Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Socialism

2010-01-15T22:49:36Z

Cal05000: /* This article lacks a basic understanding of what socialism is */

"This correlates with a rise in atheism," I think it should be noted that correlation does not show causation. What is the correlation coefficient? Is there a positive or a negative correlation?
-Gasmonkey

"Socialism has caused more deaths…" What, really? A reference would go great with that opinion. --[[User:Prometheus|Prometheus]] 01:19, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

== Laughable bias ==

"Leading European Socialists are very critical of America."

Of America? Of the american government? Some of the american governments? Some of the american goverments policies? American corporations? American food? American anti-americans? American republicans, democrats, liberals, jews, muslims, african americans, hispanics? I assume you mean all those things since you just say America? Do you have a valid point somewhere buried under that mountain of prejudice and generalisation? [[User:Messpm|Messpm]] 15:25, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Also, the source that backs it up mentions America ''once''.

' One thing is clear: the unilateral military style approach of the Bush-administration has failed'

I'm removing it with the ridiculous 'vastly superior' remark. [[User:Wikinterpreter|Wikinterpreter]]

[[User:AmeriCan]] keeps reverting my edits saying that it stresses the rights of the many over the priveliges of the few, as opposed to vice versa. I'm tired of edit warring and don't want to get blocked for something that is not worth it. [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 01:32, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
:Okay, this article is just [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Socialism&diff=next&oldid=135051 ridiculous]. I give up. [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 13:49, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
== Incentives ==

I couldn't find anywhere in this article where socialism lacks incentives. Should I add it in? The lack of incentives is a crucial reason to why socialism doesn't work in societies. [[User:AdrianP|AdrianP]] 01:40, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

This article's lack of knowledge is laughable and as an evil limey toothéd bastard who can spell things right (color=LOL) who is also a European Socilaist who is critical of America (the whole world is socialist by that standard) I must correct this issue.
LOL at the moron who re-edited my work, they do not know history well enough to try and battle me over Atlee.

== "Socialist" Britain ==

Rob, re your revision to Socialism. First, you make a large assumption about how socialist New Labour is (they aren't), second, the Conservatives would be far less likely to change the rules than any Socialist party, partly because thirdly, it would require disestablisment of the Church of England, which in any case could almost certainly not be achieved in the ten years New Labour have been in power, even if it was something they intended to do. Based on this I think the phrase "Socialist Britain" is inappropriate and removing it would not be liberal bias. In fact, retaining it is conservative bias. --[[User:Olly|Olly]] 15:23, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:So the Socialists do not oppose religious discriminition then? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:30, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
::Which socialists? New Labour do - they have in fact introduced legislation outlawing discrimination based on religious belief. But as I said - they're not Socialists in the sense that you would use. And as the article says - Catholics are not barred from being Prime Minister. They are barred from holding one of the ceremonial offices associated with the post - an office which could be renounced without having any impact on the powers intrinsic to the post of Prime Minister.--[[User:Olly|Olly]] 15:35, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:::This article gives a glowing description of what Socialism has done for Britian since 1945; it does not differentiate between Brand X Socialism and Brand Z; together, whatever stripe, along with all those great things they've done, you'd think eliminating bigotry would be high on the list. Must be a case where they are willing to compromise their principles in exchange for real political power. Nonetheless, they never stop talking about things like oppression, etc. Oh, I forgot, people who beleive in God are fair game for discrimination -- that's one of the basic tenets of Socialism. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:44, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
::::Socialism in Britain has done more to eliminate bigotry in Britain than any other movement. In fact so much that it is accused of political correctness. That this singular example remains is not an indictment of socialism - in fact that such a small example seems to raise your ire so much shows just how far bigotry has been eliminated.

::::People who believe in God are not discriminated against in this case. Adherants to '''any faith or denomination''' except Catholic are eligible; and the restriction to Catholics applies only to one essentially irrelevant ceremonial office associated with the post. Can you please address the points I make in the way I have yours?--[[User:Olly|Olly]] 15:53, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::So Britian, under various Socialist governments since 1945, has continued to discriminate against Roman Catholics. Why should this be surprising? It is very much in keeping with Socialist doctrine. And we can certainly conclude, Socialism ''does not'' respect equality. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:04, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
::::::Everything you say can be repeated for Conservatism in this case, and you continue to ignore all of my points. Forget it.--[[User:Olly|Olly]] 16:08, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::::Ignore which points? Are arguing discrimination against Catholics is not discrimination? Why? Because they're Catholic? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:15, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::::: I have to reiterate Olly's point here. I live in Britain, and I know that the Labour Party, since the [[Third Way]] (the third way, see? Not socialism, not conservatism, but a middle), is not a socialist party. ergo, blaming discrimination on socialists is false. --Wikinterpreter'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Wikinterpreter talk?]

::::::::: I rarely comment on politics but I have to agree with the British users here (being one myself). The Labour Party ceased to be a socialist party with the move to becoming New Labour (their proper title) and the implementation of the [[Third Way]]. New Labour seem to be in the strange position of trying to appeal to both the left and the right at the same time with neither Conservative nor Liberal values other than those required to win the popular vote. What is more worrying to the British conservative is that the Conservative Tory party seem to be following the same path required to win the mass vote leaving Britain in the strange position that both our main left and right parties have moved to the centre leaving nothing that would reflect either conservative or liberal views other than some rather, errr, I'll be polite here and say odd, fringe political groups such as the detestable BNP (no policies other than those of racism) and the pointless UKIP (too insular by far). Socialism has been dead since Labour morphed into New Labour (best described as a "Labour scented party") and traditional conservatism seems to be following the same path --[[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 17:54, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:: new labour is certainly not socialist in nature! --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 17:56, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:::I have to confess, I get lost in leftist ideological fever swamps. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:00, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:::: I have no idea what that means but nothing about modern britain or it's govt fits anything that resembles "socialism" in any significant manner - fees and loans for students, PFI, Invasion of iraq etc etc. The current govt is actually further to the right in many ways that Mrs. T government! was Thatch a socialist! I think not! --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 18:02, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

::::: Similarly, our Conservative party is no longer traditional conservatism. Think two parties both using the same elastic ideologies to chase the same fickle voters and appeal to conservative and liberal alike and there you have recent British politics. No left or right, just two sets of "middle". --[[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 18:05, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
::::::Yep. I was just reading how Socialist leaders in Britian send their kids to private schools. Very similiar to American liberals -- who then give us the Cain vs Abel speil about getting even with the rich! [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:21, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

Which socialist leaders? You mean the leader of the socialist workers party? I doubt it. I'm really struggling to understand what's going on here - Britain does not have a socialist government and if the catholic thing is meant to be an indication of socialist discrimination then Mrs. Thatcher was a socialist because she did nothing about it either! --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 18:25, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:Here. [http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,1970902,00.html] At least now we know why Blair's popularity has shrunk; it's not the War in Iraq, it's all those compassionate liberals and socialists who found out he was thinking of converting to Catholicism. [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/10/15/ncath15.xml] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:35, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

eh? Do you think this is a big issue in the UK? That someone is a catholic? Can I suggest in a friendly manner that maybe your understanding of the UK is slightly lacking and you are looking at it via the lens of the US? I'll leave it at that stage because you want the article to say that Britain is a socialist nation and as a sysop - well you win straight out of the box. --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 18:38, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:It was somebody elses idea to trumpet the glories of British Socialism, whatever for. What is obvious from this is, Socialist do not care at all about equality and human rights. It's simply fraud to pretend that they do. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:46, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

Thing is, we have no true socialist leaders or true conservatives anymore. Ideology is dead, long live chasing after anyone that will vote for you. And I come from a very long line of Catholics who were also passionate supporters of the NHS, minimum wages and other socialist ideals. I happen to be Christian and Conservative but there are many good Christians who hold to what are considered socialist values. Many many many shades of grey here. Very hard to pin down to a few neat paragraphs. One thing holds true though, New Labour are not and never were Socialist. This is why most of my extended family stopped voting Labour as they felt it was a betrayal of their values. --[[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 18:48, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

::The only limitation that Blair would face if he became a Catholic would be that he would be unable to suggest the appointment of Bishops in the Church of England to the Crown. This restriction came about from the Catholic Relief Act of 1829, which repealed earlier laws outlawing Catholic participation in voting and government. There is also a law prohibiting the King or Queen from being a Catholic or married to a Catholic, the Act of Settlement of 1701. British anti-Catholic laws have nothing to do with Socialism or the Labour party, but instead are due to the English Civil War, the Restoration, and resistance by Protestant Britain to Catholic rule. The Act of Settlement and that provision of the Catholic Relief Act aren't still in force due to strong anti-Catholic sentiment in Britain, but just due to inertia and the fact that the law doesn't really come up. I don't think it's true to say that these restrictions have anything at all to do with socialism in Britain, either currently or historically.--[[User:Epicurius|Steve]] 18:50, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:::This BBC article quotes Blair, "changing the law would be hugely complicated involving changes to nine different pieces of legislation." [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/529227.stm] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 19:13, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

We still have a great number of old laws that technically still apply (policemen in certain counties are still supposed to walk in the gutter for example) that no one adheres to, very few remember and no one cares to repeal due to the fact that they are archaic and pretty much forgotten. Hardly tantamount to discrimination, more a quirk of history. [[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 18:54, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:Right...that's my point. I'm agreeing with you. It's an old law that has never been changed because it's never been an issue.--[[User:Epicurius|Steve]] 19:02, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

Would it be more correct to rephrase the final sentence in this article thus. "''In Britain, Catholics are discriminated against by being barred from holding certain offices associated with the post of Prime Minister. These offices can be renounced without any practical inhibition to the powers of the post, but no government, socialist or otherwise has done so since 1829."'' Or better yet, remove it. Or am I just tired from a long day down t'pit? --[[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 19:07, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:Sounds good, but we should add, "a reform measure was voted down as recently as 1999." [[User:RobS|RobS]] 19:16, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
::Well, the 1999 reform measure you're citing doesn't have anything to do with religious restrictions of the Prime Minister...just religious restrictions for the monarch. But, still, I don't really see what this has to do with socialism.--[[User:Epicurius|Steve]] 23:52, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:::It evidently isn't that easy. Blair says it affects nine pieces of legislation, some it appears affecting his office. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:08, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

If that is the case then please do. No shame in the truth providing all governments since 1829 share the blame equally. --[[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 19:20, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:Go ahead and do it. That is indeed how a democracy works, even when socialists are dominant. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 19:47, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

My only issue with making these amendments to an article on Socialism is that, as all governments since 1829 are complicit in this lack of reform, it is no longer purely a Socialist issue and, as such, should have no place here. I'd like other people's views on this but, as it is not soley a Socialist failing, I think the entire reference to this Catholic discrimination should be removed. Other people, the floor is yours ; ) --[[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 19:56, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

I think this section illustrates the folly of applying a US conservative-liberal axis to the political culture of other countries. There's an interesting article to be written about socialism in Britain but it doesn't belong in an article that puts anyone who supports universal health care in the same camp as Stalin and Hitler.--[[User:Jalapeno|Jalapeno]] 01:05, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
:Yes and no. It all depends on the conduct of the British Socialists. Name calling, and outrageous assertions can be a two way street. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 01:13, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

Hang on a minute. The information about the Act of Settlement is correct, but it has absolutely nothing to do with Socialism. What on earth is it doing here? If nobody else removes it I will.

how are catholics discriminate against by labour? there are catholic schools funded by the state, the only part of the UK that discriminates against catholics is Northern Ireland and if you called men like paisley a socialist he'd knock your teeth out.[[User:Foxley|Foxley]] 15:18, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

:How many decades over the past century has the labour/left coalition dominated British politics? Why haven't they acted on this? Being the self-appointed defenders of the oppressed and against injustice, how come no one speaks up?

:We don't have to look far to see how deeply rooted and respectable anti-Catholicism is in British culture. Why, one of the ''Beatles'' greatest hits, ''Lady Madonna'' is a celebration of despicable anti-Catholic attitudes & stereotypes. And several Beatles have been, if recollection serves me correct, Knighted for their achievements and service. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:47, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

Right. Just one Beatle -- Paul -- has been knighted and both he and John Lennon were themselves raised as Catholics. I really don't think Lady Madonna can be seriously regarded as a criticism of ANYTHING.
:Read the lyrics. [http://www.lyrics007.com/The%20Beatles%20Lyrics/Lady%20Madonna%20Lyrics.html] George Harrison, too. John Lenin didn't live long enough, and everybody knows Ringo's a bit slow. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:48, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

:Facts are, for all criticism of the US, the treatment of Catholics, by law, in Great Britain, as second class citizens, or the open, naked prejudice and ridicule they suffer, would never ever be tolerated in the United States. And truth be told, there is anti-Catholic prejudice in the US, but nothing like the respectability it has gained over the centuries in Great Britain. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:54, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

What do you mean "George Harrison too"? Are you under some delusion that he, too, was knighted. You are wrong. All of them did, of course, get MBEs, though Lennon -- "Lenin"? Oh, you are SO witty -- returned his in protest at the Vietnam War. As for Lady Madonna, speaking as an Irish Catholic myself, I am flabbergasted that you could regard this as a recognisable criticism of that community.
:Read the lyrics. I was raised Catholic but left the Church many years ago. But I ''still'' get deeply offended by the blatant intent, and ridicule of the message in that song. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:15, 6 June 2007 (EDT)
::Paul McCartney, a lapsed Catholic, said he wrote ''Lady Madonna'' in response to seeing a photograph of a woman and child entitled ''Mountain Madonna''.[http://www.iamthebeatles.com/article1208.html] It's bizarre to read an anti-Catholic sentiment into that song -- it's an expression of sympathy for a struggling mother. In answer to an earlier question you posed Labour has governed the UK for about 30 of the last 100 years and has traditionally enjoyed strong support from Catholics[http://www.ipsos-mori.com/publications/rmw/the-catholic-vote.shtml]; The greatest opposition to changing the constitution to allow a Catholic monarch comes from traditionalist Conservatives who want to retain the privileges of the Church of England. --[[User:Jalapeno|Jalapeno]] 13:21, 6 June 2007 (EDT)
:::Sympathy? On what planet? ''Labour has governed the UK for about 30 of the last 100 years'' And we are really discussing Socialists here, and their record of being defenders of the "oppressed", and rectifying injustice. Even if it's only 30 years, what is the record of rectifying this injustice? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:01, 6 June 2007 (EDT)
::::Sigh.[http://www.psr.keele.ac.uk/area/uk/pm.htm] Catholics in Britain have traditionally favoured Labour for a number of reasons, not least of which is that Labour has been more sympathetic towards Nationalism and the Conservatives more sympathetic to Unionism -- it's more to do with green vs. orange than red vs. blue. Perhaps we could have a cite for the "oppression" that has somehow escaped the attention of those living in Britain who have contributed to this thread? --[[User:Jalapeno|Jalapeno]] 15:17, 6 June 2007 (EDT)
:::::Cough. Sneeze. [http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/0000000CA992.htm][http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article512736.ece] Thank God she's not a Catholic. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:17, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

== DAB's version ==

DAB's version on 'succesful socialism' has already resisted 9 minutes. How long before a SysOp comes? I guess someone will be blocked for a long long time... (and no, I have no affiliation with DAB)[[User:Leopeo|Leopeo]] 13:38, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

== Let's not get carried away here, please ==
The picture at the very top of the page right away makes a direct visual attachment of communism and socialism as if they are one in the same. As the vast majority of editors and sysops here are quite cleary well educated people, I am shocked that the picture in question remains. Communism is not the equal of socialism, nor is the reverse true either. Communism is socialism taken to the far extreme. For example, Finland is socialist, but try labeling them communists and see what happens, lol... I'm all for removing that picture, and perhaps replacing it with something more indicative of socialism in general rather than Marxism/Leninism/Communism in specific. [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 16:35, 23 June 2007 (EDT)
:Oh, umhh, I see. Care to explain how [[Hitler]] was misunderstood, too? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:39, 23 June 2007 (EDT)
::Rob, he never said anything about "misunderstanding" the ideology. He made the valid point that socialism and communism are ''not'' the same thing. Canada, Finland, Sweden, etc. They are socialist, but ''not'' communist. Do you wish to dispute that? This conversation had nothing to do with Hitler. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 16:50, 23 June 2007 (EDT)
:::Pardon me for not wading into a [[leftist]] ideological fever swamp, but I really don't care to decipher the degrees of complicity in [[democide]] based upon an avowed [[atheistic]] philosophy. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:05, 23 June 2007 (EDT)
::::So then don't contribute to the article. Your responses do not address the complaints, but rather your refusal to accept anything other than what you think you already know. Your defense for completely screwing up the distinction between two ideologies is a refusal to even ''attempt'' to understand the distinction. That makes ''perfect'' sense. I'd be glad to wade into that "leftist ideological fever swamp" for you, Rob, seeing how scared you are of it. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 18:13, 23 June 2007 (EDT)
We are not in the position of advocating, defending, or apologizing for [[democidal]] ideologies. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:18, 23 June 2007 (EDT)
:No, we are in the position to write an '''encyclopedia article''' about them. And saying that communism and socialism are identical ideologies is completely false. Once again, you change your reasons for wanting to include the misleading picture. How is being factual "apologetic", "advocating for", or "defending" socialism? Are you suggesting we deliberatly mislead readers? And the ideology is not democidal. Last I heard, Canada, Finland, Sweden, etc. don't commit democide. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 18:27, 23 June 2007 (EDT)

Quite so Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ. If I seek to distinguish between a shark and a barracuda I am not taking sides with either. Rob seems pathologically incapable of listening to reason and seems to view any considered response of this subject to be an act of Marxist-Leninist subversion. Ignore him.

RobS it appears you misunderstood what I was saying and clearly the fault is on me as I should have explained my position better.My apologies on giving the impression that I was apologizing for communism. Was not my intention. I think however you should really think about what Hojimachong is saying though, since he has explained it perfectly =) [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 23:33, 24 June 2007 (EDT)

:: I went ahead and removed the picture in question. I do apologize to you RobS however, in truth it was misleading and out of place. It would PERFECT for the article on Communism, or articles about the old Soviet Union and presently existing communist regimes. But this is the socialism page. Let me put it this way: Having that picture represent socilism in general is like making an article about the primary colors and only showing blue. It is misleading. But this is in no way a reflection of any supposed sympathy for communism in specific or even socialism in general. And as for democide, well, isn't that getting a bit off track? I know one of the key principles of communism is an athiestic society, but that's all part of the package, I don't see how making your major argument revolve around democide makes sense. Also, again, that's communist specific. There are SOCIALIST countries that are Christian by LAW, as a STATE RELIGION (something that America has avoided as we all know), regardless of the denomination. So applying democide to socialism is another exercise in ignorance. But I digress; I simply removed a misleading graphic. I would like to add something more illustrative of socialism in general, however while I could find such a thing, I sadly am not well versed in editing yet, specificaly when it comes to posting images. Yes, that IS a call for help by the way, =) [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 00:06, 25 June 2007 (EDT)
:::That's odd, I thought the name of the state Stalin & Lenin presided over was, "The Union of Soviet '''Socialist''' Republics, not "the Union of Soviet Communist Republics". I must have been sleeping in class again the day they set that straight, I guess. [[User:RobS|RobS]]
00:23, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

::::"What's in a name? That which we call a rose, by any other name would smell just as sweet," or in this case "would be just as red." hahaha, sorry, bad joke. But here is my response: That was simply a name. If I call a ka-bar a fluffy teddy bear, does that make it any less lethal a weapon? No. Granted, the USSR itself may not have been total communism, however it was far closer to communism than it was to the "ordinary" socialist idealology that spawned it. As I stated earlier, "socialism" is a generalism, while "communism," "USSR," etc. are specifics. If you're talking about a broad issue like socialism, it's not academically responsible to, whether accidently or otherwise, make the specific general broad issue appear to others as nothing more than one single specific. [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 00:38, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

If you have two children, and the children are quite different from one another in most respcts, but naturally they are both YOUR children, do you take any more pride in the one, than you do the other? Is socialism nothing more than communism that spawns from it? Of your two hypothetical children, does only one of them represent you? [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 00:43, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

::As a side note, I truly do believe in at least replacing that image, and I do notice it is back up, though I'd rather not take it back down again unless some sort of consensus is reached or I get solid support for my argument. I do not wish to be accused of starting an edit war or seem like I have a vendetta against RobS now :) [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 00:52, 25 June 2007 (EDT)
Also I am pleased to see the "different strands of socialism" section. I completely support that. The existence of that section lends even more to my argument that that graphic on the socialism article in general ought to be removed. The section listing different strands of socialism clearly indicates the author knows communism is not the entirety of socialism. So why the communist specific graphic? =)

Just to go back to socialism and atheism for a minute, while it's true that Marxist Communism certainly is atheistic, socialism isn't neccesarily. In fact, there was a strong Christian Socialist movement in Britain in the 19th century that helped lead to the British Labour party, and there was certainly a Jewish Socialist movement that contributed to the Zionist movement.--[[User:Epicurius|Steve]] 01:22, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

:Very good points Steve! [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 01:25, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

==Compromise?==
RobS, I would greatly apreciate it if you would take a look at my most recent edit. I didnot remove the graphic. I did however edit the text in the caption slightly, in that I added a bitmore detail which makes it less misleading, in my opinion, and I would greatly value your thoughts on this =) [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 04:53, 25 June 2007 (EDT) (anyone else reading also lol)

::Well scratch that. It seems Fox has provided a graphic that suits the article. Cheers to Fox, good find and good edit. [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 13:54, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

::RobS if you gave up debating I do not see the virtue in reverting Fox's edit. His picture makes much more sense than the previous. I reverted it back to HIS. You seem to want to cram your opinion down peoples's throats. On the other hand, Fox and I and many others would rather have this be accurate and academic. [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 02:46, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

:::I'm no supporter of Socialism by any means, but I genuinely feel this image is more illustrative for the article's subject, particularly as the main body sems to concentrate on British socialism. I know how easy it can be to choose an image to make a general point rather than to illustrate the point of the article - you should see the dozens of pics I'm itching to use to illustrate Israel's fight for survival - but I resist the temptation to use them because: we all accept that articles here are going to be representative of a broadly, if only small "c", conservatism, so using a soviet commie poster to illustrate the article is somewhat like cracking hazelnuts with a sledgehammer. Welded to an anvil. :D [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 04:17, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

::::Agreed. That's how I felt on it. I'm not a supporter of socialism either, but I do support sticking to the point, rather than the point of view. [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 15:46, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

==Inaccurate==
The article currently lists Tony B.liar as the Prime Minister. [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 19:08, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

*No points given for something that only happened earlier today, Fox! ROFL! We can change it when you know who the new man is, eh? --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 19:10, 27 June 2007 (EDT)
::LoL - I would have changed it, but it was protected. The new <strike>village idiot</strike> PM is [[Gordon Brown]]. [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 19:47, 27 June 2007 (EDT)
:::Check your offline Yahoo's. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 20:13, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

== Poor Move ==
I am saddened to see the page is locked for editing after being reverted back to misleading picture. This is quite unfortunate and I am afraid it will refelect poorly for CP. [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 19:02, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

== This article lacks a basic understanding of what socialism is ==

This article begins by stating.

Socialism is an economic system where the means of production are seized and monopolized by the government without compensation to the builders of the capital, and where investments, production, distribution, income, prices, and economic justice are administered by a government nomenklatura that regulate the transfer of money, goods (including capital goods), and services primarily through taxation and regularized and institutionalized aggressive coercion.

There are a number of things wrong with this. It seems like the author has failed to actually read socialist tracts. I will try to list most of the fallacies I see offhand.

1. "are seized and monopolized by the government" this phrase betrays a lack of knowledge about how socialism views the state. For example, "means of production" aren't seized, and cannot be seized. The worker is a human being not a commodity or "capital". As a human being he is a part of the state. Finally, Marxism actually is anti-state and in the culmination of the dialectical processes would lead to its removal. (Also, no mention of Hegelian dialectics are present in the article. This is a key point concerning socialism. To abandon the dialectic is similar to discussing Christianity without the crucifixion.)
:So the human being is an [[untermensch]], state property, and without rights, correct? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
::No No No this is about Socialism Not Capitalism Silly Robby 17:49, 15 January 2010 (EST)

2. The authors seem to fail to realize that there are vast differences within socialism just as there are within Christianity e.g. Catholicism, Protestantism, Mormonism...etc each differing vastly but similar in appearance to an outsider.
:True; Jesse Jackson for example, may be described as a God-fearing Socialist. Problem is, we need more sources. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

::In Wikipedia one may find: ''Socialism refers to a broad array of doctrines or political movements that envisage a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to control by the community for the purposes of increasing social and economic equality and cooperation. This control may be either direct—exercised through popular collectives such as workers' councils—or indirect—exercised on behalf of the people by the state... A diverse array of doctrines and movements have been referred to as "socialist." '' --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 01:53, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

::*Well, Wikipedia is never an acceptable source or citation at CP, so perhaps another definition can be found, Joaquín. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 06:31, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

3. The statement that "religion is the opium of the masses" is taken out of context. It wasn't meant to be a pejorative statement. The common misunderstanding of this quote is that religion is a tool used by the state to force an otherwise unruly population into line through fear, propaganda, religious mysticism, and thus religion is ultimately evil.
:So under this theory, the state gets people hooked on narcotics in order to control them. Thanks for clarifying that. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
The actual meaning is that religion is created by the people for the people as an expression of their desire for some form of justice in an evil world. This may be viewed through a Christian perspective of mankind longing for God and thereby creating rituals and religion etc.. to reach Him.
:Ok, so then Marxism or Socialism (or whatever code word you wish to use), Socialists seek to restrict the fundemental, God-given, [[human right]] of [[worship]]. Further, this an excellent example of [[leftist]]s seeking to impose ''their'' [[morality]] on the rest of us, is it not? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
Really, the major lack of information concerning Hegel's influence and the respective influence of the French, Germans, and British on Marx as he lived throughout Europe in his formulation of his ideas (French utopianism etc...) suggest an overly simplified method of viewing socialism.
:Yes, I understand. It truelly is a more intellectual exercise than we give it credit for. [[Charles Manson]] wasn't much of an intellectual, but his recruiting talents and demonstrated abilities to persuade young minds would have made a valuable member of the [[nomenklatura]]. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
It is a multifaceted philosophy and this article does it great injustice by explaining it in terms you would have expected from a farmboy filled with American propaganda from the 1950s.
:Multifacted. Yes. Some advocate murder and lawlessness, others only certain degrees of it. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
Socialism does not necessarily attempt to create a manmade utopia atheistically (some forms have however). Instead, the historical process is viewed as evolving. Just as the Roman system of government worked better than the Greeks, and feudalism evolved from that. In turn industrialized capitalistic colonial government worked better than feudalism. None of these forms of government were perfect but in every case they were better (arguably worse depending on whose perspective you take.) Similarly, socialism is ultimately a democratic movement wherein the workers (i.e. the means of production) cease to be exploited by the privelaged classes.
:Marxist mumbo-jumbo. Feudalism was at one time the solution to mankinds problems of homelessness and unemployment, and other social problems. Conservapedia is not interested in spewing more Marxist trash to another generation. We need some straight forward reporting on human history. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
Also, one last misconception is that socialism is against private property or the earning of wages. It is quite the opposite small business men were sympathetically viewed by Marx as ultimately destroyed by the industry (Analogy: mom and pop stores being eaten by Walmart). Socialism is often viewed as a welfare state, but Marx's view was contrary to this. He viewed the owners of corporations etc... as those who benefited from the welfare of the production made by those who worked. Thus, the worker (means of production) produced and the owner (businessman) consumed.
:So we are back to the issue of [[Economic planning]]; yes, we are working on that. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
This article expresses a really uneducated opinion. I'm not claiming socialism is the greatest thing ever. I'm not denying communism and thus mass murders and authoritarian government came from it. But its a logical fallacy to claim that socialism is therefore wrong. Take the French Revolution. Maximillian Robespierre was a democrat and the revolution was a democratic one and yet it is known as the Reign of Terror. Is democracy evil? Also, consider Christianity and the crusades, the inquisition, the wars fought between the reformationists and the Catholics. Is Christianity therefore wrong?
:The revolution was democratic? Yes, and as our sources show, violating price controls set by economic planning boards was a capital offense warranting the guillotine. Glad to see democracy works. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
You do yourself and the reader great injustice. [[User:Jstanierm|Jstanierm]] 15:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
:Good luck, son. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

::I don't understand. Are you saying the French radicals in charge of the Reign of Terror were not liberals (in the international sense) who were in favor of a democracy as opposed to the monarchy? How novel and how very uninformed. [[User:Jstanierm|Jstanierm]] 16:21, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

::Please don't debate me within my own text it's hard to respond. Concerning the opium statement if you actually read my sentence I said that's the common misconception.
:::There's little evidence the French Revolution was "democratic;" it was a lynch mob that turned on each other. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:54, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
"So the human being is an [[untermensch]], state property, and without rights, correct?"

No that's incorrect Marx actually wrote of the end of the concept of statehood. I get the notion that you believe Communism is socialism and you have a limited understanding of what Marx wrote. Concepts such as government, statehood, etc.. are absent from socialism as a philosophy. [[User:Jstanierm|Jstanierm]] 16:26, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
:::Bukharin read Marx correct; he saw through the fraud. While I do not advocate or agree with Bukharin's philosophy, as an eyewitness, his historical reporting on Marx is accurate. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:54, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
You say I'm using code words. That would be similar to me denying Christianity on the grounds that I find the Pope offensive. When you claim that not all Christians are Catholics I accuse you of using propaganda and code words.

Please be a bit more rational. I am not a Marxist propagandist. I am a Christian. I feel like this article could use a little more truth in it and little less of the common American anti-communism uninformed dialogue in it. [[User:Jstanierm|Jstanierm]] 16:28, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
::What's so uninformed? Americans have stood on the sidelines and watched how Socialism has ravaged other contintents with [[democide]], and have clearly articlated a [[foreign policy]] to oppose it. Yes, Socialism has made vast inroads in the [[public school]]s, [[media]], entertainment, and [[law]]. But American foreign policy for decades has been fairly consistent in opposing it, despite opposition and subversion along the way. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:54, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

:::What are you talking about? Which continent was ravaged by SOCIALISM? SOCIALISM NOT COMMUNISM. THEY ARE DIFFERENT. READ A BOOK, PLEASE, AND LEARN A LITTLE. Are you talking about Europe and Canada? Two very SOCIALIST places, or are you talking about Russia and China two very COMMUNIST places.

:::The Reign of Terror was a DEMOCRATIC revolution. Communism came from socialism but it is NOT socialism. The Reign of Terror was founded on liberal ideas like anti-monarchy, freedom of speech, democracy, BUT IT WAS NOT DEMOCRACY. [[User:Jstanierm|Jstanierm]] 17:02, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

==British socialism==
The second paragraph of the British socialism section should be removed. It really has nothing to do with socialism (though some of it might be useful in a different article). Additionally the sentence describing how Catholics are barred from certain offices appears to be untrue, or at least misleading. The "offices" in question are the mostly ceremonial positions of Monarch and spouse. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 15:42, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
:oh, so you don't deny the existence of discriminatory laws? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 15:50, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
::Other than barring a Catholic from becoming king or queen? I don't know of any. If there are point them out. In any case it has nothing to do with socialism. Put it in the [[United Kingdom]] article; I didn't notice it there. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 15:55, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
:::Dodi Fayed's kid could become king, but not Tony Blair's. In the US, this is not only unconstitutional, most living American's would be outraged at the even the suggestion of such a law. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:08, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
::::Again, WHAT DOES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH SOCIALISM? [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 16:25, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
:::::What did the Socialist do to repeal this law when it was last taken up? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:30, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
::::::"The Socialist"? Who might he be? In any case, the law has been on the books for 300 years, and in that time no party has repealed it (it's mostly a non-issue; neither Fayed's nor Blair's kids are going to become king, the Queen's kid will. He's an Anglican), should it be mentioned in the articles on Tories, Whigs, and the Britsh Liberal Party? How about every in the article on every Prime Minister ("Benjamin Disraeli did not repeal the Act of Settlement"; "Earl Grey did not repeal the Act of Settlement"; "Ramsay MacDonald did not repeal the Act of Settlement"...). According the the cited article "Mr Blair said altering the law would be a hugely complicated process involving changes to nine separate pieces of legislation. The government has already embarked on a heavy legislative programme with 28 bills to see through." If Prince William gets engaged to a Catholic I'll bet we'll see the issue taken up, but in the meantime it's a lot of work for a something that is not going to be an issue. And ''it has nothing to do with socialism''. It might be relevant in another article, but not this one. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 16:43, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
:::::::Blair's wife is Roman Catholic, and the kids are too as I understand. Fayed was a Muslim, and the child Princess Di was carrying at the time of her death would have a had a rightful claim to the throne under certain circumstnces.
:::::::The logic of your argument above appears quite anti-progressive, and [[reactionary]], does it not? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 17:14, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
::::::::Hmmm. Perhaps it would help if you actually read what I wrote. But that might be too much to ask. Fayed and his offspring would have zero claim to the throne, nor does Blair's kids. None of that matters, in any case, as we're discussing the article, and the connection between the Act of Settlement and socialism, which is zero. I'm not sure what's "reactionary" about pointing that out. I'm not here to defend the Act of Settlement, or any other remnant of Britian's bygone era. Just explain its significance to this article. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 18:18, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
:::::::::We saw the same thing when Chuck remarried; the wedding was delayed because Parker-Bowles had at onetime been married to a Catholic. "Thank God she's not a Catholic" [http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article512736.ece] How these Enlightened Socialists can look us straight in the eye, fail to condemn this hypocracy, shrug their shoulders and say there's nothing that can be done about it, I'll never understand. It all proves the point: Socialism stands for nothing but political opportunism. And if it something doesn't serve Socialists immediate politcal opportunism, like standing up for religious freedom and against religious bigotry, they fall back on reactionary arguments. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 12:23, 11 August 2007 (EDT)
:::::::::'''Bottom line''': Don't tell me Socialism stands for social progess, change, opposition to the exiting order, levelling the playing field, and against discriminition until British Socialists take on this issue. Absent that, Socialism is just a complete [[fraud]]. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 12:32, 11 August 2007 (EDT)

*See [[deceit]], Rob. You don't really expect to get a straight answer, do you? --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 18:19, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

== Just Plain Wrong ==

Socialism is an economic system where the means of production are seized and monopolized by the government without compensation to the builders of the capital, and where investments, production, distribution, income, prices, and economic justice are administered by a government nomenklatura that regulate the transfer of money, goods (including capital goods), and services primarily through taxation and regularized and institutionalized aggressive coercion.

This is the definition of COMMUNISM, not SOCIALISM. The writer of this article is laughably politicaly incoherent. (and the bias is thick enough to cut with a bundle of sticks tied to an axe)
:If you think you can do better, Silvanus, by all means do so...but don't make it hard on yourself by demeaning others. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 17:35, 14 November 2007 (EST)

::I think we have to distinguish between the various types of socialism, but this is not easy to do. Many partisans write about socialism as if their pet variety is the only (or main) kind.

::The kind which conservatives oppose is the totalitarian [[Communist]] type. But not every form of socialism is as bad as that. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:26, 4 January 2008 (EST)

:::Well, in the European tradition at least, communism has always been extremely distinct from socialism - perhaps this is not clear in the USA. For instance, the Labour Party has always been committed to democratic socialism, and was strongly critical of the USSR. It is self-evident that democratic socialism is hugely more widespread as a faith than communism in the present day, and has never implied totalitarianism - the Labour Party has traditionally been far more committed to freedom than the Conservatives here in the UK.

::::If there countries having a "socialist" system with less than totalitarian control, we can describe them also. I just thought it would be good to start by describing the Communist approach, since that is the model or ideal that most people look to when comparing [[capitalism and socialism]]. The Nazi variant permitted individual ownership, but [[von Mises]] says the results were similar because the state maintained price controls and so on.

::::We also need to distinguish between the economic aspects of socialism and the political aspects of "socialist" countries. For example, in Sweden people are allowed to emigrate, but in Cuba they are not. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 07:28, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

== Would like to add a paragraph about my country (Norway) ==

If its all the same to you I'd like to write about our system wich is currently socialist-democratic. Then again most of our parties are socialist to some degree. Any objections?

Also, the article seems to have mixed up communism with socialism. I assure you, socialism in this day and age bears a much stronger resemblance to the US govermental system than the dictatorship that was soviet russia.

LOL this again. [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 15:35, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

:Can you be more specific? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:42, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

== Also Add Ethiopia ==

Someone needs to add Ethiopia to this article as Ethipia used to be socialist. Also, include the Ethio-Somalia War.

==Liberal propaganda about Chile==

Removed from article:

:In the first year of Allende's, the economic policy showed decidedly positive results, including a 12% industrial growth an 8.6% increase in GDP, as well as major declines in inflation (down from 34.9% to 22.1%) and unemployment (down to 3.8%). However, these gains were only temporary due to American intervention. American copper interests in Chile, which controlled 80% of Chile's copper production, reacted violently to Allende's nationalization. The United States set about placing an economic stranglehold on Chile designed to, in a famous quote by Richard Nixon, "make the (Chilean) economy scream". Classified documents have also revealed the extent of the United States' involvement in the 1973 coup d'etat that overthrew Allende, installing and supporting dictator [[Augusto Pinochet]] in power. Pinochet is known to have detained and tortured thousands of domestic dissidents by its secret police.<ref>http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB8/nsaebb8i.htm</ref>

This is a typical kind of one-sided argument. The point being made is that Chile was doing fine under Allende until the US helped Pinochet thwart his "reforms". Actually, Allende was trying to make Chile like Cuba, and Pinochet stopped Allende's attack on Chile's economic and political freedom.

