Z. Myers: Darwinists Know What's Best for Your Children Evolution News December 18, 2007

PZ - better stop shouting!

Thanks for the tip about the kangaroo article. My favorite line,
"In accordance with their worldviews, a majority of biologists regard evolution as the most likely explanation for the origin of species including the kangaroo."

You know what the stupidest part of this is? The singular kangaroo. The implication it's a single species.

That's like saying baboons and people are the same species.

Ha. My Facebook profile has a better PZ quote than Conservapaedia does: "We also all have this fantasy of being able to laugh masniacally over a vat, shouting, 'It's ALIVE!'"

Oh my FSM. If Andy really has some sort of ideological disbelief in complex numbers, that belief has consequences.

It's impossible even to begin an elementary course in AC circuit analysis without a familiarity with complex numbers. Basic concepts like phase angle and power factor, both of which are of concern to electric power utilities, cannot be understood mathematically without resort to complex numbers.

Therefore, alternating current does not exist. Electric companies claiming to deliver 120/240VAC power (or worse, 120/208Y 3-phase power) to our homes and businesses are merely perpetrating a liberal lie.

Therefore, Andy's computer does not actually power up and his belief in the existence of his posts on C-pedia is a delusion caused by the Great Big Atheist Conspiracy.

@#8 jpf --

They also have the #5 Google search result for "kangaroo" :)

The kangaroo talk page is especially hilarious. One section, entitled "why is this page locked?" asks:

Why isn't anyone allowed to edit this page? Can't an Australian even make some constributions [sic] about an animal in his own country?

Apparently the origins of the kangaroo are a hot button issue. How informational will an encyclopedia be where any animal entry says "As with all animals, Noah brought them all on an ark impossibly small to hold them all... blah blah blah...." --Truth is bipartisan 20:48, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

@#8 jpf --

They also have the #5 Google search result for "kangaroo" :)

The kangaroo talk page is especially hilarious. One section, entitled "why is this page locked?" asks:

Why isn't anyone allowed to edit this page? Can't an Australian even make some constributions [sic] about an animal in his own country?

Apparently the origins of the kangaroo are a hot button issue. How informational will an encyclopedia be where any animal entry says "As with all animals, Noah brought them all on an ark impossibly small to hold them all... blah blah blah...." --Truth is bipartisan 20:48, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

The page, with this and more intentional and unintentional hilarity, is at conservapedia dot com slash Talk:Kangaroo (linking directly to conservapedia sends comments into the black hole of moderation...lol).

He sounds way too much like Ben Stein, in the sense of both of them are nasal beyond belief and say stupid stuff that leave "beyond belief" way behind. I just couldn't do it, sorry.

From the Talk:Kangaroo page, more people versed in the Fine Art Of Missing The Point. (just below the "Space Ship Theory")

So your "suggestion" was just another jab at conservatives. Why are you even here, Scrap? Do you think that Conservapedia is just a dumping ground for your mean-spirited anti-Christian jokes? --Ashens 05:00, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Can I prove that Noah's Ark existed? What sort of proof would you like? I can't give scientific proof, because it's history, i.e. outside the realm of science. But I can point you to historical evidence, such as the Bible.
What is "scientifically incorrect" about Adam and Eve? And how and where were they "proved" wrong? And what other supposed "wrong facts" does the Bible contain? I don't know of any, despite studying it for many years.
And despite me asking for specifics (which you did to some extent), you then come out with another unsubstantiated over-generalisation, that this site "encourages ignorance". Where, specifically, does it do that?
Philip J. Rayment 02:42, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

@Nasikabatrachus #78,

Thanks for correcting me. I knew it was too good to be true! :) Poor Che, rolling around in his unmarked grave at all the people making cash off his image.

For a good laugh, compare:

Conservapedia on Obama:
conservapedia dot com slash Barack_Obama

Conservapedia on McCain:
conservapedia dot com slash John_McCain

#2 Well, you're obviously doing it wrong. You're not supposed to READ it, you're just supposed to agree with it.

