Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Christopher Hitchens

2011-01-18T04:51:10Z

Rbpolsen: Htichens isn't liberal; he supports the War on Terror, George W. Bush's foreign policy, pro-Life politics, etc. It's true he _was_ a Socialist, be he personally disavowed Socialism in 2001

[[Image:Hitchens,_Stanford.jpg‎ |right|thumb|200px|Christopher Hitchens]]
'''Christopher Eric Hitchens''' (born April 13, 1949, in [[Portsmouth]], [[England]]) is a journalist, author and literary critic. Hitchens received degrees in philosophy, politics and economics from [[Oxford University|Balliol College]], [[Oxford]], in 1970. From 1971-1981, he worked in [[Britain]] as book reviewer for ''The Times'' newspaper. He emigrated to the United States in 1981, and has written regularly, or been a contributing editor for ''Harper's'', ''Vanity Fair'' and [[Nation (magazine)|''The Nation'']]. He is an avowed [[Atheism|atheist]] and [[Antitheism|antitheist]]. Hitchens has a younger brother, [[Peter Hitchens]], who is also a journalist, author and critic. Mr. Hitchens is one of the more prominent spokesperson for the [[New Atheism]] movement.

Christopher Hitchens was a member of the International Socialists and an active [[Trotskyist]] during his youth. Today he is "on the same side as the neo-conservatives," but does not consider himself a conservative. He supported [[George W. Bush|George W. Bush's]] foreign policy, but has a negative attitude towards Bush's support of [[intelligent design]].

He is a harsh critic of [[Ronald Reagan]], and considers [[Henry Kissinger]] a [[war criminal]]. Mr. Hitchens is also known for his heavy drinking.<ref>http://www.counterpunch.org/mccarthy02212003.html</ref>

Christopher Hitchens is currently being treated for esophageal cancer, which he believes was likely caused by drinking and smoking.<ref>http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2010/08/07/video-extended-interview-hitchens-on-cancer-and-atheism/</ref>

==Opposition to Islam and Support of the War on Terror==

Christopher Hitchens became an activist against [[Islam]] when Ayatullah Kohmeini declared a [[fatwa]] against his personal friend [[Salman Rushdie]]. The event has led him to become very vocal in his support of the war in Iraq and heavily critical of Muslim society and ethics.

==Insults toward Jerry Falwell==
In a TV interview with Hannity and Colmes a day after [[Jerry Falwell]]'s death, Christopher Hitchens expressed his anger over Fawell's legacy, calling the media coverage of his death uniform in its "stupidity" and calling Fawell himself a "vulgar fraud and crook"<ref name=FAL>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=doKkOSMaTk4</ref>. Hitchens went on to state such outrageous comments as "we have been rid of an extremely dangerous demagogue who lived by hatred of others and prejudice", "that it's a pity there isn't a hell for him to go to", "the evil he did will live after him", and "and I think his death is a deliverance" <ref name=FAL/>. [[Hannity]] said that such comments were "crude", "thoughtless", "mean", and "hateful."

==Select bibliography ==
*''Callaghan: The Road to Number Ten'' (Cassell, 1976)
*''Hostage to History: Cyprus From the Ottomans to Kissinger'' (Farrar, Straus & Giroux, 1989)
*''Imperial Spoils: The Case of the Parthenon Marbles'' (Hill and Wang, 1989)
*''Blood, Class and Nostalgia: Anglo-American Ironies'' (Farrar, Straus & Giroux, 1990)
*''The Missionary Position: Mother Teresa in Theory and Practice'' (Verso, 1995)
*''Prepared for the Worst'' (Hill and Wang, 1989)
*''For the Sake of Argument: Essays & Minority Reports'' (Verso, 1993)
*''No One Left to Lie To: The Values of the Worst Family'' (Verso, 2000)
*''God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything'' - outside the US, published with the alternate subtitle ''The Case Against Religion'' (Atlantic, 2007)

==External links==
*[http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1662757,00.html "Why Christopher Hitchens Is Wrong About Billy Graham"], Nancy Gibbs and Michael Duffy, ''[[Time magazine]]'' Tuesday, Sep. 18, 2007

==References==
<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT:Hitchens, Christopher}}
[[Category:Authors|Hitchens, Christopher]]

[[Category: Journalists]]
[[Category: Atheists]]
[[Category: Evolutionists]]

Taoism

2009-03-12T05:24:06Z

Rbpolsen:

[[Image:Yin_yang.jpg|thumb|500px|right|Taoism is often represented by the [[Taijitu]]]]
Taoism is a [[Chinese]] philosophy centered around the concept of Tao. It stresses the unification of contraries. Taoism also seeks harmony with nature.

The primary text of Taoism is [[Lao Tzu]]'s ''Tao Te Ching'', which works to express the essence of Tao. The book stresses the ineffability of the Tao.

:''Taoist ethics are concerned less with doing good acts than becoming a good person who lives in harmony with all things and people.''

Because of this, devoted Taoists tend to be nice and accomodating people.

Taoism originated in [[China]]. Accurate figures for the number of believers of Taoism are elusive, for two reasons. Firstly, Taoism is a loosely defined faith, so some people don't even realize they're practicing it. Secondly, the [[Communist]] Chinese government does not record most religions in its [[census]]es, on account of the government's anti-religious stance.

