Debate:Is it okay for Conservapedia to have biased articles?

2009-07-12T19:21:32Z

Ace100: /* NO */

{{debate-project}}

==NO==
No but it's funny-ace100

Wikipedia is accused of having a left tilt, and the remedy is not a competing site with a right tilt, but a competing site with the hard truth, properly documented. [[User:Teresita|Teresita]] 12:27, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Right on. If you see a bias on Conservapedia it is only you liberal nature exerting itself[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 15:17, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Neither Conservapedia nor Wikipedia has any right to twist the truth, to say that black is white. If abortion does '''not''' cause breast cancer, then we '''must not''' say so. But if it does, we certainly have a right to do so, and perhaps even a moral obligation. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:16, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

It is completely unacceptble for any source to twist facts horribly as is done here and then present them to impressionable school children as fact. This is one of the most morally unsound programs I have ever encountered and I intend to continue posting this opinion on debate topics in an attempt to expose how evil this site truly is.
Helios-Fear no God, fear only that which can be seen or heard, for no God will lay hands upon one who denies them. Here in lies the weakness of faith.

Hmmm. well it does say "The Trustworthy Encyclopedia" impliying that its articles are truthful and unbiased but it also says right on the front page "A CONSERVETIVE encyclopedia you can trust. The truth shall set you free." theres an intresting contrast between these two.- RG :]

I can't believe this is a debate topic! Look to the upper left hand corner of this web page. See it? "Conservapedia, The Trustworthy Encyclopedia." Bias would not make it trustworthy or a good encyclopedia! Need I say more?--[[User:JArneal|JArneal]] 02:10, 17 May 2008 (EDT)

==Yes==

If it's a bias in favor of good things like Christianity and the American Dream (see Martin Luther King's [[I Have a Dream]] speech), then I see nothing wrong with bias. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:24, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

What is this "The American Dream" accoridng to Ed Poor? Martin Luther King was '''NOT'''a conservative and I resent your citing his work on my beloved Conservapedia.[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 15:14, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Its called Conservapedia as in Conservative. I think that gives it the ok to lean a little to the right and try to preserve the ideas of our founding fathers.

like invading the publics personal and private lives and violating privacy with no good reason- [[User:mrRandom|mrRandom]]

The website is called '''Conserva'''pedia. Of course there's going to be bias. However, calling yourself "trustworthy" and "better then those gossiping wikipedia fools" is not okay, in my opinian. {{unsigned|1984}}

i really have to agree to the person ahead of me it IS called conservapedia, if i made a website called www.super-man-is-awesome.com then it would be ok to be a little biased, but the bias is still quite annoying-[[User:Greenmeanie|Greenmeanie]] 00:26, 16 May 2008 (EDT)

What makes Conservapedia attractive to so many people is the fact that there are biased articles there. Biased with the truth and liberally bathed in facts and actual reality. All traditional conservative ideals. This may clash with those who think truth is relative to how facts and data are perceived through an individuals political filter. Conservatives require nor want such filters.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 11:44, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

==It's a meaningless question==

Whether or not it's okay, there *will* be biased articles. This is inevitable, particularly given the set up here and the nature of the sysops; and even without them, it's not possible. One person's ''hard truth, properly documented'' is someone else's conjecture and lies (see any of the the evolution/creation pages on here as evidence) [[User:Chrysogonus|Chrysogonus]] 12:36, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Ok but, does it make this site any more right than what it is? I know the man who made this and he's a hard christian so you can see where he's going wrong. At the threat of a liberal bias in the world...sir... you answer to that was a conservative bias? Eye for Eye? Interesting philsophy. It is true that you will come across many bias titles/articles but, if thats the case DONT SAY YOUR THE ONLY TRUTH! I hate there liberal examples... they have all the BAD of Liberal and 'good' of Conservative. Which actually isn't that great. Reasons why homeschooling is THE WAY. There's MANY reasons why it's wrong. As a person you aren't as ready for the world. Teens have trouble socially. Vaccines was one the arguments. ARE YOU KDDING ME! "I refute having a healthy child!" Ok, you just as controling as you say the government is and as bad as the reiligon you cling to. Talk about control. What makes conservatives more right than liberals? [[Unbiased2008]] 20:51, 1 June 2008 (EDT)

