Talk:Main Page

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search

This page is for discussion only of Main Page content and feature items. For discussion of other issues relating to the Conservapedia community please see: Conservapedia:Community Portal

Archive Index

Contents

Andreas Lubitz

It seems he was a Lutheran Christian.[1].--GhazS 11:03, 3 April 2015 (EDT)

I'm sure any headlines on the Main Page that suggest he was an atheist will be immediately retracted. --Randall7 14:15, 3 April 2015 (EDT)

The headlines are about liberal denial, nothing needs to change TheRedElephant 17:39, 3 April 2015 (EDT)

The article does not say the co-pilot was a member of that church and merely says he had attended the church. If memory serves, in the USA, about 10% of atheists go to church regularly. "A new study out of Rice University has found that 17 percent - about one out of five scientists who describe themselves as either atheists or agnostics - actually go to church, although not too often, and not because they feel a spiritual yearning to join the faithful."[2]
In addition, if he was an ardent Bible believing Christian, surely he would have not been suicidal (It is atheists who are more likely to be suicidal than the general population. See: Atheism and suicide and Atheism and depression). Furthermore, the Bible says to put others before yourself and teaches sacrificial love. Unlike Christianity, there is nothing inherent in atheism that teaches sacrificial love (See also: Atheism and uncharitableness and Atheism and love and Agape).
Another important point is that post-Darwinism and the rise of liberal theology in the 19th/20th centuries, many German "churches" are unbiblical in doctrine and are spiritually dead and losing members. Many mainline Lutheran churches are losing members in Germany and in other countries as well such as the United States (The Christian Post mentioned the co-pilot attended a Lutheran church).[3][4]
At the same time, on March 17, 2014, the news website Deutsche Well reported that evangelical Christianity has doubled in Germany in the last 10 years.[5] There haven't been any reports that the German co-pilot was a member of a Bible believing/evangelical church.

Exactly. Not a true Christian. Atheist. TheRedElephant 18:02, 3 April 2015 (EDT)

The pastor at the murderer's local church knew him from ... 13 years ago, when he was a teenager. [6] That doesn't sound like a churchgoing adult.--Andy Schlafly 21:05, 3 April 2015 (EDT)
Andy, where did you get the information from that he was a atheist and/or terrorist? Do you have a reference?--GhazS 21:08, 3 April 2015 (EDT)
You don't think the liberal media is going to admit this, do you?--Andy Schlafly 22:51, 3 April 2015 (EDT)

A few points:

In terms of evidence regarding any issue, there is direct evidence and indirect evidence.

The indirect evidence that the co-pilot was non-religious and/or an atheist:

Andreas Lubitz appears to be have been an egotistical, selfish, bitter and depressed individual who had suicidal tendencies in the past.[7][8]

According to the Eurobarometer Poll taken in 2010, 45% of Germans agreed with the statement "I believe there is a God".[9] See also: Atheism and arrogance and Atheism and social intelligence and Atheism and loneliness and Atheism and bitterness and Atheism and uncharitableness and Atheism and depression and Atheism and suicide.

I will let GhazS and AugustO determine if the characteristics of egotistical, selfish, bitter and depressed/suicidal best fit Bible believers or atheists/irreligious individuals.

Furthermore, there is the adage of if you were on trial for being a Christian, would there be enough evidence to convict you? There certainly appears to be a lack of compelling evidence that the co-pilot was a Christian! And it appears as if monotheists are a minority in Germany based on the previously cited Eurobarometer poll!!!!!

I hope that clarifies matters!!!! Conservative 22:57, 3 April 2015 (EDT)

It most certainly does not clarify matters. Cons has filled this whole section with speculation about statistical tendencies that he perceives, relating to atheism and various aspects of mental health. He has buttressed this with little more than a bunch of links to his silly pages on such topics as Atheism and love/depression/suicide/loneliness/bitterness/arrogance/uncharitableness/social intelligence/etc., along with something about Post-Darwinism, and something about the Lutheran Church losing members, and something about evangelical Christianity doubling in Germany in the last 10 years, and on and on and on. It is, of course, his right to fill Conservapedia with quotes that he picks up from around the web on the subjects of atheism and XXX. And to spout off on these subjects at every opportunity.
But there's something I can't help noticing. Everything he says in the dozens of silly pages relates to statistical effects, that is, poll results, along with his personal speculations. Presumably these insights arise from his use of the Generalized linear model that he and I have discussed so many times. Though Cons doesn't show his work and explain how the model was used. But there's one thing that sticks out like a proverbial sore thumb. In the middle of all this statistical number-crunching mish-mash, Cons says "if [Andreas Lubitz] was an ardent Bible believing Christian, surely he would have not been suicidal". Surely? He surely would not have been suicidal? Does Cons know something about the generalized linear model that the rest of us don't? SamHB 20:47, 5 April 2015 (EDT)
From the Daily Mail article that Andy cited: "The pastor added that there is no direct contact with the family at the moment, but that he believes they are receiving good assistance."[10]
The crash happened on 3/24/2014. Apparently, the the GermanWings co-pilot's family did not attend his church on Sunday 3/29/2015 nor has the pastor talked to the family subsequent to the crash. And consider this 2013 news report about godless Germany: "Of those that identify themselves as Protestants, the number of people who go to church regularly is far smaller with 4 percent of Protestants attending church on Good Friday, the paper reported."[11]
Is or was the family non-religious? If so, did they raise an irreligious son who become an atheist? Conservative 23:15, 3 April 2015 (EDT)
In 2008, in Germany, about 35% of people indicated that they never attend church.[12] Conservative 23:35, 3 April 2015 (EDT)
Recently, I watched an interesting documentary on the egotistical and suicidal German evolutionist Adolf Hitler which indicated that rather than end the war via a treaty which would have saved lives, Hitler chose to drag things on to the bitter end due to pride and other psychological factors and then ultimately committed suicide. And Hitler's psychological profiler within the U.S. government predicted this course of action. VIDEO
Interesting. You have a statistic from 2008, indicating that, according to someone's survey, 35% of people in Germany never attend church. And you conclude from that that Lubitz was surely an atheist? Are you sure you are applying Bayes' theorem correctly? SamHB 22:47, 5 April 2015 (EDT)
Sam, the murderer was educated in Christianity but obviously chose not to attend church for many years. His actions then speak volumes. What are you looking for, an admission on YouTube???--Andy Schlafly 22:59, 5 April 2015 (EDT)

Sam, are you familiar with the fallacy of exclusion? The reason I ask is that I certainly provided more data than you are alluding to!!! Strike one!

Second, where did I say that Lubitz was surely an atheist? I didn't. Strike two! Conservative 00:04, 6 April 2015 (EDT)

Great aviation accomplishments by godly Christian creationists

"The Wright brothers used intelligence, experience, and ingenuity to design their aircraft. From studying God’s creation in the form of bird-flight, they were helped to develop their own creation.

