User talk:ALFa
From Conservapedia
Contents |
response
Let me answer a couple of these.
1. For centuries textbooks in America have used B.C./ A.D. Common Era means nothing to many Americans, conservatives especially.
- B.C. / A.D. was used in school when I was taught history as well - as it was in most if not all countries. However this has since been changed, and the new recognized international standard is B.C.E. / C.E., so it does not cause issues with other religions. The only reason you would not use this standard, is to cater to Christians only, with no regard to other religions, which is very ignorant, and not appropriate for a global source, or for an unbiased source. Common Era should mean something to Americans, but once again, ignorance prevails.
- CE/BCE isn't used in the American education system. Maybe some of us are old fashioned, but why are you unhappy about us using a system used for centuries? Geo. 11:15, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
- Not an accurate statement, as I am from Georgia (US State), and every history curriculum I've had in high school used it. Mustaine12390 17:34, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
- Perhaps it is not, I never said it was, but in most countries CE/BCE is being used. Why am I unhappy about using the old system? Because it has been replaced. An international, recent, trustworthy source should use the current international standard for displaying information, but this website is using the old method....why? Because it's more christian? It's just a few letters, what's the big deal? While you're at it, would you rather use an abacuss to solve calculus equations? Perhaps go back to horses instead of cars? Yes, those are extreme examples, but when something is outdated, it's outdated, you have to live with that. What do you have against using the new system? The new system is in place to not discriminate against other religions who do not relate to jesus, so inless you're saying that christianity is the only religion, it should be changed. --ALFa 00:20, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
- B.C./A.D. is used in most texts. We have decided to use it here end of story. As you said it is just a few letters.
- Correction, BC/AD is used is most american texts, the majority of the world has switched. If this is supposed to be a credible source, it should use the international standard.
- B.C./A.D. is used in most texts. We have decided to use it here end of story. As you said it is just a few letters.
- CE/BCE isn't used in the American education system. Maybe some of us are old fashioned, but why are you unhappy about us using a system used for centuries? Geo. 11:15, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
- B.C. / A.D. was used in school when I was taught history as well - as it was in most if not all countries. However this has since been changed, and the new recognized international standard is B.C.E. / C.E., so it does not cause issues with other religions. The only reason you would not use this standard, is to cater to Christians only, with no regard to other religions, which is very ignorant, and not appropriate for a global source, or for an unbiased source. Common Era should mean something to Americans, but once again, ignorance prevails.
2. We give credit to verifiable sources, we differ from Wikipedia because we allow the Bible as a source. This is not evil. If you see something falsely attributed to America, you can and are encouraged to fix it.
- I never said it was evil to use the bible as a source, however, you (and all others) should agree that a reliable source is one that contains the undisputed truth, correct? The bible does not contain undisputed truth. Prove to me that the bible is 100% accurate (or even 25% accurate), and I will be impressed. The bible contradicts itself many times, and contradicts scientific evidence, and despite what you might think, the scientific evidence will always be much more accurate. Beliefs should have no influence over fact, yet they do by using the bible as a reliable source. And I have fixed a couple articles which have mentioned America where it is completely irrelevant.
- The Bible is one of the oldest known history texts, even if you don't believe in God. It is the most reliable source for Judaic history today. Therefore it is a utilizable source.
- Alright..but what about contradicting texts from similar periods? And while it might be ok for Judaic history, where does it fit in with modern science and other areas which have substantial evidence? You can't simply say that science is wrong because the bible said it did. What if it said that gravity didn't exist? Would you believe that to? Despite you being able to see it all the time?
- There is garbage still floating around Conservapedia.
- Didn't really answer my questions.
- There is garbage still floating around Conservapedia.
- Alright..but what about contradicting texts from similar periods? And while it might be ok for Judaic history, where does it fit in with modern science and other areas which have substantial evidence? You can't simply say that science is wrong because the bible said it did. What if it said that gravity didn't exist? Would you believe that to? Despite you being able to see it all the time?
- The Bible is one of the oldest known history texts, even if you don't believe in God. It is the most reliable source for Judaic history today. Therefore it is a utilizable source.