== External links ==

*[http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/taoism/taoethics/ethics_1.shtml Taoist ethics - theory and practice]

== See Also ==

*[[Confucianism]]
*[[Zen]]
*[[Falun Gong]]
*[[New_Age| New Age Spirituality]]
*[[Feng Shui]]
*[[World History Lecture Three]]
*[[Tai Chi]]

[[Category:Taoism]]

Taijitu

2009-03-12T05:23:30Z

Rbpolsen: Redirecting to Yin and Yang

#REDIRECT [[Yin and Yang]]

Yin and Yang

2009-03-12T05:22:03Z

Rbpolsen: added note about the TaiJitu

The '''yin and yang''' are the two aspects in [[Taoism (Daoism)|Daoist]] (also called Taoist) religious [[philosophy]] and later Daoist alchemical belief that everything stays in balance or harmony in nature and the [[universe]]. Both originate from the "Dao" (or Tao), meaning "The Way" or Existence, and from the innate balance gave birth to the Three, from which everything originates.

[[China|Chinese]] [[theory]] says that everything in the world can be identified as yin and yang in relation to one another. For instance, a light shower is more yin than a patch of [[sun]], but is less yin, and more yang, than a [[storm]]. The basis of much of Chinese [[science]] in the [[Pre Modern Era|pre-modern era]] was about the changes of yin and yang, and the Daoist religion is based around the concept in many senses.

The Yin and Yang diagram (Known also as a Taijitu, especially in eastern circles) shows a dark side (yin) and a light side (yang) each separate but flowing with the other, each containing a small amount of the other (shown as a "dot" of the opposite color).

[[Image:Yin_yang.jpg]] The diagram of the yin and yang.

Yin represents: dark, secret, passive, receptive, yielding, cool, soft, and feminine.

Yang represents: clear, bright, illuminated, evident, active, [[aggressive]], controlling, hard, and masculine.

Neither side is seen as [[good]] or [[evil]], both are considered necessary, the preferable state is when yin & yang remain in balance.

Yin and Yang are divided by the line which represents [[Qi]], which is life force, the essence of being.

::: The ''cyclical nature of yin and yang, the opposing forces of change in the universe, mean several things. First, that all phenomena change into their opposites in an eternal cycle of reversal. Second, since the one principle produces the other, all phenomena have within them the seeds of their opposite state, that is, sickness has the seeds of health, health contains the seeds of sickness, wealth contains the seeds of poverty, etc. Third, even though an opposite may not be seen to be present, since one principle produces the other, no phenomenon is completely devoid of its opposite state.'' <ref>[http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/CHPHIL/YINYANG.HTM Yin and Yang]</ref>

==See also==
*[[Taoism (Daoism)]]
*[[Lao Tzu]]
*[[Mind/body]]
*[[Qi]]

==External links==
*[http://fly.cc.fer.hr/~shlede/ying/yang.html The meaning of Yin-Yang]
*[http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/CHPHIL/YINYANG.HTM Yin and Yang] Chinese philosophy.

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Philosophy]]
[[Category:Health]]

Osama Bin Laden

2009-03-12T05:15:21Z

Rbpolsen:

[[Image:382px-AQ00100.jpg|right|thumb]]
'''Osama Bin Laden''' is a [[Saudi Arabia]]n millionaire and the leader of [[al Qaeda]], a worldwide [[terrorist]] group widely believed<ref>By the majority of the population, except for a few "9/11 Truthers"</ref> to be responsible for [[September 11, 2001 attacks]] and some other terrorist attacks on Americans in the 1990s. He obtained his wealth by inheriting it from his father, Mohammed Awad bin Laden, who was a successful [[entrepreneur]] in the [[construction]] [[industry]].

During the [[Clinton Administration]] <ref>[http://www.bannerofliberty.com/OS8-98MQC/8-24-1998.1.html Did Bill Clinton Smooth the Way for Bin Laden to Become the World's Most Successful Terrorist?], Mary Mostert, Original Sources, August 24, 1998. </ref>, bin Laden issued two Declarations of War against the United States for the basing of troops in the Arabian Peninsula to defend against external aggression by [[Saddam Hussein]] and because of the suffering of the Iraqi people under UN economic sanctions.<ref>[http://www.kimsoft.com/2001/binladenwar.htm Bin Laden's Declaration of War], 1998.</ref> However, Clinton did not take the threat seriously, and did not make an effort to capture or kill Bin Laden. <ref> [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4540958/] Osama bin Laden: missed opportunities</ref>

Bin Laden lived in Sudan for most of the 1990's at the invitation of [[Hassan al-Turabi]], a powerful Sudanese political leader and terrorism supporter. He then returned to [[Afghanistan]], where he had fought against the Soviets in the 1980's. He was protected by the [[Taliban]] until the American liberation of [[Afghanistan]] following [[9/11]].

In the 1990s, Bin Laden also gave funding to Chechen terrorists fighting against Russia.[http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/DJ29Ag05.html] These terrorists were later responsible for the [[Beslan school siege of 2004]]. Chechens also fought in Afghanistan against U.S. forces on behalf of the Taliban.[http://muslimvillage.net/story.php?id=370]

During the 1980s insurgency against the [[Soviet]] occupation of [[Afghanistan]] the [[Carter Administration]] initially directed help to train and arm anti-Soviet Islamic militants, some of whom were radical Islamists. Bin Laden had his own source of funding, though, and would have shunned influence by America.<ref>http://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archive/2005/Jan/24-318760.html</ref>

In 1998, Bin Laden and [[Ayman al-Zawahiri]], then leader of the Egyptian terrorist group called the [[Islamic Brotherhood]], announced the joining of al Qaeda and the [[Islamic Brotherhood]] to form the ''World Islamic Front for the Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders''<ref> http://www.janes.com/security/international_security/news/jir/jir011003_1_n.shtml</ref>. In 1998, the United States embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were destroyed by suicide bombers; the United States later indicted both Ben Laden and al-Zawahiri for the attacks which killed 224 people. In retaliation the United States launched [[cruise missile]]s, however, both terrorist leaders escaped.

Bin Laden is cited by the [[United States]] government as the most wanted terrorist. He remains at large to this day despite seven years of the United States army searching for him.

