Changes

:It's an "Essay:". On any other site, it would pass for "Fun:" or "Parody:". [[User:JonG|~ ]][[User_talk:JonG|JonG]][[Special:Contributions/JonG| ~]] 19:56, 28 November 2011 (EST)

:It's an "Essay:". On any other site, it would pass for "Fun:" or "Parody:". [[User:JonG|~ ]][[User_talk:JonG|JonG]][[Special:Contributions/JonG| ~]] 19:56, 28 November 2011 (EST)

::No, Mentoc, but it is all "Conservative" has done for the year I have been here.  It is not fun or parody. It is more of "Conservative's" hateful attacks on people he disagrees with who are more prominent than he will ever be. Best to just walk away like I did and only come back when you have an idea to add to the encyclopedia part of the website. There is no community that is fun or nice to be part of and "Conservative" will only attack you too. [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 09:54, 29 November 2011 (EST)

::No, Mentoc, but it is all "Conservative" has done for the year I have been here.  It is not fun or parody. It is more of "Conservative's" hateful attacks on people he disagrees with who are more prominent than he will ever be. Best to just walk away like I did and only come back when you have an idea to add to the encyclopedia part of the website. There is no community that is fun or nice to be part of and "Conservative" will only attack you too. [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 09:54, 29 November 2011 (EST)

::: That's the impression I get too. Conservative claims he makes these articles for the sake of humour, but it feels more like an excuse to make outlandish or abstract arguments against athiesm, such as suggesting that their views make them bad at dancing, or that their weight issues demonstrate a lack of scientific knowledge. I find this article especially confusing. These prominent athiests having religious partners suggests that athiests and religious people can have friendly, loving and accommodating relationships with one another. But rather than dwell on that heart warming notion, he instead uses these relationships to suggest that athiests can't even convince their own wives to abandon religion. Apart from the obvious flaw in this argument (the wives haven't even been able to convince their own husbands), this just seems like a sad, depressing way to regard relationships. Should Conservapedia really be providing these sorts of windows into the minds of its more essentric members? [[User:Maninahat|Maninahat]] 13:12. 29 November 2011 (EST)

::: That's the impression I get too. Conservative claims he makes these articles for the sake of humour, but it feels more like an excuse to make outlandish or abstract arguments against atheism, such as suggesting that their views make them bad at dancing, or that their weight issues demonstrate a lack of scientific knowledge. I find this article especially confusing. These prominent atheists having religious partners suggests that atheists and religious people can have friendly, loving and accommodating relationships with one another. But rather than dwell on that rather heart warming notion, he instead uses these relationships to suggest that atheists can't even convince their own wives to abandon religion. Apart from the obvious flaw in this argument (the wives haven't even been able to convince their own husbands either), this just seems like a sad, depressing way to regard relationships. Should Conservapedia really be providing these sorts of windows into the minds of its more essentric members? [[User:Maninahat|Maninahat]] 13:12. 29 November 2011 (EST)