- I never said it was evil to use the bible as a source, however, you (and all others) should agree that a reliable source is one that contains the undisputed truth, correct? The bible does not contain undisputed truth. Prove to me that the bible is 100% accurate (or even 25% accurate), and I will be impressed. The bible contradicts itself many times, and contradicts scientific evidence, and despite what you might think, the scientific evidence will always be much more accurate. Beliefs should have no influence over fact, yet they do by using the bible as a reliable source. And I have fixed a couple articles which have mentioned America where it is completely irrelevant.
3. Examples of Bias shows why we exist and what is broken. Wikipedia has a liberal bias, and does not have all sides of the picture. Circumcision is controlled by a group who delete criticism, if i added a study disproving evolution it would be removed.
- Examples of Bias is supposed to show why Conservapedia exists, but as I said, it is slanderous towards Wikipedia, and most of the points are either outdated, false, or just ridiculous and inaccurate. Give me a few examples of Wikipedia pages that have liberal bias - I doubt I will agree that they are - and if they are, they can be edited. I have yet to find any bias on Wikipedia while reading through many articles, and I have yet to find a point of view that they missed. Unlike Conservapedia. Circumcision is a controversial topic, and criticism will be deleted if it's irrelevant or incorrect, just as any criticism is deleted on Conservapedia. What exactly are you attempting to add which is being deleted? If you added a study disproving evolution, it would be removed because it would be false. Show me this study, because I highly, highly, highly doubt that one exists with credible sources.
- I am talking about two others. They added sourced information showing the medical risks of Circumcision that was deleted. One was banned, the other was tormented until he left. On Chiropractic, they consider an ex pyschiatrist with a vendetta against Chiropractic to be an expert, even though he is not a chiropractor.
- Was the information properly sourced and non-biased? If it was anything like the information that is regularly added to Conservapedia, I wouldn't be so sure, even if it may seem unbiased to you. There's still a talk page, where other people would agree if it were correct. I'd need more information on the latter to comment.
- The information was a properly sourced study showing a medical risk of Circumcision. Stephen Barrett is a psychiatrist who runs Quackwatch, a group founded for the sole purpose of taking down alternative healthcare, he is not a chiropractor nor has any training in the subject, yet he is considered an expert.
- Use the talk page on Wikipedia to dispute it then if it is correct information.
- The information was a properly sourced study showing a medical risk of Circumcision. Stephen Barrett is a psychiatrist who runs Quackwatch, a group founded for the sole purpose of taking down alternative healthcare, he is not a chiropractor nor has any training in the subject, yet he is considered an expert.
- Was the information properly sourced and non-biased? If it was anything like the information that is regularly added to Conservapedia, I wouldn't be so sure, even if it may seem unbiased to you. There's still a talk page, where other people would agree if it were correct. I'd need more information on the latter to comment.
- I am talking about two others. They added sourced information showing the medical risks of Circumcision that was deleted. One was banned, the other was tormented until he left. On Chiropractic, they consider an ex pyschiatrist with a vendetta against Chiropractic to be an expert, even though he is not a chiropractor.
- Examples of Bias is supposed to show why Conservapedia exists, but as I said, it is slanderous towards Wikipedia, and most of the points are either outdated, false, or just ridiculous and inaccurate. Give me a few examples of Wikipedia pages that have liberal bias - I doubt I will agree that they are - and if they are, they can be edited. I have yet to find any bias on Wikipedia while reading through many articles, and I have yet to find a point of view that they missed. Unlike Conservapedia. Circumcision is a controversial topic, and criticism will be deleted if it's irrelevant or incorrect, just as any criticism is deleted on Conservapedia. What exactly are you attempting to add which is being deleted? If you added a study disproving evolution, it would be removed because it would be false. Show me this study, because I highly, highly, highly doubt that one exists with credible sources.
4. Just because one is a scientist does not make one infallible. Conservapedia allows properly sourced perspectives. At least we admit our bias.