== See also ==
*[[Terrorism]]
*[[FBI Most Wanted Terrorist List]]
* [[Yasser Arafat]]

==References==
<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT:Bin Laden, Osama}}
[[Category:Military Commanders]]
[[Category:Terrorists]]
[[Category: al-Qaeda]]
[[Category:Muslims]]

Alex Jones

2009-03-12T05:10:31Z

Rbpolsen:

'''Alex Jones''' is a [[paleoconservative]] libertarian talk show [[radio]] host. His show usually deals with [[government]] conspiracies, governmental failures, the existence of a coming police state, and constitutionalism.

He is a "[[9/11]] truther", believing that 9/11 was pulled off by traitors of the United States Government (New World Order members) and various other politicians and high ranking military officials from several other countries.

He has made many documentary videos in which he exposes how the government is infringing on civil rights or to make claims about an alleged 9/11 conspiracy.

He has also appeared several times as a guest on [[Coast to Coast AM]].

== External Links ==
*http://www.prisonplanet.com/
*http://www.infowars.com/
*http://www.opposingdigits.com/alex/
* [http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=6F08A93A-452B-44B8-B26C-7C9349B466CC Criticism of Alex Jones by Jon Sanders of FrontPage Magazine]

[[category:Broadcasters]]

{{DEFAULTSORT:Jones, Alex}}

Alex Jones

2009-03-12T05:06:40Z

Rbpolsen: Alex Jones is a self-confirmed paleo-coservative

'''Alex Jones''' is a [[paleoconservative]]<ref>Rosell, Rich, ''[http://www.digitallyobsessed.com/showinterview.php3?ID=80&page=3 Dark days, the Alex Jones interview]'', digitallyobsessed.com, 27 November 2006, retrieved 27 August 2008</ref> libertarian talk show [[radio]] host. His show usually deals with [[government]] conspiracies, governmental failures, the existence of a coming police state, and constitutionalism.

He is a "[[9/11]] truther", believing that 9/11 was pulled off by traitors of the United States Government (New World Order members) and various other politicians and high ranking military officials from several other countries.

He has made many documentary videos in which he exposes how the government is infringing on civil rights or to make claims about an alleged 9/11 conspiracy.

He has also appeared several times as a guest on [[Coast to Coast AM]].

== External Links ==
*http://www.prisonplanet.com/
*http://www.infowars.com/
*http://www.opposingdigits.com/alex/
* [http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=6F08A93A-452B-44B8-B26C-7C9349B466CC Criticism of Alex Jones by Jon Sanders of FrontPage Magazine]

[[category:Broadcasters]]

{{DEFAULTSORT:Jones, Alex}}

User:TracieD

2008-11-27T21:00:14Z

Rbpolsen:

You shouldn't be judgmental.

==Thanks==
Thank you for trying to help me a place in the online community. However, I do not intend to focus upon websites that readily open and up-front about all of their polices. I intend to correct the seemingly backwards agenda that I have found on the internet. That is, to say, I find more and more that trying to be neutral by being biased is only a way to propogate the beliefs of those who feel that they are right all the time about their beliefs, even if their beliefs are in the hands of someone else. I mean no one any offense, but this is what I believe.
Thanks agian, [[User:Rbpolsen|Rbpolsen]] 16:00, 27 November 2008 (EST)

User:Rbpolsen

2008-11-27T20:49:54Z

Rbpolsen: New page: Welcome to my page. Feel free to make your self at home (more or less). {{Userbox |border-c=#000 |border-s=1 |id-c=#fff |id-s=12 |id-fc=#000 |info-c=#090 |info-s=8 |info-fc=#fff |id=[[Ima...

Welcome to my page. Feel free to make your self at home (more or less).

{{Userbox |border-c=#000 |border-s=1 |id-c=#fff |id-s=12 |id-fc=#000 |info-c=#090 |info-s=8 |info-fc=#fff |id=[[Image:Peace.jpg|50px]] |info=This user advocates Harmony over Zealotry.}}

Debate:How should Conservapedia work to avoid having a conservative bias?

2008-11-20T21:38:57Z

Rbpolsen: /* It shouldn't */

{{debate}}

== The Definition of Conservative ==
There is the political definition of Conservative along with its related concepts, ideals, and beliefs. But there is also a broader and more liberal definition of conservative. Basically conservativism is a cautiousness and traditional approach to things. Social conservatives want to keep the current societal mores or have them change slowly.

In the case of Conservapedia I think the best approach would be the cautious one. Let us approach writing here as a way to express cautious, respectful, and rational beliefs in the way the world is.
--[[User:Kirby|Kirby]] 22:19, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
:I think the current method of insta-banning anyone for 5 years for any edit that isn't evangelically conservative is working very well, actually.--[[User:Colbertnation2|Colbertnation2]] 19:45, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

== Diversity of Thought ==
Can we get away from this 2+2=4 line of thought? I don't think it is very productive. --[[User:Truth is bipartisan|Truth is bipartisan]] 14:15, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I think its important for everyone to realize that acknowledging an argument that is contrary to one's own beliefs, does not mean you support that counter-argument. If Conservapedia wants to avoid having a conservative bias, we might want to use critical analysis and pursue a perspective that is respectful of a diversity of thought. --[[User:Truth is bipartisan|Truth is bipartisan]] 17:50, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:An encyclopedia like ours may properly acknowledge the existence of contrary arguments. But it should report fact as fact. The most charitable thing I am prepared to do is to say, "Two plus two is equal to four, though some profess that it might be made equal to five, or ten, or five-and-twenty, as the case demands." I will ''not'' consent to reporting that two plus to is, under any circumstances, equal to anything other than four.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 19:02, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Read relativism and read Bertrand Russell. There's no absolute truth and there's no absolute mathematical truth that doesn't require unsupported assumptions (much like this statement). [[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 18:34, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:::1+3=4; 2+2=4; 2x2=4; 3+1=4; 6-2=4; -2x-2=4; 22=4; 100=4 (binary). Maybe we shouldn't be looking for the correct answers before knowing the correct questions? --[[User:Rob Pommer| Rob Pommer]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|TALK]] 18:43, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

