Talk:Essay: Richard Dawkins and peanut butter

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Man this page is insane. :) Cmurphynz 08:42, 14 July 2012 (EDT)

Could you make your criticism more specific, please? --Ed Poor Talk 10:16, 14 July 2012 (EDT)
User Ed Poor, the person who wrote this comment can't be more specific, they have been blocked for 1 day. Davidspencer 12:53, 14 July 2012 (EDT)
(chuckle) That's even funnier than the page itself. ^_^ --Ed Poor Talk 13:32, 14 July 2012 (EDT)
Yep, possibly. It wasn't really intended to be that though. But thanks anyway, now lets see what he says. Davidspencer 14:36, 14 July 2012 (EDT)
Why this page is beyond substandard and quite frankly embarrassing:
  • It is not actually an essay. It is actually a collection of captioned pictures and links. In fact, there are no words in it that are not links or captions to pictures.
  • It claims that one's "machismo" is linked to one's preference in peanut butter, despite no link ever being shows between the two.
  • The main thesis, that Richard Dawkins likes creamy peanut butter, has never been proven anywhere.
  • Other main points of this piece, like the claims that Chuck Norris and John Wayne enjoy/enjoyed chunky peanut butter, have never been proven.
  • Large components of it, namely the bunny and bullfighting pictures, have been used in countless other "essays" by User:Conservative and don't really prove anything.
Ed Poor, if you can't see that this page is an utter embarassment to the readers and editors of Conservapedia, then I don't know what else to say. I am interested in hearing your defense of this article. AndrewTompkins 11:20, 14 July 2012 (EDT)
I agree that it's not actually an essay. It looks like a joke: i.e., the page author is probably using it to tease atheists.
Please don't respond as if you think it wasn't meant humorously. There's no "thesis"; he's just kidding around.
You may wonder whether kidding and teasing atheists will promote Conservapedia's cause. But if you can't tell it was comedic material, there's probably no point discussing it further. --Ed Poor Talk 12:33, 14 July 2012 (EDT)
It may have been intended as comedic material, but it has not been realized as comedic material due to its distinct lack of humor. CasparRH 14:43, 14 July 2012 (EDT)
There isn't much sign that this is intended as humor, given User:Conservative's other output (much of which is in this style). If it is humor I propose it be moved from the essay space to the humor space, along with other "essays" like this one. AndrewTompkins 13:46, 14 July 2012 (EDT)
I see that proud atheists/agnostics/evolutionists are still gagging on this web page material. The gagging will intensify now that I added Atheism and cowardice in the caption of the picture! Just have Dawkins address Daniel Came's concerns about Dawkins's behavior and I will gladly delete this particular material. Conservative 15:13, 14 July 2012 (EDT)
I am hardly "gagging" on this material, just making some observations. Clearly we have a difference of opinion on the value of this page and all of the other essays of this sort, but I do have a question for you, User:Conservative—why would an atheist/agnostic/evolutionist take this essay seriously, given its content and tone (mostly unrelated pictures with boisterous captions and links to similar articles)? AndrewTompkins 16:24, 14 July 2012 (EDT)
Andrew, I think a more important question is: Why should anyone take atheists seriously? Clearly, fewer and fewer people are (Decline of atheism) and for good reasons (See: Atheism). Conservative 16:40, 14 July 2012 (EDT)
That doesn't answer my question. If your goal is to make atheists "see the light" and embrace Christianity, do you think essays like this are the best way to do that? AndrewTompkins 16:50, 14 July 2012 (EDT)
There may well be reasons for people to feel that they needn't take atheists seriously. Or Theists. Or people who accept/do not accept evolution, or relativity, or anthropogenic climate change. Those are topics that one may very well write carefullyreasoned articles about, and I invite Cnns (or anyone else) to do so. But bringing peanut butter into such a discussion strikes me as a prohibitively daunting challenge. SamHB (talk) 13:12, 15 March 2019 (EDT)
  • Is this article really worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia? I do not know whether Conservapedia has a section of "Conservapedia: Articles for deletion" as there is in Wikipedia. Carltonio (talk) 12:04, 14 March 2019 (EDT)
User: Carltonio, are you an atheist? The reason I ask is that I have found that many atheists are thin-skinned and rather humorless - particularly secular leftists. For example, read our articles on Atheism and humor and Leftism and humor. In addition, please read this: The film documentary The Atheist Delusion features a humorless Richard Dawkins who is the object of audience laughter.Conservative (talk) 12:57, 14 March 2019 (EDT)
@Carltonio: This page is not a mainspace article -- it's in the essay namespace. Thus, it's technically not an encyclopedia article nor intended to be one. --1990'sguy (talk) 13:31, 15 March 2019 (EDT)
  • No, I am not an atheist, unless you refer to the fact that the word "atheist" was first used for the early Christians. I am a Christian and I was merely asking whether there is a space in Conservapedia to discuss whether articles should go to deletion, as there is in Wikipedia. Carltonio (talk) 12:00, 15 March 2019 (EDT)
Oh, Cons!! You're doing this again!! I thought you had learned not to. A few years ago (it could be looked up) you asked me that question after I posted something on some other topic, probably evolution. I did not answer you directly, but added the "this user is a protestant" infobox to my user page, and you seemed to have gotten the point. IIRC, you deleted your question to me on whether I am an atheist, and stopped asking that question. Until now. Please stop.
Needless to say, all these essays about the connection between atheism and maple syrup, rocking chairs, flyswatters, etc. are incredibly stupid. (@Carltonio: Cons and I were kidding around a couple of years ago. You can probably look it up on my talk page, or its archives, or whatever.) But the fact remains that all the essays that actually exist (see the category) are utterly pointless. I don't see how anyone could claim that those essays will convert anyone to Christianity. The fact that Cons's essays often have high page count doesn't make them good. According to today's news, the people who killed 49 in an attack in New Zealand were inspired by extremist stuff on the internet. I don't claim that Cons's essays are going to inspire murder, but he really ought to take a healthy look at what it means to be posted on the internet. SamHB (talk) 13:12, 15 March 2019 (EDT)
By the way, the Conservapedia Richard Dawkins article accidentally had its page view counter reset. The article actually has over 900,000 page views. Many people have found the article very informative. For example, many people are unaware that Richard Dawkins stated: "What’s to prevent us from saying Hitler wasn’t right? I mean, that is a genuinely difficult question." (see: Richard Dawkins' commentary on Adolf Hitler and Richard Dawkins).Conservative (talk) 13:42, 14 March 2019 (EDT)
SamHB, there is a definite connection between atheism and rocking chairs. I can illustrate this via two lines of evidence. First, there is a definite stereotype of the elderly and rocking chairs.[1] Then, read this article: Global atheism and aging populations.
Second, there is connection between atheism and Alzheimer's disease. At the present time, medical professionals are using "rocking chair therapy" for dementia patients.[2][3]
I trust this helps clarify things for you.Conservative (talk) 09:27, 16 March 2019 (EDT)

By the way, there is a connection between atheism and flyswatters. Conservapedia's United Kingdom's road repair crisis has this article in its external link section: Crumbling Britain: the UK’s pothole plague is a sign of national decline, New Statesman, June 13, 2018. Irreligious Britain is experiencing societal decline. Atheism/Darwinism/evolutionism lead to societal decline (see: Social effects of the theory of evolution and Soviet atheism). Lastly, I cite "These studies indicate that good sanitation practices are a must to reduce fly breeding areas around feedlots and dairies. Immature flies were found almost everywhere; around silage spills, potholes, gates, fence lines, mounds, silage piles and especially along feeding aprons."[4] I trust this clarifies the connection between atheism and flyswatters! :)Conservative (talk) 09:42, 16 March 2019 (EDT)

A short addendum: As far as atheism and maple syrup, there is a connection between atheism and obesity. :)Conservative (talk) 10:39, 16 March 2019 (EDT)

SamHB, re: User:Conservative atheism articles

Kimberly Morrison McClintock wrote 4 days ago: "Just discovered Conservapedia! ♡ Thanks for all your hard work on this project! Facts, resources, & all backed by FACTS! May God bless you richly as y'all continue to... [maintain] ...this Resource in this age of deceit and anti-Christian persecution".

Previously, the PNN News and Ministry Network produced a video about Conservapedia's atheism article entitled Viral article deals major blow to atheism.

I hope this further clarifies things for you. :)Conservative (talk) 07:23, 19 March 2019 (EDT)