:Truth isn't a relative term. I seek the only truth which endures the test of time. These days people really have a problem with that concept. For thousands of years children have been homeschooled. The teens that have socially related problems are more likely to gotten them from a non-homeschool environment. Mostly derived from the secular humanist religious teachings found in government run public schools that some people cling to. What makes a conservative more right than a liberal. Well, probably the reason why it is said that conservatives are on the right. Or why liberals have problems even defining what truth actually means.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 12:56, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

== Bias and Credibility ==
One of the good things that Conservapedia has done is to make Wikipedia look at some of its own practices and articles. However, this ability to critique Wikipedia and affect changes is completely dependent upon Conservapedia being regarded as a creditable site. As Conservapedia becomes more biased and more fringe (further from the open ideals of being able to edit articles on a wiki and with more extreme conservative rhetoric), its impact upon Wikipedia becomes lost and it becomes more of a target of mockery. It may not be possible to completely remove the conservative bias from the articles, but one would hope that this bias is not written into the article. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 15:42, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Debate:Is Obama an Atheist?

2009-07-12T19:20:22Z

Ace100: /* Yes */

{{Debate}}

The following is a posting that I made on Talk:Barack Obama several months ago, but that never sparked any discussion. I was hoping the theory might encourage more reactions if I made it into a debate page.

"I know it is a popular view on this site that Obama is a Muslim, but has anyone considered the possibility that his apparent lack of religious devotion indicates instead that he is an atheist? In an article about Obama on mensvogue.com, it is noted that "Though Obama had long been skeptical of organized religion, he gradually came to embrace it "as a choice, not an epiphany." It is frequently observed on Conservapedia that his claims of religious activity may be self-serving; could they not be an attempt to hide his atheism instead of his Islamic beliefs? After all, Ron Reagan, Jr. once remarked that nobody ever elects atheists.

In addition, Conservapedia has also pointed out on numerous occasions that atheists are strongly inclined to dislike America. Is it also not possible that Obama's pro-Islamic behavior is not a series of Freudian slips, but rather a manifestation of his liberal dislike for America?"

I look forward to a vigorous and respectful debate. --[[User:Economist|Economist]] 17:41, 27 May 2009 (EDT)

==Yes==
does it really matter?

I'll give this topic another gentle push. Much has been made of the fact that Obama retook his Oath of Office without a Bible, and a number of Conservapedians have speculated that he actually used a Qu'ran. By the principle of Occam's Razor, however, it's logical to assume that he used nothing at all - a sign that his true belief system is not Islam, but atheism. --[[User:Economist|Economist]] 19:46, 29 May 2009 (EDT)

:If he believes that "He is the Messiah", that would make him an atheist because God doesn't worship God. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 17:45, 18 June 2009 (EDT)
:I don't think you can apply Occam's Razor to assumptions - Occam's Razor would seem to dictate in this situation that you not make assumptions as none of them would be more correct than the other. [[User:Marlowe|Marlowe]] 14:14, 19 June 2009 (EDT)

::Occam's Razor deals precisely with assumptions - it urges that "entities not be multiplied unnecessarily." In other words, when multiple explanations give coherent descriptions of an event, the "simplest" is the one that ought to be accepted. Of course, the definition of "simplest" is often itself a matter of context. --[[User:Economist|Economist]] 23:23, 22 June 2009 (EDT)

I think it seems apparent that he doesn't have much faith, or (if he does) considers himself more of a "humanist" than anything. It's not uncommon for political leaders to adopt a religious belief in order to become elected. Atheists will vote for a religious person, but religious parties will not vote for an atheist. Obama could be an agnostic, as well. [[User:Marlowe|Marlowe]] 14:14, 19 June 2009 (EDT)

==No==

No, he is a Muslim, as documented at [[Debate:Is Obama a Muslim?]] and elsewhere on this site. His apparent lack of devotion is just as well explained by his being a Muslim observing taqiyya. --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 18:34, 18 June 2009 (EDT)

:But if his being a Muslim "just as well explains" his lack of devotion as his being an atheist, how can you be so certain that [[Debate:Is Obama a Muslim?]] has converged on the correct explanation for his behavior? --[[User:Economist|Economist]] 21:54, 18 June 2009 (EDT)

Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Debate:Is it okay for Conservapedia to have biased articles?

Debate:Is Obama an Atheist?