Ah, kangaroos, I'm reminded of this passage (pages 65-6) in Bertrand Russell's Religion and Science:

Difficulties had begun with the discovery of the New World. America was a long way from Mount Ararat, yet it contained many animals not to be found at intermediate places. How came these animals to have travelled so far, and to have left none of their kind on the way? Some thought that sailors had brought them, but this hypothesis had its difficulties, which puzzled that pious Jesuit, Joseph Acosta, who had devoted himself to the conversion of the Indians, but was having difficulty in preserving his own faith. He discusses the matter with much sound sense in his Natural and Moral History of the Indies (1590), where he says: "Who can imagine that in so long a voyage men woulde take the paines to carrie Foxes to Peru, especially the kind they call 'Acias,' which is the filthiest I have seene? Who woulde likewise say that they have carried Tygers and Lyons? Truly it were a thing worthy the laughing at to thinke so. It was sufficient, yea, very much, for men driven against their willes by tempest, in so long and unknowne a voyage, to escape with their owne lives, without busying themselves to carrie Woolves and Foxes, and to nourish them at sea." Such problems led the theologians to believe that the filthy Acias, and other such awkward beasts, had been spontaneously generated out of slime by the action of the sun; but unfortunately there is no hint of this in the account of the ark. But there seemed no help for it. How could the sloths, for instance, which are as unhurried in their movements as their name implies, have all reached South America if they started from Mount Ararat?

That should have been a period and not a comma after "kangaroos" in my previous comment. I'm not calling you all kangaroos (though it would have been a term of endearment if I were, as I'm quite fond of them).

I just made a video refuting their atheism page:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E9oh-_lU2yk

History is "outside the realm of science"?! That has to be news to all those archaeologists, historical forensics specialists, carbon-dating technicians, et cetera et cetera, and every single historian who ever had a hypothesis and had it falsified by the evidence... Speaking as a sometimes-historian, I suppose it's oftentimes a little hard to do experiments in history, but I wouldn't say that makes it completely "outside the realm of science."

As Ktesibios so kindly outlined, would that a disbelief in complex numbers made one's electricity go away...

Guys, guys calm down. There is something educational there after all. This will finally teach those people how to spell "atheist" properly. Meh... maybe not.

The first sentence of their article on Gravitation subtly warns us that the theory is suspect by calling it a "naturalistic explanation." The next sentence sets us right by stating that "In modern physics, it is explained by the General Theory of relativity, however the scientific consensus has recently come into question.[1]" Their source for this assertion? The Onion. Really.

What a bottomless source of amusement! I wish I could call it harmless, however. It is scary that such ignorance - of both content and method of inquiry - is held up as the standard we should have our children aspire to.

I want to take this opportunity to mention how it's hard to even say the name "Schlafly" without making a disgusted face, not unlike one you would make upon biting into something very sour or getting a whiff of a particularly potent stench.

If the fact that a banana fitting into our hands perfectly is proof of a loving creator, what does this... ugh.. "Schlafly" revelation tell us about the nature of the universe and their place in it?

Schlafly, Botfly - what's the difference, really?

And frankly, I don't get the name "Conservapedia".

Obviously, DelusionalAMERICANfundyAMERICANDroolingMoronAMERIpedia was just too long.

By their definition of "conservative", reality has a liberal bias. And everything in the world outside the U.S.

#99 You have NO IDEA how close I came to referencing the botfly, but I still have a very hard time... even allowing thoughts of it into my mind.

I would almost argue that at least the word "botfly" doesn't cause physical discomfort just to say, the way that "Schlafly" does.

I meant to say that in reference to #106.

I have no idea (NO IDEA!) where I got "#99."

Don't know if JeffreyD is still reading, but I'm sure he would be interested in Slacktivist's series on the Gay Hatin' Gospel. The 3 parts of the series are linked from the prologue page.

There's a reason why I've avoided conservapedia for almost a year. I'm not sure what I feel worse about: exposing my eyes to such lunacy at this hour, or giving this asshole a pageview for his stats.

I really tried to read the article on atheism, however I kept gagging and didn't want to vomit on my keyboard. Its a real pain to clean. Honestly there's less bullshit in the cattle paddock across the road.

The Amazing Kim, re your #110, I was already off line by your posting, but caught it this morning. Thank you, have opened the site and will read it after I play catch up on the threads here in PZ's Playhouze.

Time to mainline some more coffee.

Ciao, y'all

I didn't know that conservapedia was still around. It was kind of a novelty to get yourself banned from the site a few months ago. I did so myself. But then I sort of just forgot about it, and I thought everyone else did too.

#104 - Absolutely brilliant!

Conservapædia. Is that a synonym for fcukwitapædia?

Octopoggle @ # 104: I couldn't believe your claim that the first source cited in C'pedia's "Gravitation" article was The Onion, but 'tis true.

Alas, the courtesy has not been reciprocated: a search of theonion.com finds no results for "Conservapedia" (by either spelling) or even "Schlafly". It would seem the multilayered lachrymogenic ones recognize certain phenomena are beyond (external) parody.

Perhaps even more revealing, from the "Gravitation" article:

It is one of the few scientific theories that does not require a supernatural force to sustain self consistency.

The Ben Stein article is also good for giggles ("Stein has never lost his conservative roots or his desire to engage in intelligent dialogue. ... believe me, none of us has anything but respect for Darwin."), though the link to the "Laws of Physics" article (and the link to that article on the page the first link delivers) indicates that whatever supernatural force might be invoked to provide self consistency to C'pedia has apparently gone on strike for better sacrifices.

Pierce R. Butler @ #117: Sorry, I would have linked it, but I'm new in Blogland and haven't got the html stuff down yet.

... "gone on strike for better sacrifices"

LOL!

[Thanks, Ichthyic, for posting some rudimentary html pointers. I'm trying to learn.]

Octopoggle @ 118: ... and haven't got the html stuff down yet.

Am I the only one who has flashbacks to WordStar on CP/M while inputting html for blog comments?

I eagerly await the day browser interfaces catch up to, say, MacWrite 1.0.

The first sentence of their article on Gravitation subtly warns us that the theory is suspect by calling it a "naturalistic explanation." The next sentence sets us right by stating that "In modern physics, it is explained by the General Theory of relativity, however the scientific consensus has recently come into question.[1]" Their source for this assertion? The Onion. Really.

What a bottomless source of amusement! I wish I could call it harmless, however. It is scary that such ignorance - of both content and method of inquiry - is held up as the standard we should have our children aspire to.

Posted by: Octopoggle | May 24, 2008 8:53 PM

How freaking delicious! After some point it must not be rude anymore to call these people stupid.

Their source for this assertion? The Onion. Really.

Obviously, this is one of the articles that were written by godless liberal pranksters and that the good God-fearing conservatives have not discovered to this day. There must be dozens more.

Obviously, this is one of the articles that were written by godless liberal pranksters and that the good God-fearing conservatives have not discovered to this day. There must be dozens more.

So why are they saying they are the "trustworthy encyclopedia"? Wikipedia sure doesn't say that about Wikipedia.

Conservapedia surely must be aware that their articles aren't trustworthy. But they say they are trustworthy. Sounds like a pile a hooey to me!

Randytoad @ #36:

Could someone please tell me why conservatives aren't able to detect conservative bias?

It comes from a complete lack of self-awareness or introspection. I have an uncle like that, who insists that Faux News is completely lacking in bias, when all it really does is confirm his own prejudices.

So why are they saying they are the "trustworthy encyclopedia"?

It's wishful thinking. They're trying to convince themselves.

Conservap[æ]dia surely must be aware that their articles aren't trustworthy.

No, why? What makes you think they aren't simply stupid?

What I need to know is, where does this video fall on the Hovind Scale?

If I were to host a site like this I'd be hard pressed not to call it stupidopedia

Yikes... its worse that I thought.

I have one question though - why is a homeschooled kid wearing a Che T-shirt in a video about liberal bias and why conservapedia was formed? Its kinda ironic really.

LOL. On StumbleUpon, the Conservapaedia atheism article is listed as "satire."

LOL. On StumbleUpon, the Conservapaedia atheism article is listed as "satire."