We need to cover all this in [[History of Chile]]. Perhaps, like Wikipedia, we should also create a [[1973 Chile coup]] article. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:20, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

*Pinochet loyalists ... still revered him for implementing the macroeconomic reforms, which eventually raised the standards of living nationwide.
*Pinochet lost power in a renewal of democratic elections. [http://nylatinojournal.com/home/eagles_in_fall,_lions_in_spring/analysis/a_divided_chile_contemplates_pinochet_s_passing.html]

There's a [[Chile: Two Visions|book]] which covers the mess Allende made of the economy:
:This book is a study of Chile's turbulent recent history. It covers Salvador Allende's socialist revolution and explains how it sank Chile into chaos, economic deprivation, political turmoil, and illegality. It covers Chileans' repudiation of the Allende government three years later and their call to the military to intervene after the August 1973 congressional censure of Allende failed to stop Allende or convince him to resign.
:By winter 1973, Chileans were desperate, as famine loomed in Chile and disorder reigned in the streets. Allende's government had so destroyed the productive apparatus that on Sept. 6, 1973, President Allende announced: "We do not have the most minimal supply of flour, at most for three or four days." [http://www.policyofliberty.net/HPdA/RobertsAraujo.html]

Even the ultra-Liberal [[NPR]] agrees that Allende was botching things up:
*Allende was implementing socialist economic policies in Chile, with disastrous results. Gen. Pinochet finally agreed with other military officers that they had to stop Allende . . . [http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6606013]

Liberals never fail to label Allende "democratically-elected", but he got less than a majority of the vote and:

:the Chilean parliament denounced Allende for abrogating the Chilean constitution. [http://www.vdare.com/roberts/050607_guilty.htm]
::Remind me, who was it sent the tanks onto the streets and the planes into the air to overthow a democratically elected Government? Pinochet or Allende? And which major superpower supported that overthrow? [[User:BrianTS|BrianTS]] 10:12, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

:::If you're not going to read the references or respond to what I actually wrote, then you should limit your comments to our [[debate pages]]. This page is for improving the article. Try [[Debate:When is revolution justified?]] or something like that. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:19, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

==Grammatical Edit and Rebuttal==
I made a small grammatical edit and included a brief rebuttal of pro-socialist sentiments expressed in "Controversy" section. [[User:JeffC|JeffC]] 23:38, 30 April 2009 (EDT)

:You thought the article was pro-socialist? Please don't revert the edits of Administrators, that is against our policy, JeffC. There were paragraphs removed, so it captured my attention. Please explain further. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 23:47, 30 April 2009 (EDT)

::I didn't remove any content. The 'controversy' section offers some brief pro-socialist nonsense that I thought could use a short rebuttal to support the overall message of the article. I apologize for reverting your edit. If you have time, please review the content I added and re-revert if appropriate. Thanks! [[User:JeffC|JeffC]] 23:57, 30 April 2009 (EDT)

:::Since the piece is mainly Richard's now, I have asked him look into this. Thanks for explaining, JeffC! --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 00:08, 1 May 2009 (EDT)

== Need section on Socialistic Democracy ==
Democratic socialism and socialistic democracy is not the same, you should also represent the economic system which is used in Scandenavia, you know, that region in Europa which wasn't so heavily beaten by the global financial crisis.--[[User:Nabroon|Nabroon]] 15:05, 14 May 2009 (EDT)
:If there is a difference between the two systems, as you indicated, could you add a brief definition here, and then do a more detailed separate article on the subject? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 16:01, 14 May 2009 (EDT)

== So close to communism? ==

I fail to see why this article consistently equates socialism with communism when communism was simply an offshoot of socialist ideals.
Is it really necessary to make them sound as though they are the same? They ''are'' different ideoligies. {{unsined|Guardian}}

:Keep denying they are the same ideology, when in fact they are not opposing. The Union of Soviet '''Socialist''' Republics would promote what system?--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 12:07, 9 June 2009 (EDT)

::To be fair to the first post I have to admit he is right the Soviet Union was a communist system. Though it was based off socialism. The idea that it ineviatably leads to communism is slightly absurd considering countries like Canada and Portugal have socialist systems in place such as their healthcare and education systems. {{unsigned|Era3344}} --14:05, 10 June 2009

:::You are making a false flag argument, and you know it. The Soviet Union sprang full-born as a Communist nation. All experience has shown, as is the case here in the U.S., and Canada where you purportedly live, once entitlements are foisted on the citizenry, the demand for them never slacks, and deceitful politicians soon realize offering them is key to being re-elected. It is a downward spiral that can lead nowhere other than a Communist or totalitarian state. Because once the pockets of the citizens are emptied, the state must somehow provide more and more, and that can only be sustained for so long, as we saw in the case of the Soviet Union, and more recently in China, which has been forced to allow quasi-capitalism to generate the huge sums of money needed for entitlements. That process with the Soviet Union took over 75 years until it collapsed. --[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 18:31, 10 June 2009 (EDT)

::::As offensive as I find your attack on my nationality I'll let it slide. You are once again leaving the socialist theory out of the equation and instead rushing into full blown communism. Your argument is fundamentally wrong on so many levels. In Canada the theory of collectivisation(not the Soviet model but simply a manner of spreading the wealth one of the many ideas in Socialism) in our NDP party is put forward as their election platform. They have never once won an election. Our Conservative party and Liberal party borrows from those ideals however, and they have each managed to win a fairly even number of elections based on some socialist propositions, which I must add are very usefull to my life. Your assumption that this loose set of ideals unfailingly leads to communism is not only factually wrong but a misrepresentation of the facts. {{unsigned|Era3344}}

''Attack on your nationality?'' Really? Where was that? Godspeed to you! --[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 22:09, 10 June 2009 (EDT)

==Sliding toward Socialism==
As we see America increasingly moving toward secular socialism, i was surprised not to see a section addressing such here, or an internal link to the page that does. I would like to add a word and link to a possible recent development on that front, that of the ability to regulate even gardnens. http://wholefoodusa.wordpress.com/2009/06/25/feds-to-license-home-breadmaking-and-garden-sales/ Also, while it is good to distinguish between the form of what is often termed socialism in the Bible (which, while not being a which static form, was an effect and manifestation of liberated, secure souls surrendered to Christ) versus its secular counterpart (which is driven by insecurity), the cause of the latter kind of socialism might be addressed. Finally, under Leninism, the sentence, "Conservatives have been very hostile", which looks lie an interpolation, ought to be qualified. I might be considered a liberal in Red China.[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 16:33, 4 August 2009 (EDT)[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 16:33, 4 August 2009 (EDT)
*''...what is often termed socialism in the Bible...
:Got my [[Concordance]] here, can't find the word "socialism" anywhere in Greek or Hebrew. Are you sure you are not quoting some commie rot from somewhere, rahter than the [[Bible]]? TY [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 16:54, 4 August 2009 (EDT)

::Note my words, "what is often termed socialism". As the article manifests, socialism is not strictly defined, nor do we need a precise term in the Bible for concepts it describes, from a Theocracy to the Trinity, and the concept of "equal distribution of goods among the people" and related aspects the article notes, is seen in Acts 2:44-47; 4:32-37, though that was critically different from socialism in its classic manifestations. The article (which was not any of my work) also basically notes the reason why what we see in Acts could NOT take place under Communists, nor will it under our present (US) President, or any such. However, while the spirit of the surrender and benevolence seen in the primitive church is to be a constant, that form of it was not, as believers are evidenced to have their own houses, and goods, and to practice capitalism, out of which they voluntarily and sacrificially gave. (1Cor. 11:22; 10:6; 16:14,15,40; 17:5; 21:8; 1Tim. 6:17-19; Acts 18:3)

::The key was that they in giving, "first gave their own selves to the Lord, and unto us by the will of God", (2 Cor 8:5) with their submission to leaders not being that of implicit trust in men, but to brethren who manifested they were bound by the Word of God, and required no more of others than what their sacrificial submission to Christ required, in accordance with sound doctrine by the Spirit of Christ. Lenin, etc. do no fit in such holy ranks, and i come too short myself.[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 17:48, 4 August 2009 (EDT)
:::What does "equal distribution of goods" have to do with [[mass murder]]? Oh, I see; after the [[national socialists]] exterminated people, they allowed the prisoners who burned the corpses to loot thier luggage and belongings. Thanks. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 18:17, 4 August 2009 (EDT)

::::You got it.[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 19:14, 4 August 2009 (EDT)

== Main Image ==

Im just wondering why this picture is on a page about socialism when the caption reads Leninism. If no one minds I would like to remove it in order to find a better image.
::I fixed it. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 15:17, 14 October 2009 (EDT)
Thank you kindly.

Could we perhaps use a different picture? This one seems to have no bearing on the article itself. Perhaps if we used the Red Flag as is common we could have a better base for people to understand the article. If we move the Main image down in the article it would have much more meaning. I'm going to try it out. Tell me what you think. --[[User:Matthew2208|Matthew2208]] 22:48, 8 December 2009 (EST)
::good move--looks better there. :) [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 23:15, 8 December 2009 (EST)
::: Thank you :) However I'm having trouble inserting the photo I want for the main image. Its being very uncooperative. I have it saved but it just won't convert to how I want it too. Any suggestions? --[[User:Matthew2208|Matthew2208]] 18:24, 9 December 2009 (EST)

Talk:Atheism/archive12

2008-12-03T22:29:41Z

Cal05000: /* Question regarding Why atheists disbelieve */

=== Biblical statements regarding atheism ===

The first sentence in this section ascribes Genesis 1:1 to Moses. Is this correct? [[User:Npov2|Npov2]] 19:52, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
::The belief amongst Judeo-Christian religions is that Moses is responsible for the pentateuch (first five books of the Bible). [[User:JLauttamus|Jeffrey W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:JLauttamus|Discussion]] 19:58, 21 September 2008 (EDT)

=== copy-edit ===
It appears this article may require copy-editing; for example, I noticed the following:

* In the section on "atheism and Communism," in the paragraph that begins with "[t]he theory of evolution played a prominent role in regards to atheistic communism..." it ought to be clarified that the theory of evolution is not the same as Lamarckism.
* "Encyclopedia" is misspelled in the list of arguments against atheism.
* In the section on "atheism and immoral views," the quote from Dr. William Lane Craig appears at a different URL from the one cited in its supporting footnote.
* The quote from Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn contains mismatched quotation marks.
* Generally, quotation marks inside double-quotes ought to be single, rather than double.

Finally, a better explanation is required for the inclusion of Diagoras and Lucretius amongst the atheists, if they were atheists. Thank you.
[[User:Npov2|Npov2]] 21:26, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
::::Please explain this comment as the research for this sentence was done by someone other than myself: "a better explanation is required for the inclusion of Diagoras and Lucretius amongst the atheists" [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 05:37, 22 September 2008 (EDT)
::::re: "The quote from Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn contains mismatched quotation marks." I am in a bit of a rush now. Please make the change here and I will make the change in the main article: http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism_and_Mass_Murder [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 05:59, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

=== A joke's a joke chaps... ===
The 'parody of atheism' image is rather unessecary (although completely true) and should be moved into one of the 'criticisms' sections to avoid drawing comments from certain liberal or atheist points of view. (and how can liberals call themselves Christian when they let egomaniacal atheists to go unchecked?)--[[User:McWooty|McWooty]] 16:43, 22 September 2008 (EDT)
:::I changed the wording. The word parody was changed to satire. Secondly, I put the image there and I am not particularly concerned about avoiding criticism. If it is legitimate criticism I will amend the article and if it is illegitimate criticism I will not amend the article. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 22:08, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

== Rewriting ==

I have spent quite a few days working on a rewrite of this particular article for the sake of neutrality. Being an atheist, I believe myself to be part of a group that should be in charge of HALF of this article: The half that describes, supports, and better characterizes what atheists are. To have theists do this is like having a dog try to describe a cat. The other half is your job: List VALID criticisms and describe your position. I wish to state some basic conditions that I feel must be met before this article can be improved at all:

1. This article be unlocked

2. It remain NPOV (regardless of policy, this article is currently a sham)

3. It be free from logical fallacies

4. When concerning atheist viewpoints, you SOURCE ATHEIST WEBSITES not THEIST ones

5. Every major (or even minor) change must first begin on the discussion page, and must consist of at least one theist and one atheist, and FACTS.

6. Double, triple, and quadrouple check your facts. I have seen too many sections that are "right for the wrong reasons", or simply outright lies.

7. You stop citing studies without also sourcing to atheist opinions

8. You will work on correcting OTHER articles related to this page in similar fashion

9. Always google for opposite points of view (e.g: Atheists aren't moral vs. Atheist morality or "Atheists are moral")

If these conditions are met, I continue to work with Conservapedia. I hope I don't have to define "unbiased" and "NPOV" again, as they have already been define ad-nauseum for the admins. One thing must be determined: Are you people after the truth, or simply out to serve your own dogmas? I, for one, prefer the truth, which is why I advise a half-and-half share in editing.

I second this opinion, as a whole this website is mainly dismissed because of the obvious bias in this article. If you want more people to visit here, give them a reason to --[[User:Freethinker|Freethinker]] 17:00, 23 October 2008 (EDT)

== My deleted post ==

Isn't this article essentially one long appeal to consequences (a logical fallacy)? In other words, positing the argument that atheism causes so many bad things, therefore it must not be true. This is a logical fallacy because, though something may have bad consequences, that doesn't necessarily mean it's incorrect. I am actually shocked by the open bias in this article from an encyclopedia which criticised Wikipedia for bias. You could at least remove the "satire of atheism" thing about nothing happening to nothing - I could create one which highlights religion in a way just as stupid ("An all-powerful man who's everywhere and invisible made man out of clay and woman out of a rib 6,000 years ago, then put light from distance galaxies on its way to us just to trick us into believing he doesn't exist", for example). Either that, or put a similar one on the pages for all the Abrahamic religions.

I returned this post here after it was deleted by Bugler. I am guessing it was because he found it insulting and therefore worthy of censorship. Yet the atheism garbage on the main page is perfectly acceptable, despite being no worse than the above. Ho hum. Bugler, please do not remove this, I am merely posting a dissenting (and perfectly valid) opinion on the article. I now appeal to your higher sense of reason over whichever action you next judge appropriate. Why propagate a negative stereotype of Conservative americans by instantly deleting the above? [[User:LibAsCanBe|LibAsCanBe]] 16:16, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
:Your basic position is incorrect. We do not argue that ''atheism causes so many bad things, therefore it must not be true''; rather, that atheism is not true, and as a consequence the Godless, in an attempt to fill the void, do many bad things. Nor do we ban on ideological grounds; polite discussion, as long as it does not become, or take place with the intent of being, destructive is welcome. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:24, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
"We do not argue that ''atheism causes so many bad things, therefore it must not be true''; rather, that atheism is not true, and as a consequence the Godless, in an attempt to fill the void, do many bad things." No you don't. Of the 32 sections on the atheism page, a total of 1/6 of a section is devoted to arguing that atheism is not true (7.1), although there is a further argument against atheism in section 14. Arguments about the consequences of atheism comprise 3 and 5/6 sections (6, 8, 9 and 7.2 - 7.6), and section 26 implicitly makes the link between atheism and Maoism. The remainder of the page is devoted to what the bible and theists say about atheism (not good things, surprisingly), that atheism isn't a popular movement, a few debaters who are presumably substitutes for philosophers, reasons why atheists are only atheists because they're mentally ill to some extent, some miscellaneous topics and a load of links and references to (in most cases) theist and evangelical sites. You don't argue that atheism is not true and then what the consequences are, because you don't actually argue that atheism is not true.

Furthermore, for a page supposedly about atheism, there's very little actually about atheism. There is no history of atheism, nor are the arguments of atheists explained. Few atheists are mentioned unless they can be linked to mass murder or sado-masochism, or have changed their minds. There's literally an opening section on what atheism is before the diatribe begins. The same pattern is found on the theory of evolution page. And before I sign off, what happened to the whole "wikipedia is too biased while we're trustworthy" thingy?[[User:JohnyGoodman|JohnyGoodman]] 13:07, 29 September 2008 (EDT)

::Why not stop carping and start editing? if you are so dissatisfied with the article as it stands, do something about it, rather than display a [[Liberal]] mindset by expecting someone else to do so. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 13:45, 29 September 2008 (EDT)
How do you suggest we edit the article? It's locked so only conservative can edit it. That's why everyones complaining. sigh... [[User:JohnyGoodman|JohnyGoodman]] 15:18, 29 September 2008 (EDT)
:Write your proposed edits on the talk page, so that the protecting sysop can consider them. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:39, 29 September 2008 (EDT)
Check archives 10 and 11 for proposed edits. Even the simplest proposed edit (such as raising the possibility that atheists come to their beliefs through rational enquiry) seem to require page long essays in an attempt to convince conservative, although he rejects them all the same for the flimsiest of reasons. What about Jeremyhfht's post above, which hasn't been replied to or considered? The problem is that conservative has locked the page and he alone dictates what goes on the page, and if he wants to he can reject anything for any reason. What should be the case is that the page is free for editing and parts are removed if they are not sourced, accurate or relevant.[[User:JohnyGoodman|JohnyGoodman]] 17:29, 29 September 2008 (EDT)
:The page is locked because, presumably, it has when unlocked been the target for malicious atheistic vandalism. You could ask Conservative via his talk page to unlock it for you. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]]
:::The atheists who insist on editing the atheism article remind me of a certain Fats Domino song: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NrtPVXwzgXI [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 21:20, 30 September 2008 (EDT)
Well, Bugler, it looks like Conservative has answered. Guess we poor atheists are going to have to go back to suggesting edits in the talk page and being ignored for no clear reason. Btw, you said earlier that our discussions had to be polite. Does politeness cover such language as "Why not stop carping and start editing" and "(don't) display a liberal mindset by expecting someone else to (edit article)"?[[User:JohnyGoodman|JohnyGoodman]] 17:22, 5 October 2008 (EDT)
:::: Johny -- save yourself some heartburn. The purpose of this article is not to describe atheism honestly, but to pile on as much rhetoric as possible, and get it (by any means necessary) to the top of the Google search. As a theist myself, I initially thought such an article would do conservatism and Christianity a great disservice -- but then I realized that the open-minded (on both sides) already know that the views expressed by the article are only held by a tiny minority, and the closed-minded (on both sides) aren't affected one way or the other anyway. I suggest editing articles that aren't [[sacred cow]]s, as this one is, and will continue to be, for the foreseeable future anyway. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 11:24, 6 October 2008 (EDT)
:::::::Ungstss, you claim the purpose of the article is not to describe atheism honestly. Setting aside the distinct possibility that you are not a mind reader, I do find it curious that you fail to show where the article is untruthful. Secondly, you fail to demonstrate that the views expressed only represent a tiny minority. Given the survey data of American views of atheists given in the Conservapedia article [http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism#Views_on_Atheists], I think your claim is rather suspect. In addition, even if the article did express views merely held by a tiny minority, I don't see why this would violate the conservapedia commandment that material must be verifiable and true. If you could fully support your claims in the future about this article, it would be much appreciated. By the way, I certainly would not mind citing survey data regarding other regions of the world views on atheism. If you look at the homosexuality article I did cite material regarding non-American views of homosexuality. [http://www.conservapedia.com/Homosexuality#Views_on_Homosexuality] I do try to keep in mind that Conservapedia has a world wide audience. Next, there are certain irrational liberal gentlemen at a wiki who state that the [[Christian apologetics|Christian apologist]] [[JP Holding]] no longer cites Conservapedia's atheism article on his website, but their claim is merely the result of sloppy research. I suggest these liberal gentlemen do a search on A for atheism at [http://www.tektonics.org/index2.html this location] of Mr. Holding's website. Lastly, although I will not disclose the details, there certainly is a distinct possibility that a website which is run by a coalition of ministries of the largest Christian evangelism organization in the world is going to cite conservapedia's atheism and evolution articles as resources to examine. I believe this to be true, as I was told by a representative of this website that this citation would likely occur. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 14:14, 12 October 2008 (EDT)
: I went round and round with you on this a year ago, Ken, and I'm not going to waste any more time with it or you. The article is absolutely horrible, because it creates a caricature of atheism, instead of reflecting it as the true, nuanced spectrum of beliefs that it actually is. Fortunately, the article doesn't do that much harm, for the reasons I stated above -- i.e. nobody who counts takes it seriously. But it does sadden me to watch Conservapedia blow such an opportunity to actually accurately describe the issues -- to show our true position, with all its merits -- to fairly and accurately articulate other points of view, and then explain why we believe those positions are wrong and even harmful. This forum is such a great opportunity to accurately express what we are, and instead the most significant articles (like this one) are case studies in bigotry and ignorance. But so it goes. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 13:16, 12 October 2008 (EDT)
:::Ungstss, I find it telling that you fail to signicantly elaborate on your "nuances post" here in terms of its supposed great relevance. However, with that being said, no doubt there are differences in opinion among atheistic schools of thought as crooked sticks can deviate in various ways from straight sticks. After all is said and done though the "atheistic sticks" are all still crooked. Perhaps a very brief section on atheistic schools of thought with significant completed articles they attach to would might not be a bad thing. I had thought of doing so earlier but was waiting for the various atheism sub articles to be further developed (although there are two articles called weak and strong atheism). I am not sure if Conservapedia has significant articles and not stub articles on rationalism, positivism, objectivism, etc. etc. A conservapedian with the username Deborah did create a history of atheism article which the main atheism article links to though. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 14:43, 12 October 2008 (EDT)
: Sorry friend, I won't play unless there's a fundamental change in philosophy on this page. The purpose needs to be to describe accurately first, and debunk second, rather than to mischaracterize first, and take potshots at strawmen second. This article is so deadset on criticizing everything about atheism that it fails to accurately describe the subject matter. Articles like these (and the ignorance they reflect) are the root cause of a lot of atheism -- because atheists do not meet theists who are capable of understanding -- really understanding -- Reality. But Ken, we have the Truth on our side. We don't have to write bigoted articles. We can afford to give them grace and patience and explain their POV accurately and in detail. Because when the chips are down, we're right, and the facts show it, if (and only if) they're fairly and accurately presented. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 13:35, 14 October 2008 (EDT)

== [Religion] is the opium of the people ==

The hyperlinked source (17) on the aforementioned quote from Karl Marx is broken and I couldn't check to see if the quote was correct, so I did a little bit of research. In Selected Writings of Karl Marx (ISBN: 0-87220-218-6), the quote is translated as this:<blockquote>
''Religious suffering is the'' expression'' of real suffering and at the same time the ''protest'' against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, as it is the spirit of spiritless conditions. It is the ''opium ''of the people.
</blockquote>

It seems as if without the square brackets the connotation of the statement becomes drastically different, and implies neutrality rather than outward hostility. --[[User:JBEdgeworth|JBEdgeworth]] 10:14, 8 October 2008 (EDT)
: Thanks for bringing that to our attention, JB -- that's valuable insight. The purpose of this article, however, is to take things ''out'' of context, to caricature atheism as much as possible. Providing the quote in its full, nuanced context would not aid toward that end. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 11:53, 8 October 2008 (EDT)
The context to that Marx quote is just part of the liberal atheistic conspiracy. You can't prove that he actually wrote that, unless you use sources written by lefties or published by lefties, which would obviously be biased. I suggest you read some books by creationist Christian fundamentalists on Marx instead of academic scholars (see professor values) if you want to know the truth.
::Yes, actually using a quote by Marx would be inappropriate.--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 13:53, 12 October 2008 (EDT)

== Stalin pic at head of the atheism article ==

I think the Joseph Stalin pic at the head of the article is a nice compliment to the Hitler pic at the head of the evolution article. If anyone has a suggestion on a better pic of Stalin which could be used this would certainly be appreciated. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 14:34, 12 October 2008 (EDT)
:Yes, they are both fantastic, though I think the Hitler pic is better.--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 14:42, 12 October 2008 (EDT)
:::British cons, I believe you have fine taste in pictures although your glowing endorsement may be providing undue influence in my estimation of your taste in pictures. :) If you could find a better pic of Stalin I would be most appreciative. In the meantime, I will replace the current picture of Stalin in the evolution article with the newly found Stalin picture which I featured in the atheism article. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 14:48, 12 October 2008 (EDT)
It's a crying shame there weren't any homosexual dictators, otherwise we could add one at the top of the article on homosexuality. Can we pass Alexander the Great off as a bloodthirsty gay?
:We could always go with a couple of the early American presidents and maybe even some prominent scientists like A. Einstein. [[User:Foreversage|Foreversage]] 18:34, 13 October 2008 (EDT)
::The only president who there's any real evidence for homosexuality is [[James Buchanan]], and he wasn't really a bloodthirsty dictator or anything, just incompetent. --[[User:JeremyDB|JeremyDB]] 18:51, 13 October 2008 (EDT)
Both the Joseph Stalin pic at the head of the article and the Hitler pic at the head of the evolution article do not fairly represent atheists or evolutionists fairly. Putting Stalin's picture there is like putting Osama bin Laden's picture at the head of a theism article!--[[User:JArneal|JArneal]] 18:48, 13 October 2008 (EDT)
::::Jarneal, do you suggest we put at the top of the article a pic and caption reflecting how much less per capita American atheists give to charity even if church giving is not counted? See: [[Atheism and Uncharitableness]] [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 19:57, 13 October 2008 (EDT)
:::::I'm not really part of this discussion, but I would put that picture with the section on atheism and uncharitableness. (Personally, I think that shouldn't be in this article at all; this article should be about atheism as a philosophical viewpoint. The "atheism and uncharitableness" bit I would put in an article on atheists, atheism in America, or American atheists.) -[[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 20:00, 13 October 2008 (EDT)
::::CSGuy, I see no reason not to talk about the causes and effects of atheism. I do plan on covering more about the causes of atheism using some excellent sources. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 20:10, 13 October 2008 (EDT)
The question that you presented is flawed, conservative. It assumes that both options are better than having no picture or caption at all. In other words, I'm arguing to have no picture whatsoever in place of the Stalin pic.--[[User:JArneal|JArneal]] 18:12, 14 October 2008 (EDT)

== Bias ==

One of the references, 64 or something, leads me to a website which says that atheists are not usually optimistic. The reference is then used to claim that atheism causes mental illness. But this quote was in that same article:
<blockquote>
Dr Stephen Joseph added: "However, it is important to note that religious beliefs are only one path to finding a sense of purpose and meaning in our lives. Those who put less emphasis on striving for financial or material success in their lives and instead focus more on fostering their sense of community, for example by donating money to charity, helping others, or those who strive to have good personal relationships, tend to be happier whether or not they are religious. What seems to be important is living your life in a way that emphasises the importance of being involved in your community and caring for people, and Christmas is a reminder to us all of this message."</blockquote>
In other words, it is possible to live life like a Christian while not believing in god, by giving to charity, etc. Not that I think this way, but that is what the website implies. I disagree with the website. Here is the link: http://www.scienceblog.com/community/older/2003/A/20037338.html
--[[User:BernardW|BernardW]] 08:17, 15 October 2008 (EDT)
: This whole section is fundamentally flawed, because it is an appeal to consequences -- a logical fallacy in this context. An atheist reads this section and thinks, "So what? Christians are deluding themselves into false happiness through fictions that make them feel good. Truth may hurt, but at least it's truth." An effective article on atheism shouldn't even go here, because the emotional condition of believers in an idea is irrelevant to its truth. The article should instead focus on the merits of the issue -- that is, whether or not atheism is a meritorious position. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 14:44, 15 October 2008 (EDT)
:::The appeal to consequences fallacy would have been committed if the atheism article stated that atheism is false because it has bad consequences. The article never does that. Another failed fishing expedition by Ungtss. I think you need to remember that the atheism article is an encyclopedia article and is quite free to talk about the consequences of atheism. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 19:19, 15 October 2008 (EDT)
: if it were an encyclopedia article, it would talk about all the consequences, both good and bad. Since it's merely a tirade, it only identifies the bad ones (and doesn't evidence the bad ones very well). The result is an implicit appeal to consequences -- "Look at what a bad thing atheism is!!!" [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 23:03, 15 October 2008 (EDT)

== Please delete this article or allow rebuttals. ==

As an atheist and a conservative I can't even begin to articulate my rage at this sham of an article. It is filled with mistakes, logical fallacies and ad hoc conclusions that would make a 3rd grader giggle! For "God's" sake - you almost exclusively use long debunked "God of the Gaps" arguments! To begin with the article states that atheism is a "worldview"... that is simply IDIOTIC! This is like saying "Not-a-taoist" is a world view - now let's look at all the non-taoists out there like Stalin, Hitler, Cardinal Toquemada, Pol Pot, Moses and look at their atrocities. Most people here are "Non-Taoists" - what worldview is that? Atheism, a word that shouldn't even exist, only describes one of the things that a person doesn't believe in. We could include words like A-unicorn, A-Thor, A-ouijaboards, A-astrology, A-numerology... oh please, WHAT worldview does an A-numerologist have?

Understanding that Atheism or "Not-a-Theist" is the default position, the whole article is phrased in a bizarre, backwards format. Imagine... you don't believe in Scientology - you are an A-Scientologist (what's the worldview of A-Scientology?). Does the Scientologist attack your A-Scientology, maybe throw you in with other A-Scientologists like Hitler and Polpot? Do you write an article with the title: "Why A-Scientologists are wrong." That's BACKWARDS! You don't disprove a disbelief, you prove a belief! If you come to me claiming that Batman is real and I blow my nose at you - do you call me an A-Batmanist, lump me in with Stalin and Mao who ALSO didn't believe in Batman and then go on to write long fallacy riddled articles on the failure of A-Batmanism OR.....logically do you try to PROVE to me that the idea, (Batman or Scientology) is authentic?

Please allow conservative atheists equal access to the article or a rebuttal article or just delete this pathetic mistake of an article.

This article makes us conservatives look like biased idiots who are frightened by opposing points of view. If these arguments really aren't frail jokes that could be taken apart by a 5th grader... put 'em up for review with rebuttals.{{unsigned|Templarart}}

: Not even theists who understand what atheism is are permitted to edit this article. It is, in essence, the brainchild of one user. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 14:07, 16 October 2008 (EDT)

:: Atheism is the ''belief'' that there is no God, and many people identify themselves as atheists, unlike the various other a-things that you mad up. And from this belief'' in no God flows other beliefs, such as ''naturalism'' or ''materialism'', the view that nature or matter is all there is. And from that flows believe in evolution, the Big Bang, and so on. However, I have come to accept that atheism is not a worldview; rather, it's a ''category'' of worldviews. Just like theism is a category which encompasses the worldviews of Christianity, Judaism, etc., atheism is a category that covers the worldviews of secular humanism, Marxism, and so on.
:: There is no reason that I know of to consider atheism the "default position"; why is a ''belief'' in no God any more the default than ''belief'' in God?? {{unsigned|Philip J. Rayment}}

::: Obviously I can't speak for what Templarart meant by the comment, but I think that atheism can be regarded as the default position because it is the position of ''not having a religion'', which differentiates it from the position of having a (specific) religion. Look up most definitions of "default" & you'll see that they involve defining something by it not having an attribute that others have. Hence the default religion (if such a term can be used) is no religion at all. Technically, we could say that [[agnosticism]] is the default belief regarding God, since it involves no strong conviction either in His existence or non-existence, whereas (strong) atheism involves a feeling of certainty that God does not exist. But that is wading into the semantics a bit too far. [[User:Sideways|Sideways]] 11:14, 19 October 2008 (EDT)
:::: This is an interesting issue -- seems to revolve around what we mean by "default." Sideways seems to view "default" as being simpler, more parsimonious belief -- in essence, I disbelieve until you convince me to believe. Others might define "default" as something closer to "majority opinion" and placing the burden on the minority ... or "intuitive explanation" and put the burden on those who seek to disprove what seems "obvious" to them ... or something else perhaps ... things to think about. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 12:26, 19 October 2008 (EDT)
:::I will remind the atheists that the person who is largely known in philosophy circles with heavily promoting the idea atheism is the default position in the 1900's, Anthony Flew, recently became a theist. Of course, theism is where the evidence clearly leads and reasonable people acknowledge this matter. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 12:32, 19 October 2008 (EDT)
::::Showing that the one who argued for the default position converted to theism does not disprove the default position theory. If anything, it is a rather logical path, and proves the superiority of theism. Maybe some space in article that at least describes the default position? --[[User:ToJones|ToJones]] 12:54, 19 October 2008 (EDT)
:::::About a year ago, there was a section differentiating [[strong atheism]] and [[weak atheism]] based on the definition of "default." However, that section was deleted, never to return. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 13:01, 19 October 2008 (EDT)
:::::Too logical, I suppose.[[User:Rspeed|Rspeed]]

== Question regarding [[Atheism#Atheism and Why do Atheists State They Disbelieve?|Why atheists disbelieve]] ==

Hello. In the section of the article "Atheism and Why do Atheists State They Disbelieve," I think there's a significant reason missing. I have spoken with several atheists who say they do not believe because they find the existence of a Benevolent God to be morally irreconcilable with their experiences and/or observation of suffering. Essentially, they withdraw belief as a reaction to the [[Problem of Evil]]. It is true that this is a different kind of answer to the question "why?"; it cites emotional causes rather than logical arguments. Nevertheless, I believe the cause to be significant, at least for some sub-set of atheists. Many beliefs stem from emotions rather than from reasoning, I suspect. -[[User:GTBacchus|GTBacchus]] 22:47, 19 October 2008 (EDT)
: That's an excellent point. Unfortunately, any reason for atheism which smacks even vaguely of genuine conviction, feeling, or rational analysis is anathema in this article. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 13:28, 20 October 2008 (EDT)
:: I'm not sure we need to know why atheists disbelieve. What good does it do our youth, at impressionable ages, to read logic-bending justifications of their death-bringing inner emptiness? One might as well have a section 'How to score a wrap' in the article on cocaine. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 13:36, 20 October 2008 (EDT)
:::Wouldn't it be easier to turn someone away from atheism if you knew why they were an atheist in the first place? It sounds like you are afraid that a discussion of atheist logic will be so powerful and compelling as to convert Christians into atheists. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 14:29, 20 October 2008 (EDT)
::::The risk is to the young and impressionable, not to those of us tempered in the struggle. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:14, 20 October 2008 (EDT)
:::::Then why have an article on the [[Problem of Evil]] at all? I mean, the 'pedia is either going to talk about it or not, right? -[[User:GTBacchus|GTBacchus]] 20:12, 20 October 2008 (EDT)
::::::Perhaps The Section Should Be Deleted Altogether. [[User:Cal05000|Cal05000]] 17:29, 3 December 2008 (EST)
:I brought it up simply because I was reading the article, and that section seemed incomplete. As to why the article should have such a section at all, I can imagine it being useful for various reasons to know the causes of atheism. If you recognize an argument in discourse that you've heard of before, you may be more prepared to respond to it in an informed manner. Why do doctors study the causes of disease? Surely not so they can make more people sick.
:As for what good it does our youth, we can't necessarily shelter them from hearing someone argue for atheism on the grounds of not accepting theodicy. Addressing such an argument in this article does not make it more powerful; it underlines the irrational basis of such "reasoning". Surely that's useful, no? Surely it does not validate atheism to point out that its source is often a vague but painful feeling, rather than a logical argument? -[[User:GTBacchus|GTBacchus]] 15:30, 20 October 2008 (EDT)
::::True. But the purpose of this article is to malign and misrepresent, not to describe, explain, or effectively challenge. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 15:27, 20 October 2008 (EDT)
:::::::Ungtss, are you accusing a senior CPfigure of malignancy and misrepresentation? [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:15, 20 October 2008 (EDT)
:::::(after edit conflict) Ungtss, that may be someone's purpose for this article, but it's not my purpose for commenting here. -[[User:GTBacchus|GTBacchus]] 15:30, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

== Creating more Atheists? ==

This article states that one of the reasons someone may become an atheist is because of negative experiences with theists. This article in itself is pretty negative. Don't you think it might be better for your cause to write an informative article on atheists rather than a biased hate speech? Are their other articles here that equate mass murder with other beliefs (i.e. Christianity and Mass Murder)?
Also, I was surprised at the number of times that evolution was brought into this article since the two concepts are not related. One is a personal set (in this case lack) of beliefs, and the other is a scientific theory. Tying the two concepts together is confusing and accomplishes little. Saying atheism is necessary for the understanding of evolution is incorrect, and I would think that you wouldn't want people who have seen the overwhelming evidence for evolution to have to think that they would have to choose between their faith and their understanding of a scientific theory. It's like saying that knowing that erosion exists disproves God.
Lastly, the section about atheists targeting youth on the internet is completely comprised of a quote from Chuck Norris. Seriously this is a joke. --[[User:Rainedaye|Rainedaye]] 14:30, 23 October 2008 (EDT)
: I only hope the readers have had enough experience with theists to know that the views expressed in this article are espoused by only a few, and I hope they notice that this article is blocked to editing by theists and atheists alike. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 23:52, 23 October 2008 (EDT)

: Atheism is the ''belief'' in no God, and microbe-to-man evolution barely qualifies as a ''scientific'' theory, given that it is unobserved. Evolution is closely tied to atheism; Dawkins said that it makes one an "intellectually-fulfilled" atheist, and its been well-documented that evolution makes atheists of people (no, not in every case, but in many). It's not like saying that knowing erosion disproves God, because erosion is something that we ''observe''; evolution is an ''explanation'' of how things came to be, not an ''observation''. And no, the evidence is not "overwhelming".
: I agree, if this is what you are saying, that you don't need to be an atheist to understand evolution, so I will change that if that's really what it says, but you'll have to tell me where it is, as the article does not have the word "necessary" and none of the uses of "understanding" seems to be what you are referring to.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:16, 24 October 2008 (EDT)
::Evolution ''is'' a scientific theory and has been ''observed'', but I doubt we will get anywhere arguing that here seeing as how that pertains more to the evolution page. The problem is this page is supposed to be about atheists. However, in the subsection "Atheists and the Question of Origins" the first sentence states creationist views against evolution...no atheism there. The second sentence states that the more prominent vocal evolutionists were/are atheist. Only one of the sources for this statement name any atheist evolutionists, and only 11 names at that. While atheists like Dawkins may be popular in the public media (probably because of their controversial views), the large portion of people who publish scientific papers about evolution are not atheists since 80% of all American evolutionists are theistic. Just to kinda put in it perspective I searched Wikipedia and it has a list of 148 important evolutionary biologists, but only 95 names appear on a list of prominent atheists in all of the sciences. Then the last two sentences of this paragraph discuss problems with evolution...without mentioning atheism. Which I again believe is the whole premise of the Evolution article so it just seems out of place here.
::Also, the "Atheism and Deception" section is completely devoted to evolution rather than atheists. This site seems to tie Darwin and evolution together even so far as to try and to somehow disprove evolution by delving into the personal life of Darwin. Here his picture is shown twice...on the page about atheism...when Darwin was not an atheist.
:::"What my own views may be is a question of no consequence to any one but myself. But, as you ask, I may state that my judgment often fluctuates. … In my most extreme fluctuations I have never been an Atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God. I think that generally (and more and more as I grow older), but not always, that an Agnostic would be the more correct description of my state of mind." -Charles Darwin 1879
::So can't you at least fill this section with actual atheists. I'm sure if you look enough you could find some lying atheist on the internet to make your poster boy for all the evils of atheism, of course someone might be harder to find than a Christian liar on account of there being less than them due to the population differences, but with this articles current concepts of "deception" being mostly conjecture by CMI I'm sure it can be done. As much as I would hate it I'm sure that worse comes to worse you could just make something up. I would think it awfully ironic to deceive people in an article about deception, but if your irony meters aren't set off every time you get medical treatment based on evolutionary research then nothing will.
::Cheers, --[[User:Rainedaye|Rainedaye]] 15:54, 24 October 2008 (EDT)
::: Simply restating the claim that evolution is a scientific theory does not make it so. And if microbe-to-man evolution has been observed, perhaps you'd like to cite an example of someone ''observing'' one kind of creature turning into another kind?
::: As far as the "Atheists and the Question of Origins" section is concerned, I agree that's not well-written, and if and when I get a chance, I'll have a go at rewriting it.
::: The "Atheism and Deception" section could possibly do with some improvement, but it is (a) making a case that Darwin ''was'' and atheist, and (b) using examples from evolution of atheists being deceitful. Was Darwin correct in your quote of him claiming to not be an atheist, or was he being deceitful? He was certainly no Christian (as atheists often claim), but exactly what he would be classified as I'd have to study further.
::: Much medical treatment was developed by ''creationists'', and it owes little if anything to evolutionary research.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:26, 24 October 2008 (EDT)

:::: In fact, the field of medicine has been '''misled''' by falsehoods of evolution, as in the overzealous practice of tonsillectomies. Evolutionists insisted that tonsils were useless [[vestigial organs]], which was a lie that misled doctors to remove them from millions of patients, often under general anesthesia that once had a fatality rate of several per hundred.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:40, 24 October 2008 (EDT)
::::: Tonsils were removed because it was thought that they were harboring bacteria that lead to recurring infections, because they did not understand how the lymphatic system worked it seemed like a good idea. They were not removed out of spite for being vestigial . Regarding Evolution as a theory it is an explanatory model that is testable and does not accommodate every possible outcome, it has predictive power and there is evidence in support of it, it is most certainly a scientific theory, that alone does not make it correct but it is a scientific theory none the less. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]]
:::::: Tonsils were removed because of problems or potential problems, that is true, but they used to be removed far more readily than in more recent times because they were thought to be an evolutionary leftover with no current use. So the attitude was "if in doubt, take it out", whereas these days they know that it ''does'' have a use, and only take it out if they really consider it necessary. As for evolution being testable, see [[falsifiability of evolution]]. Some aspects of the idea are testable, but some are not. There is evidence in support of it, and evidence that is against it. (And I would say that there's much more of the latter.) [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:12, 25 October 2008 (EDT)
::Simply restating the that that evolution is ''not'' a scientific theory also does not make it so. And, if you limited science to simply physical means of observation then we would have very little to work on indeed, and what do you mean by "kind" exactly?
::And yes you could claim that Darwin was being deceitful when saying when he wasn't an atheist, but at what point are you able to tell what someone ''really'' believes? The pope could be lying about his beliefs simply to deceive others into giving him a position of power, President Bush could have lied about his to gain votes, Richard Dawkins could be a devout Hindu and is just using atheism as a way to sell books. Darwin died too long ago for anyone to be able to really tell what he thought, indeed he lived a long life and going from clergy to natural history to a father of a family his beliefs probably changed many times. He could have been a Christian, an Atheist or anything between by the time he died.
::Also, it doesn't matter if some founders of medicine were creationists, no more than the color of their hair matters. The fact that they were creationists did little to develop their research either way. Evolutionary research has greatly helped the medical field, but I have yet to hear of any way that creationism can produce testable hypothesis or have practical applications. And I don't quite understand your point Aschlafly. Are you denying the existence of vestigial organs? Evolution gives an explanation for why vestigial organs exist, but it doesn't say this or that organ is vestigial. Brendanw is right in that they were ''thought'' to not have a function and so they were removed, and that was because they hadn't observed that function. There was no one stating that evolution predicts tonsils have no function, much less that because they don't have a function they should be gotten rid of. --[[User:Rainedaye|Rainedaye]] 21:05, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