- What about experts? And scientists using reasearch are much more accurate than a biased 16-year old young earth creationist conservative. Define "properly sources perspectives". If you mean conservative perspectives I suppose you would be correct, but I'd hardly call that "proper". In my opinion, Wikipedia uses proper sources, and has people with much greater knowledge than most of the general public edit the topics that they monitor. Also, if you admit your bias, why do you say you are correcting the liberal bias in Wikipedia? That's hardly unbiased. Wikipedia has much les biased articles, and they do not have anything to prove. Conservapedia seems to be out to prove creationism, and out to attempt to disprove evolution.
- Most researchers do not remain open to all possibilities, they can approach things from a narrow perspective and make something as false as a teen can. I am going to clarify the last point, I meant that we openly admit that we may have a conservative leaning unlike Wikipedia which purports to be neutral. Conservapedia doesn't delete pro creation material like Wikipedia does. We allow information that is accurate, not just conservative. Our job is to provide knowledge, not prove points of view.
- Often the accurate information is deleted if it is liberal or does not support creationism. Creationism has its place in articles, but on Conservapedia, it works its way into everything, even when it's irrelevant. Probably creationist information was deleted off wikipedia because, like on here, it was stated to be the truth with "a lot of evidence to support it", despite it contradicting modern science, and the only evidence for it is the bible or unreliable creationist websites.
- Most researchers do not remain open to all possibilities, they can approach things from a narrow perspective and make something as false as a teen can. I am going to clarify the last point, I meant that we openly admit that we may have a conservative leaning unlike Wikipedia which purports to be neutral. Conservapedia doesn't delete pro creation material like Wikipedia does. We allow information that is accurate, not just conservative. Our job is to provide knowledge, not prove points of view.
- What about experts? And scientists using reasearch are much more accurate than a biased 16-year old young earth creationist conservative. Define "properly sources perspectives". If you mean conservative perspectives I suppose you would be correct, but I'd hardly call that "proper". In my opinion, Wikipedia uses proper sources, and has people with much greater knowledge than most of the general public edit the topics that they monitor. Also, if you admit your bias, why do you say you are correcting the liberal bias in Wikipedia? That's hardly unbiased. Wikipedia has much les biased articles, and they do not have anything to prove. Conservapedia seems to be out to prove creationism, and out to attempt to disprove evolution.
5. Wikipedia selectively removes facts. Facts are facts, why remove them?
- Give me an example, I've never seen that happen. Perhpas the "facts" you are adding are "facts" from the bible? Those can hardly be called facts. They are opinions only. If it's not from the bible, then I do need an example. Still, saying that Wikipedia is 6 times more Liberal than Americans is not only incorrect, but irrelevant, and misleading.
- See above.
- Responded above. I'd need to know exactly what it was to know if it was a "fact".
- See above.
- Give me an example, I've never seen that happen. Perhpas the "facts" you are adding are "facts" from the bible? Those can hardly be called facts. They are opinions only. If it's not from the bible, then I do need an example. Still, saying that Wikipedia is 6 times more Liberal than Americans is not only incorrect, but irrelevant, and misleading.
6. An encyclopedia is expected to be educational, not a compendium of garbage.
- Wrong, encyclopedias contain information about absolutely everything imaginable. To create something 100% educational would mean trying to define what is garbage and what isn't. I personally have used the music information on Wikipedia to research the background and influence of various artists, and I hardly find that garbage. Conservapedia however attempts to decide what is and what is not "garbage", while censoring various things they disprove of for whatever reason (generally because of youth, but if that's the case, include a warning at the top of the page or before people enter, despite the information being informative and not vulgare.)
- Wikipedia is being used as a soapbox by liberals to influence the world. We are trying to counter that.
- I disagree, and even so, Conservapedia is even more conservative and christian than wikipedia is liberal, and is also influencing the world. Although in this case, it also is making a mockery of America - google what some people have to say about this website if you think it's just one or two vandals.
- Wikipedia is being used as a soapbox by liberals to influence the world. We are trying to counter that.