The readership and editors of Conservapedia, Wikipedia, the New York Times, Fox News, in fact everyone would do well to remember Chapter 2 of J.S. Mill's ''Italic text''On Liberty''Italic text'': 'He who knows only his own side of the case, knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side; if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion'. Glib and flippant characterisations, (I hesitate to say misrepresentations) of liberal thought help no one. Liberal arguments, like Conservative ones, are amenable to rational debate. To dismiss them completely does our readership, especially those relying on this encyclopedia as an educational resource, a great disservice.

== It shouldn't ==
Two plus two equals four, not five. Of course we should have a bias--toward the truth. Absolute truth does exist, and the very act of grasping that axiom establishes that we are at odds with liberals--because liberals are ''postmodernistic'' in their thinking. [[Postmodernism]] asserts that no such thing as truth exists--an echo of a famous [[Rhetoric|rhetorical]] question by [[Pontius Pilate]].--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 14:31, 6 March 2007 (EST)

: While no comment on the topic, I note that not all liberals are "postmodernistic (sic)" and in fact many "conservative" claims border on post-modernism. See for example Warren Nord's arguments for teaching religion in public schools, look at "pressupositional apologetics", or look at Steve Fuller's testimony in the Dover trial. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 14:42, 6 March 2007 (EST)

::Interesting claim--that not all liberals are postmodern in their thinking. Actually, some liberals are ''modernistic'', which arguably is worse. Modernists assert that "[[science]]" will inevitably explain everything, and will explain it purely as an action of matter. [[Atheism|Atheists]] are modernists--and, I maintain, modernists have to become atheists in order to remain modernists.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 14:47, 6 March 2007 (EST)

::: Not all atheists are modernist either in that sense, and no a modernist doesn't need to be an atheist (could be for example, an agnostic or some form of deist who believes that God is amenable to scientific analysis). [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 14:54, 6 March 2007 (EST)

:::: Terry, I don't for the life of me understand how you can connect modernism, postmodernism, etc., with political positioning. There is a wide range of political views associated with either. Modernism has to include both Marx and Jefferson, for example. --[[User:Andy|Andy]] 13:04, 17 November 2007 (EST)

"Everything conservatives believe is absolute truth" is not a very good starting point, because not all conservatives believe the same things. You can, of course, get around this by saying "the ones that don't believe the same things that I believe aren't really conservatives, then." However, you may find that the pool of people who believe ''exactly'' the same things that you believe is small. - User: Edward. (I might not have formatted this properly, I apologise).

Saying "there is such a thing as absolute truth, and two plus two equals four is an example" doesn't get you very far. You still need to figure out what to do when you know that "there is such a thing as absolute truth, and the absolute truth is that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son" and you meet someone who says "there is such a thing as absolute truth, and the absolute truth is that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 15:14, 6 March 2007 (EST)

::::: Personaly, I am striving towards as much conservative "bias" as possible. --[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 16:47, 6 March 2007 (EST)

I agree to an extent. We want to be fair and factual. One thing that separates us from Wikipedia is that we do not claim ''not'' to have a bias and then take one anyway. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 16:50, 6 March 2007 (EST)

:It's worth noting that there's a difference between conservative ''bias'' and conservative ''flavour''. One can't have bias ''and'' be 'fair and factual,' it's one or the other. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 16:55, 6 March 2007 (EST)

On the contrary! One '''''can't''''' be "fair" and factual. If we give equall opportunity to both sides of the political spectrum we will be half ''non''factual. I beleive that absolute truth is right-of-center (that's why I'm a conservative). '''''Conservapedia needs take a position on political issues''''' ''or else we will abandon factuality.'' --[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 17:09, 6 March 2007 (EST)

:We might as well have a king, then, if absolute truth is knowable for all times for all people, as BenS suggests. What point in politics, democracy, debate? Let's just crown BenS king and henceforth rely on BenS's judgment about what's right, since he seems to have a monopoly on truth. [[User:McTavidge|McTavidge]] 00:53, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

::Neither [[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] nor I have ever claimed a ''monopoly'' on truth. Anyone can ''discover'' the truth for himself. The problem is that ''liberals'' have a ''problem'' with the truth--because the truth harms their case for "comforting the afflicted and afflicting the comfortable" ([[John Kenneth Galbraith]])--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 10:09, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Well, as long as we're talking Christianity (and Conservapedia is at least partly about that, isn't it?), comforting the afflicted sounds about right. And challenging the comfortable was certainly not foreign to Jesus' approach. Apart from that, though, when you say that liberals have a problem with truth because it conflicts with their views, the tendency you're talking about isn't by any means the exclusive province of liberals. Everyone does it to some extent, amazingly even people who edit Conservapedia. [[User:McTavidge|McTavidge]] 23:58, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

'''The writer above me is claiming is that only his views are correct, and no others come even close to the mark.''' I want to make this perfectly clear. This is the Rush Limbaugh conservative that cannot even see the truth and merit in the arguments against him. The conservative who claims that any argument is opposition of him is non-factual, when '''in reality the world is contrary,''' one fact always in balance with a contrary fact.
''The path to affirming your beliefs is by listening to the opposition's point of view, not shunning them.''--[[User:Thepunkway|Punky]] 17:11, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:I think we're working to different definitions of "fair" here. I'm not a compulsive centrist. Truth is fair, IMO. The tricky part is establishing it in the first place. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 17:11, 6 March 2007 (EST)