::: "''Simply restating the that that evolution is ''not'' a scientific theory also does not make it so.''": That's a straw-man argument, because I didn't do that. The sequence was this:
::: * You stated that it was a scientific theory.
::: * I stated that it was not.
::: * You ''restated'' that it was. That advanced the argument nowhere.
::: I did not ''restate'' that it wasn't. Rather, I pointed out the fallacy of simply restating it.
::: "''And, if you limited science to simply physical means of observation then we would have very little to work on indeed''": Oh? So what non-physical means of observation do you propose? ESP? The third eye?
::: "''...what do you mean by "kind" exactly?''": I wasn't trying to be exact. I was talking about reptiles (or dinosaurs) becoming birds, or amphibians becoming reptiles, or a cow becoming a whale, or something. Nobody disputes that a wolf can become a dog, or that the relative populations of black and white peppered moths can change. The dispute is over the whole evolutionary "family tree", and it is these sorts of more significant changes that have not been observed. If you want to get exact, its the difference between sorting out existing genetic information (as happens with wolves becoming dogs) as opposed to the generation of new genetic information (for hair, skin, feathers, etc.) that wasn't there before.
::: "''And yes you could claim that Darwin was being deceitful when saying when he wasn't an atheist, but at what point are you able to tell what someone really believes?''": By looking more closely at all their comments, what their motivations might have been, and whether they were consistent with their actions. For example, being hypothetical, if Darwin wrote in one place that he wasn't an atheist, but in another that he believed that God didn't exist, then you'd have to figure that he was being deceitful with one of those comments (except, of course, if they were written at different times and he had changed in mind in between.
::: "''Richard Dawkins could be a devout Hindu and is just using atheism as a way to sell books.''": Talking of Dawkins, he's favourably quoted the opinions of Christian leaders supporting evolution, but in other places has criticised the idea of such people selectively choosing which parts of the Bible to believe.[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/4324/]
::: "''Also, it doesn't matter if some founders of medicine were creationists, no more than the color of their hair matters.''": It matters because you said that medicine was ''based on'' evolution, yet these people made their medical discoveries ''without believing in'' evolution.
::: "''The fact that they were creationists did little to develop their research either way.''": You are changing the subject by turning it around 180 degrees. I was refuting ''your'' claim that the discoveries relied on evolution; I wasn't claiming that that they relied on their creationary beliefs. But, actually, many of these scientists did base their research on their creationary beliefs.
::: "''Evolutionary research has greatly helped the medical field...''": Repeating it doesn't make it so. You've offered no evidence.
::: "''I have yet to hear of any way that creationism can produce testable hypothesis or have practical applications.''": Then I suggest that you study creationism a bit more than just from anti-creationist sources.
::: "''Are you denying the existence of vestigial organs?''": Every single [[vestigial organ]] (useless evolutionary leftover) in humans has now been found to not be useless.
::: "''There was no one stating that evolution predicts tonsils have no function, much less that because they don't have a function they should be gotten rid of.'': You're basically right on the first point, but not so much on the second. Evolution ''predicts'' that useless leftovers would be at least reasonably common, whereas creationism would ''predict'' that every organ had a designed purpose. So when an organ was found with no discernible purpose, it ''appeared'' to support the evolutionary prediction, because that is what evolutionists ''expected''. So tonsils were removed more often than necessary because they were considered to be useless leftover organs. But they were wrong, and the organ turned out to have a purpose, ''as creationism would predict''. So evolutionary belief actually resulted in organs being removed when in some cases they would have been better off left there. And by the way, Andy linked to the [[Vestigial structures]] article (as I have already in this post); did you read that? Because it had something to say specifically on this issue of removal of tonsils because of the evolutionary belief.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:48, 25 October 2008 (EDT)
::::I was talking about the physical limitations of the human eye. Our eyes are imperfect.
::::And while you may not have been trying to ''be'' exact, you asked if I would like to cite an example and to do so I would need to know what definition of 'kind' you were talking about. I'm still a bit unclear on where you would like to draw the line between what constitutes a kind separate for another. Not that I blame you, species are pretty transitory so any classification is almost arbitrarily done just for convenience. However, I think I'm going have problems finding an example you accept since you outright deny the lack of new genetic material. Also I named Richard Dawkins as an example of a person who says he is not Christian. I don't see how his comments on evolutionary theists pertain there.
::::Evolution is the foundation of modern biology. A few examples:
:::*[[http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/medicine_01 An overview]]
:::*[[http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_/ai_n15966076 A specific example]]
:::*[[http://evmedreview.com/?page_id=4 A publication devoted to applying Evolution & Medicine]]
::::And just because medical discoveries were made without evolution does not mean that it doesn't help discoveries today. Not all the fundementals of physics were discovered after gravity but that doesn't put it in doubt.
::::And I cannot find practical applications of creationism. While a simple google search turned up more than I could even look through for evolution and medicine. How did scientists base their research on creationary beliefs?
::::Why should humans matter when it comes to vestigial organs? They are not terribly common since it would greatly benefit the organism to get rid (and therefore not waste resources) on an organ that was no longer used. Some retain lesser functions or develop new functions. Are you saying that the tailbone, the appendix, the plica semilunaris, and ear muscles (that can no longer move the ear) are not vestigial organs? Does all junk DNA have a purpose? --[[User:Rainedaye|Rainedaye]] 23:44, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

::::: We weren't talking about the eye. What are you referring to?
::::: Evolution requires new genetic information. That you can't find an example of that shows that the evidence for evolution is lacking.
::::: I agree that my comment about Richard Dawkins didn't directly address your reference to him. It was simply an example of evolutionists/atheists/whatever being somewhat two-faced.
::::: "''Evolution is the foundation of modern biology.''": We were talking about medicine. You've now introduced a totally-new claim.
::::: "''[[http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/medicine_01 An overview]]''": This is not talking about microbes-to-man evolution, but variations in or losses of information. See [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/2398 here] for more.
::::: "''[[http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_/ai_n15966076 A specific example]]''": This article makes the claim that you are making, but provides no supporting evidence of that claim.
::::: "''[[http://evmedreview.com/?page_id=4 A publication devoted to applying Evolution & Medicine]]''": The existence of a journal purporting to be studying both doesn't prove that evolution is the foundation of biology.
::::: "''...just because medical discoveries were made without evolution does not mean that it doesn't help discoveries today.''": No, but it doesn't mean that it does either.
::::: "''And I cannot find practical applications of creationism.''": Not all that surprising given that creationism gets almost zero funding. Most research is of what ''is'', not what ''caused'' it to be. Therefore there's little in the way of practical applications of creationism ''or'' evolutionism. But then I guess you could consider research into supposedly-vestigial organs to be a practical application of creationism, couldn't you?
::::: "''How did scientists base their research on creationary beliefs?''": See [[Natural science#beginnings]], for the basics. And one trivial extra example: an original supercontinent being broken up into today's continents was proposed by Antonia Snider in about 1859, partly on the basis of the Genesis account reading as though God originally created a single land mass.
::::: "''Why should humans matter when it comes to vestigial organs?''": Why not?
::::: "''They are not terribly common since it would greatly benefit the organism to get rid (and therefore not waste resources) on an organ that was no longer used.''": It depends on what you mean by "terribly common". As the [[Vestigial structures]] article says, there use to be 108 claimed vestigial organ just in humans, and that list is now down to zero. Now you try and marginalise that by claiming that they wouldn't be very common anyway!
::::: "''Are you saying that the tailbone, the appendix, the plica semilunaris, and ear muscles (that can no longer move the ear) are not vestigial organs?''": Yes. The coccyx is the anchoring point for muscles, and there's no reason to think that it's a leftover tailbone. The appendix is covered in the [[vestigial structures]] article (didn't you bother reading that???) The plica semilunaris's "purpose is to enable unrestricted mobility for the eyeball when abducted (turned outwards)"[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5265/]. I know people who can move their ears, so that one's wrong.
::::: "''Does all junk DNA have a purpose?''": It appears that the so-called junk DNA does have a purpose. But evolutionary thinking held up research into this for some years.
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:47, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

::::::Medicine relies on Biology. Pre-med students usually get their undergrad in Biology before going to med school. You cannot talk about medicine without biology which is based on the theory of evolution, the same as you can't discuss the orbiting of planets without talking about physics which is based on the theory of gravity.
::::::And no the existence of a journal does not prove anything. It was the numerous articles in it that focus on evolutionary applications in medicine I was hoping you would look at.
::::::Ok, first you claim that I'm not looking hard enough for practical applications of creationism, then you claim it's because they are underfunded, then you state that research doesn't focus on theories, and finally you ended with saying that creationism and evolution don't really have practical applications to begin with? Which is it? A lack of funding wouldn't mean a lack of proposals or a lack of hypothesis, and if it was that important I'm sure no church would deny supplying funding for a practical application that could save lives, general research does focus on theories because without knowing the cause how can we find a solution, and practical applications from the understanding of evolution help practical research. We use fruit flies and mice as model organisms because due to common descent what we find out about their biology can help us with ours.
::::::So was the research into human vestigial organs spearheaded by creationists? Or was it done by scientists while creationists stood by and stated that they didn't prove evolution because they were just examples of "de-evolution" due to the ''fall''. Are creationists now looking into why chickens can have teeth and embryos have gills? And I stated before that vestigial structures can have uses. An organ doesn't have to be completely worthless to be one, ones that retain some function or develop new functions ''are more likely to be kept in a population''. Just because you know someone who can wiggle their ears a bit does not mean that it isn't a vestigial structure. Does it have a biological function, can they use it to point their ears towards sounds? What about people that grow tails? It's hard to say a bone isn't a tailbone when it can become part of a tail.
::::::And as for the super-continent, does this mean you are not a YEC?
::::::"''And yes some junk DNA has a purpose. I certainly wasn't denying that. I stated that not ''all'' of it does. Regulatory functions require some specialized parts of "junk" DNA. However, a lot of our genome is still composed of pseudogenes and retrotransposons from retroviruses. About 95% of our DNA is considered junk DNA, but it is estimated that 5% is the minimum amount that humans would need to act for regulatory purposes. That number may go up as we learn more about DNA, but it is widely accepted that some sequences (like those from HERVs) do not have functions. You should probably take a look at the pufferfish ''Takifugu'' that has removed most of it's junk DNA and introns from it's genome. Also, I don't really see how evolutionary thinking "held up" this research. --[[User:Rainedaye|Rainedaye]] 14:08, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

I'll bite if noone else will.
:''Medicine relies on Biology. Pre-med students usually get their undergrad in Biology before going to med school. You cannot talk about medicine without biology which is based on the theory of evolution, the same as you can't discuss the orbiting of planets without talking about physics which is based on the theory of gravity.''
::Your analogy illustrates your flawed thinking. Biology is not based on the theory of evolution/common descent, and neither is physics based on the theory of gravity. The theory of evolution is merely part of biology, and the theory of gravity is merely a part of physics. You don't need to believe in common descent to know how an eye functions. You don't need to believe in common descent to perform a surgery. You don't need to understand gravity to understand inertia or mass-energy equivalence. Biology is not a subset of evolution. The theory of evolution is a subset of biology, and one that is irrelevant to the vast majority of things biologists do. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 10:43, 29 October 2008 (EDT)
:''We use fruit flies and mice as model organisms because due to common descent what we find out about their biology can help us with ours.''
:: What can we learn about our own biology from fruit flies due to common descent that we couldn't learn from them due to a common designer? [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 10:43, 29 October 2008 (EDT)
:''So was the research into human vestigial organs spearheaded by creationists? Or was it done by scientists while creationists stood by and stated that they didn't prove evolution because they were just examples of "de-evolution" due to the ''fall''.''
:: What research are you talking about? All that incredibly valuable research that "proved" they were vestigial? How many lives has that saved? Useless speculation is all it is. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 10:43, 29 October 2008 (EDT)
:''Are creationists now looking into why chickens can have teeth and embryos have gills? And I stated before that vestigial structures can have uses. An organ doesn't have to be completely worthless to be one, ones that retain some function or develop new functions ''are more likely to be kept in a population''. Just because you know someone who can wiggle their ears a bit does not mean that it isn't a vestigial structure. Does it have a biological function, can they use it to point their ears towards sounds? What about people that grow tails? It's hard to say a bone isn't a tailbone when it can become part of a tail.''
:: All this is irrelevant to common descent, so I don't understand why you're talking about it. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 10:43, 29 October 2008 (EDT)
:''And yes some junk DNA has a purpose. I certainly wasn't denying that. I stated that not ''all'' of it does.''
:: It's certainly not a scientific statement to claim that not all of it is useful. How can you prove a negative like that? Just 'cause we don't know something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. But of course if you're out ''looking'' for junk DNA because you want to ''believe'' our DNA is the product of random processes, you'll be more likely to jump to that conclusion. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 10:43, 29 October 2008 (EDT)
:''That number may go up as we learn more about DNA, but it is widely accepted that some sequences (like those from HERVs) do not have functions.''
:: Better do some research on that one. A lot of ERVs are indispensable. Sheep can't reproduce without some of theirs. Some of us think ERVs are how the Creation was accomplished. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 10:43, 29 October 2008 (EDT)
:::Gravity is important to physics, and there are certain things that cannot be explained without using it ''such as'' the orbiting of planets. I never claimed that you needed to know about gravity to do everything, although I'm sure it helps. And no, you don't need to know about evolution to do surgery, but medicine is a lot more than just physical manipulation. A PubMed search for "evolution" produces 229804 results, the majority of which are papers that describe the evolution of genes or groups of genes. Intelligent design, and creationism garnered only 751, and 98 papers respectively. A lot of which were articles talking about the debate rather than any research papers. I usually don't like citing sources that are not neutral but Talk Origins has a nice list that sums up evolution's practical potential [http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA215.html here], and it ''cites'' their sources from peer-reviewed papers that are neutral.
:::And if common design means common designer then why do we use mice as opposed to cats? Chicken's with teeth and children with tails are all examples of pseudogenes and are '''VERY''' relevant to common descent. We have the genes to grow a tail, one of our ancestor's lost that ability, the gene is still there it has just been rendered nonfunctional. Chicken's are descended from ancestors with teeth, they have the genes to make teeth, you could even probably build a phylogenetic tree using this gene to see how chickens descended from other birds and eventually reptiles. A common design, common designer argument doesn't quite cut it here. The most compelling evidence for common descent ''is'' genetically based. [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/11/Tree_of_life_SVG.svg This] was constructed from the comparisons of the complete genomes of these organisms (which is why we see so many of our model organism friends such as ''Arabidopsis'', ''Drosophila'', ''Escherichia'', ''Saccharomyces" '' and ''Mus'' who were considered important enough to have their genomes completely sequenced).
:::You cite one indispensable ERV. I'm sure there are more out there with such functions, but most have been completely inactivated due to mutations. These areas tend to accumulate more mutations than coding regions of DNA because they are ''not selected for'', which is a good indicator that they are not of use to the host organism. No, it doesn't ''prove'' it, but then again proofs are for math and if you are going to spend your whole life wanting someone to ''prove'' to you that eating strawberries isn't going to cause you to die, from the toxin that we may not know about (it doesn't mean it isn't there!), then you need to empty your medicine cabinet and make yourself a tin-foil hat. Some of the junk DNA that was found to have a function was found because its sequences were being conserved. Natural selection would prevent mutations from accumulating over generations only if those mutations did not harm the fitness of the organism, which implies that DNA must therefore be important to the organism even if it is non-coding. Of course this is another application of common descent in the field of biology, and also when it is applied to genetic diseases involving these regions, to medicine.
:::The existence of the ERV function was explained using evolutionary theory: ''“We currently think that enJSRVs arose from ancient infections of small ruminants during their evolution. Previously, these same ruminants relied on a native gene that had evolved to orchestrate the early stages of pregnancy. But when the virus embedded itself following infection, it produced a protein which did the job even better, and became part of the ruminant’s own, heritable DNA. Ruminants with the virus gene bred more successfully as a result, so the gene became dominant in the early ruminants and in the sheep which evolved from them. “Now, we know that enJSRVs are found in the DNA of every sheep on the planet,”'' -Thomas Spenser, [http://www.pnas.org/content/103/39/14390.full one of the authors of this paper]. I would like to hear how you think ERVs played a role in creation though. --[[User:Rainedaye|Rainedaye]] 18:41, 29 October 2008 (EDT)

=== Reply to Rainedaye  ===
: Thanks, Ungtss, for stepping in here. I had missed that reply from Rainedaye. Here are my own comments on his last two posts.
: Ungtss has explained well how evolution is not necessary for biology.
: "'' ... first you claim that I'm not looking hard enough for practical applications of creationism''": No, my comment was a response to your claim that you've yet to hear any way that creationism "can" have practical applications.
: "''...then you claim it's because they are underfunded...''": That is why it will be ''hard'' (not ''impossible'') to find ''actual'' applications.
: "''...then you state that research doesn't focus on theories...''": No I didn't. Perhaps you are referring to my comment that "Most research is of what ''is'', not what ''caused'' it to be." In that I was referring to research in general, not creationary research. That is, research into the properties of a new compound, for example, is not research into how the compound came to be, but research into what it can do and how it reacts. As such, this research has nothing to do with either creation or evolution. I was saying that this type of non-origins research comprises most scientific research, and also that this type of research is the research with ''practical'' applications. Very little ''origins'' research, by contrast, has practical applications, whether that be creationary or evolutionary.
: "''...and finally you ended with saying that creationism and evolution don't really have practical applications to begin with? Which is it?''": It's a bit of everything. That origins research doesn't have ''much'' in the way of practical applications doesn't mean that it has ''none''.
: "''A lack of funding wouldn't mean a lack of proposals or a lack of hypothesis...''": A known lack of funding will mean that there will be very little in the way of formal proposals developed. It would be a waste of time.
: "''...if it was that important I'm sure no church would deny supplying funding for a practical application that could save lives...''": Churches don't have that much money. And very little origins-based research would have life-saving results anyway.
: "''...practical applications from the understanding of evolution help practical research. We use fruit flies and mice as model organisms...''": Ungtss has answered this.
: "''So was the research into human vestigial organs spearheaded by creationists?''": I couldn't say. How is it relevant?
: "''Or was it done by scientists while creationists stood by...''": Why do you refer to scientists and creationists as two mutually-exclusive groups?
: "''...I stated before that vestigial structures can have uses.''": I don't recall you stating that, but the whole idea of vestigial structures is that they are ''useless'' evolutionary leftovers. Every biological structure is supposed to be the result of evolution; the idea behind vestigial ones is that they disprove the creationary view because God would not have made something useless. I know that evolutionists have tried to hang on to the idea of vestigial structures now that uses have been found for them by claiming that vestigial structures can have uses, but that goes against the whole point of them in the first place.
: "''Are creationists now looking into why ... embryos have gills? ... What about people that grow tails?''": Embryos don't have gills and people don't grow tails. You've been misled by evolutionary propaganda.
: "''And as for the super-continent, does this mean you are not a YEC?''": No. What gives you that idea?
: "''And yes some junk DNA has a purpose. I certainly wasn't denying that. I stated that not all of it does.''": Originally, they thought that none had a purpose. That's why they called it junk DNA. Since then, they've found that its presence matters, and that "junk" was an incorrect label. Okay, so they haven't (yet) found that all of it is not junk, but all that might mean is that they haven't found it ''yet''. Given the track record of finding purpose for "useless" organs and DNA, I wouldn't hang my hat on the parts that they are still considered useless.
: "''Also, I don't really see how evolutionary thinking "held up" this research.''": They didn't bother investigating it for some time because they had decided that it was just junk.

: "''...Talk Origins has a nice list that sums up evolution's practical potential...''": That page is a lot of rot, partly because they have no idea what they are talking about. A few examples to demonstrate my point:
:* "''Directed evolution allows the "breeding" of molecules or molecular pathways...''": "''Directed'' evolution"? That sounds like ''intelligent design'' to me!
:* "''The evolutionary principles of natural selection, variation, and recombination are the basis for genetic algorithms...''": Natural selection, variation, and recombination are all ''creationary'' principles just as much as evolutionary ones! Creationism includes all those concepts; but rejects the evolutionary family tree, which requires more than just those concepts. TalkOrigins can't even distinguish how evolution differs from creation!
:* "''Many statistical techniques, including analysis of variance and linear regression, were developed by evolutionary biologists...''": So? That doesn't meant that evolution was necessary for those techniques.
: "''...if common design means common designer then why do we use mice as opposed to cats?''": Because God created different similarities in different creatures. If similarity is due to common ancestry, why do we sometimes use sheep and pigs?
: "''We have the genes to grow a tail...''": No we don't.
: "''Chicken's are descended from ancestors with teeth, they have the genes to make teeth.''": Creationism has no problem with a ''loss'' of genetic information. Evolution requires a ''gain'', so that example misses the point.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:09, 29 October 2008 (EDT)

Pleasure as always, Mr. Rayment:).

:''Gravity is important to physics, and there are certain things that cannot be explained without using it ''such as'' the orbiting of planets. I never claimed that you needed to know about gravity to do everything, although I'm sure it helps. And no, you don't need to know about evolution to do surgery, but medicine is a lot more than just physical manipulation.''
::As I understood your original argument, you argued that medicine depends on evolution because medicine depends on biology and biology depends on evolution. I showed that to be false by showing that biology does not ''depend'' on evolution, as evolution/common descent is only one small part of biology, and medicine is all about the manipulation and maintenance of organisms as they exist today. Now one step further, I'd argue that there is nothing in medicine that can be understand adequately only if understood with reference to common descent. Can you think of one? [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 11:12, 30 October 2008 (EDT)
:''A PubMed search for "evolution" produces 229804 results, the majority of which are papers that describe the evolution of genes or groups of genes.''
:: That's what Kuhn would call "Normal science." The scientific community has a paradigm, and they're all working within a paradigm. As soon as you find a gene, you have to explain how it arose from random processes and selection -- it's just how scientists have been taught to think. But just because they always interpret their results within an evolutionary framework (as they were taught to do in school) does not mean common descent is an indispensible element of their research. On the contrary, I'd argue that all their results can be interpretted through an ID framework without losing any explanatory power. Scientists are trained in inductive and deductive reasoning, but they are not trained in the abductive reasoning required to question their paradigm or evaluate another. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 11:12, 30 October 2008 (EDT)
:''Intelligent design, and creationism garnered only 751, and 98 papers respectively. A lot of which were articles talking about the debate rather than any research papers. I usually don't like citing sources that are not neutral but Talk Origins has a nice list that sums up evolution's practical potential [http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA215.html here], and it ''cites'' their sources from peer-reviewed papers that are neutral.''
:: The fact that the scientific community currently interprets its results within an evolutionary paradigm does nothing to prove that no other paradigms are valid. It is a function of culture, history, social, and political forces -- not irrefutable evidence. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 11:12, 30 October 2008 (EDT)
:''And if common design means common designer then why do we use mice as opposed to cats?''
:: I'm not sure what the point here is. Certainly some designs are going to be more similar to others, and the more similar designs are going to be more useful for experimentation. That does not prove we are related. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 11:12, 30 October 2008 (EDT)
:''Chicken's with teeth and children with tails are all examples of pseudogenes and are '''VERY''' relevant to common descent. We have the genes to grow a tail, one of our ancestor's lost that ability, the gene is still there it has just been rendered nonfunctional. Chicken's are descended from ancestors with teeth, they have the genes to make teeth, you could even probably build a phylogenetic tree using this gene to see how chickens descended from other birds and eventually reptiles.''
:: As usual, evidence of de-evolution is being used to support evolution. This is the loss -- not the gain -- of genetic diversity and biological capacity. Did chickens used to have teeth? Perhaps. Can random processes explain the loss of teeth in chickens by destruction of the code? Yes. Does this do ''anything'' to support the idea that the genes for teeth were ''created'' through random processes? Absolutely not. It's like saying, "Certainly random processes could have created that stopwatch -- look -- this one rusted, so part of it doesn't work anymore!" It's totally backwards. The problem with common descent is not the idea that we have made lost genetic information -- that's entirely possible. The problem is that there's no reasonable mechanism for us to ''gain'' genetic information. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 11:12, 30 October 2008 (EDT)
:''A common design, common designer argument doesn't quite cut it here. The most compelling evidence for common descent ''is'' genetically based. [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/11/Tree_of_life_SVG.svg This] was constructed from the comparisons of the complete genomes of these organisms (which is why we see so many of our model organism friends such as ''Arabidopsis'', ''Drosophila'', ''Escherichia'', ''Saccharomyces" '' and ''Mus'' who were considered important enough to have their genomes completely sequenced).''
::If you look into how those comparisons are performed, you'll find that they are done purely mathematically. Meaning they looked at which had the most similar information in their genome. That does nothing to prove they are actually related. I could do a similar analysis on computer programs, all of which were designed. Microsoft Word would doubtless come out as more "related" to Wordperfect than to Warcraft, because its subroutines will be similar. I could create a family tree of computer programs using the same algorithm. But my tree would be meaningless. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 11:12, 30 October 2008 (EDT)
:''You cite one indispensable ERV. I'm sure there are more out there with such functions, but most have been completely inactivated due to mutations.''
::How do we know that? Have we tested your hypothesis by removing them from the genome to see what happens? If we haven't tested the hypothesis, then it's not science -- it's speculation. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 11:12, 30 October 2008 (EDT)
:''These areas tend to accumulate more mutations than coding regions of DNA because they are ''not selected for'', which is a good indicator that they are not of use to the host organism. No, it doesn't ''prove'' it, but then again proofs are for math and if you are going to spend your whole life wanting someone to ''prove'' to you that eating strawberries isn't going to cause you to die, from the toxin that we may not know about (it doesn't mean it isn't there!), then you need to empty your medicine cabinet and make yourself a tin-foil hat.''
::I'm not asking for a geometric proof. I'm asking for experimental evidence. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 11:12, 30 October 2008 (EDT)
:''Some of the junk DNA that was found to have a function was found because its sequences were being conserved. Natural selection would prevent mutations from accumulating over generations only if those mutations did not harm the fitness of the organism, which implies that DNA must therefore be important to the organism even if it is non-coding. Of course this is another application of common descent in the field of biology, and also when it is applied to genetic diseases involving these regions, to medicine.''
::I assume you meant "if those mutations harmed" rather than "if those mutations did not harm." If so, I agree. And the fact that we have 30,000-some-odd HERVs in our system, no observed mechanism or instance where an ERV managed to establish itself in the genome (consider -- it has to infect germ cells in exactly the same place, and that alteration then has to overcome genetic drift and spread throughout the entire genome -- no easy task ''unless there is an advantage to the ERV'') I think the most reasonable explanation for ERVs (abductive reasoning here again) is that ERVs are either 1) the means of genetic engineering used to design us; or 2) extremely advantageous to our genome, such that they were selected to spread throughout the entire genome. The evolutionary explanation -- chance infection without any selection advantage -- is absolutely ludicrous. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 11:12, 30 October 2008 (EDT)
:''The existence of the ERV function was explained using evolutionary theory: ''“We currently think that enJSRVs arose from ancient infections of small ruminants during their evolution. Previously, these same ruminants relied on a native gene that had evolved to orchestrate the early stages of pregnancy. But when the virus embedded itself following infection, it produced a protein which did the job even better, and became part of the ruminant’s own, heritable DNA. Ruminants with the virus gene bred more successfully as a result, so the gene became dominant in the early ruminants and in the sheep which evolved from them. “Now, we know that enJSRVs are found in the DNA of every sheep on the planet,”'' -Thomas Spenser, [http://www.pnas.org/content/103/39/14390.full one of the authors of this paper]. I would like to hear how you think ERVs played a role in creation though.''
::We create ERVs every day -- it's called genetic engineering. When we want to alter an organism genetically, we often use a retrovirus to insert the desired sequence into the gene. If we were genetically engineered/created, the most reasonable way to believe that was accomplished was through ERV alteration of pre-existing genomes to achieve the desired changes. Thus, for example, a chimpanzee blueprint could have been intentionally altered through ERVs to create Man.

So let's break this down.
* Fact: ERVs have to infect an entire gene pool through the germ line;
** ID: ERVs were placed in the germ line deliberately via ERV-vectored genetic engineering;
** EV: No known mechanism or demonstration of an inherited retrovirus. No explanation for how an RV could spread to an entire population unless extremely advantageous.
* Fact: There are over 30,000 ERVs in the human genome, and we only share 7 with great apes;
* ID: A few ERVs were used on both humans and apes; the majority of ERVs were used only on humans;
** EV: Need to explain why humans and apes were in the same gene pool 100x as long as they've been separate, yet are so disimilar in their ERVs;
* Fact: There are over a dozen different enzymes used to clot human blood that are absent in chimps; without any one of them, blood does not clot and the species dies;
* ID: All the changes were made at once, eliminating the stepwise problem;
** EV: Um ... really really lucky?

I won't go into any more detail. Is it a testable hypothesis? Not yet. But it's some solid abductive reasoning, IMO. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 11:12, 30 October 2008 (EDT)
:You really fail at understanding evolution. ERV's have to be associated with some genetic material that survives to be found in an entire population, not beneficial themselves. If you get on a bus and the bus goes across the country does that mean that you took the bus across the country? No, it means you were taken with the bus across the country, the driver drove the bus and it was powered by fuel.
:Where did you get the number 7? The 30,000 number is way off, try 98,000 elements and fragments found in the Human genome project. I know that we share at least 11 with Gorillas, and that these were found with out looking at the complete genomes of the other animals. Once we actually look at the whole code if the number is still low then you can point to evolution and laugh, until that time hold on to your horses. Looking around it would seem that that number is from the year 2000, 8 years old is not new in genetics, you might as well be talking about geology from 50 years ago.
:With signal pathways it is very easy to add one or take one away A->C can easily become A->B&C then A->B->C Luck implies chance plus good fortune, this is just a case of chance, our system works no better, we did not luck out, we just changed. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 11:45, 31 October 2008 (EDT)
:: An ERV was originally a retrovirus. Ostensibly, the retrovirus infected one individual. How did that ERV spread through inheritence to an entire population? It had to infect a ''germ cell'' (something we've never observed), and then that genome as modified had to spread to the entire population. How could it spread to the entire population? Either it was very very advantageous, or very very lucky. Genetic drift makes the second option implausible. The first is the most reasonable option. As to your numbers, whether the ratio is 7:30,000 or 11:98,000, it's inconsistent with evolution that we would share such a small percentage of our ERVs with species we spent the majority of our collective existence interbreeding with. In a Common Descent scenario, the ratios should be reversed. We should have more shared ERVs with the apes than unique ones. But we don't. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 12:08, 31 October 2008 (EDT)
:::Genetic drift says that things will not stay static, and even with minimal selective pressure chance alone will prevent two separate alleles from remaining in the same ratio's, Genetic drift actually predicts that random things will occasionally spread fairly widely through out the genome, and will occasionally disappear almost entirely. Lets say that through random chance an ERV spread to 20 individuals that lived in an area, and those 20 individuals were swept to an island and become a new species over time, that ERV would be in the entire population of that new species, if the Ark story were true that ERV would only need to be in 1-2 individuals to be found in the entire gene pool now. But even with out that random chance lets say an ERV happened to land next to a really good gene, a gene that conferred immunity to some nasty bug. That really good gene would spread and take with it all for the genetic material around it, including the lucky ERV. Germ Line cells aren't particularly rare, viruses infect them all the time, just like every other cell type, if the cell has the receptors the virus needs to attach then the virus attaches and injects its contents and infects the cell, simple as that. We have seen this happen in the laboratory thousands and thousands of times, in fact every single time that scientists genetically modify an organism they do so by infecting the germ line cells. My point with the numbers on the ERV's was that we hadn't looked yet, you cannot take numbers for something we haven't looked at yet and proclaim them proof of your position, just like I cant take the fact that we haven't looked yet and claim it as proof of mine, we simply do not have the evidence yet, we do not have a fact to draw a conclusion from. I would predict a very large number, but we don't know yet. Not as large a number as you think however, ERV's are probably not highly conserved so many probably become unrecognizable, but I would predict at least a 80,000:98,000 ratio, (very few of them perfect copies mind you, just recognizable) but we do ocassionally eject them from our genomes, and if they are ejected from a germ line cell and happen to be associated with either a string of rare chance or a good gene. Come to think of it ERV's make up 8% of our genome, and we only differ with chimps by 2% so we must have at least 75,000 in common, that assuming that the only changes are in ERV's which we know is not true. I think that means that I win. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 13:32, 31 October 2008 (EDT)
::::Looks like I was wrong 94% based on a base by base analysis; thats still proof that there are more than 11 in common, has to be at least ~24,500. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 13:41, 31 October 2008 (EDT)
:''Genetic drift says that things will not stay static, and even with minimal selective pressure chance alone will prevent two separate alleles from remaining in the same ratio's, Genetic drift actually predicts that random things will occasionally spread fairly widely through out the genome, and will occasionally disappear almost entirely.''
::Genetic drift also says that over times, alleles will tend to either become set in a population or eliminated from a population, and that alleles in only one or two individuals have a much higher probability of being snuffed out than of taking over an entire population, unless they are advantageous in some way.
:::This is math, its not up for questioning. Yes the chance that any random small allele will spread to a large portion of the population is small, but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen, random changes happen constantly, random insertions happen constantly, why don't you learn calculus or statistics, once you do you will learn that your small probability complaint becomes more than a certainty given just a few hundred generations in a population of 10,000 -B
:''Lets say that through random chance an ERV spread to 20 individuals that lived in an area, and those 20 individuals were swept to an island and become a new species over time, that ERV would be in the entire population of that new species, if the Ark story were true that ERV would only need to be in 1-2 individuals to be found in the entire gene pool now.''
::True. But in such a bottleneck scenario, suppose we find just a few ERVs in common with the mainland population, and thousands of ERVs set in the island population. Do we then assume that the germ lines of those lucky progenitors were infected by thousands and thousands of RVs? It seems ludicrous.
:::You are using the numbers that we don't have again, stop that. If that were the case yes that would mean that we spent a whole lot more time apart than we did together, but we don't know that to be the case, or have any reason to suspect it if we are not starting with the premise that your conclusion is correct. -B
:''But even with out that random chance lets say an ERV happened to land next to a really good gene, a gene that conferred immunity to some nasty bug. That really good gene would spread and take with it all for the genetic material around it, including the lucky ERV.''
::So you're now looking at a population bottleneck and ERVs closely associated with beneficial genes ''for each of the thousands of ERVs''.
:::Did I say bottle neck? No, in fact I did not, I did not describe a bottle neck either. Resistance to a nasty bug is a possitive selective force, all other things being equal my scenario would probably result in a larger population than baseline because densities could go up because of resistance to the bug, this does not explain them all, just some of them. They had a long long time to accumulate, and its not as if they had to be very lucky, they insert them selves fairly regularly, any kind of selection imaginable will grab an individual that has some "junk" DNA that is not shared universally and spread it around, every individual you can get genetic material from has this kind of thing in it. -b
:''Germ Line cells aren't particularly rare, viruses infect them all the time, just like every other cell type, if the cell has the receptors the virus needs to attach then the virus attaches and injects its contents and infects the cell, simple as that. We have seen this happen in the laboratory thousands and thousands of times, in fact every single time that scientists genetically modify an organism they do so by infecting the germ line cells.''
:: We've seen it in the context of genetic engineering, but never observed a naturally occurring virus infect a germ cell naturally, and be passed on to the next line. That's my point. I think ERVs are better understood as being the an artifact of the genetic engineering ''of us'' than the result of an extremely improbable string of coincidences.
::: The only reason you haven't seen it is because you haven't looked.<ref>http://dev.biologists.org/cgi/content/abstract/124/14/2789</ref> <ref>http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=362159</ref> These articles popped up when i put germline retrovirus in to google, you didn't try at all before you declared that there were no reports, try and show a little academic integrity. Also even though we do have records of this happening spontaneously what does it matter if we do it with the intent of infecting the germ line cells? We infect the animals just like they would be infected in nature and the viruses inject genetic material into germ line cells just like they do in nature. Looking at an extremely improbable series of events and saying it can't happen because of the odds is like looking at the odds of winning a lottery and saying that no one will win, the foundation of your argument is your own personal ignorance, yes the odds are low but one chromosome will eventually win out, just like there will be a lottery winner. The odds multiplied by the instances equals the outcome, and a one in a trillion chance of something happening, multiplied by 50,000,000 places for it to happen multiplied by 65,000,000 generations is something that will happen 3,000+ times. Its a numbers game and you really need to learn statistics before you try, its not intuitive. -B
:My point with the numbers on the ERV's was that we hadn't looked yet, you cannot take numbers for something we haven't looked at yet and proclaim them proof of your position, just like I cant take the fact that we haven't looked yet and claim it as proof of mine, we simply do not have the evidence yet, we do not have a fact to draw a conclusion from.
::My intent was not to claim it as proof -- only to present it as a fact which (as we now understand it) is inconsistent with common descent, and consistent with ID. The facts may change, the theories may morph, but right now it's a black eye for common descent, IMO.
:::Its not inconsistent because we haven't looked, thats like getting a letter from the govt. in the mail and declaring that it is unconstitutional before you open it, we don't have the information so it is impossible for it to be inconsistent with what we know. (although the next point down I'll show you were we have enough data to know that its at the very very least fairly consistent, we just haven't tagged them all yet). -B
:''I would predict a very large number, but we don't know yet. Not as large a number as you think however, ERV's are probably not highly conserved so many probably become unrecognizable, but I would predict at least a 80,000:98,000 ratio, (very few of them perfect copies mind you, just recognizable) but we do ocassionally eject them from our genomes, and if they are ejected from a germ line cell and happen to be associated with either a string of rare chance or a good gene. Come to think of it ERV's make up 8% of our genome, and we only differ with chimps by 2% so we must have at least 75,000 in common, that assuming that the only changes are in ERV's which we know is not true. I think that means that I win.''
::As I understand it, the correct number is 4% difference. Interestingly, however, only 29% of genes code for the same proteins across both species. The alterations seem to be very well targetted to achieve a 70% change in output with only a 4% change in programming. That screams ID to me, rather than random processes. As to your projected common ERV count, I'll wait for experimental evidence rather than projecting based on the assumption that the ERVs are evenly distributed. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 14:51, 31 October 2008 (EDT)
:::[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=De-OkzTUDVA Here's a video about ERVs] that may clear things up a bit. I don't have time right now, but both you you are getting a little off about how ERVs are distributed to all humans. It's like mitochondrial eve, the most recent common ancestor, you don't need to go into the founder's effect or even for extreme selectional pressures to explain it. --[[User:Rainedaye|Rainedaye]] 21:38, 2 November 2008 (EST)
::: Thats ~29% identical, and had you read the paper thats from you would have known that in the same bullet point it is mentioned that the typical ortholog differs by only two aminoacids (and most of these are small changes, with little effect on function). Looking at the paper of that 6% difference about 2.7 is gene duplication, deletion, and relocation (occasionally a chunk of DNA will just get snatched up and moved, or copied during crossing over, or deleted during crossing over, or cut out because our cells think its a virus, all of this has been observed happening in organisms in the lab and the field) and about the same number of basepairs have been changed in single base pair events, so being generous with rounding lets say that 1% might be ERV's (Addition and deletion) and this doesn't count the other things that can happen (Like horizontal gene transfer, or horizontal junk DNA transfer), that means that of the 98,000 ERV's in humans we share at least 85,000 with chimps, at least 85,000. We don't have them specifically tagged but they have to be there otherwise we would have gotten a different number for the total similarity. <ref>http://www.genome.gov/Pages/Research/DIR/Chimp_Analysis.pdf</ref> and remember, this is the same ERV's in the same place (or a different one but with the same neighbors in the case of chromosomal rearrangement), so your argument about the ratio is now worthless (why do I feel like you are about to use to kettle defense, where in you bring up a second argument that is mutually exclusive when held against the first?) This isn't a projection that can shift your way with further research, we know that X amount of the bases are identical, The data is collected, we just haven't labeled them yet. The only reason all of this screams designer to you is that you have the conclusion that there is a designer as one of your premises for proving a designer, this is not evidence of design, if you can work some numbers and show me that the trend is wrong then maybe you can claim it, but as of yet you are working on intuition which is not good at statistics.speaking of working numbers, and if you need more proof, what kind of numbers would you expect to see if there were no designer, in the identical genes department that is, higher or lower? Can't answer? its because you were making things up in the first place. The theory that can accommodate anything explains nothing --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 16:41, 3 November 2008 (EST)

Talk:Shinto

2008-10-13T23:42:33Z

Cal05000: /* Language Support */ new section

{{Wikiproject Religion}}

== Language Support ==

Windows 95, 98, ME and NT
:http://www.microsoft.com/windows/ie/ie6/downloads/recommended/ime/default.mspx .And Install
Windows 2000
:http://www.microsoft.com/globaldev/handson/user/2kintlsupp.mspx
Windows XP and Server 2003
:http://www.microsoft.com/globaldev/handson/user/xpintlsupp.mspx#E4
Mac OS X
:http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=120063
[[User:Cal05000|Cal05000]] 19:42, 13 October 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Adolf Hitler

2008-05-05T22:08:29Z

Cal05000: /* The evolution of the Hitler article */

[[Talk:Adolf Hitler/Archive1]]

==Improvement Proposals==
*'''''Due to vandalism, please post ''MAJOR'' improvement proposals here, in this section. '''''

----

== Path to power ==

I see that the Hayek quote got back. So, the paragraph now explains in detail, but briefly, what van Papen did, what Hitler did, what Hindenburg did, all referring to actual events.