- Wrong, encyclopedias contain information about absolutely everything imaginable. To create something 100% educational would mean trying to define what is garbage and what isn't. I personally have used the music information on Wikipedia to research the background and influence of various artists, and I hardly find that garbage. Conservapedia however attempts to decide what is and what is not "garbage", while censoring various things they disprove of for whatever reason (generally because of youth, but if that's the case, include a warning at the top of the page or before people enter, despite the information being informative and not vulgare.)
7. I want to know which pages you are referring to. Pages are protected only to prevent or stop vandalism.
- Too many to list. Search for any page that is either conservative or liberal. They have been protected, and radical Christians have taken over several of them, almost bashing anyone non-conservative or non-christian, and definately including incorrect opinions as fact.
I'm not even going to bother arguing with Splark, so bullheaded and ignorant is he. Scorpionman 19:30, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
- Fox News is unlocked.
- Only when an obvious bias is pointed out, admins seem to keep doing this with various pages.
- Fox News is unlocked.
8. No one has added properly cited info on evolution, because most of the users are creationists.
- Once again, hardly an unbiased view. If most of the users are creastionists, who are out to prove that evolution is not true despite the evidence, what right do they have to edit pages? Most of the animal pages are complete jokes, on several of them I literally fell out of my chair laughing at the claims. Yet they are proved as facts, and use completely biased creationist sources to back them up, despite these websites being unreliable. Those are hardly "properly cited". If I were to change these articles to get rid of the extreme creationist bias, and to get rid of opinions, then add the evolution point of view, it would be reverted immediately by creationist admins. Ridiculous.
- If you add an evolutionary perspective that is properly sourced, it will stay. If you remove information about Creationism, just because you don't believe in it, you will be kicked out.
- What if it's incorrect information? I have a feeling if I delete any creationist information, nomatter how correct or incorrect, it will be put back. I attempted to correct biases before (not delete anything, just reword things which attack evolutionists) and they are reverted immediately. Shouldn't the creationist material be properly sourced as well? Shouldn't the sources be neutral? I have not seen a single non-biased source used for citing creationist views.
- If you add an evolutionary perspective that is properly sourced, it will stay. If you remove information about Creationism, just because you don't believe in it, you will be kicked out.
- Once again, hardly an unbiased view. If most of the users are creastionists, who are out to prove that evolution is not true despite the evidence, what right do they have to edit pages? Most of the animal pages are complete jokes, on several of them I literally fell out of my chair laughing at the claims. Yet they are proved as facts, and use completely biased creationist sources to back them up, despite these websites being unreliable. Those are hardly "properly cited". If I were to change these articles to get rid of the extreme creationist bias, and to get rid of opinions, then add the evolution point of view, it would be reverted immediately by creationist admins. Ridiculous.
i will answer the others later. Geo. 02:27, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
- I look forward to reading your responses.
- In closing, I would like to mention a proverb. "A journey of 1,000 miles begins with many small steps." Please contribute and make this encyclopedia more balanced rather than whining about it. Geo. 20:15, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
- I try, but there's only so much one person can do. Especially when my contributions are reverted even though they are correct because they are not conservative views. I'd call this more of a debate than whining. And if it is whining, what do you call the examples of bias in wikipedia page? Whining.
- In closing, I would like to mention a proverb. "A journey of 1,000 miles begins with many small steps." Please contribute and make this encyclopedia more balanced rather than whining about it. Geo. 20:15, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
- I look forward to reading your responses.