One Saturday afternoon in 1903, Wilbur and Orville Wright made final repairs and adjustments to their aircraft. This was the culmination of four years work by the brothers. Next morning, the aircraft was ready and wind conditions were perfect, but there would be no flight that day. This was Sunday, and Wilbur and Orville chose not to work on Sundays."[13] Conservative 00:48, 4 April 2015 (EDT)

Despicable News Item

"Liberal double standard, again: the lamestream media fail to mention the lack of church attendance by the murderer who increased the speed of the Germanwings plane as he crashed it into a mountain, killing all 150 on board, and the media also refuse to ask if it was atheistic terrorism."

What we know at this moment is that a depressed man committed suicide - and murdered 149 children, women, and men doing so.

  • "the media also refuse to ask if it was atheistic terrorism" Andy, perhaps because journalists are able to read? Perhaps they even used Conservapedia's article which states that terrorism is the unlawful use of -- or threatened use of -- force or violence against individuals or property to coerce or intimidate governments or societies, often to achieve political, religious, or ideological objectives. While Andreas Lubitz filled us all with terror, he didn't want "to coerce or intimidate governments or societies", and hadn't any "political, religious, or ideological objectives". It is the same as in most school-shootings: they are mass-murders, but no acts of terror. An lawyer should able to spot this.
  • The there is this ghoulish stampede to distance us from the murderer. In my opinion that is misplaced:
  • Andreas Lubitz was at first a depressed man. There are depressed atheists, there are depressed Christians. Atheists and Christians commit suicide, albeit at different rates - look at the number of suicides of veterans!
  • Andreas Lubitz was raised as a Christian - it seems, he received his "Konfirmation". Perhaps he was still an official member, paying his Church taxes (a German idiosyncrasy). Perhaps he saw himself as a Christian, perhaps he went to church from time to time. But probably we have lost him. Why? Could we have helped him? Or did we just add to the pressure?
  • What is the signal we sent to depressed men and women? Obviously our thoughts and prayers are mainly with the innocent victims of Lubitz's crime. But this ease to wash our hands of him, does it encourage depressed men and women to seek help in our Churches?
  • I even saw complaints that Lubitz's parents didn't attend their church over the last days - without asking the obvious, like whether they were in town (in their house, beleaguered by journalists, and object to investigation by the police), or just avoided publicity!
  • Last, is there any human catastrophe which Conservapedia doesn't use to score points? There are many news items which can be described as "we don't know what happened, but it is the fault of the Muslims (or atheists)" - or in this case, both, successively!

--AugustO 06:09, 6 April 2015 (EDT)

Questions for AugustO

1. AugustO, you wrote: "Andreas Lubitz was at first a depressed man. There are depressed atheists, there are depressed Christians." Question: Do atheists have higher suicide rates than the general public? Are atheistic societies more suicidal? See: Atheism and suicide and Atheism and emotional intelligence

2. Second, we know that Lubitz had an ego issue and I cited an article pointing that out.[14][15] Do theists commonly perceived atheists as being egotistical and is this perception warranted? See: Atheism and arrogance.

3. Someone who kills themselves in a way that kills others has a selfishness issue and is less empathetic. Is there social science data indicating that atheists/irreligious are more selfish and less empathetic? See: Atheism and uncharitableness.

4. Someone who kills himself in a way that kills others is acting in a very self-centered and unsocial manner. Is there social science data indicating that atheists have lower social skills? See: Atheism and social/interpersonal intelligence and Atheism and loneliness.

5. Is Germany a religious country? If is not a religious country, could Lubitz have been socialized into various atheistic/irreligious values? According to the Eurobarometer Poll taken in 2010, 45% of Germans agreed with the statement "I believe there is a God".[16] Have German values improved post Friedrich Nietzsche? See: Moral failures of the atheist population

6. Germany has one of the highest rates of belief in evolution in the world. In 2005, it was estimated that 70% of Germans believed in evolution.[17]

Have German values improved post Charles Darwin/Ernst Haeckel? For example, see: Bestiality and Germany and Atheistic Germany and alcoholism and Atheistic Germany and loneliness

Did the egotistical evolutionist Adolf Hitler kill himself and cause WWII to end in a manner that showed bitterness and a disregard for his fellow countrymen's lives? Did the German people elect Adolf Hitler?

Is there social science data and historical data that shows that evolutionism increases immorality?

Consider: In July of 2000, Creation Ministries International reported:

"For years, many people have scoffed at any suggestion that the evils in society could be linked with the teaching of the theory of evolution. But new research has confirmed what Bible-believers have known all along—that the rising acceptance of Darwin’s theory is related to declining morality in the community.

The research survey of 1535 people, conducted by the Australian National University, revealed that belief in evolution is associated with moral permissiveness. Darwin himself apparently feared that belief in evolution by the common man would lead to social decay. The survey showed that people who believed in evolution were more likely to be in favour of premarital sex than those who rejected Darwin’s theory. Another issue which highlighted the contrast between the effect of evolutionary ideas and that of biblical principles was that Darwinians were reported to be ‘especially tolerant’ of abortion.

In identifying the primary factors determining these differences in community attitudes, the author of the research report, Dr Jonathan Kelley, said: ‘The single most important influence after church attendance is the theory of evolution.’"[18]"

See also: Social Darwinism

7. Did the atheistic Soviet Union shoot down Korean Airlines Flight 007 and was their actions warranted at the time?

8. When was the last time that the co-pilot Lubitz went to church? Are Germans church going people? If Lubitz had been an outspoken, church going, evangelical Christian or even a church going, evangelical Christian, do you think that the press would have reported this?

9. We do know that a country that practiced state atheism and Muslims have brought down a commercial airplane filled with passengers, can you name one instance of an evangelical Christian doing this?

10: You wrote: "Andreas Lubitz was raised as a Christian - it seems, he received his "Konfirmation"."

Was he raised as a Bible believing Christian which would have required his repentance and having Jesus be his Lord and savior or was he raised to believe a false, watered down "gospel" typically offered by liberal Christianity "churches" which is often anti-supernatural in nature and teaches than men are basically good which is contrary to what Jesus/Scriptures teaches (Matthew 7:11 and Jeremiah 17:9 for example teaches that human nature is evil. That is why is is necessary for men to be born again as per John 3:1-15 and be empowered by the Holy Spirit)?

I do agree with you that definitive statements without adequate proof should be avoided. At the same time, I do believe it is fair to raise questions on the main page - especially when their is social science data and/or previous historical events justifying raising questions.