Then the article quotes Hayek out of context, and unrelated to the rest, to the effect that its is all just the socialists fault. I guess this means Conservapedia thinks that good ordinary Germans are and cannot not be blamed for what happened in the Third Reich. Is this true? [[User:Order]] 31 July, 8:40 (AEST)

:It will be integrated. Hayek is the historical narrator here. Here's more regarding Roosevelt:

:::Whatever you do don't integrate it there. It is ruining the article. All paragraphs of the article except for the introduction contain historical facts and no significant interpretion. The paragraphs, The Beginning Of His Political Life, Beer Hall Putsch, Path to Power, Consolidation of Power, Holocaust, 1944 Assassination Attempt, Marriage, and Death all are fairly factual, and the Hayek quote is the only part of it offering a interpretation. If you want to discuss Hayek's contribution to the discussion on the causes of the Third Reich, do it somewhere else, but not in the factual account. Make an article, introduce a section at the end, whatever. And then, citing Hayek as only scholar with an opinion on this issue is also insufficient. Numerous history wars were fought about this one. [[User:Order]] 31 July, 11:30

::"The system he (FDR) blundered us into is more like the managed and bureaucratized, state supported system of Germany before World War I than our own traditional order. Before his regime we lived in a system which depended for its expansion upon private investment in private enterprise. Today we live in a system which depends for its expansion and vitality upon the government. This is a prewar European importation imported at the moment when it had fallen into complete disintegration in Europe. ...Americans trapped in the economic disasters and the political quarrels of every nation on earth and a system of permanent militarism closely resembling that we beheld with horror in Europe for decades, bureaucrats swarming over every field of life and the President calling for more power, more pricefixing, more regulations and more billions. Does this look like the traditional American scene? Or does it not look rather like the system built by Bismarck in Germany in the last century and imitated by all the lesser Bismarcks in Europe? ...No, Roosevelt did not restore our economic system. He did not construct a new one. He substituted an old one which lives upon permanent crises and an armament economy."

:Actually, we already had this discussion, how the ''real'' anti-Semites & racists came from the former territorries of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. [[Franz Leopold Neumann]] of the Frankfurt School of [[critical thinking]] and Chief Nurmberg Prosecution Researcher said it clearly, and most would agree (exept brainwashed Americans who believed wartime Hollywood propaganda and still do), and that is, Germany was the last place in Europe that anyone ever expect the Holocaust to take place. And that is because nowhere in Europe had Jews been accepted and made as much social progress as in Germany. The real fact is, it is Germany's lack of development as a Democracy that would respect everybody's rights including minorities, and the lack of citizen participation and involvement, and not racism, is how a foreigner like Hitler could get in power, import his racist ideas from Austro-Hungary which were not commonly held in Imperial or Wiemar Germany, and carry out the program he did.

:And as Hayek points out, it is the Socialist who snuffed out any feelings for, or movement toward, a liberal democracy ''prior to WWI''. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:05, 30 July 2007 (EDT)

First, what has FDR to with this discussion? Other than Germany wasn't the only country with a planned economy during WWII.

Second, the Emperor and his political allies weren't to fond about liberal democracy either.

Third, we had the discussion that they were all Austrians, and is was already debunked, because many of the main centers of Nazi support were in the Lutheran North of Germany.

Fourth, don't hide all the time behind Hayek. His work is definitely interesting, especially because he was neither conservative nor socialist, but states in his work "Why I am not a conservative", that he is an (old-school) liberal, which exists in a different political dimension. Anyway, whatever Hayek might have said, the question is what you think about the matter. Hayek isn't a Conservapedia editor, you are, and you took his sentence out of context, and put it there. So, what is you opinion on this matter?

Finally, do you say that the Third Reich was Austrian Catholic Socialist venture, and the Germans had no part in it?

And as an aside, I'd like to ask you if you are by any chance of North German Lutheran National Conservative descent? [[User:Order]] 31 July, 11:26
:So the fact Hayek stated he was not a conservative still does not place fascism at the polar end as an opposite of Communism and Socialism. We are writing historical narrative. We are using primary source, eyewitness accounts of educated and objective observers, not wartime propagandists. A lie that was told in 1933 or 1943, whether it was told by [[Josef Goebbels]], the US [[Office of War Information]], the Hollywood [[Screen Writers Guild]] or [[Franklin Roosevelt]] is as much a lie today as it was in 1933 or 1943. I'm sorry, I make no appologies for this. Facts are facts. We need to explain to the youth of the planet (a) what happened, and (b) ''why'' it happened. Sourcing, and the ''credibility'' of sourcing is paramount. Simply because a myth has been handed down by popular culture or proven liars means nothing. In fact, we have every obligation to correct the record. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:41, 30 July 2007 (EDT)

* What has FDR to do with this matter?

* I am not sure to which lie you refer? Can you be precise? Do you mean to say that it is a lie that a broad section of German society was bearing responsibility for the Third Reich, and not just a group of Austrian catholic crypto-socialists? Can you answer this please?

* I never said that because Nazism wasn't socialist, it must have been conservative. To the contrary. And I didn't say that Socialism was the anti-thesis of Nazism. And therefore good. I repeatedly said that it was neither socialist, nor conservative, and that communism and Nazism were both totalitarian. I said it repeatedly. Repeatedly. Repeatedly. Repeatedly. Repeatedly. So don't make stuff up. But just because they were both totalitarian doesn't mean that they are the same.

* The article was factual, until you added the Hayek quote giving an interpretation by Hayek. What you report isn't an eyewitness account, but the interpretation of a contemporary. I agree that should tell the youth first what happened. And that is exactly why the Hayek quote is at it a wrong place, because it not describing a factual event, it is interpretation. Feel free to add a section on the "history wars" that discussed the causes of the Third Reich. However, I see no need to single out Hayek as only scholar who had something to contribute to the discussion. Other scholars were contemporaries too, and have made equally credible contributions.

* And finally, I am still curious if are by any chance of North German Lutheran National Conservative descent? [[User:Order]] 31 July, 13:36

#FDR & Hitler articles are part of the WWII series.
#We're actually not that far off on the [[political spectrum theory]] aspects of National Socialism; the tradional telling is Communism & Fascism are polar opposites. This isn't what happened. Two extreme factions of an anti-God ideology got in a big dispute, and 55 million people--many not sympathetic to either side--got killed in the process. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:45, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

* What has FDR to do with which parts of the German society bears responsibility?

* Nazism wasn't anti-god. Sure, Hitler wasn't what you would a good Christian, and he was anti-clerical when it interfered with his business, but he was a theist, and Nazism as ideology was in favor of "positive Christianity". Unlike its socialist roots, this principle has never been been amended. Before you get all excited, I do know that the Nazi view of Christianity is fundamentally different from what the main Churches of today teach. I don't not say that all Christians are Nazis, but just that Nazism wasn't anti-God.

* I never said that they are polar opposites, and the article didn't say it either. But just because they are not polar opposites, doesn't means that they are the same. [[User:Order]] 31 July, 15:00

::One of the very important aspects of National Socialism is, Nazi's were enlightend Socialists who got thier enlgihtened, athiestic doctrines from Socialsim. This enlightened, athiestic doctrine, i.e. to overthrow the existing order, or to promote "change" in social organization and institutions that challenged the power of the church, and exisitng Christian morality, such as the commandment to love thine enemies, the Nazi's got from their Socialist roots.

::Socialism preached hate and envy, and destruction of alleged "oppressors;" Christianity, or the "old social order" preached tolerence and acceptance of all, Greek and Jew alike. This is where Jewish doctine and Christian doctrine separate--Jews adhered to the old Mosaic command to love thine friend and hate thine enemy. Christian doctrine, or the "established order" taught "love thine enemies", even those who oppose themselves. When God was rejected wholesale in the [[French Revolution]], and Marx & Darwin substituted man having dominion over the earth (as in both Hebrew & Christian scriptures), with the doctrine of ''Natural Selection of '''Favored Races''''', [[class hate]] and [[class war]], and the doctrine that man is an animal, these doctines were applied to those (whom it was percieved) promoted the doctrines. IOW, since man is an animal, if you can kill a dog, you can kill a man. And there is no consequences, final judgement, or higher power to answer to. '''''It is the enlightened doctrine of Natural Selection of Favored Races being applied in its most logical, and rational, form.''''' [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:47, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

* First, it Nazi apologetic to say that Nazism is the most logical and rational. What essential say is that everybody who doesn't share your views '''must''' kill other people based on race. This is a call for genocide, as I see it. And excuses them. Because you say that there is only one logical conclusion, the Nazis had no choice. Which is not true, because they had a choice. You did put into quotes, so I don't know who said it, but since you post it without comment, I have to assume that it also your opinion.
:*I didn't say this at all. I said Nazism is the natural consequence and outgrowth of enlighten Socialism. That is, more specifically, Naxism is the natural consequence of ''both'' the [[Enlightenment]] and [[Karl Marx]], (and [[Darwinism]], an enlightened subfield of 19th century thought). Let me put it quite specifically, it is a straight line of deductive reasoning from the Enlightenment which caused the overthrow of the ''Ancien Regime'' to the Holocaust. There are no divergent paths. It is the natural process and outgrowth of logical thought along that path. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:37, 31 July 2007 (EDT)
::What you say is that Nazism was unavoidable, it was the logical consequence of the 19th century. This lets all the people of the hook who helped the Nazis to power in the 1930; this lets all the people of the hook who imprisoned, tortured, and killed people during the Third Reich, and it lets all the people off who invaded other countries an bombed and burned their population in WWII. Because it was inevitable in your reasoning. This a very extreme position withing the already disputed Sonderweg theory, and generally rejected, even by other adherents of the Sonderweg theory. It is generally accepted that some important people had the choice to act differently, but they didn't, and if they had acted different, history would be different as well. [[User:Order]] 2 August, 12:26

:::Not at all. What I am saying is worshipping at the altar of science, logic, and reason, in lieu of God, is what the progressive development of 19th century ''thought'' was all about. And yes, destruction is unavoidable when secularism rejected the Jewish God, that is to say, Jehovah - as a Jewish conspiracy, which is what led [[Marie Antoinette]] to the gallows.

:::: Can you point us to an [[atheism|atheist]] who reject all gods, because they think that it is all a jewish conspiracy? Russel? Dawkins? Or Sam Harris? I guess there is none. They reject gods, because they think that they are inconsistent with what they assume to know about the world. Just because you don't like them, and maybe disagree with their reasoning, doesn't mean that you have to vilify them and make up reasons for their atheism, that are not true. The "positive Christianity", advocated by the Nazis, didn't think that it was all a conspiracy, but they thought, that Christ original message, was corrupted by Jews and jewish thought. [[User:Order]] 3 august, 10:00

:::::I think most of the Nazi's writers certainly make that case, and some point to earlier, 19th century writers to support their arguments. All of them, Hitler & Hess in ''Mien Kampf'', Goebbels, several others all make this central agrument. In particular, read the outline of Hitler's unpublished second book, editied by Joachim Fest, tentative title was ''The Monumental History of Mankind''. It's unmistakeable, "Judah" is responsible for all the planet's problems since time immemorial according to Hitler. Folks like Voltaire, Marx, and Darwin just paved the path for Hitler & Hess (actually Rudolf Hess did write most of ''Mein Kampf''), Alfred Rosenberg, Houston Stuart Chamberlain, ''et al''. Betrand Russell and Vladimir Lenin are simply first cousins of this line of "intellectual thought." [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 21:20, 5 August 2007 (EDT)

:::::::And I didn't deny that the Nazis and their "Positive Christianity" did blame Jews, to the contrary I '''did'' actually say it. Problem is "Positive Christianity" is theist, not atheist. [[User:Order]] 3 August, 11:35
::::::::You're going to have to prompt my memory with this one, I really have been away from most of these primary sources since the late 1970s. A link might help, too. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 22:05, 5 August 2007 (EDT)

:::And just because secular athiesm has unavoidable consequence does not mean at all that that those consequences are justified. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 18:50, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

::::I didn't mean to say that you justified the consequence, I meant to say that it was inevitable, such that in the end no p[erson is personally responsible for the committed crimes.[[User:Order]] 3 august, 10:00

* Second. Did you call Nazism enlightened? Just because they respected private property, and sold human beings as raw material to the companies to keep their production running?
:*Yes. Nazi's were enlightened atheists who viewed Christianity, as it had been viewed since the time of Voltaire, as a Jewish conspiracy which the Jews themselves did not beleive in. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:37, 31 July 2007 (EDT)
::(1) What has Voltaire to do with the matter? (2) As is said on this page already, Hitlers view was apparently that the true theistic faith that later became Christianity was corrupted by Jews, but he didn't reject the notion of a god. He wanted a religion that was cleansed from the jewish influences. But even if he wasn't an atheist, he still was a bad person. Bin Laden isn't an atheist either. Why are you hung up about proving that he is an atheist, if he said himself that he wasn't. [[User:Order]] 2 August 00:08 (AEST)

:::See above. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 18:50, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

:::This really is a digression, some atheists who do not worship Jehovah worship self or Satan as their god. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 18:50, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

* Third. Even if you keep repeating it, it is wrong to call a movement that had the inscription "Gott mit uns" on their belt when went out to war atheist, or even anti-God. And how do you explain the following sentence from their party program "Die Partei als solche vertritt den Standpunkt eines positiven Christentums, ohne sich konfessionell an ein bestimmtes Bekenntnis zu binden." Doesn't strike me as anti-God. And I repeat it again, in case you didn't get it, this I do not say that their view of Christianity is in any way compatible with your view on Christianity.
:*The old "Gott mit uns" argument. Actually, that was the inscription on the Imperial German belts '''''in the Erste Welt Krieg'''''; the Nazi's substituted the swastika, and later brought back the old imperial inscription. Further, if you look, it is quotation from the Hebrew scriptures: "Take counsel together, and it shall come to nought; speak the word, and it shall not stand: for '''God is with us'''." [http://biblebrowser.com/isaiah/8-10.htm] And there is a famous photograph of none other than Ernest Hemingway with a First World War (i.e. no swastika) "Gott mit uns" belt buckle in the 1930s. Do an internet search if you want to see it. Finally, if you're reaching for this argument, it means you're running out of gas. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:37, 31 July 2007 (EDT)
::* It seem like you can buy those belt buckles of the internet. I don't want to post neo-nazi sites on this page, but google for ''' "gott mit uns" hakenkreuz''', and you will find where you can buy them.
:::*For the second time "Gott mit uns" is (a) from the Hebrew scriptures, and (b) from Imperial Germany. Using this logic, we should abandoned the Hebrew scriptures because the Nazi's ripped them off. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:56, 1 August 2007 (EDT)
::::I am not sure how long will take until it get through to you, but I still didn't say that Christianity is Nazism. And I also did not say that Christianity is using Nazi symbols. I said that Nazis used references to God. And that many Nazis, and among them quite likely Hitler himself, were theists. This means that they weren't atheists. You might know that "theist" is not the same as being a "Christian". And you might also know that not being a "Christian" following your particular interpretation of the scripture doesn't mean that you are an "atheist". The Nazis advocated "positive Christianity", something which should be different from your version of Christianity, but which is still decidedly theist. This is something different from saying that Christians are Nazis. What is so difficult to understand about that? you are barking up the wrong tree. For days. And I am telling you for days. [[User:Order]] 1 August, 23:58

:::::Ok, this argument is difficult for obvious reason. Hitler certainly did not accept the existence or soveriegnty of the Jewish God, Jehovah. Neither did Hitler accept the old Nordic gods like Wotan, despite some rumors (Ludendorf perhaps did). Hitler may have believed in some sort of Providence, as Menachim Begin referred to, also. Who is this "Providence"? IMHO, it is was most likely Satan, however if Hitler were here, and if you asked him, he'd probably most certainly deny it and laugh, as most Hollywood movie producers would laugh also at the same question.
:::::So, we're at the crossroads in examining where a person may actually be admitting to some divine supernatural being greater then themselves that they are in subservience to. Most spiritually decieved people never even get this far, laboring under the notion that they themselves are god, i.e. that their life purpose is to serve themself. Now, if a deluded soul arrives at the point where they recognize a supernatural power apart from themself, more powerful than themself, and to whom they owe some sort of debt even, and at the same time pointedly denying this supernatural power is Jehovah, for all intents and purposes we can conclude they are avowed Satanists. So the only remaining question is, when Hitler survived the July 20, 1944 assassination attempt, and Goebbels convinced Hitler Providence intervened, did he really believe it, or was he just going along with another propaganda scheme?

:::::Whatever you conclude from all this, you're not going to find a very widely accepted doctrine, even among Nazi party members. The vast majority of Nazi party members, and even sympathetic non-party members, were simply garden variety athiestic socialists, who would laugh at the idea they worshipped and/or served Satan. Yes, there were occultists, like Himmler and many top Nazi's, but the vast majortiy of the public just looked on this behavior not very different from the seances [[Hillary Clinton]] used to hold on the [[White House]] roof. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 00:40, 6 August 2007 (EDT)
::*And what about point 24 in the progam of the NSDAP? About "positive christianity" [[User:Order]]

* Thanks for proving my point. I said: '''I do know that the Nazi view of Christianity is fundamentally different from what the main Churches of today teach''', but you still could help giving me the spiel that Nazism and Christianity is different. Read my postings for a change, instead of making stuff. It seems that you can only argue against stuff I didn't say. [[User:Order]] 1 August, 11:23

:*Wikipedia, believe it or not, has a good article on Hanns Kerrl. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanns_Kerrl] This could be expanded upon, and I hope to do so here in CP. For now, here's a quote from Hitler in ''Tischgesprache'', 14th December 1941 Midday,
::*"Kerrl, with the noblest of intentions, wanted to attempt a synthesis between National Socialism and Christianity. I don't believe the thing's possible, and I see the obstacle in Christianity itself....Pure Christianity...is merely whole-hearted Bolshevism, under a tinsel of metaphysics." [p. 145-146] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:38, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

* Nice quote. Of course there is a dispute about the "Tischgespraeche itself. whether they took place in the form Kerrl reported. But lets no go down this road. Lets take it at face value. It say that he doesn't like the Christian message of forgivenes and compassion. And guess what, that is what I told now already countable time myself. So why do you keep on hammering this point?
* Actually, a very nice quote. Because he actually says that he reject Bolshevism wholeheartedly. That the he sees a Bolshevistic aspect in Christianity, and that it is exactly this aspect that is incompatible with Nazism. This quote proves that the Fuehrer himself believed that bolshevism and Nazism were incompatible. You made my point, Rob. Thanks. [[User:Order]] 1 August 14:00
:*Yes. Nazism simply replaced the word "bourgeois" in [[Marxist]] rhetoric, with "Jewish", but all the other rhetoric remained the same (incidentally, the [[DNC]] does this very same thing, instead of "rich Jew", they simply use "The Rich.") [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 23:30, 20 August 2007 (EDT)
You didn't answer one my questions, and I am still curious: Are you by any chance of Conservative Lutheran North German descent? [[User:Order|Order]] 23:35, 20 August 2007 (EDT)
:I am of mixed race: 50% German 50% Slavic. I was raised Catholic, but today am moreless a Dispensationalist Christian. Some roots come from Stetin (Szczecin) which was mixed German/Polish & defintiely devout Catholic when they arrived in America; others come from Slovakia. And there were "mixed marriages" in the US, i.e. my mothers father was Lutheran. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 11:08, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
===contemporaneous corroboration===
Ok, returning to Hayek, whom we use a 1945 quote, let's look at a 1940 quote from a Socialist publication during the [[Phoney War]] which says virtually the same thing Hayek said after Hitler blew his brains out:

<center>'''From 1905 to 1940'''</center>
:'''The downfall of bourgeois democracy in Europe did not begin with Hitler. Hitler is a result not a cause'''. The crisis of Europe first showed itself in the Russian revolution of 1905. That it was a world crisis and not a European crisis was proved by the course of the war in 1914. That war neither ended nor made the world safe for democracy. '''The characteristic feature of the period 1918-39 was the destruction of democracy''' in country after country, with or '''without the violent defeat of the socialist movement''', and the steady preparation for the second imperialist war. '''Without socialism, the war of 1939''', Hitler victory or no Hitler victory, '''must inevitably mean the complete destruction of democracy''' all over Europe, the development of the totalitarian state in America, and still further battles for the re-division of the world.

:'''The question that faces us, therefore, as Marxian socialists, is to estimate soberly, at this critical moment, what are the possibilities for the socialist revolution''', the only force that can check the descent into the abyss and reverse the process of disintegration. The possibility of an early Hitler victory, the tremendous power displayed by the German military machine, the inevitable demoralization of the anti-Hitler forces in Germany by his uninterrupted march of success – these things undoubtedly have altered the former perspective of a long drawn-out war ending in immediate revolution. Let us, however, before we speculate on the future, examine the past.
*Source:[http://www2.cddc.vt.edu/marxists/history/etol/newspape/ni/vol06/no04/editorial.htm#s1 ''Blitzkrieg and Revolution''], An Editorial, From New International, Vol.6 No.4, May 1940, pp.83-87.

And here is the Hayek quote:

:"By the time Hitler came to power, liberalism was dead in Germany. And it was socialism that had killed it."

'''Analysis of comparison;''' while Hayek uses the term "liberalism", the ''New International'' editorial uses "democracy." In both, they are talking about the same thing, and they both make reference to the fact that Socialism survived the destruction of liberal democracy. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 18:50, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

:I guess the highlighting is by you and not by the ''New International''. Where in the text by the socialist publication do they say that they destroyed liberalism or democracy? To the contrary, the article even suggests that without socialism democracy will be destroyed, and the writer even argues that socialists are the only movement capable of saving democracy. Take for example: ''Without socialism, the war of 1939 must inevitably mean the complete destruction of democracy''. No Socialism, no democracy. According the the ''New International''. The fragment that you quoted tell that democracy got destroyed, and then even claims that the Marxist Socialist are the only force that can reverse the process of disintegration. This quote shows clearly that even the Socialist disagree with your interpretation of the Hayek quote. I am not sure why you like to quote material that proves my point. [[User:Order]] 2 august 10:00 (AET)

::The question simply is over blame. Hayek says socialism destroyed liberalism; the Socialist publication says "The characteristic feature of the period 1918-39 was the destruction of democracy in country after country, with or without the violent defeat of the socialist movement." Of course they are not going to take the same position as Hayek, i.e. that they caused it. But they are observing the same phenomenea, that liberal democracy faded, and socialism survived. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 20:11, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

:So all you wanted to say it that democracies in 1920/30s democracies in Europe failed. I don't need Hayek or the New International to tell that. In Italy, Germany, Spain, Russia, and even in Poland and Austria, democracy wasn't going too well. If this is what you want to say both quotes aren't that great to make that point. Given that the other paragraphs in the article are referring to actual events, and not to interpretations from 30 years later, or from a contemporary opinion pieces, you should refer to events in the other countries to make your point. [[User:Order]] 2 august 18:00

::A reading of both documents is illuminating (and other materials could support it, too). We extracted just one sentence from Hayek, but the whole paragraph sheds even more light, and other quotes, too. Hayek says something to the effect of "fascism is the result when people realize Communism does not work" (to put it another way, Socialism, which evolves into Communism, does not bring democracy, it brings fascism). ''The New International'' quote above says the same thing, "Hitler is a result not a cause." [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 12:58, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

It is agreed that, if not the idea of fascism, then at least the rise of fascism in Europe was a reaction to communism, especially to the rise of Bolshevism in the Soviet Union. But even for that their are better quotes to find that support this.

Anyway, what we have now are eight sections on Hitlers life. Look at them one by one:

* ''The Beginning Of His Political Life'': 2 paragraphs, both on fact and events.
* ''Beer Hall Putsch'': 2 paragraphs on facts and events.
* ''Path to Power'' 2 paragaphs on fact and events. And '''one''' sentence of interpretation, the Hayek quote.
* ''Consolidation of Power'': 4 paragraphs on fact and events.
* ''Holocaust'': 2 paragraphs on facts and events.
* ''1944 Assassination Attempt'': 1 paragraph on facts and events.
* ''Marriage'' : 1 paragraph on facts and events.
* ''Death'' :: 1 paragraph on facts and events.

Altogether 15 paragraphs on facts and events, and one single unrelated sentence that says only indirectly what you actually want to say, namely that fascism was a reaction to Bolshevism. This is not the way to go. The right thing to do would be to remove the Hayek quote from where it is, and if you insist on discussing the causes, a separate section on what scholars said about the causes. And Hayek isn't the only scholar you should mention. Taylor, Turner, Dawidowicz and even Goldhagen come to mind, and there are numerous others. But an isolated blurb, whose meaning isn't obvious after first reading, isn't the way to go. [[User:Order]] 6 august 10:20

:Actually, to say fascism is a "reaction" can be somewhat misleading. What we know is, that communism and fascism ''do not'' represent polar opposites; fasism is the end result of a ''process'' who's original aim is that socialist utopia called 'communism'. The process goes something like this: a liberal society embraces socialism; socialism smothers liberalism (the socialist ideal of the collective being greater than the individual stamps out progress on the road to the Rights of Man); socialism's ultimate goal is communism, but when the people realize communism is only a dream, fascism is the end result.

:: Where does 'reaction' implies polar opposites? Where? Every person in his right mind knows that both were totalitarian. [[User:Order]]
:::The problem with this one is the usual misinformation taught at the junior high school level in definition of "reactionary;" while on one level, fascim indeed was a "reaction" to communism, it was actually part of a progressive process, not a reactionary polar opposite. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 22:05, 5 August 2007 (EDT)
:There are no polar opposites, liberalism devolves into socialism, socialism evolves into communism, and communism ultimately evolves into fascism. I have another eyewitness source who uses the phrase "Red fascism." [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 21:20, 5 August 2007 (EDT)

You are applying the cold-war and 1980's US definition of "Liberal", because actual Liberals of that time, and Hayek is a prime example, would strongly disagree with you. They would probably hit you with a stick. Liberals like Hayek were firmly the opposed to both socialism and fascism, because both were totalitarian. Also it is provably wrong to say that people first embraced socialism, before they became fascists. Many embraced fascism right away, from being national conservative, or monarchist, or whatever other -ism you had in that time. Often out of fear of Bolshevism. [[User:Order]] 6 august 11:30

:I agree the contemporary, popular use of the term "liberal" is a misnomer, particularly in the United States. The correct term is "socialist," even with its US shading to mean "treasonous," which is becoming more apparant as time goes by. It is unfortunate, Ronald Reagan, Milton Friedman, and Boris Yeltsin, all [[classical liberal]]s, did somewhat rehabitilate the term in the 1980s & early 90s, but the old perjoritives all came back to stick (most probably through Rush Limbaugh and the lifting of the [[Fairness Doctrine]], which is very well explained in CP's entry). FWIW, it looks like we're stuck with the pejoritive, contemporary American meaning of the term liberal. Of course, the [[MSM]] and the [[DNC]] have been of little help in clarifing its real meaning. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 22:05, 5 August 2007 (EDT)

==von Papen==

I see that the Hayek quote is still in there. I also saw that you portrayed the period of imperial Germany as one in which it was a socialist paradise. And also there you quote Hayek. Hayek would hit you with a stick for this, because he knew perfectly well that this is plain ridiculous. Imperial Germany was Bismarck, Kulturkampf, Nationalismus, Demokratiedefizit, Sozialistenerlaesse, Sozialversicherung, Flottenausbau, Wilhelm Zwo.

And when it comes to the beginnings of the Third Reich you might want check which party van Papen belonged to, which parties did vote, under pressure but they did, in favour of his empowerment laws, which party the rest of Hitlers first cabinet belong too, which parties were part of the Harzburg front, the political background of Hugenberg, Schacht, and others who actually helped Hitler to power. You can impossibly claim that it was all just a socialist endeavor. But it seems that fact don't count here, while I had hope that we could keep spin out of the a subject as important as Hitler. Peace be upon you. [[User:Order|Order]] 20:08, 20 August 2007 (EDT)
:Interesting premise; one of the charges against von Papen at Nuremberg was he was part of the Nazi conspiracy, but as you just pointed out, he was never a member of the Nazi Party. Why can't these things ever be discussed dispassionately? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 21:32, 20 August 2007 (EDT)
Exactly, my point. He wasn't a member of the Nazi party, he was a prominent member of the Zentrum party, a Catholic Party, and he still helped Hitler into power. [[User:Order|Order]] 22:06, 20 August 2007 (EDT)
:So, dare I ask the question, is it unfair to refer to him as a "Nazi War Criminal"? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 23:26, 20 August 2007 (EDT)
It might be unfair, not sure what the Nuremberg Trial decided. Did I call him "Nazi War Criminal"? To the contrary, the point is that he probably isn't, but that he was a fairly normal German centrist politician, who still helped Hitler into power. [[User:Order|Order]] 23:38, 20 August 2007 (EDT)
:Truth is, he really had a disdain for Hitler, and Hitler didn't care much for von Papen either. And their mutual distrust and resentment had little to do with politics. It was a class difference. Von Papen regarded Hitler as an ill-mannered low-life, and Hitler thought von Papen an artistocratic snob. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 00:21, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
:There is famous newsreel footage with no audio of [[Treaty of Munich]] that reveals the difference between the two. Von Papen and Hitler are leading the guests which include Ciano & Chamberlain into a room. Hitler plops himself down in a chair, while von Papen observes the diplomatic nicities of remaining standing until all the guests are in the room and seated. Hitler clearly is embarassed the moment he sits down and sees von Papen remaining standing, and its all caught on film. He knows he looks crude, rude, selfish, and inexperienced in just simple manners, let alone protocol, or "high class" manners. And it's almost as if he feels deliberately tricked by von Papen into making himself look bad. Very revealing, if uyou ever get a chance to see it. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 00:30, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
So, van Papen didn't even like this guy, and still helped him to get to power, and worked for him until Munich. So, we found already one person who wasn't an ideologue but was still working for the third Reich. [[User:Order|Order]] 00:36, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
::So the Foreign Minster of the Third Riech wasn't even a Nazi, was not one of the 22 Nazi War Criminals at Nuremberg (although history remembers him that way), was found innocent at Nuremberg of being part of the Nazi conspiracy to (a) sieze power (b) make aggresive war (c) etc., although you persist in making that charge. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 01:03, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
Did the Nuremberg trail say that it was a conspiracy? I doubt so. And indeed, van Papen helped Hitler to power, I guess there is little discussion about it. One might argue about his motivation, but seems to not much of a mystery either. [[User:Order|Order]] 04:21, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
:Yes it did. The [[Treaty of Munich]] was a "conspiracy against Peace", as well as all the other events (re-occupation of Rhineland, Invasion of Poland, etc.) Then there was "conspiracy to wage aggressive war", etc.
:One should read the Nuremberg Indictment in its entirety [http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/proc/count.htm]. It really is not that long. And it sets out all the major issues to be dealt with prior and afterwards. (One writer has explained why the charge of "conspiracy", Britian needed it to CYA for thier policy of appeasement, i.e. Britian couldn't live up to treaty obligations because it was a victim of a conspiracy--and von Papen's aquittal addresses that argument).
:You will see, for example, the Katyn massacre. Peculiar, isn't it, that while the Western Powers knew this Soviet charge was false, and that indeed one of the Administators of Justice in this case himself was guilty of the charge, allowed it to become part of the historical record (this record, which then was resurrected in the mid 1990's as the model of Administering International Justice for War Crimes); also, after reading the horrors that the Soviet's present, we almost get comic relief at France's idea of Crimes Against Humanity, like plunder of property [http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/proc/count3.htm#sec8e]

:Wine..................................................................7,647,000 hectolitres.

:Champagne...................................................87,000,000 bottles

:Beer...................................................................3,821,520 hectolitres

:Various kinds of alcohol.................................1,830,000 hectolitres

:The myth of France as a "Great Power" (or for that matter, a "victim" when France provided more manpower, and more [[GDP]] to the Nazi cause than it did to defend, or liberate, itself, is something that at some point needs to clarified in the English language.

:Another point, the various charges of "mass deportation of populations", while Germans were being deported east of the Oder-Niese, the Keelhaul Agreement, the Crimean Taters, the Volga Germans etc. etc. etc. were occuring, has never been addressed (outside of Solzhenitsyn's ''Gulag Archipeligo''), or "systematic malnutrition", which Lenin & Stalin perfected long before Hitler adopted [[Bolshevik]] methods. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 11:42, 21 August 2007 (EDT)

The [[Treaty of Munich]] happened after the seizure of power. And saying the this treaty was "a conspiracy against peace", is also something slightly different than claiming that "Nazism is a conspiracy". And the rest are tangents. The question was still about who helped Hitler to power, not what happened afterwards or elsewhere. And von Papen was still one of the people who brought Hitler into power. [[User:Order|Order]] 19:04, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
:Unfortunately, all we have is the historical record. And the Nuremberg trial rendered its verdict. You are arguing the case that everyone deficient in psychic powers in 1933 is complicit in genocide.

:It's not unlike the recent book on IBM; because Nazi's purchased IBM equipment, all the shareholders, employees, and Board of Directors past and present who "did business with the Nazi's" are complicit in genocide. By this line of argument, if Nazi's purchased Crest Toothpaste and Charmin Toilet Paper, Crest Toothpaste and Charmin Toiler Paper likewise "did business with the Nazi's." Don't forget Hitler's shoeshine boy, he must have been involved, too. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:25, 26 August 2007 (EDT)

Did I somewhere say that van Papen is responsible for genocide? I agreed that the Nuremberg trial is probably the instance that had to decide on this. So but what you say that that van Papen is as responsible for Hitlers rise to power as Hitler shoe shine boy. Did the shoe shine boy go to Hindenburg and convince him to make Hitler chancellor? I doubt it. What I see that you go on all kinds tangents, just because you are unable to accept the historical fact that there were centrist and conservative politicians who helped Hitler to power. [[User:Order|Order]] 18:44, 26 August 2007 (EDT)

:Here's the probelm: Hitler was legally came to power under the then Wiemar Constitution. He overwhelmingly won a popular election as well. The Wiemar Constitution wasn't even indigenous, it was imposed as a "liberal reform."

:Now, if you are to allege that Hitler, a common scum, came to power outside of some secret Masonic Illuminati cabal that really controls things, and therefore Hitler and the Nazis claim on power was illigimate, we have a problem there. As it is, Hitler was never invited by the French government to visit Paris anytime from the day he came to power. Why is this? Because he was illigitmate? Because he was outside of a clique of insiders who determine who should hold power? Do you see where this line of rhetoric is going to lead you? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 21:31, 26 August 2007 (EDT)

You try to get the discussion on all kinds of tangents, like whether the constitution was indigenous, Masonic Illuminati, French inviting Hitler for supper, IBM, Crest tooth paste. Rob, you are alleging all kinds of things that I never said, and that frankly do not even matter. Fact is Hitler came to power under the Weimar constitution. Did I say otherwise? I don't think so. Fact is also that he didn't win a majority of seats, so he needed the help of others. And van Papen was one of then who helped. And Hugenberg another. BTW: While van Papen wasn't found guilty in the Nuremberg trial to be one of the main criminals, he was sentenced to 8 years in prison during denazification for his role as collaborator and enabler. Why is it so hard for you to admit the fact that there were conservative politicians who helped Hitler into power. No, you rather talk about Illuminati to not to have admit this simple fact. [[User:Order|Order]] 21:56, 26 August 2007 (EDT)
:So, welfare queens & labor unions help Bill Clinton get into power, despite the fact he sold them down the river with NAFTA & Welfare Reform. Do you think they might have voted any different if they knew they'd be "stabbed in the back"? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 22:00, 26 August 2007 (EDT)
For discussing Bill Clinton, go to the entry [[Bill Clinton]]. We are discussing Hitler's path to power. [[User:Order|Order]] 22:02, 26 August 2007 (EDT)
:OK. What's wrong with this text:
:*''After a series of minority cabinets former Chancellor van Papen convinced President Hindenburg to appoint Hitler to become Chancellor in a coalition government with the national conservative party. Van Papen expected the nation would recognize Hitler to be a fraud within a few months in government.

:Seems to say what you want it to say. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 22:05, 26 August 2007 (EDT)

No surprise. I wrote it.

Problem is still the Hayek quote that you took out of context. It suggests that the path to power was purely a socialist endeavor. However, and I cite you citing me:
*''After a series of minority cabinets former Chancellor van Papen convinced President Hindenburg to appoint Hitler to become Chancellor in a coalition government with the national conservative party. Van Papen expected the nation would recognize Hitler to be a fraud within a few months in government.''

See, it wasn't just the socialists who brought Weimar down. [[User:Order|Order]] 22:11, 26 August 2007 (EDT)
:What Hayek is saying is liberalism, in the classic sense, was weakened to non-existent to oppose Nazism. And your use of conservative here likewise is problematic; the titled nobility of Germany, or for that matter all of Europe, is "conservative" in the European sense. As we've had this discussion elsewhere, the US Constitution expressly prohibits the government from conferring titles. So the express meaning of the term here, "conservative" to refer to von Papen and others is wholely out of context in attempt to draw a parallel to contemporary American conservativism.
:Shame on you, Order, I have more respect for you and your skills than this feeble reasoning your pushing. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 22:19, 26 August 2007 (EDT)
Classic liberalism was indeed weakened, and the permanent attacks from both sides of the spectrum didn't help. But where did the liberals go? Some went left, other went right. My use of "conservative" is fairly consistent with the use by the people in question themselves. The DNVP, the German National People Party, was for example the legitimate successor of the pre-WWI Konservative Partei, the Conservative Party. This is the party that helped Hitler to a majority of seats in parliament. Same holds for von Papen, he was from the conservative wing of the Zentrum party. I said it a few times in this thread already that contemporary US interpretations of 'left' and 'right' don't apply to the 1930s in Germany, so I am not sure what you are complaining about. And there is no shame in pushing the fact that there were also conservative politicians in Germany who made didn't mind that Weimar failed, who didn't shed a tear when Hitler came to power. One of the lesson of the Third Reich is that if you fail to fix an imperfect democracy for short term political gain, you might end up with something worse in the long run. [[User:Order|Order]] 23:32, 26 August 2007 (EDT)

:This is an interesting discussion. Truth is, its been many years since I've reviewed any of these source materials in detail. Likewise I did read von Papen's memoirs many many years ago, and am familiar with his case. Seems much of this discussion only grabs tidbits from this or that source, usually out of context, so let's make some effort to set the materials before us (incidentally, von Papen was sentenced to 8 years, yet served less than two; and this is not the place to go into why he was tried a second time after being aquited the first time).
::There's is nothing special about it. The Nuremberg Trials where aimed at the top of the regime, while the Denazification was aimed to determine the involvement of all people who held office, 2.5 million people in the western Germany alone. He probably was sentenced as 'offender'. The majority were judged to be 'followers', or even acquitted. Von Papen obviously wasn't. [[User:Order|Order]] 00:34, 27 August 2007 (EDT)
:::He was tried twice because of the outrage over the verdict. Double jeopardy goes against Anglo-American jurisprudence. Even the Soviet Judges could not find conspiracy on his part. And when the poltical situation changed in 1949, so did the second verdict against von Papen. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 00:38, 27 August 2007 (EDT)
::::The Soviets didn't agree with the judgment of the Nuremberg trial and wrote dissenting Opinion[http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/imt/tgmwc/judgment/j-dissenting-von-papen.html]. The second trial was in a civil court, and I guess it happens also in the US that someone is found not guilty of criminal charges, but gets convicted in civil court nevertheless. But I couldn't find much about the second trial, so I trust you that the second trial was a result of public outrage. I guess that proves that while he might have not been guilty in criminal court, he messed up politically. [[User:Order|Order]] 03:11, 29 August 2007 (EDT)
:OK, let's look at the original indictment, and then the Judgement. Von Papen is indeed charged with all the same things you are charging him with here: "Von Papen Used His Personal Influence To Promote The Accession Of The Nazis To Power. " ''et seqq'' [http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/imt/nca/nca-02/nca-02-16-18-index.html]

:Let's look at the Judgement: "Von Papen was active in 1932 and 1933, in helping Hitler to form the Coalition Cabinet and aided in his appointment as Chancellor on 30th January;" Wikipedia reports "The central role that Papen played in Hitler's appointment as Chancellor in January 1933 was reflected by Papen's indictment at the Nuremberg War Crimes Trial, though he was acquitted on formal reasons, the tribunal deciding that his "political immoralities" were not under its jurisdiction." This of course, is totally false, as the Nuremberg Judgement clearly, clearly states: "The evidence leaves no doubt that von Papen's primary purpose as Minister to Austria was to undermine the Schuschnigg regime and strengthen the Austrian Nazis for the purpose of bringing about Anschluss. To carry through this plan he engaged in both intrigue and bullying. But the Charter does not make criminal such offenses against political morality, however bad these may be. " [http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/imt/tgmwc/judgment/j-defendants-von-papen.html]

:Conlcusion: (a) von Papen's "political immortality" (singular), as rendered by the Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal, related to the Anschluss, '''''and not the Nazi's regimes rise to power in Germany.''''' Further, the Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal fails to make any mention whatsoever about any sort of complicity in conspiracy or for that matter anything about his role in helping Hitler gained power. All the Tribunal found, as cited above, is "active in ...helping Hitler to form the Coalition Cabinet and aided in his appointment as Chancellor," with the final verdict, "The Tribunal finds that von Papen is not guilty under this Indictment, and directs that he shall be discharged."