:: David hit the nail on the head. We don't make false claims of neutrality, as Wikipedia does. We have certain principles that we adhere to, and we are up-front about them. Beyond that we welcome the facts.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:49, 6 March 2007 (EST)

::: I have to agree with Aschlafly, there will undoubtably be right-wing bias here as the site is called "Conservapedia". I just want to help make sure that everything here is based on fact and not on someone's personal opinion. If it was all based on personal opinion, it would be no better than wikipedia. I appreciate your being up front about the possibility of conservative bias, and though I do not agree with many of the political views of many of the users of this site, I intend to respect them and do my best to keep this site as unbiased and truthful as I am allowed to. The truth is all we need to make this a viable source for information on many things.--[[User:TheTruth|TheTruth]] 18:33, 6 March 2007 (EST)

We are not trying to be "unbiased" we are trying to be ''conservative''. The truth is not unbiased. I agree with ben that we should take an official position on some key issues. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 18:40, 6 March 2007 (EST)

I think it is ironic that Conservapedia should wish to be unbiased when "Conservative" is evident in it's name. I have argued the conservative view on Wikipedia many times. I think that one of the nice things about Wikipedia is that so many people of so many backgrounds can discuss matters on an online forum. When debating anywhere, I argue a creationist pov, and am deeply religious when it comes to following Jesus. I know go to your "terrorist" debate page and will use Jesus as a weapon. [[User:Two by two|Two by two]] 08:59, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

The name says it all, this is not liberalpedia. You can have a conservative democrat(maybe) and a conservative Republican posting to Conservapedia. The point of view should still be conservative. When we post in the name of 'fairness', then we say we accept opposing viewpoints a.k.a. liberal points or grey instead of black or white. Truth and half truth should not be considered equal, only truth should be the guiding principle.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 22:34, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

:Liberals will not recognise that there is such a thing as the truth and righteousness. They are embroiled in their own pseudo-intellectual activities, such as the vain search for moral relativism. Conservapedia is neutral to the facts, as it should be. We present the facts, people make up their own minds then. Liberals insist on compensating for something or someone in order to try and give a balanced viewpoint when the truth is that sometimes God made some horrible, evil people, and we should be pointing that out, not pointing out that for example Hitler was good with dogs and therefore had a nice side. Its ridiculous. [[User:Boru|Boru]] 12:31, 7 October 2007 (EDT)

How is it even possible for a conservative website to be without bias? By adding a viewpoint, you are already inserting bias. Many of you claim that Wikipedia has a liberal bias, (which it may), but by choosing to make a site centered around a viewpoint (which everyone knows this site is) bias is already present. I am willing to accept the fact that Conservapedia has a bias, and I think once that is acknowledged, this site can become far more productive. All I ask is that you be up front about it. [[User:Rbpolsen|Rbpolsen]] 16:38, 20 November 2008 (EST)

== It should==
Otherwise it will simply be labled as hypocritical (which has already happened). If removing the bias from Wikipedia's articles is one of the main reasons for establishing this site then creating a new conservative bias would simply be irrational. This site could simply semsibly point out bias' in wikipedia's articles pointing out scientifically and socially credible sources. An image of " we're more conservative than Wikipedia but we're not creationists" would go a long way to creating credibility.--[[User:ChrisF|ChrisF]]
:I agree heartily. Merely having the articles written by conservatives will put a slight spin on the issues, intentional or not. Any more than this and we are no longer writing an encyclopedia, but a conservative propaganda resource.--[[User:Sub Zenyth|Sub Zenyth]] 23:53, 6 March 2007 (EST)
::'''Counter''' Sub Zenyth, do you actually know what [[propaganda]] is? It is, by my definition, a tissue of lies, or anything presented in a manner that would lead one to suspect lying. Is anyone telling lies here? Evidence, if you please.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 00:02, 7 March 2007 (EST)

:: I just want to say how much I enjoy this phrase; "by my definition". Especially in a document that is complaining about post modern liberals!--[[User:Donalbain|Donalbain]] 08:35, 9 March 2007 (EST)

::::TerryH, I do know what propaganda actually is and '''you are wrong.''' Propaganda literally means "that which ought to be propagated" and historically derives from the office of the Catholic Church charged with "the propagation of the faith." Propaganda does not need to be false. ''That's not a part of the definition at all.'' What makes propaganda propaganda is that it is intended to advance a cause, rather than being disinterested. Propaganda can be truthful, and arguably the truer the propaganda the more effective it is.
:::::'''Propaganda, n.''' 1. The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause. 2. Material disseminated by the advocates or opponents of a doctrine or cause: wartime propaganda. 3. Propaganda Roman Catholic Church A division of the Roman Curia that has authority in the matter of preaching the gospel, of establishing the Church in non-Christian countries, and of administering Church missions in territories where there is no properly organized hierarchy. (AHD) [http://www.bartleby.com/61/79/P0597900.html]
:::::'''Propaganda.''' Function: noun Etymology: New Latin, from Congregatio de propaganda fide Congregation for propagating the faith, organization established by Pope Gregory XV died 1623 1. (capitalized) : a congregation of the Roman curia having jurisdiction over missionary territories and related institutions. 2: the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person. 3: ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause or to damage an opposing cause; also : a public action having such an effect. (Merriam-Webster) [http://209.161.33.50/dictionary/propaganda]

:::..Wait, did I miss something? That link helped my argument. "Any ''idea, fact, rumor,'' or lie, or a ''wider body of same,'' which one circulates, publishes, or otherwise ''spreads by deliberate conscious effort in order to advance'' or hinder ''any given cause.''" So, conservatives claiming factuality of articles that are intentionally skewed to advocate conservative views would be... propaganda, no?--[[User:Sub Zenyth|Sub Zenyth]] 00:52, 7 March 2007 (EST)

::Sub, you're still missing the point. I'm sure that Andrew Schlafly can speak for himself and the other Bureaucrats, but: if you have a complaint about a specific article, that's what Talk pages are for--either for the article or for its major contributor. But yours seems to be a general complaint about the project as a whole.