Your prejudices
ALFa, believe it or not you do have a god. You don't believe in the Christian God, the Muslim Allah, Vishnu, Brahman or anything else, but you do have a god. In fact, all atheists do. It's nature. "Nature governs all things; nature can do what it wills; nature is the driving force behind everything" etc. Both nature and yourself, of course. Without a sentient God you can pretty much do whatever you want. Religion may cause wars, but it also makes for a better government. Without God there are no absolute morals, therefore we would have anarchy. And your criticisms of this site on your page lack any maturity or credibility; they make for a childish rant against conservatives and Christians. I'm not going to vandalize your user page, as you expected, this is all I'm going to do. Scorpionman 19:28, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
- For years I said that I don't have a religion, but most people would just say "oh, so you're athiest". Well honestly, no, I don't believe nature governs all things, I don't believe some supernatural power created everything, I believe in only what has been proven by science, and what I can physically see. So in a sense, I am not athiest, I am agnostic. But at the same time, I don't believe that anyone will ever prove that there is a god, so that part of atheism applies to me. I basically believe whatever I want. The bible, and all other religious writings mean nothing to me, because in my opinion they are simply a way of controlling people, with no factual content. Others believe them, and that's fine, but I don't approve of other religions (and this is mostly attributed to extremist christians and creationists) forcing their beliefs upon me, or other people. This site does just that by being so completely biased, that it is verging on being entirely fictional. I fail to see how religion makes the government better, give an example. There's no reason why there could not be laws without religion, and laws act as morals for people (and as we all know, people will still have their own morals, and there will still be evil people, it makes no difference). My criticisms on my page are not just of this site, but yes it is a rant about what I believe and why, I don't see it as childish, but I do find this entire website a childish response to Wikipedia's "biases" (which I do not believe they have). I have nothing against christians, I am friends with many of them, it's when they attempt to force me to believe something that I can simply not believe is true since it has already been proven false by science. Especially when people say that christianity is the one true religion, or that god's word is correct nomatter what science says. It's rubbish to me, and that will never change. --ALFa 19:39, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
- The Old Testament is true as it is a chronicle of Judaic history. By asserting that it is not true you deny the existence and tenets of Judaism. Geo. 19:47, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
- No, but saying it is not true, I am stating my opinion. To me, it means about as much as reading Harry Potter. Freedom of speech is allowed, despite what this website may want everyone to believe. Also, for the record, I didn't expect you to vandalize my page Scorpioman, I expected someone who disagrees with all of it, and is immature to do so, but you are mature enough not to. --ALFa 00:20, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
- What do you want to contribute that is reverted? Geo. 04:10, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
- Various things, and I've seen the same happen to other liberals/non-christians trying to contribute. Mainly a select few admins I suppose absuing their power to benefit their opinions.
- Why should we allow liberals to edit this site? This is a conservapedia, not a liberalpedia. Wikipedia is liberal enough, so if you want to make pro-liberal edits go there. Scorpionman 11:28, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
- Well think of it this way...if you were to say "Why should be allow blacks to edit this site? This is whitepedia, not a blackpedia.", that would be racism, right? Well then restricting editing to only conservatives would be...well...politicism? I'm not sure it there's a term invented for that, but either way it's so absolutely biased it's ridiculous. The original idea (I thought) for this website was to "fix" the liberal bias, but it looks as though you really just want a place where you can write whatever ridiculous theories and false "facts" you want so that you can convince yourself that you're right about Creationism, and that Conservatives in America are the centre of the universe. If you want a place where you can write articles about yourself, for yourself, to prove to yourself that you're correct, then have fun. I'm sure any self-involved, closed-minded person would do the same. --ALFa 16:19, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
If you are an athist, you should join our discussion about if atheism is an actual religion. Please do. --Rocky
Breast Exam
If the pictures are coming from i-parenting then they're copyright violations. Geo. 15:44, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
- The image is public domain, as stated here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Breast_self_exam_1.jpg
If you are an athiest, then why are you here?
You have your own website--its called wikipedia. I'm not telling you to leave, but this site is for the Christian perspective. Would you go into Church and shout at the preacher that he's wrong? No, its disrespectful. If you're going to edit here leave your athiest bias behind, please. This is not the place for it.
"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness." (Romans 1:18)
--CWilson 17:48, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
- Wikipedia is not biased towards atheism at all, it's unbiased. I'm here because it gives me a good laugh, and I love to see what arguments people try and put up against scientific fact and theory. Also, the fact that this website claims it is not biased is the reason I am here, if it admitted it was completely biased and was just a source for attempting to prove creationism, I'd leave, but as long as it claims it's unbiased, I might as well point out a bunch of flaws.
- "Some quote about me disliking this site." (Me 6:08 PM)
- --ALFa 18:09, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
- Wikipedia is biased. Can't you see. We're not arguing against scientific fact, we're arguing against bias. That's what evolutionism is: bias. It's not proven, and no, you're right when you said above that we can't prove God's existence. God's a supernatural being, and attempts to study Him scientifically will always result in failure. However, there is good evidence for His existence. Was your house or car made as a result of chance (or natural selection)? No, they required design. Now why should a biological organism, some of which are millions of times more complicated and intricate than your house, be the result of chance? I don't suppose it's much profit to argue this, since you're so agnostic. Well, I don't see that changing in the near future, but you can at least acknowledge this evidence. Scorpionman 11:34, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
- No, I can't see Wikipedia is biased, point out some examples (I have looked through the "Examples of Bias in Wikipedia", but it's a completely joke and completely incorrect, so please, prove me wrong, because I bet you cannot. And you need to understand that you ARE arguing against scientific fact. Otherwise, there would be no reason to lock pages that might have correct scientific information on them. Now most people wouldn't see scientific information as a problem, but this website does because sometimes it proves that the Creationist theory is incorrect, and therefore it is often removed for no reason. And don't pretend you're arguing against bias. I've looked at pages on the internet about TONS of different subjects, and I have never, EVER found a more biased website than this one, it's actually ridiculous how biased and hypocritical this website is. Evolutionism is not biased, it's one point of view that happens to not be included on very many pages on this website (except when trying to prove it wrong), because it contradicts Creationism with scientific fact and theory. It may not be proven, but it's as close as anyone will get using the scientific method. Creationism has no scientific evidence behind it at all - it's all based on the bible and unsupported guesses. You're right that I'm right that we can't prove God's existence. However, you say that God is a supernatural being that cannot be studied scientifically or it will result in failure. Well that in itself to me would disprove God's existence. We live in this universe, and this universe has laws of physics, and other laws which allow things to exist and not exist. If, following these laws, we cannot prove God's existence in any possible way, that would mean to me that there is no God, but you can believe what you want. I'd be very interested in seeing this "evidence" of God's existence. Was my house or car made as a result of chance? No, of course not, but a house or car are constucted differently than biological organisms. My belief is that we evolved from a simple form, seeing as modern human beings have only been living on Earth for several thousand years, and considering the Earth has been proven to be over several hundred million years old (and is believed to be several billion), that is a very long time for us to evolve. The big bang theory explains how the universe was created, and yes I do believe that we are here by chance. Now some think that it's unlikely because we're the "only planet" to have intelligent life, while the others are completely empty and even lack water. Well you must also take into account that the universe is so large that humans cannot yet measure its size, or even estimate it. There are billions and billions and billions of planets, in various solar systems and galaxies, and we there is no way for us to tell what these planets are like, or if there is water or life on them. I think it's horribly ignorant to believe that out of the billions of planets in the universe, that Earth is the only one to have life of any kind. These would have been created by chance as well, probably using similar chemicals and whatnot, and probably creating something at least remotely similar to the life on Earth (maybe nothing like humans, but certainly similar to one of the different animals on Earth). Now my theories have much more proof than any theories about God and Creationism, which honestly I find just silly (once again, just my opinion) since the bible was written so long ago, and who knows how accurate it is, or how fictional or non-fictional it was to begin with. I know you're not very tolerant to other religions and other views, but you'll just have to accept that not everyone wants to believe something that has no solid physical proof behind it. Also, please clear up what "evidence" that I'm supposed to be acknowledging, all I read was your own point of view - harly anything factual. --ALFa 16:09, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
- I think a few opposing viewpoints will keep the encyclopedia from getting too biased. Conservative viewpoint is one thing, propaganda is quite another. The earlier poster was somewhat humorous, implying wikipedia is an atheist encyclopedia. Mustaine12390 18:19, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
message
Tell you what, if you tell what you want to add. i will make sure that it is not reverted. Geo. 22:31, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
- Well, just look at any edits that I have made that have been reverted. There's too many for me to actually tell you, since that would make up the entire Conservapedia website, so I'll just leave it to the edits I made. --ALFa 16:09, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