:So lets get the facts in order before we even discuss making generalizations. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 00:03, 27 August 2007 (EDT)

So, we still agree that he wasn't one of about 20 people that were found guilty as war criminals in the Nuremberg Trial. Thanks for posting the judgment. The second paragraph of the judgment refers exactly to what we are discussing here. "Von Papen was active in 1932 and 1933, in helping Hitler to form the Coalition Cabinet and aided in his appointment as Chancellor on 30th January, 1933 ". That he was found not guilty for his role in the Anschluss is another matter. That happened a few years later. Thanks again for posting the official judgment which essentially confirms what I said. [[User:Order|Order]] 00:17, 27 August 2007 (EDT)
:So what was he guilty of as "active in ...helping Hitler to form the Coalition Cabinet and aided in his appointment as Chancellor," since contrary to ''both'' you ''and'' Wikipedia's claim, the Tribunal found this '''''did not''''' even constitute an offense against "political morality", let alone a crime, or conspiracy? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 00:38, 27 August 2007 (EDT)
I still didn't say that he was part of the conspiracy to start an agressive war. And why should we care what Wikipedia says. The tribunal had to determine which people were responsible for the ''aggressive war''. It judged that it could not be established beyond reasonable doubt that von Papen was involved in planning an aggressive war. That is why they acquitted the charges. However, the tribunal found him politically responsible, but that under the charter of the tribunal, they couldn't convict him for "such offenses against political morality, however bad these may be". Anyway, this all refers to the Anschluss, and we where talking about his involvement in Hitler's path to power. And here the judgment states clearly that von Papen helped Hitler into power. [[User:Order|Order]] 00:59, 27 August 2007 (EDT)
:Big deal. There was no crime in it. In fact, Hitler came to power legally.

:Now, when the Tirbunal sat down in November 1945, they brought up all this conspiracy stuff about a "siezure of power"; as the trial progressed, it became fairly obvious there may have been "backstairs" dealings, but that how the sytem works, even under the US Constitution. By the time the verdict was reached, the Judges were faced with the sad fact that Hitler abided by the rules to "sieze power."

:Now many peolple have never been happy with these facts, and wish to condemn Hitler & everybody connected with from his mothers womb for all that followed. The German people today speak of the "Nazi seizure of power", obviously to take comfort themeselves in denial because the truth is he came to power Consitutional, by democratic means, and the people voted for him. But its easier for contemporay Germans to play the role of victim along with everybody else.

:Then your argument, that somehow everybody involved in his ascention was illigitimate; this really itself sounds like Nazi rhetoric. Cause the root of this arguement is that Hitler was unnapporved by the Jewish-Masonic conspiracy that controls and decides who is legitimate. And this is the very argument you are putting forward. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 01:23, 27 August 2007 (EDT)

* Where do I say that the Nazis seizure of power overcame the German people? Where did I say that it was an illegitimate action? And most important where did I use Nazi rhetoric? Don't make stuff up stuff that I didn't say. Or show me where.
* As a German myself I can tell you that just a few Germans comfort themselves with the myth that it was an illegal power grab. The failure of Weimar is taught and discussed in great detail, including the decline of liberal democracy, the failure of democrats to work together, the anti-democratic forces on both sides of the spectrum, and also the role (and call it naivety) of von Papen and the likes when it came to Hitler. Don't make up stuff about how the end of Weimar is discussed in Germany.
* It was about political and moral responsibility all the time. You went on all kind of tangents, like the war tribunal, and whether von Papen was a war criminal. The question wasn't if von Papen was a War Criminal, but if he and other conservative politicians have a share in the political and also moral responsibility for Hitler's rise to power.
* You bring up the in the Illuminati stuff without reason. If your best bet is to bring up weird conspiracies that I didn't mention, your arguments must be poor. And then on top of it you claim that I use Nazi rhetoric.
* Hitler came to power through legitimate means because he got help from others. And these other were conservative politicians like von Papen and Hugenberg. No need to tell you that Von Papen was Vice-chancellor, and Hugenberg Minister in Hitler first administration.

You are unable to admit that the rise of Hitler was not just a socialist venture, but that there were also conservative politicians who helped Hitler into power. Maybe you can answer the following question. Who bears a greater political and moral responsibility for Hitler's rise to power: Carl von Ossietsky, a very controversial socialist in the Weimar Republic, who was sentenced for treason in the 1930? Or von Papen who convinced Hindenburg to give Hitler a try? And who helped Hitler to consolidate his power, and who was Vice-Chancellor, when his government put von Ossietsky in a labor camp? The guy who got the Nobel peace price in 1935, or the guy who was sentenced to 8 years imprisonment after the war? The guy who died in 1938 from tuberculosis he got while he was forced to drain swamps, or the guy who died in 1969 of old age in his mansion? The socialist pacifist with a questionable ideology, or the conservative politician with a questionable role during the Third Reich? Not an easy question, but spare us long tangents please, just who bears more responsibility, von Ossietsky or von Papen for Hitler's rise to power? [[User:Order|Order]] 08:29, 27 August 2007 (EDT)
:*''where did I use Nazi rhetoric? ''
::*In the Nazi view, the [[Treaty of Versailles]] was a Jewish conspiracy that destroyed the monarchy, dismembered Germany, and established a Constitutional Republic. This "Jewish Conspiracy", in the Nazi's view, dictated ''who'' the administrative powers in Germany would be, and what German domestic armament policy, and foreign policy would be. The Nazi's viewed themselves as "seizing power" from this Jewish-Illuminati International bankers conspiracy when Hitler was appointed Chancellor in 1933. However, the Nazi's were not strong enough to win the Chancellorship and Parliamentary elections, so it was done in a coalition with other parties, some democratic.

:::In the Nazi view, there was a second "seizure of power" after the Nazi's "seized power" from the International "conspiracy" that "dictated" who would govern Germany; power was seized away from the Nazi's coalition partners when parliamentary rule was ended.

:::When the Nuremberg Tribunal met, Prosecutors brought forward some of the Nazi's own rhetoric, how they had "seized power" in violation of both International conventions under Versailles, and the Weimar Constitution. Charges of "conspiracy" were leveled, that all involved had violated International conventions under Versailles, and the Weimar Constitution in the Nazi's assent to power in 1933. The Judges, including Soviet Judges, soon realized, that to render this verdict would be to rubber stamp the validity of Nazi propaganda. That to adjudicate the Nazi regime as illegitimate from day one would be to validate the Nazi claim that foreigners and International agreements such as Versailles were indeed the controlling instruments that stripped Germany of its sovereignty.

::::Where do I say any that the Nazi seizes the power from an international conspiracy? Where? Where did I bring up the Illuminati? You say that I use Nazi rhetoric, while I didn't say any of those things. Show me otherwise. This is a challenge.

::::To the contrary, I was always pointing to his coalition partners. Do not make up stuff that I never said. Otherwise, show me.[[User:Order|Order]] 19:29, 27 August 2007 (EDT)

:::::You might as well blame a constitutional democracy for Hilter's rise, because that is exactly what happened. The system was designed for coalition governments in the absence of an absolute majortiy. Bottomline again, the coalition parnters were not Nazi's; if they were Nazi's they would have quit thier minortiy parties and joined the Nazi party. But that did not happen. Instead, once Hitler became Chancellor, he ignored and violated thier rights, too.

::::::So, did I say otherwise? After the Hitler came to power, some politicians from conservative did actually join the NSDAP. Anyway, bottomline is indeed that his coalition partners weren't Nazi's, but conservative politicians like von Papen. As I said from the beginning of this thread. {{unsigned|Order}}

:*''why should we care what Wikipedia says.''

::*A few years ago I commented in Wikipedia on the large volume of material being brought over from the German Wiki that persistently referred to the "Nazi seizure of power." The Nazi's in fact did not seize power in January 1933, they came to power under provisions of the legitimate Weimar Constitution. The Nazi's ''did'' seize power from their democratic coalition partners when they ended parliamentary rule.

:::Contemporary Germans have maintained the that they, too, were victims; that the Nazis came to power illegitimately, when in fact they were supported at the ballot box by many Germans. They were victimized later, when parliamentary rule ended, and the Nazi's "seized power" from their coalition partners ''after'' January 1933.

:::The bottomline, while maintaining the fiction that the Nazi's "seized power" in January 1933 is comforting to absolve complicity among democratic forces that were coalition partners, it really is nothing more than the Nazi POV. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 15:26, 27 August 2007 (EDT)

::::Did I say any of this? Didn't I say the opposite. I was permanently pointing to Hitlers coalition partners. Don't make stuff up or show me otherwise. Or is this supposed to be proof that Germans at large think that the Hitler came to power illegally, by pointing to an experience you had on Wikipedia a few years ago. If you trust Wikipedia that much, go to the German version of Wikipedia, and what they say about Machtergreifung. I will be edited mostly by German editors, and I doubt that it says that it was an illegal act to get power from back an international conspiracy. [[User:Order|Order]] 19:29, 27 August 2007 (EDT)

:::::Your point is along the lines that, "Why did von Papen, et al, form a coalition government ''with'' the Nazis, ''against'' the Comintern apparat?" This question is easy to answer. While the murderous nature of the Comintern organizations against ''thier'' imaginary enemies was known in 1933, no one knew the Nazis would adopt and apply Bolshevik methods against the Nazis imaginary enemies to the extent that they did after 1933. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 20:32, 27 August 2007 (EDT)

::::::Where did I say that von Papen should have sided with the Comintern. Where? It is generally agreed that at the beginning of 1933 there was no need to form a coalition government with the Nazis. The Nazi had just lost their first state elections, and the economy was picking up. Von Papen had to convince Hindenburg. Sure, von Papen probably didn't have the foresight that it would almost cost his life in the Night of Long Knives, nor that it would lead to a total war. But he rather than trying to fix the democracy, he was actively pushing to get somebody into power, who was fairly open about his aims to abolish democracy. Fascism was known, and von Papen knew it too.

:::::::So von Papen used democratic means to destroy democracy? I think you may be mischaracterizing von Papen's political views. Von Papen was an anti-Communist. Not all anit-Communists are fascists, however in this instance a coalition between some democratic elements was made with fascists to prevent Soviet-backed Comintern subversion. You repeatedly speak of "bares responsibiltiy;" the Weimar Constitution itself bares responsibility, it did precisely what it was designed to do. Hitler was speaking of rebuilding the German military; industrialists & the miltiary liked this idea. That does not make them racists or advocates of genocide. That makes them partners in a coalition government with Nazis, nothing more and nothing less. When the Nazis began diabusing ''thier'' rights, some joined the nationalist movement, some did not.

:::::::In sum, once again, the Tribunal rendered its verdict, not just regarding von Papen, but '''also''' regarding the whole question as to conspiracy & morality around the Nazis and Hitler's rise to power. What it really does look like is, other than von Papen being Catholic, what crime or moral offense is he guilty of?

::::::::I didn't blame him for being catholic (see below). And the tribunal said in its verdict that Von Papen bears responsibility for the events in that got Hitler into power. The tribunal acquitted Von Papen for other charges. [[User:Order|Order]] 22:42, 28 August 2007 (EDT)
::::::This brings me back to the question: Who bears more responsibility for the getting Hitler into power: von Papen or Ossietsky? [[User:Order|Order]] 21:44, 27 August 2007 (EDT)

:The question that I posed remains unanswered. Who, in your opinion Rob, has bears more responsibility for Hitler's rise to power. Von Ossietsky or Von Papen. [[User:Order|Order]] 19:20, 27 August 2007 (EDT)

Since you keep referring to things I never said, a brief list of thing we did agree on, and a list of things I actually did say.

First, we agree that von Papen was
* a catholic
* conservative
* anti-communist
* member of the Zentrum Party

I don't blame him for any of this. If I'd be living in the 1930s it would probably apply to me, since all of my 4 grandparents were catholic, conservative, anti-communist voters of the Zentrum party. There is no blame in that.

However, von Papen has responisbility for his deeds. In particular.

* Von Papen revoked as Chancellor in June 1932 the ban on SA and SS.
* Von Papen was actively pursuing the end of the Schleicher administration in January 1933.
* Von Papen then gathered support to get Hindenburg to appoint Hitler chancellor in a coalition government.
* Von Papen was vice-chancellor in Hitler's government.
* Von Papen was leading the political alliance of national conservative parties in the March 1933 election, which provided Hitler the remaining seats to get a majority in parliament.
He shares political responsibility for this. We are not talking a criminal charges, but about political responsibility. For the rise and consolidation of Hitlers power, up to the Empowerment laws, or if you like even up to the Night of the Long Knives, when Hitler got von Papen to resign as vice-chancellor. That he wasn't found guilty of war crimes is another issue altogether. [[User:Order|Order]] 03:25, 28 August 2007 (EDT)
:Where is there a crime in any of this? How are free citizens exercising their rights in a constitutional democracy a moral offense? And given the alternative, for example revoking the ban on SA and SS to counter the Moscow directed murderers is something you fail to consider, let alone discuss.

:There is plenty of information available to condemn the Nazi's with. Using half truths, innuendo, and falsehoods based upon the Nazi's own falsehoods only impugns the integrity of the historical reporter, and makes all his reporting biased and suspect. Such is the case with Wikipedia right now, and it may not be their own invention, they may actually be just parroting the lies and falsehoods they've inherited.

:The point of propagating and expounding these half truths and falsehoods you actually may have articulated in this discussion; it is not to give accurate historical reporting, nor to gather experience and warning signs for future generations. It is to twist the facts of history, such as we've seen in the Wikipedia articles, to impugn contemporary imagined political opponents, in this case "conservatives." How is this being done? (a) refusing to admit the godless socialist nazis rose in a marxist revolution against the powers that be, in thier view, the "Jewish International" financiers who destroyed the Hapsburg, Hohenzollern, and Romanov monarchies which had kept the peace for 100 years; (b) blaming the enemies of Communism, the Church and other anti-Communists, for anti-Semitic fascist ideals and intent.

:The bottomline here is, using the Nazi's own view of themselves, that they were illegitimate outsiders to the Jewish international cabal that wrote the Treaty of Versailles, illegally and by immoral means rose up and seized power from the legitimate powers that be, i.e. the "Jewish financiers" behind the Treaty of Versailles, to put a spin on history with the real intent to attack modern political opponents with, is unnecessary, and potentially very dangerous. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 10:32, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

The discussion isn't about Nazi ideology, and I in particular didn't push any Nazi views that involve a Jewish conspiracy (or show me other wise), and this is irrelevant for the discussion for Von Papen, because he wasn't a Nazi in the first place. But your first paragraph is to the point, so i'll respond to that.

* ''Where is there a crime in any of this?''. I said repeatedly that we are not talking about criminal charges.
* ''How are free citizens exercising their rights in a constitutional democracy a moral offense?'' Everybody bears responsibility for his deeds, even for the legal ones. This also applies also in politics, and there are countless example of immoral but legal behavior in politics.
* ''And given the alternative, for example revoking the ban on SA and SS to counter the Moscow directed murderers is something you fail to consider, let alone discuss.'' Von Papen was the Chancellor of Germany, and he had access to police and army. I hope that we agree that the SA and SS weren't out to enforce the law, but a fascist mob instead. Von Papen didn't use or need the SA and SS to prevent or solve violent crimes by the communist mob. He legalized it to get political backing from the NSDAP for his minority cabinet.

All these acts were legal, sure, but Von Papen did it for political reasons, and carries hence political responsibility for these acts. [[User:Order|Order]] 23:01, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

== Path to Power (Continued) ==
You are unable to admit that the rise of Hitler was not just a socialist venture, but that there were also conservative politicians who helped Hitler into power. Maybe you can answer the following question. Who bears a greater political and moral responsibility for Hitler's rise to power: Carl von Ossietsky, a very controversial socialist in the Weimar Republic, who was sentenced for treason in the 1930? Or von Papen who convinced Hindenburg to give Hitler a try? And who helped Hitler to consolidate his power, and who was Vice-Chancellor, when his government put von Ossietsky in a labor camp? The guy who got the Nobel peace price in 1935, or the guy who was sentenced to 8 years imprisonment after the war? The guy who died in 1938 from tuberculosis he got while he was forced to drain swamps, or the guy who died in 1969 of old age in his mansion? The socialist pacifist with a questionable ideology, or the conservative politician with a questionable role during the Third Reich? Not an easy question, but spare us long tangents please, just who bears more responsibility, von Ossietsky or von Papen for Hitler's rise to power? [[User:Order|Order]] 08:29, 27 August 2007 (EDT)
:The Tribunal examined all the questions and rendered its verdict. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 14:46, 27 August 2007 (EDT)
::The tribunal said that von Papen shares moral and political responsibility for getting Hitler into power. Cool. So I take it as admission that it was not just socialism was responsible for the end of the Weimar Republic, but that conservative politicians like von Papen also bear some responsibility. The only reasonable thing to do right now would be to remove the Hayek quote, because as it is quoted it suggest otherwise. You can either do it yourself, or unlock the article and I am happy to remove it myself. [[User:Order|Order]] 00:05, 28 August 2007 (EDT)
::::You are still reading this in the verdict that are not there. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 22:51, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

:::::Lets get a third person to read the verdict and see if the second paragraph says "Von Papen was active in 1932 and 1933 in helping Hitler to form the Coalition Cabinet and aided in his appointment as Chancellor on 30th January, 1933." and then to look at the end which says "Under the Charter von Papen can be held guilty only if he was a party to the planning of aggressive war" and he was found not guilty of that charge. [[User:Order|Order]] 23:07, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

<--

Here's the paragraph condensed:

:"The evidence leaves no doubt that von Papen's primary purpose as Minister to Austria '''was to undermine the Schuschnigg regime''' and strengthen the Austrian Nazis for the purpose of bringing about Anschluss....he '''engaged in''' both '''intrigue''' and bullying. But the Charter does not make criminal such '''offenses against political morality''', however bad these may be. Under the Charter von Papen can be held guilty only if he was a party to the planning of aggressive war....."

::So, we agree that the tribunal did find him not guilty for his role in the Anschluss, since '''offenses against political morality''' do not fall under the charter. That is kind of exactly what I said. [[User:Order|Order]] 23:39, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

Now, at the moment I am reading the case of [[Helen Scott]], one of several [[Comintern]] opperatives who "engaged in political immorality" and "intrigue" (haven't found any "bullying" yet). Who was Helen Scott? Helen Scott was one of several Comintern opperatives who, as an American citizen, was an agent of the Soviet Union ''and '''was appointed to the staff of American prosecutors at the [[Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal]].'''''

Care to collaborate on [[Helen Grace Scott Keenan]]? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 10:37, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

I'll think about it. But I try to stay focussed, and not get into to much at once. Thanks. [[User:Order|Order]] 23:39, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

:You will see on the [[Talk:Munich conference]], for example, we just reviewed other material from the War Crimes Tribunal regarding Nazi infiltration and subversion of the Czech and Slovak regime; here for example, [http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/imt/tgmwc/tgmwc-02/], we have evidence of a "Campaign within Czechoslovakia since 1934"; Helen Scott was a member of an organization that was found to be controlled by a foreign government actively seeking the violent removal of the United States Government long before WWII broke out, she was a member of that same organization when she took employment with the United States Government, which was illegal. And she was the agent of a foreign power when she worked on the staff of the American Prosecutors at Nurermberg.

:So, today we have information available that was not avialable for nearly 50 years. My point is, much of what we know about all of these events needs to be re-analyized. But first we must assemble the facts before we can do a review. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 00:56, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

----
:::The Tribunal did not say that. It said von Papen was "active in ...helping Hitler to form the Coalition Cabinet and aided in his appointment as Chancellor," and "The Tribunal finds that von Papen is not guilty." Where in any of this is there a quesion of moral responsibiblity?

:::::He was found not guilty in the conspiracy to start an aggressive war and the not guilty of a conspiracy to undermine the Austrian government. Did I say otherwise? Can you for once show me where I say either of these. But the judgment also says that he was morally responsible for the Anschluss and the beginnings of the regime, but that couldn't try him for that because it didn't fall under the charter of the tribunal. Please read the judgment carefully. Just because he was acquitted from charges for starting the war, doesn't mean that they acquitted him from blame for his part in Hitler's first administration. To the contrary, the judgment '''explicitly''' states that he shares responsibility for that. [[User:Order|Order]] 03:05, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

:::The Nazi's, true to their Socialists roots, viewed themselves in the true Socialist sense of rising up against the powers that be, i.e. in thier view rising up against the Jewish Internaitional bankers conspiracy that killed three monarchies (Hapsburg, Hohenzollern, and Romonov), dismembered Germany, and saddled theme with a war debt. Marx said the common scum peons, i.e. people like the low life Nazi's would seize power in a Revolution. In thier view they did just this, they seized power for the Jewish International bankers. Now to allege then in 1933, at the time of Nuremberg in 1945, or today, that the Nazi "seizure of power" was illigitimate in any sense, is to agree with the Nazi's, because that is exactly how they viewed themselves. They viewed themselves as a rogue regime against "the International Jewish conspiracy." [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 01:19, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

::::So, what? Where did I say that the seizure of power was illegitimate? Where? Tell me? You are barking up the wrong tree. We are discussing von Papen, and the events that brought about end of the Weimar Republic. It seems that you are unable to stick to the topic, and the topic is who helped Hitler into power. Marx, the conspiracy charges, the Illuminati, the Anschluss, Jewish International bankers, all probably very interesting, but besides the point. [[User:Order|Order]] 03:05, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

==new img==
Actually that man in the new img may not be Hitler. Hitler, as Stalin & Saddam Hussein likewise, were all known to use doubles for some public appearances, the man in that photo may actually be one of Hitler's doubles. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 14:54, 6 August 2007 (EDT)

== The evolution of the Hitler article ==

It used to be a fairly factual article. Now it turns into something like an opinion piece, pointing to everybody CP disagrees with as causes for Hitler. This isn't encyclopedic anymore, and the really bad thing about it is, that one of the main message of the Third Reich gets lost, namely that fairly decent people from all backgrounds can under the influence of a bad ideology, commit heinous crimes. Peace be upon you. [[User:Order|Order]] 19:54, 20 August 2007 (EDT)

:The entire evolution bit is a discussion of the ideology of "eugenics" an "race hygiene". It is not really at its right spot. All other paragraph refer to actual events. The discussion of evolution should go into a discussion section, or a separate article, probably under the header "Eugenics". [[User:Order|Order]] 22:10, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

**Know whats funny this is the first conservative i have seen on this wiki that has not been glorified. [[User:Cal05000|Cal05000]] 18:08, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

== Hitler's wax effigy ==

It might interest the primary editors of this article to note that the wax effigy of Adolf Hitler, in a glass case built into a wall, guards the entrance to the Chamber of Horrors at Madame Tussaud's Wax Works in [[London]], [[England]]. Or at least it did in 1988 when I toured London with my family.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 21:15, 20 August 2007 (EDT)

Again, probably not releveant to the article, but there was an amusing story run in the press some time ago suggesting that the dummies hair was actually growing! Quite probably nonsense, but I thought it might interest posters! [[User:Josephx|Josephx]]

==Improved the article==
Before anyone gets in a dither, I improved the article. There was just nothing in it pertaining to even the smallest biography of this individual that could be considered useful before. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:17, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

What I did not touch upon, and it could be included in future edits, were these:
*Accusastions of, or toleration for, homosexuality in his early years prior to the Night of the Long Knives. It was known that Hitler used people to further his own ends.
*Geli Raubal, and implications she may have had a forced affair with Hitler that led to her suicide.
*Detailed info regarding his childhood
And it could use some good quotes. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:33, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

== First Sentence ==

Since this is locked, I'd just like to point out that it's not actually a sentence. ;)[[User:Fantasia|Fantasia]] 18:18, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
:It's more or less a title...and I didn't know it was locked! [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:26, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
::No, the actual first sentence is missing a verb. Actually the whole first paragraph could use some clean up. [[User:Fantasia|Fantasia]] 18:29, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
:::You could do it...just keep in mind that it's an introductory paragraph. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:34, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
::::Thanks, I did. [[User:Fantasia|Fantasia]] 18:34, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

Need to point out something: Hitler was directly responsible for the outbreak of World War II in Europe, and that has to be emphasized. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:35, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

True, but the introductory paragraph suggests that WWII was a response to the Holocaust. It remains uncertain to this day what was and wasn't known about the attrocities being perpetrated against the Jews et al, but it was the need to counter German Imperialism that led to countries becoming involved in the war, not, as much as we would like to believe, a moral stance against the shoah. [[User:Josephx|Josephx]] 12:31, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

== Hitler and against various christian groups ==

Hitler and against various christian groups at: http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v24/i3/nazi.asp
[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 05:57, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

== we need to give the various evidences and deal with them in a scholarly manner ==

We need to give the cite evidences put forth for Hitler not being a Christian and Hitler being a Christian and give reasoanble scholars commentary on them. For example, the scholarly debate regarding Hitler's Table Talk, Hitler and the occult, Hitler and paganism, Mein Kempf references to God and Jesus Christ. I don't believe there is a strong case for Hitler being a Christian and since many atheists trot this out I think there should be a scholarly and reasonable material on this matter at Conservapedia.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 06:04, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

*Is there some scholarly reason for turning this article about Hitler into one primarily about his religious beliefs, running on forever? Do you not know how to be concise? Might I suggest a new article for you: "Religious Beliefs of Dictators Down Through the Ages". I believe you continue to think this is a Bible wiki. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 07:22, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

::Hitler time and again cites Darwin & the TOE as the reason why he's not a Christian. And Hitler summed up Christianity in one word, "stupid." [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 12:36, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

:::Yes. That does not answer my question. This is not a Bible Wiki, so what you mentioned would be worthy one paragraph. Without "C" quotes. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 15:02, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

::Didn't the Nazis burn Darwin's books? Why would Hitler endorse the views of a man whose books he destroyed? '''Scorpion'''[[User_Talk:Scorpion|Vote for Pedro]] 13:15, 19 October 2007 (EDT)

:::I think that it would be fair to say that Hitler believed in a stripped-down, brutal version of Darwinism that was far from being close to Darwin's own beliefs. It is not unsurprising that Hitler should take something and twist it to fit his own abhorrent standards. [[User:Darkmind1970|Darkmind1970]] 10:38, 4 January 2008 (EST)

Talk:Liberal bias

2008-05-05T22:01:45Z

Cal05000: /* Uncyclopedia */

== Issues with "Examples of Liberal Style" ==

I really think far too many of these read like petty snipes that, rather than addressing the particular inclinations of liberal writers, single out politically neutral manifestations of rudeness or poor logic. Perhaps we should institute the following test: only examples which could not conceivably be issued by liberals against conservatives be included.

What do I mean?

Well, one can imagine a liberal saying that conservatives "claim that science supports their position, and ignore any evidence that shows their position to be false". Equally a liberal might suggest a conservative guilty of "attempting to control the rules of evidence used in a debate." About half of this entry constitutes hopelessly woolly thinking. --[[User:KeithJoseph|KeithJoseph]] 16:44, 8 October 2007 (EDT)

How can you include the section on "emboldening the terrorists" when a majority of Americans clearly believe we should leave, while citing majority opinions in your favor elsewhere? --[[User:Moderate]] 13:28, 30 December 2007 (EDT)

:What is your source for that majority?

:47 percent of Iraqis want US-led forces to leave Iraq immediately and 34 percent want the troops to leave when the security situation improves. [http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/pollindex.htm] --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:44, 30 December 2007 (EST)

::Hmm, "we should leave" involves the question of timing:
::*Three in five Americans (61%) think US forces should get out of Iraq within a year, including 24 percent who favor immediate withdrawal and 37 percent who prefer a one year timetable. Another 32 percent of Americans say the forces should stay until security improves. [http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/withdraw/2007/0906summarybbcpoll.htm]

== What is ...? ==

This article has no definition of what a Liberal Bias is.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 22:30, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

I'd go for some citations, too. And some fries. :D [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 11:36, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Should the Daily Show and Colbert Report be on here? Neither make any claim to be unbiased, and Jon Stewart has occasionally derided interviewers (most famously on Crossfire, when he wasn't calling them bad for America) for assuming he was a real news outlet and should be expected to act like one. There's a difference between, say, Air America (Liberal Spin, or Liberal Perspective, depending on how nice you are) and NPR (Liberal Bias) [[User:Momoka|Momoka]] 01:02 15 March 2007

:I agree, but if we remove the "Duh..." cases, we're basically left only with unsourced statements. ;) I'm not sure what the point of the article is, anyway. If the things in question have a liberal bias, just say it in the article and supply a source.</opinion> --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 08:40, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

::I also think this article should include a description of what [[liberal]] bias is so that the [[Conservative]]s amongst us know what to watch out for.
::[[User:JC|JC]] 09:28, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

uh, momoka....jon stewart is a COMEDIAN! he is not a news caster... and colbert? how can you possibly take him seriously? i watch those shows for LAUGHS...[[User:Moderate]] 13:31, 30 December 2007 (EDT)

==Unreferenced statements==

Cut from intro:

:The problem with liberal bias is not just the harm which advocacy of false liberal notions does (which is bad enough), but that Liberals are oblivious to their liberalness. Many of them quite literally and sincerely consider themselves "middle of the road" (see [[Dan Rather]], as mentioned in Goldberg's ''[[Bias (book)]]''.

[[user:Hojimachong]] called this "original research". That stings a bit, because I'm a refugee from Wikipedia where "OR" is a big no-no. So I'll try to dig up some referencs for this. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 01:21, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:Okay, I think I've provided 2 citations for the idea that Liberals are oblivious to their liberalness and 1 citation for Dan Rather calling a Liberal newspaper "middle of the road". This still might not be up to encyclopedia quality, because it's only one source: [[Bernard Goldberg]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 01:41, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

== References that don't support the item they're referencing ==

Everything in it should have a citation.

And the citation should be a published statement by someone authoritative—a recognized conservative is fine, but not "me and my brother"—that ''says the thing in question is liberal.''

What set me off is that there '''is''' a reference for Dan Rather's being considered liberal. But the reference does not say Dan Rather is liberal. It says Dan Rather things the New York Times is middle-of-the-road.

There's a difference between "X says Dan Rather is liberal" and "Dan Rather says Y is middle-of-the-road."

Particularly when no source has been cited for the New York Times' supposed liberal bias. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 08:43, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
==According to this site==
The nation's major media outlets ''seem'' to be owned by corporations which are by no means "liberal", except, perhaps, in the way they have liberally given to [http://la.indymedia.org/news/2003/04/47530.php | politicians.]+--[[User:Rob Pommer| Cracker]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]] 11:54, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

== Conservative bias ==

Could someone who knows please consider writing the matching [[Conservative bias]] article listing Conservative news sources? I am surprised and confused that Conservapedia criticizes Wikipedia by claiming that most Americans are Conservative, but that what I see as America's most reliable news sources are all listed as having a liberal bias. Thankyou. --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 11:33, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
: Done; I don't understand this either (but remember FOX News, purveyor of truth and justice ;), isn't listed), but the powers that be won't appreciate anyone changing it. [[User:Wikinterpreter|Wikinterpreter]]

*Please! Whilst the majority of Americans are far more traditional/conservative than the news outlets are, and those who work for them, the fact that Fox News, in unbiased studies (and preception) is less "Liberal", it doesn't make Fox News "Conservative", just fair. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 20:36, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

::Why does the Conservative American public continue to buy and read such biased newspapers, radio and television stations, instead of putting their money where their mouth is and creating a reputable conservative alternative? Is Rupert Murdoch the only person who saw the ''majority'' of Americans as a potential market!? Does he/News Corp have major newspapers too, or just the Fox News television channel? --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 23:48, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

*News Corp is one of the world's largest media holding companies. Its holdings includes ''TV Guide'', ''Sky'' and ''Direct-TV'' satellite services, the various ''Fox'' networks, ''Harper-Collins'' publishing, The ''London Times'', New York ''Post'', dozens of newspapers in Australia and the ''20th Century Fox'' motion picture and television studios. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 00:02, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:Disney owns ABC, Disney gave GWB's 2000 campaign 640K.
:Westinghouse owns CBS. (No political contributions cited.)
:General Electric owns NBC, GE gave GWB $1.1 million in 2000
:TIME-WARNER TBS owns: CNN, HBO, Cinemax, TBS Superstation, Turner Network Television, Turner Classic Movies, Warner Brothers Television, Cartoon Network, Sega Channel, TNT, Comedy Central (50%), E! (49%), Court TV (50%). Largest owner of cable systems in the US with an estimated 13 million subscribers.
:TIME-WARNER TBS gave GWB $1.6 million in 2000.
:NEWS CORPORATION LTD. / FOX NETWORKS (Rupert Murdoch BoD Phillip Morris):Phillip Morris donated 2.9 million to George W Bush in 2000.
:::::[[User:Rob Pommer| Cracker]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]] 00:25, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

*Rob, please don't make me embarass you, with your posting of totally distorted and biased figures. You are in my area of expertise, and most of those coroporations gave exactly the same, if not more, to Democratic Party candidates. You have to go to real stats, not moveon.org for them! --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 00:35, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
::I don't get embarrassed , only enlightened, [http://la.indymedia.org/news/2003/04/47530.php | here] is my source. I defer to your expertise. Thank you for your kind attention to my little additions around here. [[User:Rob Pommer| Cracker]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]]

:::Thanks TK. I meant ''American'' newspapers, as I know News Corp is the largest newspaper publisher in Australia. The only US newspaper you mentioned is the New York Post. Is that a widely-distributed and well-known newspaper like the NY Times and Washington Post, but Conservative? It's not mentioned in the references for liberal/conservative bias, that I can see. Is there widely perceived to be a liberal/conservative bias in the movie houses such as 20th Century Fox? --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 01:24, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Cracker, the donation amounts to GWB don't tell me much without knowing whether they were given before or after he was the endorsed Republican presidential candidate - did they actually support him against Al Gore/John Kerry, or against other Republicans to ensure they had the right Republican? Note that while I (think I) understand the US political ''process'', I do not have a good grasp on the ''politics'' of the various people, along with many of the other non-American readers here, so may well be asking naive questions to someone in the system. Sorry, but if we don't ask, we don't learn. Your source is dated 2003, but was wrong anyway - it says News Corp owns Ansett Airlines. It sold its 50% interest in early 2000, and the airline went bust in 2001. I don't know if it got any media info wrong. --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 01:24, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::::I was only providing "who owns what" The campaign contributions just happened to be on the site I cited so I included that as well. I suppose my point was that Westinghouse, GE, News Corp, and Disney are not known in the USA as bastions of liberalism. [[User:Rob Pommer| Cracker]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]]

*That site must need some kind of Liberal password, cause it won't resolve for me..... :p --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 02:00, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
::Try it now. [[User:Rob Pommer| Cracker]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]]
::Ouch! --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 02:17, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::::GE and Westinghouse probably care more about Defense and electricity contracts and policies than they do about media bias. If they exercise editorial control, that is likely to be the focus. --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 02:17, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

*Yes, that would explain NBC hiring Rick Kaplan to run its news. :p Time-Warner, one should see that Ted Turner is one of the largest stockholders. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 03:19, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

== The [[BBC]] ==

Ed Driscoll wrote:
*Austin Bay asked me to guest host the Pajamas Media "Blog Week In Review" podcast this week, so I interviewed Robin Aitken, the former BBC journalist and on-air personality who left the network and has written a new book, very much in the vein of Bernard Goldberg's books on American media bias, titled Can We Trust The BBC. I tried to aim the questions towards an American perspective on the topic, but then, how could I not? Aitken also discussed in depth the BBC's biases regarding Iraq, Israel, and the Palestinians. Regular readers of this blog won't exactly be shocked where the BBC comes down on these issues, but for those who still hold out a belief that the BBC is entirely objective, its an eye-opener. [http://eddriscoll.com/archives/cat_oh_that_liberal_media.php] --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:02, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Technically the term "objective" is objective, therefore I wonder if it is differences in culture that can explain any bias by the BBC. Surely the BBC is less geared towards sensationalism then American media and it focuses on the issues that are being discussed rather then simply telling the masses where the majority of their opinion lies. This would be more encouraging of a neutral environment where the individual is left to make their own choices. Britain is considerably less puritian in its customs and culture as well as more liberal. The fact that a liberal bias may exist is less important, though then whether it allows for opposing views to be formed. I am unable to do anything more than simply offer a generalization, however, as issues are exceedingly complex and diverse as are the ways of covering them, but surely the issue is more complex then whether the BBC is biased or not.--[[User:Theseus|Theseus]] 22:16, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

== TK? ==

:(Protection log) (diff; hist) . . TK (Talk | contribs) (protected "Liberal bias": Warning of locking soon.... [edit=autoconfirmed:move=autoconfirmed])

Explain, please... --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 20:50, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

*Just checking to see how many keyholes you're peeping into. :p --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 00:03, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

== It's locked? ==
''Note: This page has been locked so that only registered users can edit it.''
I am Gulik's complete lack of surprise. But last I checked, I _am_ a registered user. --[[User:Gulik2|Gulik2]] 01:34, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

== Middle of the Road ==
" During a phone conversation, Bernard Goldberg asked him, "What do you consider the New York Times? Rather answered, "Middle of the road." "
:The article uses this quote to prove that Dan Rather has a liberal bias? That seems rather foolish to me considering that if left is liberal and right is conservative the middle would be no bias at all. [[User:Dilbert|Dilbert]] 02:27, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

== Communism for Dummies ==

Can anyone tell me what this is? The others are all famous, but I haven't heard of this one. It was entered by Hektor back in March, and he was later blocked for questionable edits, so I'd just like to verify we don't have a red herring here. Thanks [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:03, 18 July 2007 (EDT)
:It looks very suspicious. It should be removed because of the circumstances you just described. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 17:05, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

*Sigh. There is a whole line of books with the tag ....."For Dummies" explaining things like "Computers for Dummies", "Windows XP for Dummies", etc. Check Barnes and Noble's website. Or Amazon.com. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 17:31, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

::Yes my friend I have a few of those, but in regards to liberal bias if that is what was meant then that wouldn't exactly be a good example. I was just wondering if there was some infamous show or newspaper by that name that I wasn't aware of. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:52, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

*Ahh! Wasn't a valid link anyway! --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 17:55, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

== Media bias ==

So... since no one can agree whether media etc. are "accused of having liberal bias" or "have well known liberal bias," why don't we follow [http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Commandments CP Commandment #2]? If it's so obvious, shouldn't it be written somewhere objective? (And no, that page of out-of-context quotes about minor examples of bias can't be a source; at least not the only source). [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 21:29, 1 August 2007 (EDT)
:huh? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 22:58, 1 August 2007 (EDT)
::I seem to be rambling and in need of sleep. Let me try again: we are on the cusp of a revert war over the issue of whether the media is "accused" of having a liberal bias, or whether they have a "well known" liberal bias. Why don't we just add some sources instead of reverting? See [http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Commandments CP Commandments #2 and #5], as well as the [http://www.conservapedia.com/Help:Editing_etiquette Editing Etiquette] ''("put your "facts" in neutral terms. For example, Secular geologists believe that the world is 4.5 billion years old is better than The world is 4.5 billion years old")''. According to the rules, both versions of the statement in contention are not acceptible in their current form. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 23:31, 1 August 2007 (EDT)
:::ok.. so you mean like, "according to longtime media watcher and analyst so-and-so the [[MSM]] is dominated by commie stooges & useful idiots", for example? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 23:42, 1 August 2007 (EDT)
::::Uh, yeah, as long as it follows the [http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Commandments#_note-1 footnote] to commandment two: "Sources should be authoritative works, not merely published opinions by others." Though good luck finding an authoritative source calling the NYTimes "commie stooges & useful idiots" ;-) [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 23:57, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

*Great sourcing on the CBS News bias, Rob. I don't think we will see Uncle Walter issuing an apology will we? --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 02:05, 8 August 2007 (EDT)

== The United Nations? ==

I'm not sure if the United Nations fits in here. It's a liberal organization, yes, but it wouldn't seem right to put, say, the ACLU or the Democratic Party in here, as it's not a media organization per se. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 21:50, 9 August 2007 (EDT)
:A gathering of nations in a forum for discussion originally created to prevent a third world war is inherently liberal? [[User:Kazumaru|Kazumaru]] 19:39, 12 August 2007 (EDT)
::Actually, yes, if you use a different definition of the word liberal. In international politic theory the spectrum is more often broken into "realist" and "liberal". In a nutshell, a realist believes in the use of power and force to ensure security and enforce policy, and a liberal believes in organizations to ensure security and enforce policy. In these terms, the UN is the definition of a liberal solution :) [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 20:22, 12 August 2007 (EDT)
::: You make [[liberalism]] sound less like [[evil]] than some others here. [[User:Kazumaru|Kazumaru]] 20:24, 12 August 2007 (EDT)
::::In the olden days, Americans could always say, "Let the UN handle it;" thank the Lord for Conservapedia, cause now we can see just exactly what this attitude of letting "UN Peacekeepers handle it" really means: [[United Nations#UN Sexual Abuse Scandals]]. [[User:Robs|Rob Smith]] 20:42, 12 August 2007 (EDT)
:::::"Just let the Americans handle it" worked well too, until the Abu Ghraib pictures were leaked. [[User:Kazumaru|Kazumaru]] 21:22, 12 August 2007 (EDT)

*Yes! One should be highly offended at terrorists and criminals being humiliated! Of course that is on the same level as stealing billions from the poor, letting hundreds of thousands starve, and aiding anti-Semites.....of course. Kazumaru, see [[Deceit]]. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 21:48, 12 August 2007 (EDT)

:*Yes indeed. Those sadistic American torture techniques, making Mighty Islamic Warriors of God wear women's panties. What will the neighbors think? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 22:46, 12 August 2007 (EDT)

:* I appreciate you only disagreeing after you banned me, TK, however... I'm not referring to the panties-on-head thing. I'm referring solely to legitimate acts of torture, like [[Waterboarding]]. And I don't mean surfing.