::Let's face it: while we can and should have an objective standard about what is propaganda and what is not, and avoid presentations that a reasonable and prudent editor would recognize as unnecessarily invidious, we will ''always'' face those who dispute the facts, who try to state or imply that two plus two can make "five-and-twenty, as the case demands" (apologies to [[Gilbert and Sullivan]]), and who are engaging in propaganda of their own. At a certain point, we must ''face'' the fact that we are ''stating'' facts--facts that some people aren't going to like. And we will be doing ourselves ''no'' favors by allowing that fact might be non-fact, or that someone else's non-fact might be fact. We must strive to ''establish'' the facts, and then ''present'' them--politely, of course, but firmly and without reservation.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 09:27, 7 March 2007 (EST)

:::Terry, the Bible has several comments on this notion. One that has particular significance given the nature of this debate is this:
:::Isaiah 5:20 "Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who put darkness for light, and light for darkness; Who put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!" -NKJV --[[User:Knowthetruth|Knowthetruth]] 08:49, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Facts are stubborn things, as I seem to recall someone once saying. Which would be your position:
::::1) Conservapedia should strive to establish the facts, and if they happen to support a liberal view, so be it, let the chips fall where they may. Conservapedia should strive to ensure that conservative views get adequate representation and are presented fairly, as (some think) Wikipedia does not.
::::2) Conservapedia should only include facts that present no serious challenge to conservative views.
::::3) Questions 1 and 2 don't arise, because conservatism is the objective, absolute, final truth on all subjects, and a conflict between a conservative point of view and the facts cannot possible occur. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 09:45, 7 March 2007 (EST)

:::: DP, your argument above assumes that any fact might exist that would bring a major tenet of conservatism crashing down. Games, must we? What ''fact'' do you wish to assert that you believe would be unflattering to conservatism?--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 10:00, 7 March 2007 (EST)

:::::I gather then that you take position number 3? Let me phrase it in a less extreme form, thus:

:::::3a) Questions 1 and 2 need not receive serious consideration, because there are no facts that would conflict with any major tenet of conservatism.

:::::Is that fair? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 15:58, 7 March 2007 (EST)

::::::Let me rephrase myself: I have not ''found'' any facts that would embarrass a committed conservative. And I am still waiting for you to state one. So my position is: Questions 1 and 2 above are without foundation--thus far--because no opponent of conservatism has ''yet'' adduced any factual evidence to impugn any major tenet of conservatism.

::::::The tone of your conversation indicates that you believe that some such embarrassing fact has arisen, or will arise. So I ask you again: Can you lay a foundation for a fact that would embarrass conservatism generally?

::::::I am not talking, by the way, about a fact that would embarrass some ''particular proponent'' of conservatism. In regard to that, I definitely hold that we ought to report every fact about a particular figure--warts and all--the same as the [[Bible]] itself reports. But the particular sins of a proponent of conservatism are incompetent to show anything other than that the particular proponent was not willing to "practice what he or she preached.

::::::For example, a biography of [[Ayn Rand]] would be incomplete without a discussion of her eighteen-year association with [[Nathaniel Branden]], the romantic involvement between these two (this although each was married to another person, and she was twenty-five years his senior), their public breach, and the frankly appalling travesty of justice that was the sum total of her treatment of him afterward.

::::::But what does that show, other than that [[Objectivism]] demanded something of her that she was not willing to satisfy in her own life? Does that, in and of itself, impugn Objectivism? No--but an examination of its implications and its failures to come to grips with certain metaphysical questions--such as whether [[God]] existed or not--certainly would. And this is a fault that other conservatives would find with Objectivism. It is a fault I myself find with it.

::::::But in my experience, the faults that conservatives find with one another's philosophies are not the same faults that liberals find. I also find that the real problem that liberals have with conservatives is that the liberals do not wish to deal with the world and cosmos as they are, but rather as they would wish them to be--or as they think they can force them to be. In this regard, I am not interested in reporting, as fact, that the [[Global warming|globe is warming]], that human beings are responsible for it, and that this so-called disaster will surely kill us all. I can think of certain disasters that ''will'' befall the world--but "man-made injection of [[carbon dioxide]] into the [[atmosphere]]" is not one of them.

::::::In sum, I know perfectly well that the dispute between liberals and conservatives is largely a dispute on matters of fact about the planet we live on, the larger cosmos of which it is a part, and human nature. Reporting the shortcomings of any particular historical figure does not trouble me. Reporting as fact a thing that is not fact at all, but mere conjecture, does.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 16:32, 7 March 2007 (EST)

:::::::TerryH your views (especially in regard to global warming) are rather disturbing and underline why this site needs to try to avoid containing bias. Global warming is almost certainly ''the'' most pressing issue that our society currently faces. While some predictions ''may'' be a little extreme there is no doubt that if the world does not reduce it's greenhouse emissions then there will be a significant irreversible (in the short term) impact on the world.

:::::::Also I personally find your absolute faith in the bible as a factual account of history disturbing. Such views (especially in Australia) are no longer part of main stream culture and for good reason!!!--[[User:ChrisF|ChrisF]]

::::::::Let us continue these discussions [[Is global warming evident, and if so, is this the fault of man, and how must man stop it?|here]] and [[Is the Bible a reliable source of history against which one may check all other sources?|here]].--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 11:50, 9 March 2007 (EST)

Conservatives appear to me to be a bunch of cowards. If your ideas don't stand up to the scrutiny of liberals and independents, you automatically scream "LIBERAL BIAS" without ever once considering the fact that -gasp- you might actually be wrong. Instead of inserting conservative bias to correct this fabricated liberal bias, why don't you instead try to right this wrong and work toward more honest and open media rather than playing dirty? I hate to be cliche but...what would Jesus do??

