Talk:Essay: Do evolutionists lack machismo?

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

A new entry about machismo ?

Conservative, I have seen that you love the topic of machismo. Why don't you create a conservapedia entry to explain what exactly you believe machismo is about ?--ARamis 16:34, 19 September 2011 (EDT)

One of the definitions of machismo is an "exhilarating sense of power or strength".[1] Conservative 20:27, 19 September 2011 (EDT)
Like the one you get from having articles that only you can edit? --SamCoulter 22:09, 19 September 2011 (EDT)
Actually you quoted the second definition. The first is "a strong sense of masculine pride : an exaggerated masculinity". So it seems to be something quite wrong for bible teach us that pride is wrong. Do you know the bible ?--ARamis 22:18, 19 September 2011 (EDT)

I clearly declared what definition I was using. Second, the Bible says: "The wicked flee when no one is pursuing, But the righteous are bold as a lion." - Psalms 28:1 When Thunderf00t went mano y señoras against two Westboro Baptist Church ladies in a discussion/debate he was largely able to keep his composure.[2] However, when he went mano y mano against the Christian apologist Ray Comfort he became a bowl of jelly! Of course, this is because Thunderf00t clearly lacks machismo and he was deeply intimidated by the biblical Christianity brought forth by Ray Comfort. :) Conservative 22:29, 19 September 2011 (EDT)

Apparently for Conservative, one case is enough for a general rule.--ARamis 22:32, 19 September 2011 (EDT)
See: Atheism and cowardice for more information. Conservative 22:40, 19 September 2011 (EDT)
So you're backing up your arguments by suggesting that people read more of your arguments? --JMairs 16:28, 20 September 2011 (EDT)

For another comical performance of nervousness see: Don Knotts Nervous Speech Conservative 01:55, 20 September 2011 (EDT)


This HAS to be a parody. I've had my suspicions after reading articles like "Atheism and obesity" but this nonsense just confirms it. CP is supposed to be an ENCYCLOPAEDIA - and a trustworthy one at that - and this just isn't anywhere near that standard. --SamCoulter 16:48, 19 September 2011 (EDT)

I have to agree with SamCoulter, this is suspect. Plus this article is just a patchwork made of existing articles. This has no added value.--ARamis 16:54, 19 September 2011 (EDT)
Not only does it have no added value: it's exactly the sort of crazed rubbish that makes it so easy for people to write off CP as a joke. --SamCoulter 17:00, 19 September 2011 (EDT)
Is there any new content in this "essay"? AaronL 17:25, 19 September 2011 (EDT)
I don't think I've seen the rabbits before. That's about it though. --SamCoulter 17:26, 19 September 2011 (EDT)
I can't even put into words what I think about this piece (I refuse to call this an article or essay). AaronL 17:27, 19 September 2011 (EDT)
Oh, I can: it's pure parody and it's aim is to discredit Conservapedia even more than this individual's other articles already have. --SamCoulter 17:30, 19 September 2011 (EDT)
I think it's serious. I honestly do. I understand your viewpoint, but after having observed this site for a while (and recently joining) I've concluded that this and other similar works are intended to be serious. AaronL 17:33, 19 September 2011 (EDT)
No, it can't be. I refuse to believe that I live in a world where somebody could honestly believe this bilge. --SamCoulter 17:35, 19 September 2011 (EDT)
If User:Conservative was actually a parodist (which he or she isn't) he or she would have to be literally crazy to spend so much time on this. AaronL 17:43, 19 September 2011 (EDT)
Crazy? You mean as opposed to what he/she is now? --SamCoulter 17:44, 19 September 2011 (EDT)
Not my position to judge...I'd call him "dedicated" and leave it at that. AaronL 17:46, 19 September 2011 (EDT)
Fair enough. Dedicated to what, though? It doesn't seem to have much to do with encyclopaedias. --SamCoulter 17:51, 19 September 2011 (EDT)
Dedicated to Conservapedia...maybe not to the idea of a traditional encyclopedia, or to the spread of knowledge, but to whatever one may call this website. AaronL 17:52, 19 September 2011 (EDT)

Do evolutionists lack machismo?

If atheist Richard Dawkins finally agreed to debate Dr. William Lane Craig and a scientist at Creation Ministries International instead of making pitiful excuses, would Hispanic ladies finally believe Señor Dawkins has machismo? [3] Olé! Olé! Olé!

Please see: Does Richard Dawkins have machismo? and Atheism and cowardice

(photo obtained from Flickr, see: license agreement)

Question: Are atheists/evolutionists men filled with courage, truth, and conviction or cowardly pseudo intellectual pantywaists?

To help answer this question, let's take a look at the leading atheist and evolutionist Richard Dawkins and consider this excerpt from that was quoted from a column at

"So Mary Kenny thinks that there are more atheist men than women, and that this is the result of some sort of attempt at overt manliness on their part. She really must try to pay attention - to Richard Dawkins, for example whom one could hardly describe as being the epitome of machismo."[4][5]

Señor Dawkins is not the epitome of machismo? Why might this be the case? Was this unfortunate situation caused by nature? Was it caused by nurture? Is it merely a reflection of his free will?

One of the definitions of machismo is an "exhilarating sense of power or strength".[6] Wired magazine made the observation that atheists tend to be quarrelsome, socially challenged men.[7] Unfortunately for atheist men, quarrelsomeness does not equal machismo and any man with a quarrelsome wife will attest to this fact!

Did The Daily Telegraph question Señor Richard Dawkins' machismo?

See also: Atheism and cowardice

On May 14, 2011, the British newspaper The Daily Telegraph published a news story entitled Richard Dawkins accused of cowardice for refusing to debate existence of God.[8] In The Daily Telegraph article Dr. Daniel Came, a member of the Faculty of Philosophy at Oxford University, was quoted as writing to fellow atheist Richard Dawkins concerning his refusal to debate Dr. William Lane Craig: "The absence of a debate with the foremost apologist for Christian theism is a glaring omission on your CV and is of course apt to be interpreted as cowardice on your part."[9]

See also: Does Richard Dawkins have machismo? and Atheism and cowardice and Global Christianity


"but recently deconverted to atheist." in the section about DonExodus2, should read "Became an atheist", or something like that.--SeanS 22:04, 19 September 2011 (EDT)--SeanS 22:04, 19 September 2011 (EDT)

I edited that part out and changed the DonExodus2 entry based on your suggestion. Conservative 22:49, 19 September 2011 (EDT)


How does "Elevatorgate" fit into this? I thought the gist of that event (such as it was) was that Richard Dawkins was too much of a macho or machista. But this article now says that he lacks machismo. They can't both be the case, can they?--CPalmer 09:01, 20 September 2011 (EDT)

Spanish Connection?

Why does this piece keep referring to Dawkins as Señor Dawkins? Has he lost his professorship and moved to Spain?--QPR 16:03, 20 September 2011 (EDT)

A better question would be, why does this piece exist? --JMairs 16:26, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
Because the preferred pejorative isn't applicable in this case (Dawkins isn't fat. --SharonW 17:09, 20 September 2011 (EDT)