::*Do you have any proof whatsoever, any proof that would fit WP's Attribution policies, and the criteria here [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_method#External_criticism:_authenticity_and_provenance Historical method: '''authenticity and provenance'''], to prove (a) waterboarding was '''ever''' approved by '''any''' US Govt. Executive Agency and/or Dept., and (b) (most importantly) waterboarding was '''ever used''' in recent years? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 15:47, 19 August 2007 (EDT)

:* Haven't a clue what any of that has to do with deceit, though... [[User:Kazumaru|Kazumaru]] 20:32, 13 August 2007 (EDT)

== "More then half of Americans agree that their is liberal media bias"==
Here is an interesting poll which gives more evidence of liberal media bias [http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=070809222839.jzdcwmy8&show_article=1], you may want to consider adding that information to this article.--[[User:Tash|Tash]] 22:06, 9 August 2007 (EDT)

Actually that ''is'' an interesting poll, but you're reading words into it that's not there. First, it simply says that 'more than half of Americans say new orgs...are biased'. It does '''not''' say 'liberal bias'. Many, many people do indeed believe the MSM is biased, and many believe it is biased towards the right. Bias is most obvious on Fox News, who make a mockery of their tacky marketing phrase 'Fair & Balanced'. Anybody can see their entire output is heavily slanted to the right (cf. the use of the phrase 'Homicide Bombers', the only org outside the White House to use the phrase; even the Army uses the phrase 'Suicide Bomber', as it's more accurate). But bias is also visible in places like the NYT, which have a tendency to bias left.

Bias is everywhere, and the sooner people on the Right understand that the Left believe this too, the better. If all sides of the argument see bias, maybe we should fix our news? [[User:PhilLynott|PhilLynott]] 22:20, 9 August 2007 (EDT)
:That is a very interesting analysis; so liberals are pro-"suicide bomber" whereas right-wingers in the White House and FOX News oppose it. Even the Pentagon has jumped on the liberal bandwagon with this one, defying thier right-wing bosses and cow towing to the liberal slant. Hmmmm, that's news itself. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 22:30, 9 August 2007 (EDT)
:We should include the quote from Diane Sawyer when she said she was being interviewed for jury duty. A lawyer asked her if she could be objective. She responded with something like, "I'm a journalist. I'm always objective." The Courtroom broke out into a roar of laughter. Sawyer says it was the most embarassing moment of her life. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 22:12, 9 August 2007 (EDT)

: Yes, after a second look it did not say liberal bias, thanks for the catch. But still, if you look through the article, it seems to imply leftest bias in the media. --[[User:Tash|Tash]] 22:33, 9 August 2007 (EDT)

*Poor Diane. :-( A long way from those long walks on the beach with Richard Nixon in exile. Sawyer was part of the very small staff working for Nixon post-exile. She had a nible mind, and a fierce dedication to Nixon. Then she moved East, married Mike Nichols...and what happened! --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 01:23, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
:*[[Monica Crowley]] now is the spiritual heir of Nixon's thinking, although Hillary Clinton has been the most successful at the ballot box using everything she learned from Nixon. Amazing, how the true heirs of Nixonion thought all seem to be women. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 13:05, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
*Nixon said several times he was profoundly influenced by his Mother's values and thoughts....--[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 18:21, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

== Example 17 ==

Chamberlain was a Conservative; the last Liberal PM was Lloyd George (1916-22). (Source: http://www.annualreport.gov.uk/output/Page123.asp) [[User:G7mzh|G7mzh]] 10:18, 16 August 2007 (EDT)

:No, you see, he's an unpopular figure so he becomes a liberal by default. [[User:Fuzzy901|Fuzzy901]] 14:45, 17 August 2007 (EDT)

::Right. Let's call it "liberalism in reverse." [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 14:47, 17 August 2007 (EDT)

*If John Kerry, Al Gore and Ted Kennedy all switched parties and/or announced they were "Conservative", would that make it so? Fuzzy, your thinking is fuzzy, it seems. Although I do admit it is sometimes difficult to translate conservative UK to conservative US. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 14:56, 17 August 2007 (EDT)

::The broader question is over the [[Communazi pact]] and the policy of [[appeasement]]. Chamberlain, like [[Rudolf Hess]], thought peace between Germany & Great Britain was possible. Was Chamberlain a Communazi? I don't know, we'll have to look into it. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:07, 17 August 2007 (EDT)

Did Chamberlain ever switch parties? It seems he was MP for the Conservative Party since 1918, took part in governments of the Conservative Party, and later became their leader. Please correct me if I am wrong. [[User:Order|Order]] 02:38, 20 August 2007 (EDT)
:This is where the term [[Western betrayal#Czechoslovakia]] came from; the [[Treaty of Versailles]] set up many trip wires. Britian under Chamberlain failed to maintain thier obligations. At the time, it was labelled "[[appeasement]]", however now in retrospect, we see more and more [[Comintern]] [[subversion]] through the processes of setting up [[Lenin]]ist style [[united front]]s. All falls into the category of Cold War revisionism since the opening of KGB, Comintern, and NSA Archives. [[Allen Weinstein]] is now the [[Archivist of the United States]], and we are still collecting and categorizing documents. The process of actual interpretation is in its infancy. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 12:13, 15 September 2007 (EDT)

== Example 25 ==

The example 25 is incomprehensible. Can somebody rephrase it to make clear what the point actually is. [[User:Order|Order]] 02:19, 20 August 2007 (EDT)

*That better? At this hour, it's about the best I can manage. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 03:42, 20 August 2007 (EDT)

Point 25 is still confusing, close to being unintelligible. If CP wants to refer to it elsewhere, it better be clear what is meant. [[User:Order|Order]] 23:47, 26 August 2007 (EDT)

This is completely ridiculous. "Liberals take up more of their allotted time in debates." This is just the sort of school-yard jibe that gets Conservapedia a bad name with liberal outlets. There is no statistical basis to it and it just sound like the ravings of somebody who once got talked over on a school debate. Delete it.--[[User:KeithJoseph|KeithJoseph]] 12:13, 6 October 2007 (EDT)

== Example 24 ==

This point confuses me a little. The proof that someone's a liberal is their denial of it? Doesn't this inadvertently encompass those are actually aren't liberals? This is truly dangerous territory! (Imagine a mental disease is diagnosed by the patient's denial of having it - how do we actually find out whether someone actually has it or not? A normal person who logically says "I do not have this disease" is equally "proven" to have it then someone who actually has it, according to this example) [[User:ATang|ATang]] 10:33, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

== Example 34 ==

This footnote is confusing. I'm assuming this is a typo. Would seem to be an example of conservatives "demanding an apology". Don't know if it's an apology per se, but definitely doesn't strengthen the argument in any way.

== 'Liberalism' ==

I go along with much of what is said but here in Brit the word 'liberal' has a somewhat different connotation. We have here three mainstrwam political parties: Labour (or, as it likes to call itself nowaday, 'New Labour' - even more extremist than 'old' Labour!), Conservative (aka 'Tory'), and Liberals (aka 'LibDems'!). There are a handful of other parties e.g. the BNP or British National Party, UKIP, the UK Independence Party, and there are a number of locality-based parties. Of the mainstream parties, the Tories are generally considered to be the party of the right but this is not necessarily so.

Historically, the Liberal Party (formerly the Whigs), now incorporated into the LibDems, was the party of the right at which time the Tories were considered to be 'middle of the road'!

Our biggest media presentation problem here is the BBC, which whilst repetedly saying they are 'independent' has in fact a disgusting 'liberal' agenda all of its own. And we have to cough up a hefty licence fee for watching television which goes into BBC coffers - even though we may not ever watch BBC! In fact, according to a strict interpretation of the law, we are strictly liable to pay this even if we ''never'' watch any TV but have a computer monitor! {{unsigned|Celtish}} 13:09, 14 September 2007

*Yes, Celtish! The true mark of Socialism, it is. You are invited to improve our article on the [[BBC]]. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 16:31, 14 September 2007 (EDT)

Okay [[User:Celtish|celtish]] 21:38, 14 September 2007 (EDT) Done [[User:Celtish|celtish]] 14:31, 15 September 2007 (EDT)

BBC is not a for profit entity, is it? unlike most of the so-called "mainstream" media in the US. Neither is BBC like the American Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), which subsists on Jim & Tammy Faye Baker style beg-a-thons and the public purse. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:35, 14 September 2007 (EDT)

:*Rob, the BBC is more like PBS, than not, however. Both controlled by appointed boards, made by the Government, and funded, in whole or in part, by it. In the UK, unlike the U.S., they are forced to pay a tax to maintain the BBC, which, like I said, is more socialistic then what we have. Not better by much, however. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 17:05, 14 September 2007 (EDT)

Although the BBC is technically not-for-profit it does have an enormous worldwide revenue from the resale of programmes and repeat fees, from the sale of CDs, videos, DVDs, and a wide range of books and magazines. It is in fact a major publisher in its own right. [[User:Celtish|celtish]] 21:38, 14 September 2007 (EDT)

The God Delusion

2008-05-05T21:55:12Z

Cal05000:

'''''The God Delusion''''' is a book by [[Richard Dawkins]], in which he attempts to show that belief in [[God]] is irrational.

Dawkins' main objectives are to convince his readers that the existence of [[God]] or any other [[deity]] is highly unlikely, that the Bible is incoherent, that [[morality]] does not come from [[religion]], and that if religion does effect morality, it only does so negatively.

Critics have called the book "surprisingly intolerant".<ref>{{cite book | quote=For a scientist who criticizes religion for its intolerance, Dawkins has written a surprisingly intolerant book, full of scorn for religion and those who believe. | publisher=Publishers Weekly | title=The God Delusion | year=2006 | month=August | url=http://www.amazon.com/God-Delusion-Richard-Dawkins/dp/0618680004 | }}</ref>

Dawkins also intends to teach that atheists can live happy, intelligent, lives—perhaps even happier lives than religious people. He asserts that atheists do not do evil things in the name of [[atheism]], while [[religion|religious]] people have been known to commit atrocities in the name of their religion.

==Chapters==

=== Deeply Religious Non-Believer===
Dawkins attempts to establish [[Albert Einstein]] as an avowed atheist, and to prove that religion is unworthy of any respect.

===The God Hypothesis===
Dawkins explains the different kinds of religion, including the divide between [[Monotheism]] and [[Polytheism]]. He also asserts viciously that the founding fathers of the [[United States of America]] were nonreligious. He continues to explain [[Secularism]], [[Agnosticism]], and some basic assertions of the religious.

===Arguments for God's Existence===
Dawkins summarizes some common [[proof]]s for God and attempts to debunk them.

===Why There Almost Certainly is No God===
Dawkins gives his reasons for believing that God is about as likely as "[[fairy|fairies]] living under his garden", and asks the fallacious question of where God came from.

===The Roots of Religion===
Dawkins gives and explains some thoughts about the origins of religion that have been proposed by atheists, trying to undermine the [[Christianity|church]].

===The Roots of Morality: Why are We Good?===
Dawkins explains why he believes that morality "evolved" from [[animal]]s.

===The 'Good' Book and the Changing [[Moral Zeitgeist]]===
Dawkins suggests that morality does not come from religion, but rather a changing moral ''Zeitgeist''.

===What's Wrong With Religion? Why Be So Hostile?===
Dawkins shows why he believes that religion is [[evil]] and repressive, and must be stopped.

===Childhood, Abuse and the Escape from Religion===
Dawkins explains why he believes that religion is a form of "[[child abuse]]", and that the scars from the "indoctrination" last into [[adult]]hood and even the child's entire life.

===A Much Needed Gap?===
Dawkins concludes his book on a more positive level, giving inspiration to those whom he may have convinced to "de-convert" from their religion.

==Criticism==
''The God Delusion'' has been subject to a great deal of criticisms from the religious and the non-religious alike.

===Andrew Brown: Prospect Magazine===
{{Cquote|
"It has been obvious for years that Richard Dawkins had a fat book on religion in him, but who would have thought him capable of writing one this bad? Incurious, dogmatic, rambling and self-contradictory, it has none of the style or verve of his earlier works."<ref>http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/article_details.php?id=7803</ref>
}}
Andrew Brown of Prospect Magazine was unimpressed by Dawkins' book. Brown calls atheism "unnatural" and points out that many atheists were violent in their belief (or lack thereof), citing Stalin killing members of the clergy.

Brown also attacks Dawkins' argument that suicide bombers are caused by religious schools. While Dawkins states that if these children were not taught what he calls "faith without question", suicide bombings would not be an issue. Brown, however, says that religion is not a necessity in suicide bombings. He points out that it is a tactic used by Marxists in Sri Lankav.

===Marilynne Robinson: Harper's Magazine===
<blockquote>
"There is a pervasive exclusion of historical memory in Dawkins's view of science. Consider this sentence from his preface, which occurs in the context of his vision of a religion-free world: 'Imagine . . . no persecution of Jews as 'Christ-killers.'"<ref>http://solutions.synearth.net/2006/10/20</ref>
</blockquote>

Robinson's major complaints about ''The God Delusion'' lie in how sheerly false the book is in many aspects. Although Dawkins claims that "the majority of us believe in free speech", she points out that most countries do not, pointing out that [[China]] (population 1.3 billion<ref>http://geography.about.com/od/populationgeography/a/chinapopulation.htm</ref>) does not. In her review, Robinson basically says that Dawkins purposefully ignored important parts of history in his attempt to convince his readers. "It's a shame," she says, "to see him reduced to one long argument from professorial incredulity."

===Terry Eagleton: London Review of Books===
<blockquote>
"Card-carrying rationalists like Dawkins [...] are in one sense the least well-equipped to understand what they castigate, since they don’t believe there is anything there to be understood, or at least anything worth understanding."
</blockquote>

===Alister McGrath: The Dawkins Delusion?===
''The Dawkins Delusion?'' is a response to Dawkins' ''The God Delusion'' by [[Alister McGrath]].

== Quotes from ''The God Delusion'' ==
"The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully."
::-Chapter 2

"I am one of an increasing number of biologists who see religion as a ''by-product'' of something else."
::-Chapter 5

"By contrast, what I, as a scientist, believe (for example, [[evolution]]) I believe not because of reading a holy book but because I have studied the evidence... Books about evolution are believed because they present overwhelming quantities of mutually buttressed evidence."
::-Chapter 8

"... [Moral absolutism] rules the minds of a great number of people in the world today, most dangerously so in the Muslim world and in the incipient American theocracy... Such absolutism nearly always results from strong religious faith, and it constitutes a major reason for suggesting that religion can be a force for evil in the world."
::-Chapter 8
==See also==
*[[Atheism]]

==References==
<references/>

== External Links ==
*[http://www.richarddawkins.net RichardDawkins.net]

{{liberalism}}
[[Category:Books]]
[[category:Atheism]]

User talk:Cal05000

2008-05-05T21:41:12Z

Cal05000:

Instead of talking so much do some edits to articles -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 17:39, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

yeah[[User:Cal05000|Cal05000]] 17:41, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

2008-05-05T21:15:42Z

Cal05000: /* Graph: Number of people claiming a faith = 2179; Number of atheists = 1508. */

{{unprotect|Ed Poor}}
{| align=right border=3 cellspacing=0 style="border-width: 5px; border-color: #d0d0d0; background: #d0e0e0; margin: 2em;"
| style="text-align: center; padding: 10px 40px 10px 40px;" | [[/Archives|Archives]]
|}



==Religious affiliation of Wikipedians==
I edited several wikipedian user templates so that templates identifying one with religion a or atheism etc. will result in you being put in that category for example several atheist wikipedian user templates now put the user in the category Category:Atheist Wikipedians, if he/she puts the template on their userpage, revealing our current estimated amount of atheist/ and others is greatly underestimated there is 1722 atheist Wikipedians of which 17 are objectivist. Also we forgot agnostics there is 515 of them numbering about as much as the christian sample of wikipedia alone. There should be a part on the picture where it reveals the sample size. that means there is 2222 atheist or agnostics out of our sample wow! Way more than the sample for christians Please update the picture showing religious affiliation of Wikipedians--[[User:Java7837|Java7837]] 16:22, 28 February 2008 (EST)
:Actually, I'd like to know where that graph came from in the first place. It was put there by [[user:Wahrheit|Wahrheit]], but I've not seen any explanation of where the figures came from. Unless Wahrheit can explain that, I think the graph should be removed as possibly bogus. And by the way, the graph ''does'' include agnostics, and how does 515 <s>outnumber</s> mean "about as much as" 789, the figure shown for Christians? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:32, 28 February 2008 (EST)
::As there has been no explanation of the origin or basis of that graph, I will remove it as I suggested above. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:25, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

== "Wikipedia has been called the National Enquirer of the Internet:[1]" ==

I'm removing this claim because the source is very flimsy. An inactive blog written by a self proclaimed "eccentric" isn't a powerful enough position to put such a quote in the banner. [[User:Qc|Qc]] 18:57, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

== Graph: Number of people claiming a faith = 2179; Number of atheists = 1508. ==

Is it just me, or are there more people of faith on wikipedia than atheists?

The graph shows that the number of people claiming a faith = 2179 whilst the number of atheists = 1508.

That's 60% believes, versus 40% disbelieves.

Is wikipedia in fact "faithist"?

It makes me wonder if we have any statistics regarding the number of atheists on Conserapedia versus the numbers from the faith groups?

I really hope that Conservapedia (unlike wikipedia) is not bias to any one faith group.

It would be a sorry day for "The Trustworthy Encyclopaedia" if it was dominated by any one faith group; would that be health, surely we wouldn’t want any one group’s view to dominate the others …

Well lets hope not ...

{{unsigned|Qgobo}}

:Conservapedia is a conservative Christian resource primarily, I believe. That is the main viewpoint espoused, and I think the stated purpose.--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 23:07, 9 March 2008 (EDT)
:::: Tom, isn't that rather the point, wikipedia isn't a "Christian resource primarily", and thus it should be allowed to express a view other than the one seen here. If bias means subscribing to primarily one doctrine, then wikipedia is less bias than conservapedia. Wouldn't a better title for this page be "Where and how Wikipedia differs from Conservapedia"? However, perhaps your broader point is that no one here is receptive to my point of view so I should gently move on. [[User:Qgobo|Qgobo]] 23:51, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

[[Faith]] is a uniquely Christian concept. It is being used incorrectly above.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:10, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

:::: Jews, Hindus, Muslims would be interested to know that. --[[User:KimSell|KimSell]] 10:22, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
:: Aschlafly - please read "people of faith" in the above comments to mean "non-atheists". {{unsigned|Qgobo}}

::: That's a meaningless category. It's like making a category of all voters whose last name begins with "A". They disagree among themselves.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:03, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

:::: Not true - this article is about how atheists bias wikipedia. Thus, comparison with the group “Non-atheist” is not arbitrary selection at all. It is the logical selection of the group of people on wikipedia who are not atheists i.e. the opposite group to the atheist group.

:::: I believe what you really dislike about my point is that christians have been lumped-in with the other faith groups! If this is your point then forget the atheist and focus on the “non-christians” on wikipedia as a group, then you can see the christians are sorely out-numbered and that wikipedia is blatantly anti-christian website (despite being the largest <s>faith</s> {non- atheists} group on it).

:::: Also, if you do not view the “other faith groups” as proper “faith groups” why are they even on your chart? Why not have “christians vs atheist” or “christians vs non-christians” . Either of these would seem more logical based on your statements above. - [[User:Qgobo|Qgobo]] 00:33, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

The meaning of "faith" is something on which I disagree with Andy. So my answer is that you can't divide the groups into "faith" and "non-faith". They ''all'' have faith: Atheists have faith that God doesn't exist.

Further, the group "non-Atheist" is just as arbitrary as "non-Christian", "non-Muslim", "non-Jewish", etc.

The claim that "wikipedia is less bias[ed] than conservapedia" is a very doubtful one, given that it treats the atheistic view of origins as fact and the biblical view as pseudoscience.

Qgobo's comment that we don't want the encyclopedia dominated by one faith falsely presumes that the one faith is not the correct one.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:27, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

: Very well put, Philip, without conceding your broader definition of [[faith]]. Your observation is insightful given your broader definition.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:52, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

Im only going to say this from a neutral standpoint all stories of creation are myth this is the definition of myth

== People for the American Way ==

Granted that Wikipedia does not use the word "liberal" when describing People for the American Way, but it also does not use the word "conservative" when describing the National Right to Life Committee. Wikipedia's conservative bias perhaps? [[User:Blinkadyblink|Blinkadyblink]] 23:33, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

: That does look biased. Good catch, except realize Wikipedia editors think "conservative" is pejorative term.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:45, 9 March 2008 (EDT)
::Good thing this site shows it's better by not simply inverting that. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 01:28, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

==Why some of these problems don't count==
Biases such as a lack of Biography on conservatives, here is the soltion. ADD THEM! An expert (presumably a conservative) has to write the article. There are more bios on Liberals because there are more people writing about them. Seperating to another website will not encourage what you believe to be true! It means that conservatives and Liberals stay wrong about things. Go and add the Bio, don't write it here!

Number 50. Dismisses the banner saying that an article doesn't represent a world view, and you argue that there is no world view. By your own admission, there is no one view that represents all people of the world. Due to this, it would be necessary to tell people when something is Western centric, or American Centric. An article on Gun law, for example, could not be reliable from an American view because (unlike many countries) guns are supported in the constitution. 50 isa contradiction.

{{unsigned|Margheritapizza}}

: No, you're wrong. Adding a biography on a conservative can result in its deletion or redirect by the [[Wikipedia police]], even though [[Wikipedia]] has thousands of entries about obscure liberals.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:12, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

::I've read your article on the wikipedia police, and I wonder why there isn't an article on the conservapedia police because it seems like there are around 5 people on conservapedia who do everything. [[User:Rellik|Rellik]] 22:04, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

==WP: Sexist?==
Wh...what? How does that prove anything? Then again, it IS pretty much on-par with the rest of the petty claims on the page... [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 17:12, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

==Reversion==
I looked up WPs Hamas article, and it describes them as a militant organization, with the rider that the US state dept etc etc as per the linked claim. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 18:40, 12 March 2008 (EDT)
:Partially true; to quote the article: "Hamas was created in 1987 by the terrorist Sheikh Ahmed Yassin." More to the point, Wikipedia's article on Al-Qaeda directly calls it a terrorist organization with no peddle-footing around. Therefore, the cited quote is still false in that it specifically says Wikipedia does not call Al-Qaeda a terrorist organization. The quote is false and should be removed. [[User:Deweyman|Deweyman]] 23:05, 12 March 2008 (EDT)
::Scratch that. The "Hamas was created in 1987 by the terrorist Sheikh Ahmed Yassin" quote was just added by an IP address today and could possibly be reverted. However, the Isreali Media quote is still wrong due to the Al-Qaeda issue, as much as I agree of Wikipedia's bias. [[User:Deweyman|Deweyman]] 23:13, 12 March 2008 (EDT)
:::I removed the article again today. If someone were to look up Wikipedia's Al-Qaeda article and discover that we were perpetuating false information, it would damage our credibility. The truth alone is an incredibly strong case against Wikipedia, so we don't need to give anyone reason to believe otherwise. [[User:Deweyman|Deweyman]] 22:04, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

:::: You deleted an accurate quotation of an observation that is substantially true. In the Al-Qaeda entry on Wikipedia that you cite as a counter-example, Wikipedia uses the term "militant" repeatedly to describe the organization and only uses the term "terrorist" in the context of official government descriptions of the organization.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:54, 16 March 2008 (EDT)
:::::Respectfully, the first sentence of wikipedia's article is ''"Al Qaeda is an international alliance of Islamic militant terrorist organizations founded in 1988."'' Then, yes, it goes on to list the nations that consider it a terrorist organization. It should also be noted that it describes its attacks as "terrorist attacks". [[User:Deweyman|Deweyman]] 17:36, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

==43==
Ad hominem against atheists on Number 43. And don't attack me as being a devil worshipper/satanist/atheist: I'm catholic. [[User:Mwaetht|Mwaetht]] 13:53, 23 March 2008 (EDT)
P.S. On 49: Ever hear of Project Steve?
: How is No. 33 an ''ad hominem'' argument? An ''ad hominem'' argument is where you attack the person rather than their argument. No. 43 is not attacking atheists; it's attacking Wikipedia's treatment of atheism.
: And "Ever hear of Project Steve?" (yes I have; so what?) is not a refutation of anything.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:28, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

== Smoking example ==

I'm confused about the smoking example that you just added. Is the implication meant to be that smoking isn't dangerous? [[User:DanH|DanH]] 16:02, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

: Yes, I take it from Ted's edit that Wikipedia wants to downplay the dangers of smoking. Could be tobacco industry types editing on Wikipedia.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:07, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

== Moved from being inappropriately put in a user's personal talk page ==

== Question ==

Hello. I'm a long time wikipedia editor, and as such am fairly insulted at your harsh criticism of wikipeda. On the allegations of bias...since conservapedia openly admits being conservatively biased, doesn't that make it even worse than wikipedia? Not that Wikipedia is biased...how can an encyclopedia anyone can edit be biased? [[User:TheNobleSith|TheNobleSith]] 01:25, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

And as far as your criticisms of Wikipedia's scope and content...isn't having a larger scope better? Also, you criticized it for having pornographic images and articles. That is true, but isn't it better to have articles that describe things such as pornography and other non-child friendly things in an accurate way? Or is it better to pretend they don't exist? [[User:TheNobleSith|TheNobleSith]] 01:29, 5 April 2008 (EDT)
: My [[Essay: Accuracy vs. neutrality on Conservapedia]] goes part way to answering your questions. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:36, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

I still vehemently disagree about Wikipedia's bias. Anyone can edit Wikipeda, and thus, as long as the change is not biased, it will not be reverted. There is no "ruling class" on Wikipedia--all editors are equal to the others. [[User:TheNobleSith|TheNobleSith]] 10:32, 5 April 2008 (EDT)
:From personal experience, I can vouch for that not being the case. For example, see the Intelligent Design article (my comments relate to around January/February 2007, which I last seriously looked at it). It was not an article ''about'' Intelligent Design, but an article about why Intelligent Design was wrong. And ''numerous'' editors either tried changing it or discussing changes on the talk pages, only to have their changes reversed, their discussions shouted down, themselves called trolls and various other names, and generally grilled and harassed to the point that they either left or blew their stack, giving the controlling editors, which included sysops, the excuse to block them. It truly was a mobocracy. I found similar control existed over all articles to do with creationism. I was never blocked on Wikipedia, but I left active editing because of the oppressive regime active in those sorts of articles. See my [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Philip_J._Rayment Wikipedia user page] for more detail. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:47, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

Well, remember what neutrality is. Neutrality does '''not''' mean "give both sides equal weight", it means "give both sides equal weight according to the strength of their argument". [[User:TheNobleSith|TheNobleSith]] 10:52, 5 April 2008 (EDT)
: In other words, if a majority of editors consider that the strength of the anti-ID argument is greater than the strength of the pro-ID argument, then an article supposedly ''about'' Intelligent Design can have an anti-ID stance. In which case, it comes down to the number of anti-ID editors vs. the number of pro-ID editors, which is ''not'' neutrality, but majority rule. Secondly, your definition is self-contradictory. "according to the strength of their argument" means "give the side with the stronger argument more weight", which is the opposite of "give both sides equal weight". And finally, giving the stronger argument more weight may (in principle) be ''fair'', but it's hardly ''neutral''. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:00, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

You misunderstand me. What I mean is that the article takes a critical look at ID because of the overwhelming number of qualified scientists who are opposed to it, compared to those who favor it. In this case, neutrality does not mean give both sides equal weight in the article, it means give the side that has more reliable sources supporting it the greater coverage. [[User:TheNobleSith|TheNobleSith]] 11:30, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

: There is no evidence that "overwhelming number of qualified scientists ... are opposed" to ID. Moreover, it's a meaningless statistic anyway; 30 years ago an "overwhelming number of qualified scientists" insisted that there was life in outer space. By relying on this approach, you have illustrated an example of point 11 of [[liberal style]]: overreliance on [[hearsay]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:03, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

::Most scientists believed there was life in outer space? Have any proof for that statement? Sounds like you are being a good liberal and relying on hearsay!--[[User:Mathewson|Mathewson]] 12:06, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

::: Mathewson, I'm afraid you're clueless. Please stick around here and learn some things '''with an open mind'''. It's common knowledge that a generation ago scientists overwhelmingly believed in life in outer space. See, e.g., [[Exobiology]]. Rest assured I was not ''relying'' on what a majority of scientists reportedly believed. You are.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:40, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

::::No, my friend, I am far from clueless. You made the claim that an ""overwhelming number of qualified scientists" insisted that there was life in outer space." Can you provide any cites proving that this statement is correct?--[[User:Mathewson|Mathewson]] 12:49, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

Life in space has been neither proven nor disproven; and for that matter, it can't be disproven since the universe is theoretically (or at least practically) infinite in size. It could only be proven, and only then by finding life in space. But that is besides the point. Any encyclopedia should strive to provide its readers with the most accurate and up-to-date information from people who actually know what they're talking about. As such, Wikipedia is right in down-playing the supporters of ID...because there are very few reputable ones. if you have any examples of reputable supporters of ID, please tell me. [[User:TheNobleSith|TheNobleSith]] 12:51, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

: Folks, I'm not going to allow the repetition of [[liberal]] falsehoods on my own talk page. Please illustrate point 11 of [[liberal style]] somewhere else. In response to Mathewson above, I did provide a cite, and am not confident he read it with an open mind.

: Further attempts at [[liberal]] [[last wordism]] on my personal talk page may result in a short block of the offending account.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:04, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

::Translation: "It's my website, so I get the last word." (Go ahead and reply to this one, Andy. I just wanted to point out the blatant hypocrisy here.) --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 14:54, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

::: Gulik5, you're clueless also. We've always had a policy of respect on Conservapedia for everyone's talk page, in contrast with [[Wikipedia]]. See point 11 in [[Conservapedia:How Conservapedia Differs from Wikipedia]]. Insist on [[last wordism]] on my talk page and you'll then see an example of an account being blocked for violating this principle.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:01, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

I wasn't aware I was trying to get the last word, I thought we were having a conversation. [[User:TheNobleSith|TheNobleSith]] 16:32, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

== Maths, anyone? ==

''"Wikipedia asserts that "One 1987 estimate found that more than 99.84% of almost 500,000 US scientists in the earth and life sciences supported evolution over creation science."[76] This statement is false, but Wikipedians won't correct it and it has been repeated thousands of times by other liberals in reliance on Wikipedia.[77] The truth is that 700 scientists signed a statement rejecting evolution, but evolutionists then made the illogical claim that every other scientist must support evolution.[78] Under that reasoning, if 1000 persons signed a statement opposing President George W. Bush, then nearly 300 million Americans must support him! Funny how Wikipedia does not claim that."''

700 out of 500,000 expressed as a percentage is 0.0014%. That is, by your figures, 99.9986% - more than the much maligned estimate gave. Can someone please tell me what the point of the '700 scientists' comment was, if it only serves to destroy your own arguments?

Also, the figures are more closer to 7% religious.

- http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html

--[[User:Tommy|Tommy]] 21:58, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

: Tommy, your objection is not clear and you seem to be missing the flaw in Wikipedia's biased claim. Your point about the religious seems completely unrelated to your other point. Be clear, and I'll respond, but demonstrate that understand the flaw in Wikipedia's analysis or else I may not waste my time.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:21, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

== Obvious bias in liberal page ==
Did anybody else notice that in the "See Also" section for [[Liberal]], there are a ton of links, with most of them being negative (to the point of extremity and nitpickiness such as [[Liberal celebrity obsession]] or [[Liberal Myths]]), while the same section for [[Conservative]] has only three links, none of them which are remotely negative?

--[[User:Blabberno|Blabberno]] 21:13, 14 April 2008 (EDT)

==Administrator names? Huh?==

This article makes the claim that Wikipedia harbors an anti-intellectual bias because of the fact that the site has many users with "silly administrator names", uhm, excuse me, but it also makes the claim all over this page that there are far too many examples of pages being "complicated" or information about people being "buried" within lengthy articles. I don't have any problem with this page at all, and I appreciate ''what'' it's trying to say, but I have to take issue with ''how'' its said. It's irresponsible and misleading to say that the little tags accompanying edits on Wikipedia are somehow a vanguard of idiocy but then to say that Wikipedia is being deceptive because it doesn't follow (or, speaking chronologically, because it didn't ''create'') the Conservapedia model of referring to politicians in cherry-picked Fortune Cookie-size snippets according to subjective information and some stray quote. It's hardly a stretch to say that a Congressman or activist or other such notable figure being referred to as being "...a [[liberal]] [[Socialist]] [[secular]]-[[Progressivism|progressive]] who once referred to [[Christianity]] as a charade" (or some other such marginalization) would be difficult to find on Conservapedia. Basically, if this articles going to attack Wikipedia for being a flip-flopping, contradictory, biased Gemorrah, then let's please not turn around and do these EXACT same things on very page where we claim these things about them. Just a thought (as with most things here...). [[User:LinusWilson|LinusWilson]] 14:20, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

I concur. --[[User:StevenM|Steve]] 14:23, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

: Replying to Linus above, there is nothing contradictory about:

* criticizing anti-intellectual user names
* criticizing long-winded, wordy entries filled with trivial and weak on substance

: That's Wikipedia in a nutshell. It tells you everything except what you need to know, just like the National Enquirer. And Wikipedia gives that juice from the hands of anti-intellectual contributors who think it's funny to be dumb.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:33, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

==Peter Singer==
New to this site. Check out the article on Peter Singer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer, particularly well known for his belief in infanticide. The article makes little mention of his views, and the section purporting to include the ideas reads like an advertisement for his book. An excerpt from one of his books can be found at http://www.utilitarian.net/singer/by/1993----.htm [[User:Egd|Egd]] 13:35, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

* Quotes such as '''Simply killing an infant is never equivalent to killing a person''' were ''removed'' as being POV

:Wikipedia policy: "It is inappropriate to remove blocks of well-referenced information which is germane to the subject from articles on the grounds that the information advances a point of view." [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_policy/Precedents#Deleted_content] But this is disregarded by POV-pushers. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:59, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

== Question of Logic ==

The underlying grammar of this page (at least) is "wikipedia this" and "wikipedia that" as if it were a hive mind, monolithic and single-minded. While the examination of the religion templates of registered Wikipedia users ("Wikipedians", whatever) approaches laudability, the conscious choice to treat it, its articles, and its users as a single static unit rather than one made up of self-selecting communities (with particular categories of articles dominated by particular communities of users) does nothing for your credibility among those who disagree with this website or, ultimately, its political goals. Self-isolation and the creation of an "us vs. them" mentality (among other approaches of this site) just make this //look// like its users are stereotypically smug, self-righteous, hypocritical conservatives working on a "propaganda source" instead of an honestly self-critical attempt at a no-nonsense examination of the world. 
 
To be clear, I am neither conservative nor liberal (my views on foreign policy tend to agree more with 'hawks', my economics more technical than political, my social/civil views classically liberal, and my historical/teleological views loosely extropian). I agree there is some degree of 'liberal' (as nebulous as that word is) bias among Wikipedia's editing communities, but I also think '''this''' community's notion of 'balance' is ridiculous. As well, I believe it is politically ineffective beyond 1) preaching to the proverbial choir and 2) reinforcing stereotypes of conservatives - how 'they' think and view others. If those are truly the goals of Conservapedians, then good luck and happy editing. [[User:Zebu1911|Zebu1911]] 23:17, 1 May 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Intelligent design

2008-05-04T21:36:07Z

Cal05000: /* Creationist vs. Scientists */

{{protect|DanH}}

== Uneditable?? ==
I understand the need to monitor this "conservi" because of arguments, but there should be a way to get new ideas into a topic. So I commented that there is no evidence for intelligent design (at least in the section called "evidence"). It's a proposition or a belief, not a conveyance of facts. Show me a fact and I'll concede to "evidence," but that's not what is here. Opinions are here (see Evidence --> Support below). It's ok to believe in ID over evolution, but don't confuse your readers by calling a belief "fact." You're sending them backwards a step in their thinking; misleading them. --[[User:Propro|Propro]] 18:20, 11 July 2007 (EDT)
::I came here to say the same thing. There is no evidence to support the conjecture of intelligent design under the "evidence" section of this article. In fact, that section spends more time talking about evolution than intelligent design. You don't prove a conjecture by disproving a theory. What I would do if I could is delete everything under the "evidence" section of this page for this reason.--[[User:MichaelK|MichaelK]] 11:33, 12 February 2008 (EST)

:::There is a dispute in the academic community over whether there is evidence for intelligent design. Your opinions don't count, if neither of you is an academic.

:::Specifically at issue is what sort of evidence can be accepted to prove or disprove ID's thesis - or for that matter, the naturalistic theory of evolution. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:44, 12 February 2008 (EST)
::::But would you say that anything under the "Evidence" section of this article qualifies as evidence? --[[User:MichaelK|MichaelK]] 20:40, 12 February 2008 (EST)

== Evidence --> Support ==
This section contains no evidence and properly belongs under "support." The statement "...that there are certain irreducible complexities in organisms which can only be addressed by an intelligent designer" is not supported by the book quote. The book quote paraphrases 'as humans we can't experience evolution in molecular biology, so we don't ~know~ that it is true.' Ok, that's fine and it is the same statement of doubt placed on all science. Science doesn't prove anything, it just finds evidence to support hypotheses.

However, refuting proof of molecular evolution provides no evidence for intelligent design, it just leaves room for another explanation. This is the classic [[argument from ignorance]] and offers (at best) support. --[[User:Propro|Propro]] 16:32, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

== Arguments ==

"obfuscate?!!" I had to look it up. Anybody else pick up the irony in that statement? Education is not a bad thing. In academia, you're allowed to say just about anything you want... but you have to support it with an argument if you want people to listen.--[[User:Propro|Propro]] 17:49, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Important, vitally important, to set out the major errors with evolution that intelligent design addresses. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 16:54, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Bottom line: Secularist commentators on Intelligent Design are Ivory Tower snobs that hide behind exclusionary institutions meant to obfuscate knowledge. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:50, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:With a kick butt secret hand shake too! [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:51, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Dimitar, please discuss in here before making edits on main article. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 18:58, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Dawkins is a known atheist, TmToulouse. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 19:00, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::DunsScotus, I'm guessing your defition of "Ivory Tower snob" is anyone you can't understand. -'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 16:21, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

== General ==

To avoid an edit war, I'll discuss the changes I made here before reintroducing them.

On the Judge Jones speech: Jones is a Republican and a Christian, appointed by George W Bush. If we're going to count quoting him as 'liberal POV,' then perhaps we should make a list of conservatives who aren't conservative enough for conservapedia. Who wants to start?

On the DI's publication list: the cited list contains 38 publications. That's assuming no duplication. It's also counting books, not just articles, and not all of the entries are peer-reviewed. That's not even considering the actual content of the articles, and whether any make a positive case for ID.

On the DI's petition: it is neither designed for nor capable of measuring an increase in support for ID. The claim that scientific support for ID is 'steadily growing' is utterly unsupported. 700 is not 'broad support' in a community of tens of thousands. The petition is indeed open to mathematicians and engineers, as can be seen at the cited website.

On 'new scientific evidence' questioning evolution: far too strong a statement to be made without so much as a citation. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 14:39, 2 March 2007 (EST)

:The removal of reference to the Judge Jones speech was wrong and detracts from the authority of this site. I will replace it unless a cogent reason for its removal is provided. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 19:00, 2 March 2007 (EST)
::Authority of this site? It's a laughing stock. "Design Theory has broad scientific support" indeed. What a joke! --[[User:John Galt|John Galt]] 17:52, 5 March 2007 (EST)

:Since no one has even attempted to dispute my points, I'm going to go ahead and make the necessary changes. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 05:59, 6 March 2007 (EST)

::Exactly why are you adding the liberal viewpoint as fact to the article? [[User:Harpie snark|Harpie snark]] 17:05, 6 March 2007 (EST)

:::Perhaps you could start with the ''list of reasons above'', not to mention Conservapedia's first commandment. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 17:08, 6 March 2007 (EST)

::::Everything I added and subsequently restored is properly supported by proper ''conservative'' sources, which is more than I can say about your changes. [[User:Harpie snark|Harpie snark]] 17:23, 6 March 2007 (EST)

::::::"I'm right and you're wrong" does not constitute a rebuttal. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 17:31, 6 March 2007 (EST)

I simply wished to outline the reasons behind the changes I made.