As a non-conservative, I have to say that as it stands, this website has absolutely no credibility outside conservative/fundamentalist circles. Your articles, particularly science issues, and on things like evolution, abortion, and homosexuality read more like a fred phelps handout or a chick tract than a dictionary. If your guys goal is to create an insular, self congratulating source of propaganda, you've succeeded. If your goal was to make an 'unbiased' version of wikipedia, you've merely gone in the exact opposite direction. I wish you all luck. -s

I think religious bias is something to be worried about. For example, the article on [[Salvation]] shows only one facet of Salvation (e.g. the protestant version of the satisfaction theory) but the admins say it is true and will not let it be changed. Of course, this alienates Roman Catholics, some Lutherans, and Orthodox Christians. Also, it makes the conservapedia an unreliable source for students writing papers on the history of theology.--[[User:Mattk|Mattk]] 16:41, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

==A story about the Christian Science Monitor==
A point of view doesn't necessarily have to be in your face all the time. There's no reason why a publication with a point of view needs to be making that point explicitly, visibly, obviously, on every page.

:"When I was in college, I subscribed to The Christian Science Monitor. It was still a major daily newspaper, and a respected one, known for its thoughtful analysis and good coverage of world and national events. I subscribed to it because it was the best daily newspaper I could get in the town I was in.

:One day my mother says to me on the phone, 'You probably don't know that Eleanor Roosevelt died today.' I said 'What do you mean? It was on the front page.' She said 'But you read the Christian Science Monitor, and I thought they never say that anyone has died.' I said, 'No, there was a ''huge'' obituary, on the front page.' She said 'What did they say? Did they say "passed on" or something?'

:I looked, and, you know what? The headline was something like 'Eleanor Roosevelt, 78, was Admired, Influential.' The story was a capsule biography of her life and achievements. It was entirely in the past tense. ''But it did not say that she had died.'' Not outright, not euphemistically. On the face of it, there was no reason for the story. It was as if the editors had woken up this morning and said 'This would be a nice day to run a profile of Eleanor Roosevelt on the front page.'

:It did not say she had died—but I never would have noticed if I hadn't specifically looked for it."

So, the Monitor was able to be true to a Christian Science point of view without being ludicrously obvious Christian Science propaganda.

Conservapedia could do worse than to emulate the ''Christian Science Monitor'' in that regard. (The ''Monitor'' fell on hard times because of a decline in the Christian Science church itself, because of a financial crisis brought on by overexpansion and a wildly ambitious scheme to become a giant media empire, and because of a general decline in print newspapers...) [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 06:07, 7 March 2007 (EST)

:A very perceptive comment. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:48, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

== Wait, what? ==

Are you honestly asking how a conservative encyclopedia can avoid a conserative bias? Is that not the very definition of conservapedia? Wikipedia, but with a conservative bias? If that seems like an offensive point to you, ask yourself, if this site ''didn't'' have a conservative bias, how would it be different from wikipedia? --[[User:Phist|Phist]]

:It could just ''not have a liberal bias''. --[[User:Monotreme|Monotreme]] 08:46, 9 March 2007 (EST)

::After all, the word "right" can mean square, correct, making a "right angle," standing perfectly upright... rather than leaning to one side... [[User:Dpbsmith|Not gonna sign this]] 19:36, 9 March 2007 (EST)

:Um, Dpbsmith, I hope you were kidding about not signing it because in addition to looking at this edit page your name can be found by mousing over... Anyways, I think the liberal bias of Wikipedia is ''greatly'' overestimated on this site, especially considering the way 'liberal' is thrown around like it's a curse word. Having strong feelings on any issue can make any neutral source read as bias against you. [[User:Phist|Phist]]

::(Yes, it was a joke). [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 20:40, 9 March 2007 (EST)

conservapedia cannot really be unbiased because its basis is Christian, therefore its viewpoints will be based on christian views [[user:benmatthews|benmatthews]]

: Christianity is the only completely unbiased source of information, because it is the only true source of information. All other sources are biased, therefore should not be part of an unbiased encyclopedia like Conservapedia. [[User:CEinhorn|CEinhorn]] 00:58, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Question, why are you going to use Christian information (''Remember Ceinhorn you said it is the only unbiased information!)'' to discuss everything? Do you claim to know god's opinion of the molecular structure of a brick? Than '''why use Christian information to analyze non-Christian subject matter?''' And by the way, ''if Christianity is unbiased, than that means the Aztec religion is unbiased, because where do you think we get those lovely halos from?'' (Aztec sun-discs)And what about our Sabbath on Sunday, borrowed from the polytheist roman sun worshipers? And Zoroastrianism must be as unbiased as Christianity, if not more, because ''it is Christianity under a different name, but more than a thousand years older''. '''All information is biased''', because history is written by the winners, and '''Catholicism has always had some bloodthirsty warriors''' (I’m probably going to get kicked off the site for this post, but it must be said.)--[[User:Thepunkway|Punky]] 17:23, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::: The Bible is truth. Therefore, everything that conforms to the Bible is true and everything that contradicts the Bible is false. On the other topics -- halos are just a representation of God's spirit; whether the style came from Aztec sun-discs or something earlier is immaterial. The Sabbath came about because our Lord, Jesus Christ, was raised from the dead on Sunday. And, unless Zoroastrianism preaches that the Son of God came to this world and died for our sins, it, too, is false. [[User:CEinhorn|CEinhorn]] 20:31, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: It the Bible is the only reliable source of truth, why don't we just post the Bible. In fact, I'm surprised how many articles here don't refer to the Bible at all. Shouldn't we be trying to provide an appropriate Biblical reference for evey topic? Surely links to other mere websites can't be as important as the word of the Lord? [[User:FijjaccoDeMiggnotta]]

'''i give up, you can't debate with someone who fails to follow logical arguments'''. the point of enlightened debate is to express your intellectual opinion, not you narrow, dogmatic views (P.S.: you can do what the church tells you not to do, like study up on Zoroastrianism and Aztec sun worship, you're a Catholic, all you have to do is repent and boom, it never happened!)--[[User:Thepunkway|Punky]] 06:06, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Fine and dandy. Since "truth" has been established as knowable (see above, generally), and since the Bible is (how do you say?) "truth" and since the Bible is (how do you say?) "the only true source of information," then let's use this source of truth to solve some age-old problems. And what better place to start than religion, where truth claims abound. OK, what is the "true" reason for which Christ died on the cross? The three competing truth claims (according to [[Christianity]]) are: (1) to cleanse humanity of Adam's original sin (predominantly Catholic teaching), (2) for our sins (predominantly Protestant teaching), or (3) as a sacrifice to defeat death or Satan (predominantly Lutheran teaching). So, who's got it right (i.e., what's the "truth") -- the Catholics, the non-Lutheran Protestants, or the other Protestants? If facts are facts (2 + 2, etc.), and if unbiased people can see them clearly, then there must be an obvious candiate for the truth of this matter. If the Bible is a reliable source of "information," then I expect it would have an answer for questions like these in particular. Still no takers? I don't get it. [[User:McTavidge|McTavidge]] 01:42, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

FINALLY! someone who sees clearly! Thank you unnamed writer above (the posts between my last and this one are not written by me.)--[[User:Thepunkway|Punky]] 16:56, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

Liberals have control of Wikipedia (fooling the readers that it is unbiased). Conservatives have control of Conservapedia (upfront with their readers as to their true intentions). Fair and balanced? Thats like truth (fair) with half truth (balanced) as a counterpoint. You want a centrists approach, start Centripedia.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 23:47, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

==Conservative, yes. Bias, no.==
I for one would like to see a more conservative and less biased Conservapedia. Many articles here read like mirror images of Wikipedia articles. I'd like to see a truly fair and balanced encyclopedia that does not squelch the conservative point of view. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 14:24, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

== Will someone please explain ==
How does the term "conservative" automatically mean fair and balanced AND the truth?

== Idea ==
Perhaps the name should be objectivepedia, if one were wanting to have an un-biased, truthful, and accurate reference tool.

== References ==
<references/>

==See also==
*[[Rhetorical question]]
*[[Conservative Links]]

Bias

2008-11-20T21:23:06Z

Rbpolsen:

'''Bias''' has numerous meanings. It literally means ''diagonal'' or ''slant.''

== Electronics ==

Bias is a [[DC]] voltage level added to an [[AC]] signal which is to be amplified. This is done to put the AC signal within the amplifying transistor's linear operating area.

Bias is also a name for a high-frequency sine wave that is added to an audio signal as part of the process of magnetic tape recording; it has the effect of eliminating distortion that would otherwise be caused by magnetic hysteresis.

== Statistics ==

Bias means flaws in the collection, analysis or interpretation of research data that lead to incorrect conclusions.<ref>http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/about/terms/glossary.htm#b</ref>

== Psychology ==

A bias is sometimes defined as a violation of a normative standard. For example, the fact that people will be less likely to trade an object they are endowed with for another one-regardless of which initial object they possess-violates the normative standard that preference for an object should not be swayed by what is already possessed.

Studies of biases in psychology have shown that many principles assumed in economics are incorrect (Kahneman 2003) by illustrating that the notion of a free rational agent is idealistic.

== Encyclopedias ==

In works describing a potentially controversial topic, '''bias''' refers to the tendency of an author who holds a particular viewpoint to express that viewpoint (whether intentionally or subconsciously) in his work. This typically goes against the ideal of compendiums which are meant to be neutral, such as encyclopedias. For example, if an article on [[abortion]] is written by someone who supports it, it will likely be biased towards that viewpoint. [[Wikipedia]] is often considered <ref>by whom?</ref> as having [[liberal]] bias in many of its articles.

Related:
*[[Media bias]]
*[[Bias-Original Work]]
*[[Liberal quotient]]

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Disambiguation Pages]]

Siddhartha Gautama

2008-09-08T01:04:20Z

Rbpolsen:

[[Image:Buddha.gif|right|240px]]
'''Siddhartha Gautama''', known as the Buddha (meaning "awakened one" or "enlightened one"), is the founder of [[Buddhism]]. Born a wealthy prince in the fifth century B.C., the future Buddha lived a life of pleasure, shielded from the misery outside the palace. When he found out what life was really like for most people—encountering old age, sickness, and death—he left to find answers and eventually reached a state of divine nirvana and came up with the Buddhist religion/philosophy. After traveling the land teaching his insights for 45 years, he died at about 80 years of age, what could be considered a very old age in his time.

== External links ==

*[http://www.writespirit.net/religious_traditions/buddhism/life_of_buddha The Life of The Buddha]
[[Category:Buddhism]]
*[http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/index.htm Internet Sacred Texts Archive :: Buddhism]
 
[[Image:Buddha.jpg|120px|left]]"Indeed, the Blessed One is worthy and rightly self-awakened, consummate in knowledge & conduct, well-gone, an expert with regard to the world, unexcelled as a trainer for those people fit to be tamed, the Teacher of divine & human beings, awakened, blessed." [http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/buddha.html]

[[Category:Indian Philosophers]]
[[Category:Buddhists]]