I hope the above questions help you clarify your thinking! Feel free to engage in last wordism.Conservative 00:06, 7 April 2015 (EDT)

You can't ask someone a series of questions and then accuse them of last wordism when they reply, don't you think? KevinLisbie 16:59, 7 April 2015 (EDT)
KevinLisbie, if the person's past behavior has a history of last wordism and if you strongly suspect that they will largely dodge the questions and mainly engage in hand waving, you most certainly can. AugustO's response to the 15 questions for evolutionists did not inspire confidence - especially since he refused to debate the biology major VivaYehshua in an oral debate that would have been seen by tens of thousands of people.
And just as I suspected, AugustO largely dodged my questions above which was no great surprise.
KevinLisbie, by the way, if you scroll down the page, you will see that the liberals SamHB and Eg were similarly humbled by a few reasonable questions. Liberalism cannot withstand scrutiny/cross-examination (for example, see: Creation scientists tend to win debates with evolutionists and Atheism and cowardice).

Twelve Betteridgeisms (and a Godwin too) in One Section!

I think that's a new record for making a section out of stupid questions. Does Cons believe that this is a good way to make a point? Does he believe that people will find that style convincing? Is there some reason why he puts in links to his stupid articles after nearly all of them? Does he realize how stupid those articles are? Does he think people haven't noticed that they are basically retreads of the same thing? Is he willing to show us the connection ("new research has confirmed") between "the rising acceptance of Darwin’s theory" and "declining morality in the community"? That is, information from other than a fundamentalist extremist web site? SamHB 17:23, 6 April 2015 (EDT)

SamHB, is Richard Dawkins the most high profile evolutionist or at least a very high profile evolutionist? Has the evolutionist Richard Dawkins said that he would hate to live in a society governed by Darwinistic morality? Did Richard Dawkins indicate that it is hard to say if Adolf Hitler was right? Is it hard to say? See: Richard Dawkins' commentary on Adolf Hitler
SamHB, I provided social science data from a secular university showing that Darwinism has a deleterious effect on morality and cited history by way of mentioning Social Darwinism. Where is your social science data showing that Darwinism does not have a deleterious effect on morality?
Did you show that my articles were "stupid" or merely assert they were? The reason I ask is that he who asserts move prove! Affirmati Non Neganti Incumbit Probatio! Also, you wrote previously on this wiki: "Maybe one of our more prolific writers who is interested in music (yes, Cons, that's you) would like to write articles for these people."[19]. If I/we have written several stupid articles at this wiki as you claim, then why did you request that I/we write more articles for this wiki?
There is data showing that questions can improve persuasiveness under various conditions[20] and it is a common device used by coaches of persuasion.[21]
Was a portion of your argumentation illogical? Specifically, regarding a website that I chose to cite? What is the genetic fallacy?
By the way, I added a few more questions for AugustO. Conservative 19:02, 6 April 2015 (EDT)

Suggestion for Conservative

Conservative, "When you're in a hole, stop digging." Meaning, now would be a good time to shut up, because you're being extremely annoying. StaceyT 18:04, 6 April 2015 (EDT)

Can you demonstrate your assertion that I am in a hole? If you can, do so. The reason I ask is that he who asserts move prove! Affirmati Non Neganti Incumbit Probatio!
"Proof by assertion" is an informal logical fallacy. Liberals, stop being so illogical! Conservative 18:56, 6 April 2015 (EDT)

Answer to User:Conservative

You wrote:

AugustO, you wrote: "Andreas Lubitz was at first a depressed man. There are depressed atheists, there are depressed Christians." Question: Do atheists have higher suicide rates than the general public? Are atheistic societies more suicidal? See: Atheism and suicide and Atheism and emotional intelligence

You make my quote look like I'd deny that there are differences in the suicide rates of atheists and Christians, while I've said:

Andreas Lubitz was at first a depressed man. There are depressed atheists, there are depressed Christians. Atheists and Christians commit suicide, albeit at different rates - look at the number of suicides of veterans!

Your out-of-context quotation shows that you don't address what I've written (perhaps because you haven't read it at all), but just a straw-man of your own design. You are completely missing my point by showing that with a high degree of probability your brother has a splinter in his eye... --AugustO 03:48, 7 April 2015 (EDT)

AugustO, you are projecting from Conservative's comments way more than what can be reasonably concluded. It looks to me like you were trying to withhold the full truth about the consequences of atheism as practiced in a society, and that Conservative was calling you out on it, not that he was trying to distort what small amount you said about it. VargasMilan 04:56, 7 April 2015 (EDT)

Andreas Lubitz: More evidence that he was not a committed Christian

Consider this information about Germany:

"The Protestant state church is fairly dead. The percent of committed Christians in Germany is maybe at 3 or 4 percent. Eighty percent belong to a church nominally, Protestant or Catholic. A mere 0.5 percent belong to a free evangelical church. The percent of people believing in life after death is fewer than 50 percent. It's what a German philosopher, Ruediger Safranski, calls "cold religion," very left-brained, very cognitive, focused on rituals and membership but not on personal commitment. Sometimes the mainline bishops say we need to be more mission minded. But they don't put any money into it."[22]

Before the plan crashed, The pilot yelled to his co-pilot Andreas Lubitz who locked himself behind the cockpit door, "For God's sake, open the door".[23] Andreas Lubitz did not open the cockpit door and shortly afterward purposefully crashed the jet full of passengers.

There were signs that Andreas Lubitz was egotistical and depressed.[24][25] We also know that the atheists/irreligious tend to be more depressed/suicidal and self-centered which is the type of person who would more likely commit suicide by crashing a loaded commercial passenger jet. See also: Atheism and suicide and Atheism and arrogance and Atheism and social/interpersonal intelligence

The last reported instance of him attending church was 13 years ago and we know Germany is currently not a nation of church goers as noted above. Conservative 20:40, 9 April 2015 (EDT)

Yes, the circumstantial evidence is quite clear. Although I must say (referring to "For God's sake, open the door"), if a non-Christian (the pilot in this case) tried to command me to something by taking the Lord's name in vain ... well I certainly wouldn't be moved to action!!! TheRedElephant 18:50, 10 April 2015 (EDT)

Western atheists have developed a reputation for being egotistical/narcissistic/selfish and for having more suicidal/anti-social behaviors. See also: Atheism and arrogance and Atheism and social intelligence and Atheism and loneliness and Atheism and bitterness and Atheism and uncharitableness and Atheism and depression and Atheism and suicide.

Now the beautiful thing about Switzerland, which is more theistic than Germany, is that you get the germanic cultural influence of adherence to order, efficiency and timeliness without the atheistic post Ernst Haeckel/Friedrich Nietzsche present day atheistic values of Germany. Swiss International Airlines has a fantastic safety rating.[26]

Third, aviation incidences like Andreas Lubitz didn't happen in 50s America, Latin America. South America or the Philippines because these societies were more theistically/Christian/community oriented. I have spoken to older people who lived in cities where Christianity used to be more prevalent and they told me that when they grew up people did bother locking their doors at night.

Fourth, I will make a prediction: In this decade, there will be no evangelical/Amish school school student or evangelical/Amish homeschooled mass murders. On the other hand, evolutionists/atheists have a checkered past when it comes to this type of behavior. See: Young mass murderers

Fifth, let's face facts. The post evolution loving/irreligious/atheistic behavior exhibited in Germany society has not been impressive. See: World War I and Darwinism and Holocaust and WWI and WWII and Bestiality and Germany and Atheistic Germany and alcoholism and Atheistic Germany and loneliness. Conservative 20:15, 10 April 2015 (EDT)

Liberal double standard

Why is Wisconsin playing Duke in the NCAA basketball final an example of a liberal double standard? --Mjachimstahl 15:54, 6 April 2015 (EDT)

The headline explains why.--Andy Schlafly 17:13, 6 April 2015 (EDT)
Color me confused as well. The media didn't place these two teams in the championship game. Are they supposed to criticize the fact that a predominantly black team is matching up against a predominantly white team? What exactly is the problem here?--eg 6:15, 6 April (EDT)
The NCAA and the media harshly criticized Indiana for allowing businesses to choose, based on faith, with whom to do business. But segregation in their own NCAA finale is apparently fine with them. That's called a double standard.--Andy Schlafly 18:27, 6 April 2015 (EDT)
I just...there are no words. To paraphrase TV's King of the Hill, just when I think this website can't say anything stupider, it keeps publishing.---eg 7:10, 6 April 2015 (EDT)
Are you suggesting that the Wisconsin athletic department is rejecting qualified black basketball prospects based on racism, or that Duke is rejecting qualified white prospects for the same reason? It would be interesting to hear your thoughts on how the situation could be remedied. What policies would ensure an appropriate racial distribution on all NCAA teams? --Mjachimstahl 20:01, 6 April 2015 (EDT)
Nothing in the Indiana religious liberty bill authorized discrimination, so why did the NCAA harshly complaint about that, and then promote a white-versus-black tournament finale?--Andy Schlafly 20:42, 6 April 2015 (EDT)
Where has the NCAA promoted the championship game as being "white-versus-black"? Are you aware that neither team is made up solely of players of one race, that both teams have white AND black players? These are the last two undefeated teams in the tournament. The media isn't criticizing it because there's nothing to criticize.--eg 21:48, 6 April 2015 (EDT)

"USA Today asks: 'Why is the Badgers' roster predominantly white?'"[27]

Eg, why did you dodge Andy's question about the Indiana religious liberty bill? Conservative 22:22, 6 April 2015 (EDT)

Yes, BEFORE THE FINAL FOUR EVEN STARTED (as in, before the matchup for tonight's championship game was set), USA Today pointed out that Wisconsin has more white players than black players, as other media outlets already have this season as well. That is not the NCAA promoting tonight's game as a "black vs. white" event. As for Mr. Schlafly's question, the reason for the NCAA's criticism of the Indiana legislation is obvious, whether one agrees with it or not. I was responding to the 2nd half of his question.--eg 21:53, 6 April 2015 (EDT)

If the rationale for NCAA's criticism of Indiana's law was so correct and obvious, then why are you still dodging Andy's question and not able to fully address it? Yet another example of liberalism's intellectual inferiority and deceit? Conservative 23:23, 6 April 2015 (EDT)

I neither dodged the question nor did I say whether or not I'm liberal or conservative, or whether I agree with the NCAA's position on the legislation. Whether one agrees with them or not, it is plainly understood by all that the NCAA criticized the Indiana legislation because they felt it allowed for discrimination against a minority, specifically gays. There is absolutely no discrimination involved in the NCAA championship game, so it is absurd for Mr. Schlafly to suggest that the media should criticize them for it. User: Conservative, are you dodging my pointing out that the USA Today article you referred to had nothing to do with the championship game, or do you acknowledge your error?--eg 23:57, 6 April 2015 (EDT)
You mean "allowed for discrimination against" the acknowledgement of a secularly-perceived equality of the same-named but differing acts of a majority and a minority not "against a minority [group of individuals]". Just how remote are we going to get from actual discrimination against individuals before you stop calling it discrimination? VargasMilan 00:13, 7 April 2015 (EDT)

Congratulations Jahlil Okafor, Justise Winslow, Tyus Jones, Quinn Cook, Matt Jones, Marshall Plumlee, Amile Jefferson and Grayson Allen, the eight young men who carried Duke's team to victory. VargasMilan 23:49, 6 April 2015 (EDT)

Eg, "plainly understood by all"? Did someone conduct a large scientific poll on this matter? Is this a failed attempt to engage in the bandwagon fallacy and are you bluffing about this alleged overwhelming consensus? If it is "plainly understood by all", then why did Proposition 8 pass and why did the Defense of Marriage act pass? If it is "plainly understood by all", then why do 78 countries have anti-homosexuality laws?
I fail to see why the USA Today article has no relevance to your previous posts on this matter. They are a key player that is relevant to this discussion. I see your response as prideful denialism. Conservative 00:21, 7 April 2015 (EDT)

This still doesn't make sense.

I don't follow sports much, but, as far as I can tell, the NCAA administers a college basketball tournament know as "March Madness". As far as I know, they do not enforce, or demand that the participating colleges or teams enforce, any kind of segregation or bigotry. If they did, they would indeed be guilty of hypocrisy for also opposing Indiana's legislation on the subject. But they would probably also run afoul of a great many laws and policies. (That's just my guess, I'm not a lawyer, coach, or college administrator.)

As far as I can tell, the teams near the end of the tournament, Wisconsin and Duke in particular, were chosen for those spots based on their scores in basketball games earlier in the tournament. The NCAA "promoted" that basketball matchup only insofar as they promoted the entire tournament, allowing teams to move up based on winning earlier games. As far as I know, those games were won fairly, based on skill, not race.

As far as I know, the lopsided racial makeup of those two teams was a concidence, a statistical fluke. As far as I know, athletes are selected for those teams (and all teams) based on their playing ability. For coaches to choose players based on race would probably violate all sorts of laws and policies. There is no evidence that such a thing happened. SamHB 12:43, 8 April 2015 (EDT)

SamHB, conservatives and libertarians are for free association. And various conservatives/libertarians argue that free association is clearly constitutionally protected. For example, a Christian baker should not be forced by the state to bake a cake for a homosexual "wedding". Boy Scouts USA should not be forced by the state to have homosexual scoutmasters. Boy football teams should not be forced by the state to have girls on their teams if they don't want to. Today's liberals on the other hand are often more authoritarian and often trample on individual liberties and on the ability of people to freely associate.
Second, conservatives/libertarians often advocate equality of opportunity whereas liberals frequently advocate equality of results. For example, conservatives would be more apt to say that a man without any disability who was jobless his whole life and on welfare was due to laziness and a small business owner who was prosperous was industrious. On the other hand, using "liberal logic" the top 1% are wealthy and this must due to these people or the economic system oppressing the poor, etc. etc.
So using "liberal logic", the WI team which has less minorities than other teams must be discriminating and things must be equal with other teams (There must be equality/sameness). Now I realize that Wisconsin is whiter on average than most states (this is probably partly due to past immigrants often preferring to live together, For example, German/Scandinavian/British immigrants, etc.) and so they may not have actively discriminated against minorities, nevertheless they do not have equal results and using "liberal logic" which demands equal results and sameness, they are guilty of a misdeed. Using "liberal logic", the state must insure that there are an equal amount of male/female ballet dancers and male/female weight lifters otherwise discrimination/privilege, etc. etc. must be occurring. I believe this is Andy's position. Conservative 16:37, 8 April 2015 (EDT)
Is it Conservapedia's position then that constitutionally protected free association should allow a baker not to bake for a homosexual 'wedding', and for a university team to exclude members of a particular race? That would appear to be a consistent standard. --Mjachimstahl 18:34, 8 April 2015 (EDT)

SamHB, below is an example of a conservative mocking atheists, who tend to belong to the secular left, for their lack of diversity and sameness/equality with the general population and engaging in liberal hypocrisy/Atheist hypocrisy:

"According to the extensive survey from the Pew Research Center on Religion and Public Life, both atheism and agnosticism are subject to a lack of ethnic diversity that would impress any Ku Klux Klan grand dragon.

Just three percent of America’s atheists and agnostics are black. A mere six percent are Hispanic. And only four percent of the nation’s unbelievers are Asian."[28]

See also: Western atheism and race

No doubt part of the lack of diversity is due to evolutionary racism, but part of it may be due to the non-racist activity of white, atheist nerds proselytizing other nerds at Star Trek conventions.[29] There was a documentary on nerds being more white/atheistic than other subcultures which featured a white, atheistic nerd wanting to be friends with some African-Americans who did not want to befriend him. Conservative 17:57, 8 April 2015 (EDT)

I must admit to being confused as well. Are you suggesting that the NCAA should disqualify teams that are mostly segregated? Or that they should shuffle the results in such a way as to ensure that such a matchup does not occur? A bracket system, such as March Madness, is arguably the best way to come up with a champion. The only data points that matter in the equation are raw scores. That is very much a meritocracy. Conservative, I'm not sure what your point is in your post about liberal logic. I've never heard someone suggest that the racial composition of a sports team must be equal or proportional. That would be quite absurd given that spots on sports teams are very often attained via tryouts that focus on skill, particularly at the college level where money is not so much a concern. Could you provide a link where people are asking for the type of equality you're suggesting? I've honestly never heard such an argument. ScottH35 18:42, 8 April 2015 (EDT)
For the most part, I was largely explaining right/left ideologies to SamHB.
Second, it is common for left/liberals, particularly the far left, to advocate excessive/strict equality of results and for the state to get involved to make this happen. In Mao's China they often dressed the same, etc. etc. And the left, particular the far left, has a habit of being relentless in wanting sameness (equality of results) even though they are often hypocritical. The book Animal Farm focuses on the frequent hypocrisy of the left (Some animals are more equal than others).
Lastly, I don't have anything more to say about this matter. Bickering about racial politics doesn't have much appeal to me. At this juncture, I don't think the left is offering the right solutions in terms of racial harmony and they seem to be stirring the pot of racial tension in order to get votes. I tend to agree with the historian Martin Creveld that the state is losing power all over the world as a general trend. I think a lot of Western World governments are going to go though financial problems due to excessive debt. So I think the state's power to engage in excessive meddling in society as far as social/financial matters is going to become less and less as a general trend for awhile. See: The Fate of the State by MARTIN VAN CREVELD. And recently, the political pendulum seems to be swinging to the right in the USA/Europe and Australia. Conservative 21:23, 8 April 2015 (EDT)

Since there has been some false accusations by some gentlemen on the internet that I made up the political ideologies of "equality of opportunity" and "equality of outcome", here is an extensive article by several editors at Wikipedia on equality of outcome: Equality of outcome.

Although I disagree with the article in several places, here is an excerpt from the article about socialists: "They often see greater equality of outcome as a positive long-term goal to be achieved, so that individuals have equal access to the means of production and consumption. Only a small minority of socialist theories advocate complete economic equality of outcome (anarcho-communism is one such school)."[30]

I realize the article is mainly talking about wealth and not about racial issues. At the same time, affirmative action programs often have "quotas" and the USA Today article does question why WI is whiter than other teams.[31] Evidently, they didn't meet their minority "quota" in the eyes of the USA Today reporter. Has the USA Today recently questioned: Why there are so many female ballet dancers compared to men? Is their discrimination in ballet dancer hiring? Why white men are being discriminated against in the Chinese restaurant industry in terms of hiring? I have yet to see a white, male worker in a Chinese restaurant! Nor have I seen any African-Americans/Hispanics working in Chinese restaurants. In addition, in the Caribbean restaurants and soul food restaurants I have eaten at, there are no Asian/white/hispanic workers. I also went into an Italian restaurant and all the workers were of Italian descent! Now that's Italian! And how could I not mention that in the German restaurants I have eaten at there was not a single non-white worker! All their German restaurant workers were white! Were the German restaurants run by Nazis???!!!! Discrimination? Does the government need to step in?

Using leftist logic, clearly the government needs to step in as far as the ballet and the Chinese/Italian/German/Caribbean/soul food restaurant sectors of the economy in terms of their hiring practices and the current situation is intolerable. And liberals need to do a campaign to get more men in the ballet field!! Conservative 17:38, 10 April 2015 (EDT)

Where are these restaurants you eat at? Where I live Italian, Chinese, etc restaurants mostly have Hispanic and white serving staff. And many Hispanic eateries (there are probably more than 1,000 within 30 minutes of my house) have white serving staff. I find it very hard to believe that all of the restaurants you go to are so monocultural.
As for men in ballet, I'd imagine the reasoning is similar to women in STEM fields. They either feel unwelcome or are discouraged from doing so. Men with an interest in ballet are often bullied and treated quite poorly (See: Billy Elliot as an example). Boys are regularly encouraged to engage in more stereotypically masculine activities. There are many fantastic ballerinos, but they are vastly outnumbered by ballerinas.
Equality of outcome may very well be a thing, but I have only seen such complete arguments in fringe movements before. The average liberal doesn't believe that everyone should make the exact same amount of money or that every basketball team much be racially accurate to the national racial stratification. It does nobody any good to engage in reductio ad absurdum. Maybe some time reading actually liberal arguments, rather than imagining them, would help with your assumptions. ScottH35 16:20, 13 April 2015 (EDT)

Liberals are angry

Are there really people so petty as to object to this? Church halls are often used by non religious activities such as scouts, army cadets and jumble sales. They are the center of many small communities. Not only do they protest they do it loud enough to be reported on. Small minded indeed.--GhazS 18:46, 10 April 2015 (EDT)

Many secular leftists are like vampires. They go nuts when they see a cross. :) Conservative 20:39, 10 April 2015 (EDT)

Nobel Prize For Physics In 2011 Falsified; Universe, Dark Energy Not Expanding At Rapid Rate

"But the lamestream media refuse to admit the falsification of a typically liberal Nobel Prize, which has happened more than once. " How fast should they react? The article was published only three days ago! At the moment, there is nothing to admit, just to check... --AugustO 15:18, 12 April 2015 (EDT)

The story is, "new discovery means we now know something we didn't know a few days ago". Big deal - that happens all the time in science. It's like Einstein's theory of gravity being an improvement on Newton's theory. Or lots of other examples. StaceyT 18:24, 12 April 2015 (EDT)
When the liberal Nobel Prize is awarded no one says, "there is nothing to admit, just to check" - it's reported immediately. Why not display a falsification of the theory just as fast as the alleged contribution to science is reported on? And the story says the discovery did falsify a supposed contribution to science, not that it "improved" on it. VargasMilan 18:35, 12 April 2015 (EDT)
So looking at various science news websites, I read: "Dr Milne and co-authors said that there is the possibility that the acceleration of the expansion of the Universe might be lower than previously thought. And: "“We’re proposing that our data suggest there might be less dark energy than textbook knowledge, but we can’t put a number on it,” Dr Milne said. And: "Most importantly, the findings hint at the possibility that the acceleration of the expansion of the universe might not be quite as fast as textbooks say." And: "The authors pointed out that more data have to be collected before scientists can understand the impact on current measures of dark energy." Possibility... Acceleration might be lower... Might be less dark energy... Can't put a number on it... Not quite as fast... Doesn't sound like Hold-The-Front-Page stuff, does it? If you actually take the trouble to find and read some articles about it, they've used some pretty nifty new technology to separate the two populations of Type 1A supernovae. New technology = new observations = new theories. That's science. StaceyT 18:33, 13 April 2015 (EDT)
Can I just preempt User:Conservative at this point and say that if he starts asking me if I'm an atheist because I think that news stories about science are really interesting and that Genesis might just possibly not be 100% literally true, that would be really predictable and boring. StaceyT 18:40, 13 April 2015 (EDT)
I'd suggest letting him speak for himself. I believe that, over the last several months, after being soundly thrashed by a number of people over this practice, Cons has moved beyond accusing people of being atheists whenever he disagrees with something they have written. But I could be wrong. SamHB 23:53, 13 April 2015 (EDT)

I think this is indicative of the dropping standards on the main page. Nowhere, in the linked article or the abstract does the word "falsified" appear. Similarly, the item about liberal anger about a meeting in a church links to an item about one - one - member of a school board who is concerned that some people might not like it. The item about the British NHS - a socialised health czre system that anyone can bypass and use private health insurance - and is nothing like the government brokered private insurance market that is Obamacare, is bizarre, to say the least. If anything, the British Conservative party dream about having an Obamacare type system in the UK. And so on...

Most of the material on main page right seems to come from two sources. First, teapartycrusaders, a site that cuts and pastes - often with very blurry attribution - from other websites, often at the end of a trail of Chinese whispers that leads back to a main stream media source. Second, op eds from small circulation blogs. Often, it seems that whoever posts the item hasn't even read what they are linking to.

It's a sad fact that the internet has become an echo chamber for kooks of all persuasions, where how a thing sounds is more important than how true it is. Where the likes of Pamela Geller and Andrew Breitbart are/were passionately outspoken, the items on main page right - and increasingly and inexplicably on "featured in conservapedia" - are increasingly unsubstantiated rants with no primary sources.

This is the page that greets visitors to Conservapedia. It would be interesting to see if the drop off in quality has brought about a corresponding drop in visitor numbers.

My tuppenceworth. Rafael 18:51, 13 April 2015 (EDT)

The main page news post Obama's election has often been glorious. For example, scandal after scandal being exposed which put a damper on the Obama Administration's leftist authoritarian efforts, the shellacking the Democrats got in the midtermn elections and the secular left is losing more and more of its grip in Europe and Australia.
I do understand though how the main page could be very disheartening to liberals. Conservative 20:03, 13 April 2015 (EDT)
You just don't get it, do you? SamHB 23:53, 13 April 2015 (EDT)
SamHB, 2015 is going to be a glorious year for Christianity and young earth creationism and it is going to be the WORST year in the history of atheism and Darwinism. And beware the Ides of March 2016! Conservative 00:04, 14 April 2015 (EDT)
Totally off topic as usual, but, sure, I'll bite. Glorious year for (extremist fundamentalist) Christianity and YEC? You say that every year, year after year after year. No one believes you. No one has believed you for years. It just makes you look stupid and childish. And your audience—the readers of Conservapedia—are not children.
So, instead of always making predictions about next year, why don't you tell us how last year's prediction turned out. That is, what were the glorious achievements of Young Earth Creationism in 2014?
And I specifically remember your prediction, early this year, that we (people who accept evolution, presumably) should beware the Ides of March 2015. I'm pretty sure I asked you just what you thought was going to happen (though I can't find it just now), and you did not reply. And I didn't notice anything unusual on that date. So, instead of warning us again about what is going to happen on the Ides of March next year, why don't you tell us what interesting evolution-related thing happened 30 days ago? SamHB 00:59, 14 April 2015 (EDT)
I suggest you stop picking fights with Conservative and begin working on behaving like a more creditable scientist. I sincerely doubt that your non-stop clamor is very welcome here. VargasMilan 01:36, 14 April 2015 (EDT)
Right. Sorry. I owe you a long message about relativity, science, personal insults, sycophancy, "mall cop" behavior, etc. etc. etc. I'll get to it; it isn't finished yet. Maybe tomorrow. But Cons's stuff about the Ides of March 2015 distracted me. Sorry. Some things require immediate attention, like endless predictions about glorious predictions for next year. I'll attend to your relativity/science stuff as soon as I can. Meanwhile, why don't you work out an articulate explanation of what you meant by "accounting" in physics. It's got my spider sense tingling. SamHB 02:13, 14 April 2015 (EDT)
It doesn't require a lengthy explanation, just a little humility. VargasMilan 03:19, 14 April 2015 (EDT)

SamHB, I realize that reality is hostile to your errant worldview and goes against the grain of your stubborn pride, nevertheless even the liberal Vancouver Sun mentions how global creationism is having great success in terms of its proliferation in the world (see: Global creationism). Furthermore, global Christianity is proliferating too.

Furthermore, in the Western World evangelical Christianity is seeing growth even in atheistic France/Germany (see: Secular Europe) and if I am not mistaken it is growing in the Godless UK too.[32][33] It may not get all the press that burqa clad, rioting and decapitating Muslims get in Europe, nevertheless French religious scholars recently indicated that evangelical Christianity is the fastest growing religion in France.[34] Even Wikipedia (a wiki founded by an atheist/agnostic) declares, "Evangelical Christian denominations are among the fastest-growing denominations in some Catholic Christian countries, such as Brazil and France."[35]

Furthermore, according to the British scholar Eric Kaufmann, who is an expert in religious/political demographic trends (by the way, he is an agnostic and an evolutionist too), the religious block of evangelical Christianity/Islam/staunch Catholics (who have more kids than nominal Catholics) will turn the tide of secularism in Europe in the 21st century and conservative Christianity/religious fundamentalism will grow (see: Desecularization). And evangelical Christianity and Islam are both opponents of Darwinism/evolutionism.

SamHB, like it or not, evolutionism is going to be crushed like a cheap aluminum can! And every year brings us closer and closer to this happening. Conservative 04:02, 14 April 2015 (EDT)

By the way, SamHB, the Elevatorgate scandal/uproar is symptomatic of the atheist/Darwinist teams losing. Losing team members are often on edge and bickering amongst themselves. Dawkins is sweating bullets because he sees the stormclouds of desecularization already starting to appear in various places in the UK/Europe (and in the world as a whole it is already apparent) and the rapid growth of global creationism. An atheist even indicated the matter of Dawkins' fear of desecularization and the global resurgence of religion/fundamentalism in The Guardian.[36]
Evolutionists are also bickering amongst themselves more and this will intensify due to the bankruptcy of evolutionism.[37][38][39]
In the USA the future is harder to predict as far as its religious landscape.
On the one hand, millenials are less religious.
On the flip side of the coin you have these factors: hispanic evangelicalism rising, Creation Ministries International is expanding into the USA, the Christian apologetics community is belatedly becoming more aggressive in its outreach (Ratio Christi and Lee Strobel is launching a new initiative and partnering with other Christians)
In addition, as far as the religious side of the coin, the United States economic situation looks problematic which could affect the religious landscape due to stressful condition causing people to turn to God/religion more which often happens (Atheism/irreligion often does poorly in economic downturns while pentecostalism/holiness/fundamentalism often grows and sometimes quite dramatically[40] ). For example, here are some of the negative economic indicators: 17 trillion federal government deficit, "too big to fail" banks gaining market share via risky endeavors, high young people unemployment and low productivity in terms of job skills, etc. etc. The USA may see economic depression like conditions for about 15-20 years according to various economists in the Austrian School of Economics which historically has been more adept at predicting economic downturns. [41][42]
So you could have another Jesus Movement/revival happen in the USA and since the USA economy is so large and since modern national/regional economies often are very interdependent as far as other national/regional economies, it could easily affect the entire global economic system in a big way and also affect the global religious landscape (see: Atheism vs. Christian revival, Christian apologetics and creationism). Conservative 07:33, 14 April 2015 (EDT)

And the connection with Dark Energy is...?? StaceyT 10:41, 14 April 2015 (EDT)

Since the "existence" of "dark energy" is pseudoscience and not real science [43][44], searching for "dark matter" is similar to snipe hunting. Missing links, the "gay gene", and dark matter - all mythical legends of liberal ideology which will never be found because they do not exist and never have existed. Conservative 11:17, 14 April 2015 (EDT)

Why do you say Dark Energy and Dark Matter are pseudoscience? StaceyT 12:09, 14 April 2015 (EDT)

Dark matter for one must exist, spiral galaxies do not have enough visible or detectable matter to be held together at the speed they are rotating without it existing. The gravitational energy from the visible matter alone would mean they would scatter of into space and not hold coherent form. What dark matter is is unknown but there has to be something there or all the rules of gravity and physics must be false.--GhazS 12:15, 14 April 2015 (EDT)
Dark matter must exist or you wish it existed and are engaging in wishful thinking? See: Is Dark Matter everywhere in the cosmos? A product of the Dark Side Conservative 17:12, 14 April 2015 (EDT)
Stacey, please see: Has Dark Matter really been proven? and Dark matter crisis for the big bang and Is Dark Matter everywhere in the cosmos? A product of the Dark Side.
In addition, please see: Age of the universe and earth
I hope you find these resources helpful. Conservative 17:18, 14 April 2015 (EDT)

Thanks but IMO they're not very helpful. Dr Hartnett doesn't answer the main reasons (observations) why almost every other physicist thinks there's Dark Matter and Dark Energy (two different things). He puts up a whole lot of straw man arguments, arguing against other reasons for DM & DE but he doesn't try to falsify the main evidence. As for his Israeli pal's 5-dimensional thing: well, I guess if he can make a prediction that isn't made by General Relativity, scientists can try to falsify it. And that stuff about the universe being 6000 years old - it's pretty nutty. Anyway, you still haven't said why DM and DE are "pseudoscience". Those theories came about by the normal route of Existing theory > New observations > Old theory doesn't quite fit new observations > New theory which fits better > More observations > and repeat (and repeat and repeat). That's science! StaceyT 20:19, 14 April 2015 (EDT)

Not if the interpretations of the observations are specially made to retain as much of the content of the pseudoscientific premises as possible. VargasMilan 20:41, 14 April 2015 (EDT)

"U.S Supreme Justice Antonin Scalia"

There's a key word missing here. IsabellW 23:10, 13 April 2015 (EDT)

Thank you. I appended the news item entry. Conservative 04:23, 14 April 2015 (EDT)
What changed? I was referring to the omission of "Court" in the headline. IsabellW 09:59, 14 April 2015 (EDT)
Thanks again. I just made your suggested change. As far as what changed, the previous changes were minor changes and the history of edits can be found HERE unless they were oversighted in which case you will not be able to see them (Oversight is "a form of enhanced deletion which, unlike normal deletion, expunges information from the" edit history).[45] Conservative 11:01, 14 April 2015 (EDT)

Conservative: Just asking - why did you delete (and oversight) IsabellW's question about why you do so much oversighting? I saw it earlier today. Are you unhappy about people asking you questions about your own activities on this website? StaceyT 20:24, 14 April 2015 (EDT)

I, too, have a question Stacey. Why do you falsely portray yourself as a 15-year-old girl on your user page? Is it to enable you to troll with impunity? VargasMilan 20:29, 14 April 2015 (EDT)
Look at the dates, VargasMilan. Little girls grow up into big girls. StaceyT 10:53, 15 April 2015 (EDT)
Yet you'd have had everyone believe otherwise until I pointed it out. VargasMilan 11:27, 15 April 2015 (EDT)
No, I assumed anyone who was interested enough would do a basic check by looking at the page history. StaceyT 11:45, 15 April 2015 (EDT)
For the record, I saw a question about oversighting here that was removed, but not made IsabellW, but by a user who had made many talk page contributions but zero article contributions. VargasMilan 21:04, 14 April 2015 (EDT)
VargasMilan, I saw "Stacey"'s recent edits. They focus largely on sports, war/politics and arguing on talk pages. :) Conservative 21:45, 14 April 2015 (EDT)
I'm sooooo sorry. I'll do Lipstick next, then How to ice a cup-cake. StaceyT 10:50, 15 April 2015 (EDT)
This is silly...Stacey asks a question about oversighting we have all asked in our minds at some time. (Well, maybe not all of us; but those of us who joined CP for reasons to do with the Trustworthy Encyclopedia and wonder why such "luminaries" as Cons have turned much of it into a blog supporting their own ideologies. Stacey; never try and honour the war dead - Cons will crap all over it with an anti Darwinism post.)
VG. Why did you come into this fray. It had nothing to do with you. Cons doesn't need your support. He's big enough and smelly enough to fight his own battles.)
So ... Cons....why do you oversight so much? AlanE 00:09, 16 April 2015 (EDT)

That says it all. You think the Main Page talk page is an arena for combat and that it's Conservative's job to answer every half-baked accusation leveled at him however meritless. VargasMilan 07:04, 16 April 2015 (EDT)

Yes, this (main talk) page is the site of a huge amount of argument, debate, and rancor. You can't possibly be unaware of that, since you participate in it as much as anyone. Cons often does battle with people such as myself, AugustO, EJamesW, AlanE, and others that I can't think of just now. Like a simultaneous chess exhibition, he takes on all comers. And he's very good at it, as are we all. We've known each other for years. Of course this isn't just a game; we are trying to help Cons improve his writing skill, so that he can communicate more effectively and we can all make Conservapedia a better place.
It is not Cons's job to answer every accusation, half-baked or otherwise, that is leveled at him, and he knows this. In fact, he rarely replies on topic to anything. Cons does not need you to defend or protect him. He can (and does) take care of himself. SamHB 21:41, 18 April 2015 (EDT)
VargasMilan, another atheism related article will be posted to Conservapedia soon. Thanks again for your footnoting improvements to the main CP atheism article. Conservative 08:01, 16 April 2015 (EDT)
AlanE, it is largely due to me not being a fan of the preview button. :) Conservative 16:55, 16 April 2015 (EDT)
Well, that says why you oversight your own contributions but not why you oversight other people's. StaceyT 13:03, 17 April 2015 (EDT)

re: other oversighting, the main portion of it in the past was due to socially challenged atheists/liberals (see: Atheism and social/interpersonal intelligence).

Although there are cordial atheists such as John Gray, Michael Nugent and others, post New Atheism the percentage of socially challenged anti-theists has increased although the New Atheism movement is petering out post Elevatorgate so that is less of an issue. Also, Eric Kaufmann wrote in 2010: "Worldwide, the march of religion can probably only be reversed by a renewed, self-aware secularism. Today, it appears exhausted and lacking in confidence... Secularism's greatest triumphs owe less to science than to popular social movements like nationalism, socialism and 1960s anarchist-liberalism. Ironically, secularism's demographic deficit means that it will probably only succeed in the twenty-first century if it can create a secular form of 'religious' enthusiasm."[46]

The morale of socially challenged militant atheists seems lower lately so they have been less active at Conservapedia (see also: Atheist movement). There are other reasons as well but for the sake of brevity that is all I have to say on the matter. Conservative 13:34, 17 April 2015 (EDT)

The reason they are inactive on Conservapedia is that they cannot get a word in before Conservative or Karajou brings down the banhammer. Now prove my point, ban me and oversite this edit before anyone else can see.--AaronR 14:02, 17 April 2015 (EDT)
Conservative, nothing you say has anything to do with my question: why do you frequently oversight other people's contributions? I'm listening... StaceyT 15:49, 17 April 2015 (EDT)
AaronR, if a person is rude/uses profanity/trollish and/or will not follow a few simple/reasonable rules, then there are consequences.
I realize that rebellious and coarse atheists often are not willing to do this (see: Atheism and profanity and Atheist bullying and Atheism and social/interpersonal intelligence and Moral failures of the atheist population and Atheism and poor relationships with parents and Causes of atheism), nevertheless we will not lower our standards. Conservative 18:21, 17 April 2015 (EDT)

Thank God for the American press (USA Today in particular) for exposing the behavior of Britt McHenry

Britt McHenry has been suspended by ESPN for the recent "parking lot attendant" incident. This was reported by USA Today, about as mainstream an American news organization as there is. It is not necessary to go to Britain (Daily Mail) to find coverage of this. Also, the Daily Mail article doesn't seem to say anything about a double standard in the American press, just the double standard of Britt McHenry. SamHB 21:41, 18 April 2015 (EDT)

I think the suspension was too brief and not substantial enough. Also, the American press is usually not critical enough of one of its own.--Andy Schlafly 22:18, 20 April 2015 (EDT)

Tebow is entering NFL again! And it was predicted!

Tebow is entering NFL again. Just like it was predicted!

And with his Protestant work ethic, which he no doubt continued to use to improve his Quarterback skills, no doubt he will be even better this time around! Conservative 11:41, 20 April 2015 (EDT)

Tebow: Even better than before!

"What amazes me is this young man, with no job prospects, has prepared just as hard as he would if he were the No. 1 quarterback for an NFL team. He's busted his butt. He spins the ball better than he did, and he's much more accurate than he was. I think he's ready." - Quarterback Guru Tom House [47] Conservative 12:19, 20 April 2015 (EDT)

Israel's daily terrorism

You lost me on that one. I find their current and past leaders to be of exceptional character. Plus, most of us know a different leader will do nothing to change the minds of Arabs and Muslims.--Jpatt 22:04, 20 April 2015 (EDT)

Great points. But although I didn't write the headline and would not have posted it, I'm reluctant to change or remove it. The headline is thought-provoking.--Andy Schlafly 22:15, 20 April 2015 (EDT)
Between the Arab dictatorships, beheadings, honor killings/mistreatment of women, Muslim terrorism. frequent warlike behavior of Muslims (see below) and Muslim slaughter of Middle East and African Christians, it is certainly fair to question this headline. Conservative 16:11, 24 April 2015 (EDT)

Islam and warlike behavior

In his book The Irrational Atheist, Vox Day wrote:

“It’s also interesting to note that more than half of these religious wars, sixty-six in all, were waged by Islamic nations, which is rather more than might be statistically expected considering that the first war in which Islam was involved took place almost three millennia after the first war chronicled in the Encyclopedia, Akkad’s conquest of Sumer in 2325 B . C .

In light of this evidence, the fact that a specific religion is currently sparking a great deal of conflict around the globe cannot reasonably be used to indict all religious faith, especially when one considers that removing that single religion from the equation means that all of the other religious faiths combined only account for 3.35 percent of humanity’s wars. See: Irreligion/religion and war/peace Conservative 16:14, 24 April 2015 (EDT)

Personal tools