Essentially, Intelligent Design, as is, can not be a scientific theory unless you can prove the existence of God with the scientific method. You can believe it, you could be right, but it is not science. This is the reason why the petition to have it taught in the science classroom was denied.

Proponents of intelligent design, such as Behe, always stress that the guiding intelligence is probably God, but that it doesn't have to be. This is necessary to ensure that intelligent can be viewed as science rather than religious dogma. [[User:Order|Order]] 10:20 (AEST)

If you claim that intelligent design claims that the intelligent cause is God, you just reiterate to point which the Kitzmiller party in the Dover trial tried to make; namely that ID is religion and not science. ID proponents always claim with good reason that the intelligent cause is unknown. [[User:Order|Order]] 14:20 (AEST)

I eliminated the word "notable" in two places because it is not supported by facts and it is simply a POV word. I also added the word "some" because obviously not all scientists are supporting ID - in fact, only a miniscule number of them are. --[[User:MoeLarryAndJesus|MoeLarryAndJesus]] 17:44, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I find this "Bible argument" Hillarious. ID is simply idetifying in matter that an intelligent entity influenced it's existsnce. DNA and Natural law as well as the constant sad picture of mosaics show that Intelligent Design is simply identifying that the matter was created by something intelligent. There are Buddhists, Daoists, New Age, Hidnu, Moslem and Jewish people who publically support it in college. What a sad croc for evolutionsits to say it has to do with the Bible. --[[User:JollyCharacter|JollyCharacter]] 11:35, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

== "notable"? ==

There is a fair bit of edit war going on now over the word "notable". How are these things notable? Why are they notable? The word adds nothing to the phrase "From 2001 to 2007 over 700 notable scientists" unless one can actually say what makes these scientists notable (beyond signing the manifesto). I strongly recommend its removal. There is a difference between removing liberal bias and adding conservative bias. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:47, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I agree totally. "Notable" means absolutely nothing in this context. If someone wants to show me a list of Nobel Prize winning scientists who signed the document in question, I'd say "notable" was warranted. It's not even a matter of "adding conservative bias" - it's just gibberish. --[[User:MoeLarryAndJesus|MoeLarryAndJesus]] 18:56, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

"Notable" stricken again. It would be nice if the person who is reverting my edits would explain what purpose "notable" serves instead of just reverting without comment. --[[User:MoeLarryAndJesus|MoeLarryAndJesus]] 18:58, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

==two issues==

Someone messed uop the article and deleted it all but left some curse words. Also, why is there no article about Dr William Dembski? I believe he has proven evolution wrong by using math and science, but there is no article about him and very little mentions of him in this article (even before it was deleted). [[User:Miles|Miles]] 17:30, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:If you want an article on Dembski, feel free to create one. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 12:15, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

== The Theory of Intelligent Design ==

I notice that evolution is (for reasons that I never really understood) defined under the heading "The Theory of Evolution". Shouldn't Intelligent Design be defined under the heading "The Theory of Intellegent Design". As things stand it rather looks as if Conservapedia is endorsing intelligent design over evolution. I am sure that this is unintentional. Perhaps this page should be moved to "The Theory of Intelligent Design". Comments? --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 18:50, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:Just as soon as someone develops a coherent theory of intelligent design, we can move the article. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 18:52, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:This goes back to, no doubt, the notion that evolution is just (or "just") a theory, whereas intelligent design is, I suppose, to be considered the standard non-biblical explanation. [[User:WJThomas|WJThomas]]

:Yes, evolution is a theory. The idea that the Earth orbits around the sun is ''also'' a theory, we just have ALOT of evidence that is in support of said orbit. The idea that the Sun is a ball of gas is also a theory, but supported by numerous scientific experiments via observation from Earth and with probes. So no, Intelligent Design is not a theory because it refuses any chance of it being disproven, it's inherently deep seated in the idea that absolutely everything it states is pure fact. I suggest you go buy a telescope and try and see if you can find God somewhere 'round the Andromeda galaxy. For it to be a theory you have to present '''''evidence''''' that supports the existence of Him/Her/It/Them. All you have is a book that's arguably overexaggerated fiction mixed in with some history. [[User:Opacic|Opacic]] 05:17, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

The theory part should be removed. Intelligent design is not a theory it is a hypothesis.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 12:49, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

:It's not even a hypothesis. It's conjecture. It's a vague assertion inserted in a gap of understanding. It claims that a common ancestor species led to all extant life through the process of evolution, but at certian key points a "designer" of unspecified nature and origin used unspecified methods to "design" biological features on populations of divergent organisms that could not otherwise have emerged. It offers no actual mechanism (to qualify even as a hypothesis it must state exactly how the 'design' was implemented into a feature, not merely that a feature was 'designed'), it merely asserts that an unspecified mechanism had "design" intent behind it solely upon the basis of some people being unable to think of any means by which those aforementioned features could have emerged. [[User:Dimensio|Dimensio]] 12:01, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

== BCE ==

how come [[BCE]] isnt allowed?
:Because it ''really'' means '''B'''e-'''C'''oming '''E'''volutionsists! --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 02:22, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

This is answered on the commandments page, but essentially its because the Conservapedia founders believe that any term that doesn't mention Christ is Anti-Christian. I dont understand it either, but they make the rules... just seems like nitpicking to me. - Suricou

== Other Intelligent Causes ==

In the statement:

"The hypothesis on intelligent design leaves the identity of the intelligent cause open, since this question is not accessible by scientific investigation [2]. Many proponents however admit to believe the intelligent cause to be God."

There is listed only one potential source for the intelligent cause, that being God. Should there be other potential intelligent causes listed? I know there are many who believe humans are the decendants of alien and ape interbreeding, now they may not be a "sane" position but shouldn't there be an attempt at listing at least one other possibility? Any suggestions?

: Earlier version of this article had a reference to extra-terrestrials. I even added a link to a site by the Raelians. This entire piece was then removed with as reason that Raelians are religious nuts. I can see that point. However, Behe for example also said something to that effect, that it could have been an alien, or a time traveling biochemist. I am not sure if this article needs a reference to extra-terrestrial causes, but if you want to propose something, I would start with Behe's or Dembski, since they are less controversial as the Raelians, or Erich van Daeniken, or some Russian guy, who has a theory about a 10th planet (forgot his name:). --[[User:Order|Order]] 17 March, 19:00 (AEST)

::If my views decided, JWs and Catholics would be considered religious nuts, I find their respective beliefs rediculous. But its not my place to decide which religion is nutty, nor anyones - go ahead and put it back on, and if someone wants to take it out again then they should come up with a more specific reason than that. - BornAgainBrit

::I agree that the Raleians are kind of out there but it a round about way they support what Behe and Dembski say on the subject (both propose it could be a space alien). Wikipedia would not allow any mention of the Raelians on their article about Intelligent Design even though the Raleians specifically mention the intelligent designer(s). It might broaden the article to inlcude their perspective on intelligent design. That's the problem with Wikipedia, they do not allow all sides to be represented. [[User:Miles|Miles]] 12:10, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Neither does this side. The Raelians are a though sell here as well. --[[User:Order|Order]] 20 March

::::Why is it a tough sell? The design theorists all claim it ''could'' be a space alien and the Raelians all claim it ''is'' a space alien. Just seems odd to leave this fact out, especially since the Raelians are supporting intelligent design theory and not criticising it. [[User:Miles|Miles]] 14:14, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

== Conservative's "factual error" ==

Conservative, you don't state how that was in error. There are two possibilities:
* You show multiple articles that have been in peer reviewed papers
* You show that the article that was mentioned was not pulled from the paper
Otherwise, it was not in error and to remove the explaining text only serves to mislead the reader. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 16:40, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Aaaaaaaaand he protected it.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 16:42, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:: What a fascist, Man, anytime I question my decision to move out of my country I can come here. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 16:43, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::: This should '''not''' be protected. I'm not convinced this was an error. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 16:44, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::::The footnote shows there have been more than one article. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:46, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:::::Lies makes baby jesus cry. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 16:49, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

(Wooo hooo! One more for the Lock List:[[User:myk]] [[User:Myk|Myk]] 16:47, 23 March 2007 (EDT) I think I'll just hold out on removing this from the list... I think I know how this will play out.)

ColinR correctly unlocked it. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 16:48, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Locking articles is to prevent vandalism, not to enforce one's ideology. If more peer reviewed papers can be found, I have no issues with changing the article. Until then, that section should remain as is and the article should be '''unlocked'''. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 16:51, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:To Conservative<nowiki>:</nowiki> calling editors who made factual edits "unreasonable people" and "evolutionists" is an ad hominem attack. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 16:55, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

== what is wrong with this sentence? ==

Recently, there has been articles which defended the [[intelligent design]] position in scientific journals which traditionally have favored the macroevolutionary position. [http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2640]

LOOK AT THE FOOTNOTE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:52, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:Pull out TWO just TWO articles that have been published in peer review journals not run by the DI and affiliates. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 16:54, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:Aside from the grammar, there have not been '''articles''', there has been '''one'''. As such, the AmesG edit is the correct one. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]]

:Intelligent design is broadly supported in the scientific community. We should consider Behe's books. [http://www.arn.org/authors/behe.html] [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 16:57, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Those aren't peer reviewed articles. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 16:58, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Behe is still another source nonetheless. There's no reason he should not be included, if not for historical notability. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 16:58, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:: A few books by one individual does not constitute broad support. Nor are those peer reviewed. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:00, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:[http://thequestionableauthority.blogspot.com/2005/12/discovery-institute-and-publications.html fun reading] [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 16:59, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Behe's books are irrelevant to whether ID is "broadly supported by the scientific community," which it is clearly not.[[User:Murray|Murray]] 17:01, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Here is a portion of that footnoted material and pay attention to the bold portion:

Peer-Edited or Editor-Reviewed Articles Supportive of Intelligent Design Published in Scientific Journals, Scientific Anthologies and Conference Proceedings

'''Jonathan Wells, “Do Centrioles Generate a Polar Ejection Force?," Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum 98 (2005): 37-62.'''

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:04, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

: The key phrase here is "Peer-Edited or Editor-Reviewed" -- that is not the same at all as "peer reviewed". Those are not peer reviewed journals. They do not claim to be. It is a very different level of what is acceptable to each. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:05, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
: Furthermore ... those journals you have linked to are not ones that are traditionally proponents of evolution. You've even got a philsophy journal in there. None of those are peer reviewed science journals. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:08, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Hahahaha! Rivista di Biologia???? You are kidding right. Let me guess you don't know much about that journal? Books that have not under gone peer review don't work either. We are talking SCIENCE also not philosophy. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:06, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Just because secularists fail to recognize the truth of the Bible, and gang up on brave men who try to expose the truth (there's an analogy to theorists of global climate change, here) doesn't mean that Behe isn't a trailblazer in furthering understanding of God's creation. I'd say secularist scientific opinion is irrelevant. Conservative, you're on the right track! [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:06, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Just check DunsScotus... you do know that ID has "nothing to do with religion" right? [[User:Myk|Myk]] 17:07, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

I don't get why everyone is so mad about this. In my view there is a rich amount of information available to debate both sides. However, the people attacking "many" just seem to want to discredit ID. Why not admit that both sounds have reasonable grounds for argument?--[[User:CWilson|CWilson]] 17:15, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
: The problem here is that facts are being misrepresented. It doesn't matter who is misrepresenting them - I'll fight just as hard if a secularist misrepresents something in the Bible. However, when one says that multiple articles have been published in peer reviewed journals and that is shown to be not true, and the one article that was published was withdrawn, then facts are being misrepresented. One can argue about interpretations all they want, but to make patently false claims to bolster their side of the argument is unacceptable. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:18, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:CWilson the point is that the Discovery Institute's list of "peer-reviewed and peer-edited" publications supportive of ID is basically full of what is at best misleading information, and at worst outright lies.--[[User:Murray|Murray]] 17:20, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Intelligent Design is a useful corrective to the foul odors produced by the materialist and atheistic opinions of [[Charles Darwin]] (you'll note his entry identifies him as such.) Along with Marxism, these are philosophies that have done great harm to humanity by tempting them away from Christianity and Capitalism. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:28, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Please don't say that they're liars. Just don't go down this road. There are many evolutionsits who have lied about their findings of "missing links" on the human evolutionary chain. There ahs been a lot of "hand waiving" on evolution by atheists, deists, liberals and neo-marxists for years.

We have seen this with "peer review" fraud by "denying articles on the basis of lack of peer review" for the Creation-Evolution Magazine for several years. THAT was fraud and Discovery Institute finally "broke" the peer review bubble troubling all of our "honest" evolutionists as shown in the movie: "Flock of Dodos." [[User:JollyCharacter|JollyCharacter]] 11 April 2007 (EDT)

== why aren't you counting this? ==

Jonathan Wells, “Do Centrioles Generate a Polar Ejection Force?," Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum 98 (2005): 37-62.

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:09, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:Because Rivsta di Biologia is not a legitimate journal. It publishes everything, and is run by a fringe editor. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:10, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Would [[The Fortean Times]] be acceptable? --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 17:12, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Is Rivsta peer reviewed? Yes or no? Is it a science journal? Yes or no? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:19, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

Rivsta is a Theoretical Biology journal, not a research journal. ''personal remark removed'' Lol:)--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 12:57, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

ID is bad science. It assumes a priori that something is true (that some intelligent designer fashioned life with intent) and then attempts to find some sort of evidence to support these claims. It is entirely contrary to fundamental scientific methodology.

Furthermore, I would question the motive of people of faith who seek evidence of the hand of god within the origins of life. Christianity is predicated upon faith. You must profess a faith in God as your savior and to search for evidence to support that faith would seem to be a position that is contradictory and perhaps even heretical, no?

== Impact Factor ==

:No and no. Anything with a 0.5 IF is NOT a science journal. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:22, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::What does this mean: Anything with a 0.5 IF is NOT a science journal? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:24, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

::::My apologies, IF is used in academia to rank journals by influence and respect. Its called the Impact Factor. Essentially you can think of it as a measure of how much other scientist pay attention to the journal. Anything under 1 means that it is NEVER cited and never read by anyone outside the journal. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:26, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Impact Factors are only relevant when discussing secularist publications. Given the existing biases against the truth (or the paradigm!) it is hard to believe that the Biblical Truth would get much play in say, ''Nature.'' [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:28, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
::: This actually supports the suggestion that Rivsta di Biologia is not part of the ''secularist publications'' and thus should not be used in addressing if there is support amongst mainstream science as has been alleged. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]]

:::::::Tmtoulouse, you said to "rank journals". You therefore admitted it was a journal. It is a science journal. Now why isn't it peer reviewed? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:32, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

::::::::Wrong. It is used to "rank journals" but that does not make this a SCIENCE journal. It merely makes it a journal that no one reads. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:34, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Even a scientific journal ''nobody reads'' is still a scientific journal. Just because your precious secularist publications wouldn't recognize Truth if it was submitted to them as a peer-reviewed journal article doesn't detract from the Truth of the Intelligent Design movement being published in Scientific journals. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:36, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Okay guys I am bolding this cause you seem to miss it '''journal does not equal science journal'''[[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:37, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Tmtoulouse, I think you are playing games. It is a science journal and it is ranked. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:40, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:::::Rivista?? You are still on about Rivista? No it is NOT a science journal and it is not "ranked" in any normal sense of the word. An IF can be computed for anything, Rivista does NOT have an IF. Its NOTHING. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:42, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::::::Tmtoulouse, Why are you saying that Rivesta is not peer reviewed? Can you back that statement up? Secondly, who decides what IF number decides if a journal is a science journal. Is Tmtoulouse the decider? And who decides that IF number is even relevant in determining if a journal is a science journal. Again is it you? Please show me some authoritative source that gives a IF number cut off for something to be considered a science journal. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:47, 24 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

(undent) In order to be a ''science'' journal you must contribute to ''science'' if none of the article you published receive even a cursory glance then you can't not say your journal is contributing to science. Rivista is not a respected journal, the editor is fringe, publishes mostly rants against the "establishment" and has as much peer review as a journal published by the DI. If you REALLY want to add the Rivista citation, then we need to link to sites criticizing Rivista, and this is not needed in the article. But, even if Rivista WAS a science journal, as has been pointed out all ready the paper published there is NOT about intelligent design and did not us ID "theory". So its an interesting, though moot point, about the reliability of Rivista as a journal. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:56, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

== Creationist scientists have peer reviewed journals too! The whole statement is invalid ==

Creationist scientists have peer reviewed journals too! The whole statement is invalid [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:37, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:My buddies and I could put together a peer reviewed journal about ninjas, too, but that doesn't make it accurate and it doesn't make it science.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 17:39, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:If you want to add a sentence about how they have published lots in journals that are run by creationist go for it. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:39, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::I'm new here but I think Conservapedia would be best served by NOT perpetuating the half truths (such as peer review) told by the Discovery Institute. The sooner the concept of intelligent design can divorce itself from the likes of the Discovery Institute the better. Avoiding the mistakes of Wikipedia is a great thing but to adopt the Discovery Institute's methods (and arguments) would not be an improvement. [[User:Miles|Miles]] 18:20, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:The Discovery Institute only supports the Truth, Miles. If that Truth is inconvenient for secularist ears, so much the better. As Paul says, in Galatians 4:16, "Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?" [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 18:24, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Duns, I swear on everything I hold dear, the DI does not want you supporting them in one breath and then quoting scripture in the next. They won't get what they want that way. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 22:46, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

==Creationists==

::Cross-apply that Galatians quote to YEC reactions to evolution in general.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 18:31, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::The problem YEC's have is starting in the middle of the science. To wit: "We know that the Bible is Truth itself, how then can we fit the science to match that which we already know to be 'true'?" YEC science '''can''' be crafted so that everything fits. It cannot, however, make any predictions because the science can only be used in ONE direction, the past. You will never see a YEC say, "We know dinosaurs and human beings existed at the same time, therefore it may be observed that (insert prediction here); thus providing a truth that the premise is true. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 18:34, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Creationists are far afield from Intelligent Design advocates, but in both cases, it is important to suppress these secularist notions of ''inferable truth'' with recourse to unimpeachable sources, in this case, the Bible and common-sense observation of reality. There is no evidence, without resorting to inference, for so many cherished liberal/secularist concepts. This means that Evolution, for example, or Geologic Time Scale-ism, are belief systems of their own, but false ones, because they do not have The Bible, and the Truth of God's Word, behind them. Who would you rather put your trust in? Human scientists? Or God? Cracker, the Bible is the Only Truth you need. Don't second-guess God. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 18:39, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Wow. I guess I'm the first one here, so I'll drop the f-bomb: '''''falsifiability'''''. By explaining your "truth" that way, you prove how it's not science.-18:41, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Where is your God, AmesG? God is the only Truth, science just uncovers what God wants to reveal. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 18:44, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::So much for God not being the author of confusion. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 18:52, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Well he is the source of [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Great_Flood#On_Kant translation error] in the King James bible according to DunsScotus. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 18:54, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

==Without Merit==

Okay DunsScotus what is with out merit? [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 19:03, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

==Well's Centrioles paper==

Whether or not ''Rivista'' is a credible journal is utterly irrelevant, since Well's hypothesis was in no way based on any theory of intelligent design. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 14:55, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

== I found several articles in peer reviewed science journals which were ID ==

[http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2640&program=CSC Articles Supportive of Intelligent Design Published in Peer-Reviewed Scientific Journals]

Ø. A. Voie, "Biological function and the genetic code are interdependent," Chaos, Solitons and Fractals, Vol 28(4) (2006): 1000-1004.

John A. Davison, “A Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis,” Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum 98 (2005): 155-166.

S.C. Meyer, “The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories,” Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, 117(2) (2004): 213-239.

M.J. Behe and D.W. Snoke, “Simulating Evolution by Gene Duplication of Protein Features That Require Multiple Amino Acid Residues,” Protein Science, 13 (2004): 2651-2664.

D. A. Axe, “Estimating the Prevalence of Protein Sequences Adopting Functional Enzyme Folds,” Journal of Molecular Biology, Vol. 341 (2004): 1295–1315.

W.-E. Lönnig & H. Saedler, “Chromosome Rearrangements and Transposable Elements,” Annual Review of Genetics, 36 (2002): 389-410.

D.K.Y. Chiu & T.H. Lui, “Integrated Use of Multiple Interdependent Patterns for Biomolecular Sequence Analysis,” International Journal of Fuzzy Systems, 4(3) (September 2002): 766-775.

M.J. Denton, J.C. Marshall & M. Legge, (2002) “The Protein Folds as Platonic Forms: New Support for the pre-Darwinian Conception of Evolution by Natural Law,” Journal of Theoretical Biology 219 (2002): 325-342.

D. A. Axe, “Extreme Functional Sensitivity to Conservative Amino Acid Changes on Enzyme Exteriors,” Journal of Molecular Biology, Vol. 301 (2000): 585-595.

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:18, 24 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:Can you explain in your own words how each paper supports ID, or are you just taking the DI's word for it? [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 18:19, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

::It will take me some time to review all of these, so I will get back to you. What I will look for is that they are published in a peer review science journal, address topics that are science and used Intelligent Design to make their conclusions. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 18:20, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Blast! Beat me to it. Obviously the one from Rivista di Biologia isn't legit, as said above. Behe, too, is obviously suspect. Also, the "Higher Taxonomic" etc. is already mentioned in the article as the one peer reviewed ID article. Perhaps you could read the other articles and explain how they support ID: I don't really feel like taking the Discovery Institute at face value.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 18:21, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

Conservative, I think it's impolite to revert until other people have looked at those and agreed.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 18:22, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

...aaaaand it's protected again.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 18:23, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

:I'm familiar with the Behe/Snoke paper. Two minor details: one, it's an argument against evolution, not for ID. Two, what they actually managed to prove was that IC systems can evolve in a reasonable timeframe, which is the exact opposite of what they were going for. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 18:24, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Please see the summary of the above articles located here. [http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2640&program=CSC here] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:25, 24 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:::::I will NOT review these articles UNTIL the page is unprotected and returned to the consensus version. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 18:26, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::I'll take that as an admission that you are indeed just taking the DI's word for it, shall I? [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 06:34, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

Ø. A. Voie, "Biological function and the genetic code are interdependent," Chaos, Solitons and Fractals, Vol 28(4) (2006): 1000-1004.

W.-E. Lönnig & H. Saedler, “Chromosome Rearrangements and Transposable Elements,” Annual Review of Genetics, 36 (2002): 389-410.

D.K.Y. Chiu & T.H. Lui, “Integrated Use of Multiple Interdependent Patterns for Biomolecular Sequence Analysis,” International Journal of Fuzzy Systems, 4(3) (September 2002): 766-775.

M.J. Denton, J.C. Marshall & M. Legge, (2002) “The Protein Folds as Platonic Forms: New Support for the pre-Darwinian Conception of Evolution by Natural Law,” Journal of Theoretical Biology 219 (2002): 325-342.

The following papers are the ones that I am not immediately familiar with. JAD's work is out, the Axe work does NOT support intelligent design, the behe snoke paper also supports evolutionary theory. This is whats left. Anyone familiar with these works? [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 19:22, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

==Lying for Jesus: the American Taliban==

This page is a joke, this site is a joke. I am done. There are many people here that thing they can do something with this site, do not be fooled. I thought there was hope, there is not. Give up on it. Turn your back on it. These fascist are not worth your time. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 19:55, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

== Kitzmiller trap. ==

The first paragrah used to say:

''The theory on intelligent design leaves the identity of the intelligent cause open, since this question is not accessible by scientific investigation [http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1341].''

Now it says:

''Many design theorists leave the identity of the intelligent cause open.[2]''

This phrasing is problematic, since it helps opponents of intelligent design, such as in Kitzmiller vs. Dover. They say that ID is repackaged creationism. To not fall into this trap all it is essential for the theory to leave the intelligent cause open. And that is exactly what all theorists do. When they speak as private person, and not as scientist, they often admit that they think that is is [[God]], but as theorists they '''all''' leave it open. And with good reason, because otherwise you kind of agree with the Kitzmiller party that intelligent design is not science but religous. I would strongly sugggest to revert the current version to the old version. [[User:Order| Order]] 25 March, 17:10 (AEST)

The reason the question is not accessible by scientific investigation is because the designer is in the realm of the supernatural. Science is not capable of investigating the supernatural.

Regardless of how you word it, the intelligent designer is the ultimate reason ID isn’t science because ID theory '''requires the intervention''' of this designer. A designer who, in the end, must be supernatural. This is one of the reasons that ID doesn’t get as much support as many of the editors here would like.

Is it really right to change the wording to make this less apparent to the reader? [[User:Land Dweller| Land Dweller]] 26 March, 03:35 (EDT)

So, you suggest to leave the Kitzmiller trap open because interlligent design cannot possibly be science, no matter how you word it? [[User:Order]] 27 March

:The debate is between
:#Those who call ID a form of creationism and want it kept out of public schools
:#Those who call ID a legitimate topic of scientific discussion and want it to be allowed in public schools that wish to include it

:Let's create an article (or section) on the [[Intelligent Design controversy]]. (Full disclosure: I'm "on probation" at Wikipedia for trying to create a neutral article there about this.)

:We should present all the arguments (like E. Scott's) against; but also all the arguments for. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:10, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

::The "old" version - ''The theory on intelligent design leaves the identity of the intelligent cause open, since this question is not accessible by scientific investigation''

::This begs the question - ''why'' is the question of who/what the intelligent designer "not accessible" by scientific investigation? If it is a space alien why could science not investigate it? That "old" version does not make a lick of sense. [[User:Miles|Miles]] 13:53, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

:Perhaps science has been defined so as to exclude consideration supernatural causes. But the [[scientific method]] as I originally learned it in school had no such limitation. It might be more accurate to say that [[physical science]] looks only at the [[natural world]] seen as being governed by [[natural law]].

:Scientific methods of investigation can be (and have been) used to examine the supernatural. I believe [[Harry Houdini]] spent a lot of time on this, revealing fraudulant [[spiritualist]]s and [[medium]]s who conducted fake [[seance]]s. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:15, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

::Fraudulent spiritualists and mediums are in no way supernatural. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 04:15, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

User:Order, in answer to your Kitzmiller trap question, I like the old version of the statement
:''The theory on intelligent design leaves the identity of the intelligent cause open, since this question is not accessible by scientific investigation.'' for the reason stated below.

It offers the reason why ID proponents make no attempt to identity the designer or to learn anything about the abilities, motives or mechanisms used by the designer or designers. If ID proponents openly discussed the nature of the designer (who they generally believe to be God), it would be obvious to everybody that ID is just a new form of creation science. I think the reader should be informed of this reason because it is an important aspect of ID. [[User:Land Dweller|Land Dweller]] 16:12, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

:Can you supply a source for this assertion? Who (besides you) makes this argument? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:17, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

::Sure, Ed. Although many prominent pro-evolution figures in the evolution creation debate believe ID is a new form of creationism, the only source I could easily find was Barbara Forrest’s expert report used in the Kitzmiller v Dover trial. I couldn’t find a copy online, but here is a part of the first paragraph.

::"ID's rejection of naturalism in any form logically entails its appeal to the only alternative, supernaturalism, as a putatively scientific explanation for the natural phenomena. This makes ID a religious belief. In addition, my research reveals that ID is not science, but the newest variant of traditional American creationism. With only a few exceptions, it continues the usual complaints of creationists against the theory of evolution and comprises virtually all the elements of traditional creationism."

::[[User:Land Dweller|Land Dweller]] 18:09, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Oops! Somehow I turned on this boxed format. [[User:Land Dweller|Land Dweller]] 18:14, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

User:Miles, it’s true that it would be within the realm of science to investigate a space alien designer, but no prominent proponent of ID believes the designer is an alien. Nearly all of them believe it is God who is clearly supernatural.

It does no good to say the designer is a space alien. If said alien possessed any irreducibly complex systems, such as an eye or immune system, then it too could not evolve through natural processes alone. You then have to investigate who designed the alien. Eventually you are trying to investigate a God. [[User:Land Dweller|Land Dweller]] 16:32, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

:I think you are missing the point of ID's deliberate lack of identification of a designer. It makes an argument, based on [[irreducible complexity]], that life shows signs of having been designed. It stops there, because of legal requirements.

:You seem to be saying (along with E. Scott) that ID advocates' motivation for advancing this scientific argument is "part and parcel" of the theory; and that therefore it is a religious argument and/or religous theory. Is this what you are saying?

:::My point is to say the identity of the desiner is off limits to science is irrational and therefore does not belong in the article. Now, if they have proven the identity is supernatural or a diety, that might be different but so far those claims have not been proven. Otherwise you're basically saying "what goes up must come down, but it is beyond the realm of science to explain 'why'". it is also kind of crazy to suggest "I have a scientific theory that is beyond the realm of science" [[User:Miles|Miles]] 17:06, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

::::In answer to your first statement: The existence of a designer is a part of the IC argument. It says natural evolution couldn’t do it so the designer did it. I don’t understand what you mean by “It stops there, because of legal requirements.” I think they stop there because acknowledging the supernatural nature of the designer makes it clear that ID is essentially religious.

::::In answer to you second statement: Yes. Since they specifically say that a supernatural designer (God), created the eye, the immune system, etc., ID falls outside realm of science. See my above quote from Barbara Forrest in my previous comment.

::::In answer to your third statement: I agree with you. It’s unscientific to say the designer is off limits to science. Nobody can scientifically prove the existence, or non existence, of a deity. I also agree that it makes no sense to say “I have a scientific theory that is beyond the realm of science”. However I am not the one saying that. Footnote 2 in the Intelligent Design article refers to an IDEA website. They are supporters of ID and they say this under Actual Arguments of Leading ID Proponents. <blockquote>“The consensus of ID proponents is intelligent design theory does not allow one to identify the designer as natural or supernatural, because to do so would go beyond the limits of scientific inquiry.”</blockquote> ID proponents make this statement even though this designer is required to make systems that are Irreducibly Complex, and it is acknowledged by some ID theorists that the designer is supernatural.

::::If the opponents of ID said the designer is beyond the limits of scientific inquiry, I would agree that that statement should be in Criticism of ID section. Since it's the proponents saying this, it is appropriate to put it in the main part of the article.

::::When I read User:Order’s comment about which statement he thought should be in the article, wrote a comment expressing preference for the first one. I didn’t intend for it to turn into a debate.

::::I agree with User:Ed Poor that there should be a separate section in the ID article about the criticisms and controversy surrounding ID.

::::I'm getting better at formatting now. [[User:Land Dweller|Land Dweller]] 20:26, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

I am not married to the statement that the identity of the designer cannot be known. My point is that the article should not say that intelligent design, or intelligent design theorists, say that the intelligent cause is God. First. because they don't say it, they are carefully not saying it. Because they would otherwise fall into the Kitzmiller trap. Not sure if Conservapedia wants that during the next Dover trial the Kitzmillers point to Conserapedia and say: "Look even Conservapedia says it is religion. " [[User:Orer]] 31 March

:Please don't mingle the presentation of the theory with the dismantling or criticism of the theory. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 07:30, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

:: It was about the presentation all the time. [[User:Order]] 2 April

==Non-biological Intelligent Design==
I'm not a subject expert, so I'll help as best I can. But is Intelligent Design a theory that stands in opposition to Evolution? Does Intelligent Design attempt to explain the order that is found in the highest and lowest ends of our percerption? In other words, who designed the subatomic particles that are busy doing their thing so that I can exist? What about the galaxies? What part of Intelligent Design is philosophy and what part is science?

==Objections to ID==

Advocates of [[methodological naturalism]], vigorously oppose ID theory. Particular opposition comes from proponents of the materialistic [[Theory of evolution]]. [http://www.discovery.org/csc/topQuestions.php]

A sticking point for many of these opponents that ID leaves the identity of the intelligent cause open. Some arguments against ID are:
#that there could not be a designer without an [[infinite regress]] of designers.
#that it is illegitimate for ID proponents to conceal their religious beliefs about the Intelligent Designer

[http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1341]. However, some proponents admit to believing the intelligent cause to be [[God]].
----
The above was cut from the intro (by me). --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:12, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

I think a page devoted to Intelligent Design should at least discuss the main objection to ID (that I can see) which is that the supposedly intelligent designer included so many design flaws (eg the vertebrate eye). [[User:Chrysogonus|Chrysogonus]] 12:27, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

::It of course makes sense to include some of the objections if an idea/theory/thought is controversial. However, it's very important to keep the controversy separate from the presentation of the idea. Furthermore, this article should not evolve into an attempt to prove or disprove the theory. This should be a starting point for those who wish to research the idea further. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 06:52, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

:::I agree, Everwill, there should be a neutral, straight forward presentation of the theory. Criticisms should be in a separate section of the article. I also believe it would be good to have a standard template for articles about scientific theories. It could include, but not be limited to, sections describing the theory, history of the theory, and criticisms of the theory.

:::I don't know if this type of format will succeed at Conservapedia. Have you seen the article on The Theory of Evolution? What to you think of that format? [[User:Land Dweller|Land Dweller]] 14:40, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Ed, I think another objection that should be in a Criticisms section of this article is the fact that the overwhelming majority of scientists, not only in the United States, but worldwide don't accept the validity of ID theory.

::I stated my opinion about an appropriate format for articles about scientific theories. However, if the format and style used in the current version of the Theory of Evolution article remains as it is, then perhaps it should also apply to this article for the sake of consistency. [[User:Land Dweller|Land Dweller]] 14:55, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Thanks for that valuable feedback. I left a note on your talk page, and I started [[Template:Scientific theory]] for you. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 11:22, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

==is the watch analogy useful or misleading?==

I wonder if the watch analogy is useful or possibly instead misleading. A watch is not a biological entity nor does it reproduce. It reminds me of the Mount Rushmore analogy. Those seem like overly simplistic analogies and I wonder if some readers might find that insulting. I think there are better examples or analogies that those two. Just my opinion. [[User:Miles|Miles]] 16:22, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:I think the watch analogy works better for debunking the Big Bang, rather than evolution.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 16:24, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::How about the Rosetta Stone, [[Stonehenge]], and the statues on Easter Island? Aren't they indicative of human influence, i.e., don't they show signs of having been designed? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:30, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:::I don't agree with the watch analogy - at all - but I think it works as a statement of intent. It gets the idea across quickly and concisely; it's perfectly serviceable. (I'm not sure where you're going with the Rosetta Stone, et al, argument there Ed, though I am curious to find out). [[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 16:34, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::::A watch is an obvious example of human design (and note no one claims we cannot identify the identity of the watch making intelligent designer) but a watch is not a biological entity and I believe ID argues for a designer of biological entity. I'm not wanting to debate or cause a stir, it just seems overly simplistic and is not comparing apples with apples yet it implies the opposite. If you are in a watch making factory and see a stray cat in the warehouse do you assume a human designer as you do with the watches?

::::When I read the watch analogy my reaction was sort of "who are you trying to fool?" (and I believe in ID). I wish we had something better to use but I don't have any suggestions yet. [[User:Miles|Miles]] 16:42, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: Is the point not that the "great designer", or whatever it is to be called, is infinitely more powerful/intelligent than mankind and as such is capable of infinitely greater complexity of construction? Our puny earthling brains cannot comprehend the intelligence behind the design involved in the universe and so we need to reduce the argument to something which we can relate to comfortably. How are we supposed to understand something (even the idea behind it) if we can't contextualise the argument to something more suiting our own intelligences? We can conceive of designing and creating a watch. The "great designer" is infinitely greater than us, therefore he could conceive of and create the universe. [[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 16:50, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::When you add what you said Airdish, with "The hypothesis on intelligent design leaves the identity of the intelligent cause open, since this question is not accessible by scientific investigation" I get even more unanswered questions. Anyhow, the watch analogy bothers me but it does not bother anyone else and I am cool with that. Thanks for everyone's opinions. [[User:Miles|Miles]] 18:27, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::For me, that's the fundamental problem with ID: Who is the Intelligent Designer? It seems that it still requires a leap of faith and a belief in a higher power. Which, to me, is indistinguishable from religion. I should probably stop now, I'm not here to try to convince you or anyone else away from ID. [[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 18:38, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::::::Well I am not a fan of what I would call the modern intelligent design movement, at least not the version being sold by the [[Discovery Institute]]. Before they came along I and millions of others already know who created the Heavens and Earth and I don't need their "theories" or bacteria speak to justify my faith. So their "it could be a space alien" and "you cannot say or talk about the intelligent designer, but ID is science and not faith" is all less than honest hogwash to me. They claim it could be a space man but the seconed you point out the Raelians truly believe they are in contact with space men they clam up. I am not a Raelian nor do I think the Raelians are on to something, I am just making a point of how absurd some of the modern intelligent design movement leaders claims are. Obviously the "it could be a space alien" is not meant to be taken seriously. But it makes them famous and lines their pockets with plenty of gold so oh well. I just hope the article accurately describes ID without using their clever and less than honest portrayals and arguments. If you believe God created All, why not just say it in the first place is what I have to say to the modern ID movement. But this article sure is better than the Wiki article. [[User:Miles|Miles]] 17:47, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::: There are two things that strike me about the watch analogy. (1) It contains no references, and (2) It is completely fallacious. The watch 'analogy' only makes sense from the premise of a belief in Intelligent Design. If you follow the logic of Evolution, then it is entirely possible for an evolutionary process to come up with something at least as complex as a watch. [[Richard Dawkins]] in [[Climbing Mount Improbable]] provided many such examples of how evolutionary processes could lead to highly complex and organised systems. Thisnk about the following argument: I believe that the moon is made of cheese, whereas scientists say it is not. However, the moon looks like it is made of cheese, and everything which I have ever seen which are round an pock-marked have all been cheese. Therefore the moon must be made of cheese despite what the scientists say. See - it's complete nonsense. --[[User:CatWatcher|CatWatcher]] 18:00, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

==Here, Hear==
I hope it's not a waste of bandwidth, but I just want to praise the format of this [[Intelligent_Design|article]]. I have no idea if the content is any good or not, but this should be a template for all controversial subjects. I bashed my brains out at Wikipedia arguing --- not for or against Intelligent Design --- but for something resembling readable and fair. I can't shower you with enough praise for taking this simple and adult stance. I doesn't matter if Intelligent Design is baloney or not. (Let the reader make up his own mind ... because he already has made it up anyway.)

State the premise. Seperate the discourse into pro's and con's and move on. No more tears. Perfect. Thank you for drawing breath. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 08:16, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

== Creationist vs. Scientists ==
Suggest that you add to the begining: The problem between the two sides may be largely a matter of semantics. What scientists call the Universal Force, we call God. What we call Intelligent Design they call Chaos Theory.--[[User:Mike M|Mike M]] 10:55, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:I don't think so. God is interventionist, has a plan, and his own mind. 'Forces' work determistic. I doubt that you want to constrain God to be deterministic. There would be nothing left. [[User:Order]] 6 April, 11:05 (AEST)

::The Universal Force is simply the energy that brought forth the universe. Chaos Theory is the idea that what appears to be chaos has a clear pattern. Everything interacts. It is not deterministic.--[[User:Mike M|Mike M]] 10:28, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

::: For a start: 'Force' and 'energy' is something different. But that's aside. Forces are deterministic, and chaos, according to Chaos theory, actually as well. Chaos theory says that you cannot predict the behavior, if you allow for inaccurate measurements, but it doesn't say that its non-deterministic or probabilistic. 'The energy that brought forth the universe' is at best a deistic belief, since it doesn't need an interventionist god. At worst it is just a curently unexplained physical force, like the weak electromagnetic force was hundered years ago. Not sure if you feel worshipping such a force; and you obey its laws if you believe in it or not. [[User:Order]] 9 April, 20:45 (AEST)

::::In science the Universal Force is the energy that brought forth the Universe. In this case force does means energy and energy is not deterministic. If science would admit to a deistic god that would be a start but my question would then be if there is'nt an interventionist god who broke the Universal Force into the strong force, weak force, and electromagnitism.Chaos theory has also not been shown to to deterministic. For science to say that we should not believe in God but in the Universal Force is just semantics.--[[User:Mike M|Mike M]] 11:23, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:::*What broke up the forces? The expanding universe did, afaik. And that happened at at an exact size and an exact temperature of the universe, that can be computed from quantum physics. The force had no choice other than break apart.
:::*Chaos theory is a theory that studies the behavior of deterministic functions. However, these deterministic functions are extremely sensitive to the initial conditions. It might look non-deterministic, but it isn't.
:::*Calling God a force is actually just a bit short of atheism. Why would you worship a 'force'? Or believe in a 'force'? If you belief or not doesn't matter for a 'force'. How would you feel if you would find a tribe that worships magnetism?
:::*'Energy' is something different than 'force'. They are two different words, meaning something different. Your 'force'-speak sounds very much like New Age and Star Wars. Maybe that's what attracts you to it. But it's weasel language blurring the important difference between force and energy, and obscuring the deterministic nature of both. [[User:Order]] 10 April, 11:15 (AEST)

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/

==Statements and Analogies==
[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] the first block quote (Paley) has some stucktogether words in it. HTH. [[User:Rob Pommer| Cracker]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]] 00:11, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
::Thanks. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:29, 7 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

==Behe==

Where it says:

One of the first major books with evidence for intelligent design was Michael Behe's.

We should probably specify which book of Behe's this is. There's a reference to Darwin's Black Box in the next sentence, but it's not clear in context whether it's that book or not, and if I remember correctly, that may not have been his first book. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 21:18, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

== Please add a sentence to the section on opposition: ==

I would like to add a sentence to opposition:

:Critics of teaching Intelligent Design (ID) in public schools have long argued that it is unscientific because no intelligent design paper had been published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. However, after Richard von Sternberg managed the peer review process and published a paper by Intelligent Design researcher [[Stephen C. Meyer]], scietists at the Smithsonian Institution retaliated in what is known as the [[Smithsonian Controversy]].

Of course, the sentece could be reworked as necessary.[[User:HeartOfGold|HeartOfGold]] 22:38, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

== List is not needed given category ==

Please change '''List of Intelligent Design Theorists''' to [[:Category:Intelligent design theorists]] (please look at source to see proper way to link). The list page is only linked from this page. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 21:15, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
::I think it is an added help to the article and no harm is done. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:02, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
::: The category has all the information the list does, and is updated automatically as new items are added to the category. The list requires manual updates. If that page (too) becomes protected, then all the work needs to be done by sysops. As it is, the list page has two links on it, making it rather, well, useless. If nothing else, the link to the category should be provided in addition to the list. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 14:22, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

== I just came from wiki ==

I cannot believe how biased their ID article is. And I am not a conservative. However in many areas this site is much more accurate. [[User:ProtoCat|ProtoCat]] 12:25, 25 May 2007 (EDT)

I just came from there too and it gives a FULL discussion of ID and the issues surrounding it.[[User:Alloco1|Alloco1]] 00:39, 21 September 2007 (EDT)

== Fascinating... ==
Apparently, there are [http://www.caidweb.org/blog/ conservatives against intelligent design]. Who knew? --[[User:Afi|Afi]] 18:13, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

Not all conservatives are willing to ignore or attempt to discredit things we seen as being anti-conservative. I don't see how so many people seem to view evolution as liberal and anti-christian. There are plenty of conservative christians who recognize the significance of evolution and realize that it does not go against their beliefs. I learned evolution in a Catholic school and somehow have managed to keep my faith and remain a Christian. --[[User:TheGoodSociety|UPOD]] 13:23, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

My wife remembers being tought about evolution by a nun(who didn't bat an eye) in a Catholic school in Colombia.[[User:Alloco1|Alloco1]] 00:43, 21 September 2007 (EDT)

: And who taught the nun? The [[Catholic Church]] expressly forbids any teaching evolution as it is commonly taught because it contradicts one Adam. See [[Humani Generis]]. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:58, 21 September 2007 (EDT)

== Needed Entry ==
There should be an entry in this article (in the interest of objectivity and facts) about president Bush's science advisor. Professor Marburger has stated that intelligent design is not science.

==A new year of encyclopedia building==

This article has been locked for 9 months. I don't think I need to ask anybody to unlock it, but any sysop thinks there's a problem go ahead and reprotect it.

I've opened discussions with two Wikipedians about the objections to intelligent design and have gotten some very illuminating answers [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Intelligent_design#Identity_of_the_designer here] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Intelligent_designer#Design_and_the_designer here].

Not only do evolutionists believe that natural forces alone are sufficient to explain "the gradual appearance of new forms of life", but they also see ID in terms of a [[strategy]] or [[campaign]] to introduce [[Creationism]] into U.S. public school biology courses.

Plainly there is much hostility toward religion in America, and any excuse to keep it out will be employed. It's not just about science, but about the liberal movement toward secularism. The idea that God and religion can coexist with materialism is certainly not accepted by liberals. I'm not even sure how many conservatives think coexistence is possible. A lot of Christians would like to see schools teach that God exists, the He is the source of moral and ethical rules (or values), and so on.

The stakes are pretty high here. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:46, 1 January 2008 (EST)

==Cdesign proponentsists==

I would like to include mention of the term [[Cdesign proponentsists]] under the opposition. It was a term coined during the Dover case as a strong piece of evidence against the legitimacy of ID. I believe that including external links for new users gets me banned, so please google the term if you are unclear about its meaning.--[[User:Gman2|Gman2]] 18:03, 4 February 2008 (EST)

==Implications==

It's not possible to discuss ID or evolution without considering the implications. The clear implication of naturalistic evolution is that "forms of life came into being with God". In fact, 15% of Americans believe just that. The other 85% believe either that God caused the forms of life to come into being gradually, or that he created it all a few thousand years ago.

The [[Origins dispute]] covers this in more detail (or it should). --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:16, 12 February 2008 (EST)

==The International Society for Science and Religion==
<blockquote>
The International Society for Science and Religion (ISSR) says that “intelligent design” is neither sound science nor good theology. Intelligent Design theorists do not have proper research programmes to make their points. In fact, what they believe is against science, according to the seven scientists who prepared the statement for the ISSR, a scholarly body devoted to dialogue between science and world faiths.

The whole of the society’s membership, many of whom are Christian, were involved in a consultation about the statement. The ISSR says it “greatly values modern science, while deploring efforts to drive a wedge between science and religion.”
</blockquote>
Just thought I should mention this.--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 20:45, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

==Expelled==
Does this article need mention Ben Stien's instant classic: [http://www.expelledthemovie.com/ Expelled] [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 21:00, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

:Sure: how about a 'see also' link at the end? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:14, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

User:Cal05000

2008-03-22T05:16:56Z

Cal05000: New page: Um I Don't Know

Um I Don't Know

Talk:Liberal

2008-03-22T05:15:52Z

Cal05000:

[[Talk:Liberal/Arch1|Archive 1]]|[[Talk:Liberal/Arch2|Archive 2]]
|[[Talk:Liberal/Arch3|Archive 3]]
 


This entry is really quite pathetic. If you're going to lock an entry, at least clean it up first. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 23:49, 11 November 2007 (EST)
:Much improved, thankyou. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 20:13, 14 January 2008 (EST)

:Sorry to say it, but I have to agree. I was going to add some content here but of course I can't. This article is really quite bad, not to mention very incomplete. It would be better to deal with vandalism manually than to prevent the article (which really is quite important, is it not?) from being developed. --[[User:Andy|Andy]] 11:25, 17 November 2007 (EST)

Westboro Baptist Church?

That's a bit of a stretch, don't you think?
:Why? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 17:35, 5 November 2007 (EST)

::It's because [[Fred Phelps]] is a [[liberal|liberal activist]] (see the discussion on the [[Talk:Fred Phelps|talk page]] for an explanation).

::By the way, it appears the link is broken anyway. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 18:34, 5 November 2007 (EST)

== Different definitions of Liberal ==

Just wanted to add a line pointing out that in some countries such as Australia, the term Liberal is actually used to refer to the conservative view. See the Liberal Party of Australia as an example. This could be worth pointing out as it will prevent them being tarnished by the comments here aimed towards the left wing type Liberals.

That list of (supposed) liberal positions at the beginning is at best a half-truth. Many liberals (including me) DO NOT SUPPORT a number of them.[[User:Alloco1|Alloco1]] 10:43, 21 October 2007 (EDT)
:I'm sorry, but the plural of "antidote" is "antidotes," not "data." The list stays. [[User:J2xl|J2xl]] 22:00, 30 October 2007 (EDT)
::Do tell us, J2, what is the plural of 'malapropism'? [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 00:38, 25 February 2008 (EST)

And just what is so wrong about taxpayer-supported government schools? If it weren't for them, many people, including my parents, wouldn't have been able to get an education. By the way, does the stance of Aschlafly et al against this mean that they would be willing to voluntarily support the education of children not their own whose parents couldn't afford to?[[User:Alloco1|Alloco1]] 00:38, 24 October 2007 (EDT)

== Pathetic Article ==

The formatting is abysmal, the content laughable. I thought Conservapedia was a serious movement to write articles from a right-wing intelligent viewpoint... but i see it's dominated with weak, stolen political jokes. JOKES in an apparently "informative" article. If this is just an oversight, i retract everything.
:I agree with the comment above and have reinstated it despite someone (I think Karajou's?) deletion of it. However it should have been signed. I think it's Silvanus', but I'm a bit of a newbie at this. Does anyone know a way of adding a signature to someone else's comment? [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 18:02, 15 November 2007 (EST)
::IMHO, liberalism is like silly putty, you can make of it whatever you want to. Like Hillary going for the Christian vote or Kerry for the NRA. Next they'll be going after the cigarette smoker vote. All else is extraneous. But that is probably too simple a definition. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:19, 19 November 2007 (EST)
:::Well, I certainly agree that the editors are applying that attitude to this article. It's generalised, bigoted and unencyclopedic. Yours is not a humble opinion, it's a pompous and largely unfounded diatribe. This isn't trolling, I'm just disappointed and frustrated that the admins are stonewalling any revision of this article, when it's such an important topic. 'Know thine enemy', at the very least. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 16:07, 21 November 2007 (EST)
::::We could unlock it and put today's DNC talking points in. Of course then we'd have to revise it tomorrow to say something completely opposite to accomodate tomorrows talking points. Call this a [[stable version]]. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 16:26, 21 November 2007 (EST)

Uhhhh, nearly all my edits are gone. Those edits were made to strengthen the article. dubweiser.

== Liberal Failures ==

[[Rush Limbaugh]] had a section in the December 2007 [[Limbaugh Letter]] called "Liberal Failures". At rushlimbaugh.com, Rush says he got the idea for his article from an article by Jeffrey Lord: [http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=12269 A History of Liberal Disasters - American Spectator].

Rush lists several examples of liberal failures under each of these categories:

*Economy/Taxation
*Health Care
*Law/Criminal Justice
*Environment
*Education
*Immigration
*Culture
*National Security

Rush says "''Liberalism doesn't work''. It fails, every time it's tried." <ref>Nailing the Left - Liberal Failures, [[Rush Limbaugh]], ''The [[Limbaugh Letter]]'', December 2007, pp. 13-15</ref>
 
Jeffrey Lord lists examples of these liberal disasters:

* Forced School Busing
* Welfare
* Luxury Tax
* Alternative Minimum Tax
* Bringing Peace to Vietnam and Cambodia
* Free Love
* Drugs

"TOO SUM UP: Whether it was education policy, welfare policy, economic policy, foreign policy or social policy, time after time after time what became the guiding lights of modern American liberalism proved to be utter disasters. <ref>[http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=12269 A History of Liberal Disasters] Jeffrey Lord, ''The American Spectator'', 11/6/2007</ref>

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

We could create a new page called [[Liberal Failures]] or incorporate it into one of our existing liberal articles. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 10:41, 9 December 2007 (EST)

==Denial of gender differences by liberals==
"denial of inherent gender differences, leading to things such as wanting men and women to have the same jobs in the military (while quietly holding them to different standards)"

Should we also note that liberals think women should be able to vote too, even though the conservatives throughout history have fought against women's suffrage? [[User:Alexjohnc3|Alexjohnc3]] 18:20, 15 December 2007 (EST)

== Subsection on liberal rankings of members of congress? ==

I think this article would benefit from a brief subsection on the rankings of the national journal: http://nationaljournal.com/voteratings/index.htm

The is a very informative page with rankings and voting records of all congress members.--[[User:PhineasBogg|PhineasBogg]] 18:59, 29 December 2007 (EST)

: I made the change, feel free to lock the page again. Thanks --[[User:PhineasBogg|PhineasBogg]] 16:26, 30 December 2007 (EST)

== Westboro Baptist Church ==

I would like to see Westboro Baptist Church removed from the list of liberal associations. The only thing evidence I can see for them being liberal is Fred Phelps's run for office as a Democrat. In my opinion, this is the same sort of guilt by association, that we accuse Wikipedia of on the Biases of Wikipedia page. To put it another way, having Westboro Baptist Church in the Liberal section, would be like a liberal site having KKK as a conservative organization simply because David Duke was active in the KKK and ran for office as a Republican.--[[User:PhineasBogg|PhineasBogg]] 20:03, 29 December 2007 (EST)

: Thanks for removing this, Ed! --[[User:PhineasBogg|PhineasBogg]] 16:28, 30 December 2007 (EST)

== Huh? ==
Wait a minute. So, if the media has a [[liberal bias]], wouldn't reinstating the fairness doctine limit '''liberal''' airtime instead of Conservative airtime? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 23:57, 26 January 2008 (EST)

: Liberals control ''most'' media, and especially newspapers and television. They don't control talk radio, but want to grab that also and support the phony fairness doctrine for that reason.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:05, 27 January 2008 (EST)

::... Wouldn't the fairness doctrine cover all broadcast media? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 00:09, 27 January 2008 (EST)

:::A day passes. Silence. It is contradictory to claim that liberals control all media, but equal time only harms conservatives. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 15:48, 27 January 2008 (EST)

== Liberal ==

The term "liberal" is associated most with the United States politicians and, besides, its meaning is not all that different in other countries. A qualification is not necessary or helpful.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:16, 28 January 2008 (EST)

:I suggest that you read the section headed "Liberalism in Europe today". --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 21:03, 28 January 2008 (EST)
:P.S. It may assist you to take a look at where the Australian Liberal Party are on the political compass: http://www.politicalcompass.org/aus2007 --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 23:24, 28 January 2008 (EST)

::I assume that I have convinced you. If I hear no further from you I will proceed to reinsert my edit. --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 16:54, 30 January 2008 (EST)

:::The only one I see that only applies to US liberals is the one about the living Constitution. The rest are correct, though. Perhaps we should put a disclaimer next to this one, and then leave the opening line as "A liberal is...". [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:14, 4 February 2008 (EST)
::::Whoops I found a couple more (the ones about the First Amendment and the Fairness Doctrine), however the majority of the qualities are not limited to the US. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:15, 4 February 2008 (EST)

::::: Even the issues you cite have analogs in other countries.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:37, 4 February 2008 (EST)

::::::You're probably right. Could we change the wording a bit to reflect that? That way you won't have to keep reverting people. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:25, 4 February 2008 (EST)

::::::: I don't the see the need for any changes, and reversion will still be necessary because the [[liberals]] will never be happy with this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:12, 4 February 2008 (EST)

::::::::That's probably very true. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 21:14, 4 February 2008 (EST)

Glad we're all getting on so well. Those silly liberals will never learn.

Anyhoo, doesn't look like either of you read the section in the article headed "Liberalism in Europe today" as I suggested in my post above. Nor, I assume, did you follow the political compass link.

I am not sure why it is so important to maintain internal inconsistency in this article. Nor do I understand why it is so important to maintain that the American usage of the word liberal is the only usage of the word in the world today (which it clearly is not as the article itself states).

Any even half sensible explanation would be appreciated. --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 22:43, 4 February 2008 (EST)

:If you want to be taken seriously please keep a civil tone. I'm sorry I didn't see those links; I was primarily responding to the edit war, which was over the statement "a liberal poseses the following qualities". I messed up, I'm only human. Feel better now? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 23:20, 4 February 2008 (EST)

:: My apologies to you. I am rather more annoyed with Andy who blocked me for a 90/10 violation (coincidentally while we were disagreeing here and on the talk:Liberal denial page). I did not realise that you were looking at something else. We are all only human as you say. --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 23:27, 4 February 2008 (EST)

:: Actaully, upon review, I think you may have been looking in just about the right place. The edit war was over the inclusion of the phrase "In the United States a Liberal..." at the start of the article. --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 23:31, 4 February 2008 (EST)

::: So, should I change it back again? --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 17:27, 5 February 2008 (EST)

::::I'm guessing that wouldn't be a wise idea. I would take a look at [[conservative]], though. Perhaps if you moved the general definition to the front, then it would make more sense to have the specific list refer to only Americans. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 23:21, 6 February 2008 (EST)

== about liberals ==

1. You have to be against capital punishment, but support abortion on demand.

2. You have to believe that businesses create oppression and governments create prosperity.

3. You have to believe that guns in the hands of law-abiding Americans are more of a threat than nuclear weapons technology in the hands of Chinese and North Korean communists.

4. You have to believe that there was no art before Federal funding.

5. You have to believe that global temperatures are less affected by documented cyclical changes in the earth's climate and more affected by Soccer moms driving SUV's.

6. You have to believe that gender roles are artificial but being homosexual is natural.

7. You have to believe that the AIDS virus is spread by a lack of Federal funding.

8. You have to believe that the teacher who can't teach fourth graders how to read is somehow qualified to teach those same kids about sex.

9. You have to believe that hunters don't care about nature, but loony activists who have never been outside of San Francisco do.

10. You have to believe that self-esteem is more important than actually doing something to earn it.

11. You have to believe that Mel Gibson spent $25 million of his own money to make 'The Passion of the Christ' for financial gain only.

12. You have to believe the NRA is bad because it supports certain parts of the Constitution, while the ACLU is good because it supports certain parts of the Constitution.

13. You have to believe that taxes are too low, but ATM fees are too high.

14. You have to believe that Margaret Sanger and Gloria Steinem are more important to American history than Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Edison and Alexander Graham Bell.

15. You have to believe that standardized tests are racist, but racial quotas and set-asides are not.

16. You have to believe that Hillary Clinton is normal and is a very nice person.

17. You have to believe that the only reason socialism hasn't worked anywhere it's been tried is because the right people haven't been in charge.

18. You have to believe conservatives telling the truth belong in jail, but a liar and a sex offender belonged in the White House.

19. You have to believe that homosexual parades displaying drag queens, transvestites and bestiality should be constitutionally protected,and manger scenes at Christmas should be illegal.

20. You have to believe that illegal Democrat Party funding by the Chinese Government is somehow in the best interest to the United
States.

21. You have to believe that this message is a part of a vast, right wing conspiracy.

22. You have to believe that it's okay to give Federal workers the day off on Christmas Day .........but it's not okay to say "Merry Christmas".
[[User:Thiudareiks|Thiudareiks]] 06:20, 16 February 2008 (EST)

:"You have to believe that there was no art before Federal funding." Speaking as a filthy pinko liberal, this is actually pretty funny. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 00:45, 25 February 2008 (EST)

== Positive Liberal Contributions To Society ==

Are there any? --[[User:RJest|RJest]] 17:52, 16 February 2008 (EST)

Of course there are

*Niccolò Machiavelli (Florence, 1469-1527), best known for his Il Principe was the founder of realist political philosophy, advocated republican government, citizen armies, division of power, protection of personal property, and restraint of government expenditure as being necessary to the liberties of a republic

*Desiderius Erasmus (Netherlands, 1466-1536) was an advocate of the doctrine now known as humanism, critic of entrenched interests, irrationality and superstition. Erasmusian societies formed across Europe, to some extent in response to the turbulence of the Reformation.

*Hugo Grotius or Hugo de Groot (Netherlands, 1583-1645), laid the foundations for international law, based on natural law, in his book Mare Liberum (Free Seas) formulated the new principle that the sea was international territory and all nations were free to use it for seafaring trade

*Thomas Hobbes (England, 1588-1679) theorized that government is the result of individual actions and human traits, and that it was motivated primarily by "interest", a term which would become crucial in the development of a liberal theory of government and political economy, since it is the foundation of the idea that individuals can be self-governing and self-regulating.

*Baruch Spinoza (Netherlands, 1632-1677) is in his Tractatus Theologico-Politicus and Tractatus Politicus a proto-liberal defending the value of separation of church and state as well as forms of democracy.

*The notions of John Locke (United Kingdom, 1632-1704) of a "government with the consent of the governed" and man's natural rights—life, liberty, and estate (property) as well on tolerance,

*John Trenchard (United Kingdom, 1662-1723) was co-author, with Thomas Gordon of Cato's Letters. These newspaper essays condemned tyranny and advanced principles of freedom of conscience and freedom of speech and were a main vehicle for spreading the concepts that had been developed by John Locke.

*Thomas Gordon (United Kingdom, 169?-1750) was co-author, with John Trenchard of Cato's Letters. These newspaper essays condemned tyranny and advanced principles of freedom of conscience and freedom of speech and were a main vehicle for spreading the concepts that had been developed by John Locke.

*Benjamin Franklin (United States, 1706-1790) was an inventor, scientist, writer, entrepreneur, diplomat and statesman. He called for the end of mercantilism while advocating free trade, industrialization, the abolition of slavery, free public libraries, democratic government and national unity.

*Jean-Jacques Rousseau (France, 1712-1778) promulgated the idea that men were naturally free, but had to be educated to live in society. This required a natural liberty and a "national will" which could be directed to improvement of the society. He is famous for the quote "men are born free, but are everywhere in chains"

Should I go on. OK good. [[User:Cal05000|Cal05000]] 01:15, 22 March 2008 (EDT) [[User:Cal05000|Cal05000]]

** Wow... comprehensive, concise and encyclopedic. I propose we incorporate the above comment into the page itself. A new subsection, perhaps - "Liberal contributions to Western thought"? [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 22:11, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

*I ripped it from Wikipedia, however i thought it was expressed very intelligently and there is much more

::: Too bad none of the above are liberals in the modern meaning of the word. Think [[Benjamin Franklin]] supported
[[abortion]]???--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:39, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

As for the above statement maybe Benjamin did not support abortion but remember things 50+ years ago were very conservative remember liberal means progress. [[User:Cal05000|Cal05000]] 01:15, 22 March 2008 (EDT) [[User:Cal05000|Cal05000]]

Talk:Faith

2008-03-18T05:22:02Z

Cal05000: /* Faith is NOT unique */

== Reversion ==

I notice the revert basicly leaves out the entry I made concerning Christ words about a Roman Pagan Centurion and his faith. Guess Christs own opinion on the matter is not good enough.

I completely disagree, Any religion requires faith. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 15:46, 2 February 2007 (EST)

Good point tim, while most religions might not actually use the term faith, the concept is quite widespread.

--[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 15:57, 2 February 2007 (EST)

Tim and Ben, you don't support your claims with anything. "Faith" is unique to Christianity, and the term is not genuinely used by other religions.

:That's moronic. Very simply defined, the English word "faith" means belief in the existence, truth, etc. of anything in the absence of definitive proof. For instance, I have faith that my family will come home tonight, because I think that they will. I do not have faith in gravity; I know from experience that it works, and I have some small understanding of the mechanism by which it does so (I don't however, know the cause, but then, no one does.) Faith is not uniquely Christian by virtue of the fact that other religions exist. If their followers lacked faith, those religions would be gone. Calling it something else, or even not referring it at all does not change it's nature; is sin a uniquely Christian concept?

The powerful Greek language was essential to express the concept of faith. Not even English can describe it well.

'''pivstiß''' is the Greek word for faith, and it takes Strong's version many words to explain it:<ref>http://bible1.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=4102&version=kjv</ref>

1. conviction of the truth of anything, belief; in the NT of a conviction or belief respecting man's relationship to God and divine things, generally with the included idea of trust and holy fervour born of faith and joined with it
1. relating to God
1. the conviction that God exists and is the creator and ruler of all things, the provider and bestower of eternal salvation through Christ
2. relating to Christ
1. a strong and welcome conviction or belief that Jesus is the Messiah, through whom we obtain eternal salvation in the kingdom of God
3. the religious beliefs of Christians
4. belief with the predominate idea of trust (or confidence) whether in God or in Christ, springing from faith in the same
2. fidelity, faithfulness
1. the character of one who can be relied on

----
It is false to claim that faith is only a christian concept. Other religions may not call it faith, but they still have it. For example: a muslim suicide bomber is not going to bomb anything if he does not have faith that it will send him to heaven. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 10:59, 4 February 2007 (EST)

'''Sources:''' <references/>

==American Heritage Dictionary==
says:

'''faith,''' noun: 1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing. 2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See synonyms at ''belief,'' ''trust.'' 3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters. 4. often '''Faith''' ''Christianity'' The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will. 5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith. 6. A set of principles or beliefs.[http://www.bartleby.com/61/84/F0018400.html]

In other words, according to one dictionary, anyway, the word has more than one meaning. It is not being misapplied in the phrase "the Muslim faith," it is simply a different meaning of the word. This article, presently, would seem to be about the fourth meaning. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:37, 3 February 2007 (EST)

::Neurocat's posting was misleading in claiming that "The concept of faith exists in nearly all major religions. Faith is mentioned in the New Testament, the Old Testament, and the Koran. Faith is also a well established part of so-called "New Age" religions, such as Wicca."

::Faith, historically, was uniquely Christian. The entry demonstrates that. Others may try to make faith synonymous with belief, but that is not its original meaning. Muslims "submit" to Allah rather than have faith in Allah. The very reason for an entry here is to be precise. Broader (and less precise) colloquial meanings can be found elsewhere.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:36, 20 February 2007 (EST)

:::How can they submit to Allah if they lack faith in his existence and intrinsic "better-ness?"

::If the page is to describe Faith as a "historically uniquely Christian" term, there should be some evidence provided to that effect. Otherwise, the page is less accurate, not more precise. Since the American Heritage Dictionary does not say that definition #4 is more valid than any other, there is no reason to assert that the other definitions are less accurate.

:::Neurocat, please sign your comments with the signature icon (second from the right in the row of click-on boxes).

:::A dictionary merely reflects common usage and, increasingly, political correctness. An entry here called [[Merriam-Webster]] criticizes some entries in the dictionary. You are free to post anti-Christian views but only if you support them with references. If you think there is a Muslim "faith in Allah," then you need to support your view or else the page will be reverted. By the way, the Koran does not support your view. It calls for "submission to Allah." The term "faith" is not a synomym for belief or submission.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:55, 20 February 2007 (EST)

::::I take exception to the word "merely." It's hardly a trivial job. And one of the reasons I like to cite the American Heritage dictionary here is precisely because, while not politically conservative, it was created in opposition to what was seen as the overly-permissive and overly-descriptive Merriam-Webster. A dictionary is a good starting point. Any group of people that has a sort of private definition of a word that does not match what is generally understood, it is going to be counterproductive to use that definition in discourse with others outside the group.

::::AHD says that "faith" has five meanings. People who refer to "the Muslim faith" are not wrong, they are just using meaning number 5. The article needs to be clearer on this point. For example, it could open by saying "Christian faith is a unique concept that means trust or complete confidence in something unseen. Although the word "faith" can be used to refer to any body of beliefs, other religions do not have any concept equivalent to Christian faith."

::::To insist on "faith" has having only meaning number 4 would be like insisting that the British naval power during the Napoleonic era was equal to the number of foot-pounds per minute exerted by the force of the wind on the combined area of all its sails. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:34, 21 February 2007 (EST)

::::So Christian faith is unique to Christianity? That statement is so self-evident as to be utterly moronic. It's like saying Buddha is unique to Buddhism.

:::Can you then please post a reference that cites that the original usage of the word "faith" is Christian? If you are going to call the dictionary into question as a source, you cannot selectively choose which entries you believe and which you do not believe. If you wish to cite a specific dictionary entry as incorrect, you must support that with fact. Perhaps it would be better to clarify that, in your view, the "original" meaning of the word "faith" is Christian, but current modern usage is different. After all, you do intend this to be a factual, unbiased conservapedia, not a collection of unsubstantiated right-wing beliefs. True? --[[User:Neurocat|Neurocat]] 09:48, 21 February 2007 (EST)

:::I added a common dictionary definition of faith, with reference link, to clarify the issue for readers. Furthermore, the first line of the entry seems to be unclear - if the word Faith descends from a Latin word meaning "to trust", how can the original meaning be purely Christian? Certainly the Greeks and Romans used the term to describe something other than a Christian "faith". Should we remove it? --[[User:Neurocat|Neurocat]] 10:00, 21 February 2007 (EST)

== Re: faith in other religions ==

I just edited the article and included a source on the concept of faith in Islam. A few short minutes of Googling turned up a scholarly article from the 1950s about the importance of faith to Islam. Also, does anybody know how many of the mentions of faith in the Old Testament are in the parts that make up the Torah? That would go a long way toward identifying the importance of faith in the Jewish religion.

Finally, I agree completely with those who are saying that the concept of faith is common to any theistic religion. Without any exceptions that I know of (correct me if I'm wrong), any religion that requires belief in a god requires faith, since there is no evidence for any of these gods and faith is belief in the unseen/unobservable. --[[User:Haveyouseenmypants|Haveyouseenmypants]] 18:20, 21 February 2007 (EST)

*Not a rhetorical question: how much similarity is there between the Muslim concept translated as "faith" and the Christian concept of "faith?" It seems to me that in the Arabian Nights the Caliph of Baghdad is referred to as "Defender of the Faithful," and certainly Moslems refer to non-Moslems as "Infidels" (i.e. "Unfaithful"), but I don't know that the concepts are necessarily the same. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:37, 21 February 2007 (EST)

******Re: claim that "faith" is unique to Christianity and Bible, and word counts of "faith" in religious texts******

The author says above that “Jesus was unique in preaching the significance of faith exclusive to Christianity. No other religion is based on faith as distinguished from mere belief. Faith is mentioned 229 times in the Bible's New Testament.”

Above, where the author of the article is translating the Greek word “pivsti,” he attributes the definition to Strong’s. The definition he provides actually comes from the lexicon tool in a website called Crosswalk.com. Strong’s definition for “pivsti” (a word that was translated into English to mean “faith” in several Protestant versions of the Bible) is as follows:

3982. peitho pi'-tho a primary verb; to convince (by argument, true or false); by analogy, to pacify or conciliate (by other fair means); reflexively or passively, to assent (to evidence or authority), to rely (by inward certainty):--agree, assure, believe, have confidence, be (wax) conflent, make friend, obey, persuade, trust, yield. (Note: 3982 is the Strong’s reference number to the word “pivsti” as well. See the author’s link to Crosswalk.com above.)

Other Greek words that were translated into “faith” according to Strong’s were:

4102. pistis pis'-tis from 3982; persuasion, i.e. credence; moral conviction (of religious truth, or the truthfulness of God or a religious teacher), especially reliance upon Christ for salvation; abstractly, constancy in such profession; by extension, the system of religious (Gospel) truth itself:--assurance, belief, believe, faith, fidelity.

4103. pistos pis-tos' from 3982; objectively, trustworthy; subjectively, trustful:--believe(-ing, -r), faithful(-ly), sure, true.

http://www.eliyah.com/cgi-bin/strongs.cgi?file=greeklexicon&isindex=3982

So there is no specific link between the Greek words that were translated to mean “faith” and the author’s statement that the word “faith” only applies to Christian belief.

The English word “faith” came into usage in approximately 1250 A.D. At the time, it was used to refer to a duty, or fulfilling one’s trust. It did not at that time have a meaning related to Christian faith.

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=faith&searchmode=none

In fact, the word “faith” was used to refer to all religious faiths starting in approximately 1300 A.D. The Bible was first translated into English from the Latin Vulgate in 1380, and the word “faith” came to be used to refer to the Christian faith at that time.

The etymology of the word and Strong’s definitions are quite well documented and I’ve provided links here.

The author is mistaken in the etymology of the word because, as I have shown, the word “faith” was used with other meanings before it had the meaning the author is using (as that specifically of Christian faith), including its meaning as “faith in any religious belief.” In addition, while the use of the word “faith” as meaning Christian faith may have been coined, so to speak, at the time of the earliest English translations of the Bible, the original Greek words did not mean the same thing as the current translations. The original Greek (which is the language in which the Scriptures were given to us) does not have a word that has the same definition as the word “faith” given in this entry (see Strong's). And where the author said that “No other religion is based on faith as distinguished from mere belief,” he is clearly wrong because according to Strong’s, the Greek words used in the original Scriptures actually have a meaning closer to the word “belief” than they do to the word “faith.”

==ASCHLAFLY's Unsupported Assumptions==

ASCHLAFLY, can you give any references, AT ALL, for your recent edits to the Faith entry? You keep falling back on the "Faith is Christian" concept and keep removing all the well-documented entries that demonstrate otherwise. Once and for all, do you have any evidence to back this up, or is this "Conservapedia" just a "Schlaflyapedia" documenting your opinions rather than facts? --[[User:Neurocat|Neurocat]] 13:41, 24 February 2007 (EST)

==Unlocking Faith==

I think it is time we unlocked this entry. It has so many unsupported assumptions on it as to be largely worthless. It is in desperate need of editing. --[[User:Neurocat|Neurocat]] 10:54, 26 February 2007 (EST)

== Faith is NOT unique ==

To say that the concept of "faith" is unique to Christianity is absurd, and the height of vanity. To begin with, the editors critique previous commentators who argue the non-uniqueness of Christian "Faith" by stating that they offer "no proof" that faith is NOT a uniquely Christian concept. However, the author of the article on faith (locked, Draconian fashion), states no support for the idea that "faith" IS unique to Christianity. A word count is the only proof, compared with a word count of one other holy book. That is hardly proof. Further, the originator of such an absurd idea that faith is unique to Christianity must surely have the burden of proof. In the absence of proof, discourse with any non-Christian will suffice to prove the ridiculousness of that statement.

However, proof can be clearly offered. To begin with, the author of the locked "article" on Faith suggests that "submission" to Allah is pre-eminent in Islam, displacing faith. However, faith in Allah is a necessary predicate to submission - otherwise, the submission would be worthless, if it is directed to no-one.

Further, the Roman state religion placed great import on the concept of "pietas," or "piety," which the Romans understood to include faith in the gods' good will, and the importance to daily life of satisfying the gods. A note of the importance of "pietas" in Roman life would be its prominent placement on the Clipeus Virtutis, a shield awarded to Augustus Caesar upon the First Constitutional Settlement, which noted Augustus' many virtues. Among them, "pietas" was prominently figured. (See http://www.ac-orleans-tours.fr/lang_anciennes/arapacis/images/clipeus.jpg). A second touchstone for faith in the Roman religion would be Horace's Odes (http://ancienthistory.about.com/library/bl/bl_text_horace_odes3.htm). The third book of Odes makes several mentions of "faithless foes" - suggesting that lack of faith is associated with evil, and faith therefore with the good and pious. Further, an important theme of Horace's 3d Book of Odes is the need of Rome to satisfy the Gods, demonstrating a strong faith in the relevance & role of the Gods in daily life.

I insist not only that the article on be "faith" unlocked, but that all bias be purged from this encyclopedia. You claim to to ignore any bias whatsoever, and pay heed only to the facts. However, since often the facts include a "bias" against ridiculous opinions such as this, you end up purging the facts. Please, be reasonable, for the good of the country.

**Right something trustworthy '''CANNOT''' be biased and saying that faith is unique only to christianity is one of the most biased statements I have ever heard.

== Tautology! ==

Also, saying that Christian faith is a uniquely Christian concept is a tautology. You can't reject other people's arguments that other religions define "faith," by saying, "well, not in the same way Christianity does," and concluding "therefore faith is unique to Christianity."

FAITH is not unique to Christianity.

CHRISTIAN FAITH is obviously, by definition, unique to Christianity, but again, this is mere tautology. 1 = 1. Congratulations.

== Main Page ==

Note that the following is still on Conservapedia's main page, forming part of the casual visitor's initial impression: "Did you know that faith is a uniquely Christian concept? Add to the explanation of what it means, and how it does not exist on other religions." [[User:Moioci|Moioci]] 05:09, 1 March 2007 (EST)
:Romans 10:17:
:Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word of Christ. [[User:ChristianFaith|ChristianFaith]] 15:44, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

==Bad, bad, bad==
This article isn't just bad. It's brilliantly bad. Outstandingly bad. It is a paradigmatic example of bad. If this is the kind of writing that this project is going to promote, then the project should be shelved.

==Alternate version==

'''Faith''' (from Greek-''pistis'' and Latin-''fides'') refers to confidence, trust, and hope in a [[God]], person, community, tradition, or another locus of inspiration. The object of faith varies among people, but the common denominator is a level of conviction and an inner attitude towards a greater power or force in the universe. Etymologically, the word 'faith' is closely linked to the concept of "fidelity," which emphasizes commitment to something or someone. Thus, faith is often understood to mean 'loyalty' to a particular view of [[divinity]], and allegiance to a particular religious community and it's cognate [[doctrine]]s. Yet, faith can also be envisioned more broadly as a trust in [[providence]], and has been used as a synonym for religion, such as in the [[Buddhist]] faith or the [[Christian]] faith.

Faith is an important aspect of the world religions, and a common theme of human religiosity. According to Christian tradition, faith is one of the gifts of the [[Holy Spirit]] that provides impetus for humanity to move forward, and is said to be especially important when one encounters obstacles in life. For many people, faith or the lack thereof, is an important part of their overall identities.

==(Lack of?) Faith in Science==

I have argued this point many times among non-believers, but most religious people will maintain that science requires a larger leap of faith than religion. Do you think this debate merits inclusion/referral in this article? --[[User:Deuteronomy|Deuteronomy]] 11:12, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
:I would agree that things like evolution and the Big Bang require a greater "leap of faith", but not science. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:15, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
::Given the strictest definition of science, is it possible to seperate these two concepts from that definition? However I agree, the theoretical nature of both "evolution" and the Big Bang do require the greatest leap of faith. Continuing in this vein however, how do we know that many other aspects of scientific study are not also contrived fallacies? Man once believed the Earth was flat because of thousands of years of precedent. What shall we deam "science" in another thousand years in contrast to acts of God? These concepts are worthy of inclusion in the article. --[[User:Deuteronomy|Deuteronomy]] 11:26, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
:::Given the strictest definition of science, is it possible to call evolution and the Big Bang science? Both are attempts to explain what happened in the past, and we cannot observe the past, cannot run tests on the past, and cannot reproduce those events. And those are the sorts of things required for science.
:::But as you will see from the [[natural science]] article, differences between things that are "operational science" and others that are "origins science" mean that you cannot extend that question to many other areas of science, such as medicine, chemistry, physics, etc.
::: The idea that man once believed that the Earth was flat is itself largely an urban myth. Sure, there were ''some'' people that thought that, but we know that the ancient Greeks knew the Earth to be round, and that almost everybody else since thought that also (and perhaps everyone before for all we know). The idea that the [[flat Earth]] belief was widespread has been shown to be an evolutionist invention to discredit creationists.
:::Given those points, I think that you musings about science in the future are largely without foundation.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:15, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

== Faith in Literature ==

I agree with Phillip that this section is suspect. Taking the real life information and incorporating it into the article is one thing, but noting ways faith has been viewed in literary works seems to be out of place. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:03, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

== Biblical Examples ==
I felt that an Old Testament example would be in order. I would like to include some pictures as it would look better than this "dry" page that we have here.

[[User:ChristianFaith|ChristianFaith]] 15:44, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

== Multiple definitions of faith ==

All: Not sure who's watching this page, but I want to make sure I touch base with folks before I dive in. I'd like to introduce multiple uses of the word "faith" to the article. Specifically:
* Faith as loyalty (Faithful to a spouse, or to God)
* Faith as trust (I have faith that you will do what you say, or that God will)
* Faith as a trust in the fundamental good (as the article now articulates)
* Faith as hanging on to your reason when emotion seeks to overwhelm it (per C.S. Lewis).
I'd also like to introduce and analyze the typical nontheist definition of faith -- "Believing without evidence," and to show that ''this'' concept of faith is absent from the Bible -- i.e. nobody in the Bible believed without evidence -- they all had overwhelming evidence for belief (as do Christians today) -- so faith must mean something else.

Any objections? [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 15:03, 4 September 2007 (EDT)

I have always seen that faith means that one KNOWS not beliefs something is true without any proof. It does not matter if one is saying that I know that Christ died for my sins, or that I know there is one God but Allah and Muhammad is his profit, or that I know that Zeus may send lighting bolt down on me, or that I know that there is no God or gods. [[User:Pibu|Pibu]] 23:58, 10 November 2007 (EST)

=="Faith is a uniquely Christian concept"==

So faith isn't a concept in any other religion? ...could somebody please just clear this up? [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 11:20, 7 October 2007 (EDT)

== Kierkegaard ==

I think a good source to use would be the works of Kierkegaard. His "leap to faith" discourses are wonderful and are a great supplement to faith/existentialism. [[User:Probus1|Probus1]]

== Faith as loyalty based on past performance ==

Ed left an unsigned comment awhile back that describes an alternative view of faith, that is in fact described in the external link to JP Holding's site at the bottom of the page. This theologically argues that faith in the biblical sense is to be described as loyalty based on past performance. Perhaps this should be mentioned somewhere in the article. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 18:42, 24 December 2007 (EST)

Talk:Liberal

2008-03-18T05:11:47Z

Cal05000: