Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Bible

2012-06-25T12:13:58Z

ZackMartin: /* Most logical book? */

{{Wikiproject Religion}}
{{protect|MountainDew}}

[[Talk:Bible/Archive 1|Archive 1]]
[[Talk:Bible/Archive 2|Archive 2]]

==What the serpent said==
In Genesis 3:1, the serpent questions what God said concerning the tree of life. "Com'on, Eve...did God really say you can't eat from that tree?" One can transliterate this verse any way they want, but the meaning remains the same: Satan did not attack God personally, but he attacked His word, questioning what He said, and trying to make Eve question it too, which she ultimately did.

Unfortunately, the situation today regarding the Bible is pretty much the same, and it caused some heated debates here. This article is about the description and history of the Bible, nothing more. Textual criticism belongs in a separate article. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:00, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

==''La'' or ''Ta''==
Look, Karajou. Let's be reasonable about this. The fact is that ''la'' is not a definite article in Greek. Not in Ancient Greek, not in Koine Greek and not in Modern Greek. If you do a Google search of [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22definite+article%22+Greek "definite article" Greek], you'll get dozens of pages that all show the exact same declension. Or go and look it up in a dictionary or grammar. ''Biblia'' is neuter plural, thus the correct article is ''ta'' - ton biblion, ta biblia.

This is not a question of doctrine or scripture or exegesis or anything. It is a simple question of what the definite article is in Greek. [[User:AKjeldsen|AKjeldsen]] 16:55, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

:I agree with you as to the definite article in Greek, and I do agree with you on being reasonable. If the term ''ta biblia'' was used in the 2nd century AD to describe the books of the Bible as a whole, I most certainly will change the article to reflect that. I am going to hit the books tomorrow at MTSU, and I will go through many works by experts in ancient languages (the term has to be 2nd century Greek, not 20th century Greek); the results of which and where they came from will be posted. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 22:28, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
::That sounds like a lot of work for one entirely uncontroversial detail. Just look it up in in '''A Greek grammar of the New Testament and other early Christian literature''' by Friedrich Blass ''et.al.'', or '''A Grammar of New Testament Greek''' by James Hope Moulton ''et.al.'' [[User:AKjeldsen|AKjeldsen]] 11:36, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Well, since you researched it, I'm going to post the info immediately. All I need now is the page numbers of the books where they are located (as per MLA), plus publisher and date published for the reference section. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:30, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Very well, if you insist. They're in my office, and it's after hours here. I'll get them for you sometime tomorrow or the day after that. [[User:AKjeldsen|AKjeldsen]] 12:42, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Still waiting on the page numbers. I found the publishers, and I used the American published version of the Blass work as the source. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 22:24, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:Here we go:

<blockquote>Moulton, James Hope. '''A Grammar of New Testament Greek'''. Wilbert Francis Howard, ed. Vol 2. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1920. P. 117.</blockquote>

<blockquote>Blass, Friedrich and A. Debrunner. '''Grammatik des Neutestamentlichen Griechisch.''' Friedrich Rehkopf, ed. 14th edition. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1976. §249-276.</blockquote>

<blockquote>Bauer, Walter. '''Griechisch-Deutsches Wörterbuch zu den Scriften des Neuen Testaments und der frühchristlichen Litteratur'''. Kurt Aland and Barbara Aland, eds. 6th edition. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1988. Heading βιβλίον, columns 281-82.</blockquote>

:Moulton has an excellent table of the inflections of the definite article. If more information is needed, Blass contains more than anyone would ever want to know about articles in Κοινὴ. And in case there is still doubt, Bauer shows quite clearly that the correct article for βιβλίον is το, hence τα βιβλία. [[User:AKjeldsen|AKjeldsen]] 15:06, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

::Much appreciated; in fact, the German titles have been included as well in the reference section. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 16:05, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

I come in late on the discussion, probably after the fact, but the Greek plural for "the Scriptures" is probably much effected by the underlying current Hebrew. Though "the writings" (which is what the Scriptures means), is used for the 3rd compilation of the three part title, The Torah, the Prophets, and the Writings, it is also used for all three together."HaKetuvim". This word is in the plural form, and is most naturaly translated, "the writings" or "the Scriptures", which would make its appearance, at a later stage, in the Greek "ta biblia". "ton Biblia" (ta biblia in plural) properly means "the book" reflecting a stage that the writing (graphe) was no longer on scrolls (megilah). The word, and the way behind it, was taken from the city of Biblos (the ancient Geval) on the coast of what is now Lebanon where the book form came to be as opposed to the previous scroll form. There was another Hebrew word then in use for the whole Old Testament as well as "ketuvim". This is the word "Mikr'a", which properly means "reading". The frequent use of the word Scriptures in the New Testament probably reflects the Hebrew underlying HaKetuvim, which itself denoted some sort of closed canon of what was considered Holy Writings. The Old Testament that we know

Just a comment on the Greek words now no longer in contention "La" or "Ta", I don't really know what fed into the idea of "La" (which is not Greek}, but "La" does mean something ''in Hebrew'' and does possibly bear on the original discussion. "La"( which is the normal contraction of Le (to) and Ha (the), in front of Scriptures means "to the Scriptures" or "pertaining to the Scriptures"[[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] 08:22, 21 May 2009 (EDT)

==Article Name==
This name of this article should be The Holy Bible. [[User:Epicon|Epicon]] 02:46, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

== New American Standard Bible ==

Who created the NASB? The Catholic Church[http://www.bible-researcher.com/nab.html] or the Lockman foundation?[[User_talk:Ymmotrojam#New_American_Standard_Version|Discussion on this matter]]. [[User:Hannibal ad portas|Hannibal ad portas]] 13:34, 23 May 2007 (EDT)
:[http://www.scionofzion.com/nasvx.htm This] also makes for interesting perusal [[User:Fox|Fox]] 13:40, 23 May 2007 (EDT)
Thanks, I didn't realise there were 2 New American Bibles (''Standard'' and Catholic). [[User:Hannibal ad portas|Hannibal ad portas]] 21:56, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

==Request SysOp==
Would it be possible, and agreable, to add another translation/version to the list currently held on the page? The version I would like to propose adding is the [[Complete Jewish Bible]], which is the version used by the majority of [[Messianic Judaism|Messianic Jews]]. Some brief blurbs can be seen [http://www.onlinebible.org/html/eng/bible-info/complete-jewish-bible.html here] and [http://www.messianicjewish.net/jntp/complete-jewish-bible.html here]. [[User:Fox|Fox]] 10:32, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

== Concordia Self Study Bible ==

Please add [[Concordia Self Study Bible]] to version. [[User:FunnyBoy|FunnyBoy]] 23:50, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

== Changes Needed ==
The article appears to be locked, so here's some changes that need to be made:
* Intro paragraph: Assumes every Bible adheres to the Palestinian canon; some do not. Some sects have three parts to their Bible: The OT, the Apocrypha, and the NT. Some have an OT, an NT, and an Appendix. Some have a larger OT than others.
* The Old Testament: Again, assumes Palestinian canon. The Tanakh is not the same thing as the Old Testament; it coincides with the OT of some sects, but it is a subset of the OT of other sets.
* Tyndale: Says that Tyndale's translation led "finally to the KJV." Since there have been many revisions/new translations using the KJV as a base, one might say that the Tyndale stream has not yet reached its end. Where it will finally lead, no one knows. Recent Bibles claiming a Tyndale genealogy include the NRSV and the ESV.
* KJV: The "Textus Receptus" was not a translation (except for a few portions of Rev backtranslated from Latin), and it is arguable whether a Textus Receptus even existed at that time.
* KJV: The possessive form of it should be its.
* KJV: Shakespeare did not use the KJV throughout most of his life, and it is doubtful that he used it very much near the end. He would've used the Geneva or Bishop's Bibles.
* KJV: Milton probably used the Geneva, not the KJV.
* KJV: Ref number 5 is a broken link. Suggest removing it until a source for the quote can be found.
--[[User:All Fish Welcome|All Fish Welcome]] 09:59, 18 September 2007 (EDT)

:Regarding your first two points, I think as it stands the current article is specifically about the [[Christian Bible]]. We Jews, of course also use the term ''the Bible'' to refer to our own scriptures (needless to say, exclusive of the NT).

:It's a matter of terminology. Christians say ''the Bible'' meaning OT + NT. Jews say ''the Bible'' and mean a different, but mostly overlapping set of "books". The Judeo-Christian heritage is based heavily on the first five books of the Bible. Christian study materials for young children (see [[Sunday School]]) draw heavily on Old Testament stories: Creation, Garden of Eden, Noah and the flood, Moses in the bulrushes & leading the people of God to freedom, etc. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:10, 18 September 2007 (EDT)

:Ignoring the role of the Reformation in redefining the canon is rather misleading; a niave reader would assume that the Vulgate was correctly defined by the opening paragraph as having those books and no others. [[User:Canuck|Canuck]] 22:10, 30 July 2008 (EDT)

== Best-selling book? ==

This comment, in the first paragraph of the article, really trivializes the Bible. The Bible is not a consumer good, OK? Please remove that comment. [[User:Andy|Andy]] 09:49, 17 November 2007 (EST)
:No. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 10:20, 17 November 2007 (EST)

== Please remove categories ==

Please remove categories ''religion'' and ''Book of Worship'', as they are supercategories of ''bible''. Also, if you could change the format to <nowiki>[[Category:Bible|*]]</nowiki> so that bible appears at the top of the list of that category. Thanks. [[User:TheEvilSpartan|TheEvilSpartan]] 12:54, 8 January 2008 (EST)

== Suggestions ==
As per TerryH's ideas regarding film adaptations (See my talk page for that.), I feel we should list the film adaptations of the Bible. Also, another English Bible, and the one I use: [www.skepticsannotatedbible.com The Skeptic's Annotated Bible]. Surely, it can't hurt to list that as well, can it? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 00:07, 31 January 2008 (EST)
:I think we should stick to listing versions with credibility. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:50, 1 March 2008 (EST)
::With what respect is due, Philip J. Rayment, I believe that the King James Version of the Holy Bible is, in fact, a version with credibility. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 15:01, 4 March 2008 (EST)
::: Oh come on! You know full well I was talking about the Skeptic's Annotated Bible, not the AV itself. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:10, 4 March 2008 (EST)
:::: Original version of this made no sense. In any case, Philip, do you have an issue with annotations? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 21:58, 4 March 2008 (EST)
::::: With ''those'' annotations, yes. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:42, 5 March 2008 (EST)
::::::What is your issue? Are they factually incorrect, or do you simply disagree with the opinion presented? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 00:50, 5 March 2008 (EST)
::::::: More like logically fallacious. Here's an analysis of a few from Genesis 1[http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/gen/1.html]:
:::::::* "''(1:1-2:3) The Genesis 1 account conflicts with the order of events that are known to science.''": This is really a case saying "My view is right, your's is different, so yours is wrong". That's the fallacy of begging the question. The same applies to the next two points for the same verses, so I'll skip them.
:::::::* "''(1:3-5, 14-19) ... God creates light and separates light from darkness, and day from night, on the first day. Yet he didn't make the light producing objects (the sun and the stars) until the fourth day''": So? Is this trying to claim that God cannot make light by any other means? Given that even us humans can, this is a ludicrous claim.
:::::::* "''And how could there be "the evening and the morning" on the first day if there was no sun to mark them?''": Quite easily. To mark the days you need a rotating Earth and a source of light. The account already mentions that there was a source of light, so what's the problem?
:::::::* "''God spends one-sixth of his entire creative effort (the second day) working on a solid firmament. This strange structure, which God calls heaven, is intended to separate the higher waters from the lower waters.''": The Bible says nothing about a "solid firmament". This is an invention, probably due to a misunderstanding of what the Hebrew for "firmament" means. It has nothing to do with "firmness".
:::::::* "''(1:11-13) ... Plants are made on the third day before there was a sun to drive their photosynthetic processes ''": So? There's two answers to this. First, there was already ''light'', and that's what the plants need, not the sun specifically. Second, they had to survive 24 hours without the sun! Wow! How long do the Skeptics think a plant can survive without light?
::::::: That's enough to give you an idea. I skipped a few, mainly because the explanations would have been a bit longer. But essentially, they've said ''nothing'' accurate in those first few. The annotations have no credibility.
::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:01, 5 March 2008 (EST)
::::::::I might take you seriously if you cited a single fallacy among those, Philip. But, in the interest of fairness, I'll go through and criticise your answers.
:::::::: 1: Yes. It goes against the way things are shown to have happened. How is that fallicious?
:::::::: 2: For one, humans can't, our glorious creations can. For two, yes, that's exactly what it is claiming.
:::::::: 3: No, it says that there was light, not a source of light-- Unless of course you count Yahweh.
:::::::: 4: Then pray tell, what does firmament mean?
:::::::: 5: Not very long. You see, Philip, plants use sunlight in combination with the chloroform in their leaves or needles to create a type of sugar which they use for food. Without this, they'll die rather quickly.
:::::::: Now then, can you please cite something that is actually a logical fallacy, complete with a mention of what logical fallacy it is? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 21:54, 5 March 2008 (EST)
::::::::: 1. The Bible says it happened one way. Evolutionists say it happened another way. You have two competing accounts, and you are judging the veracity of one account (the biblical one) by comparing it to the other account (the evolutionary one). That is, as I said, the fallacy of begging the question.
::::::::: 2. Humans ''can''. Yes, they have to use tools or "their creations" to do so, but they can. And even if we couldn't, it doesn't follow that God couldn't.
::::::::: 3. If there is light, there must be a source of light, even if that is God Himself.
::::::::: 4. You don't know? How about doing a bit of proper research, instead of just reading Skeptic rubbish?
::::::::: 5. How long is "not very long"? Less than 24 hours?
::::::::: I did name a logical fallacy, in the first one. Most of the rest would fall under Red Herrings, or Excluded Middles.
::::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:23, 6 March 2008 (EST)
:::::::::: 1. One is science, supported by years upon years of research, and the other is religion, supported by a book written by bronze agers.
:::::::::: 2. Of course, right. Deus ex machina. Arguing against the powers of your deity is futile.
:::::::::: 3. Indeed, unless of course we are to interpret the verse as your God creating the concept of light.
:::::::::: 4. Tsk, tsk. It is not my job to define your terms.
:::::::::: 5. Yes, Phil. Less than 24 hours.
:::::::::: ... How do any of them fall under excluded middles? :/ Red herring, maybe, but so much of the Bible is.
:::::::::: Finally, RE: Skeptic "rubbish." Yeah, darn dissenters have never done anything good. Earth's flat, just so you know. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 15:09, 6 March 2008 (EST)
(unindent)1. When two people disagree, the only way to get agreement is to argue from common ground. Arguing that the other's view is wrong because it doesn't fit with your own view is the fallacy of begging the question. I have pointed out above that the first point listed is a case of begging the question, because it is arguing that the Bible is wrong because it doesn't fit with the evolutionary view. Yet your answer, that one (evolution) is science supported by much research, and the other (creation) is based a book written by primitive people, is not an argument from common ground, but from ''claims'' of evolutionists. That is, the claims that evolution is science and is supported by much research ''are not facts, but evolutionary arguments''! The same applies to your claim about the Bible. So your attempted rebuttal of my claim that the argument is fallacious because it begs the question also ''begs the question''!

2. Your reply is to try and mock because you have no argument. As you have no argument, you've effectively conceded that the Skeptic argument is invalid.

3. Even if it ''could'' be interpreted that way, it doesn't rule out that it ''can'' be read another way, so the argument fails. Proposing another possible way of understanding something does not mean that the first way is wrong, yet the skeptic argument ''requires'' the first way to be wrong.

4. If you are going to make the claim (which you are implicitly doing by endorsing the Skeptic claim), then yes, it is ''your'' job to justify the claim. We are not talking about ''my terms'', but about the correct meaning of a Hebrew word. You (implicitly) claim it to be one thing, so the onus is on you to substantiate that claim, not on me to refute it.

5. I will remind you that I gave ''two'' answers to this one. That is, two ''independent'' answers. So answering one still leaves the other to be answered before the claim is substantiated. But as for your attempt to refute ''one'' of the answers, [http://www.teachersdomain.org/resources/tdc02/sci/life/stru/methusweb/index.html this site] indicates that "most plants [can't] live for more than ''a few days'' without at least some light" (my emphasis).

I wouldn't try and use the flat Earth argument if I were you. It doesn't show evolutionists in a particularly flattering light, given that they effectively ''invented'' the story to discredit creationists! (Read the [[Flat Earth]] article for more.)

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:13, 6 March 2008 (EST)

:1. So let me get this straight. One cannot possibly argue that the genesis account is wrong because it has no basis in science?
:2. The powers of a deity are unfalsifiable, therefore it is useless to argue against them.
:3. Oh. So it is your view that god literally created light-- Everywhere, of course, not in a specific location?
:4. Philly, philly. The crud I go through for you. "the vault of heaven; sky" is the definition I got for firmament. Which makes your original response entirely nonsensical.
:5. Most plants also would've had stored energy beforehand. A plant that had never been exposed to sunlight would not.
:Final: Let me get this straight. Evolutionists went back in time, prodded a bronze ager, and said "Psst... Did you know the Earth is flat?" [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 21:29, 6 March 2008 (EST)

:: 1. (Your question has an ambiguity, but I ''think'' I know which way you mean it.) No, that's not what I said, but yes, your statement is correct, because you are trying to use ''science'' outside its domain, i.e. determining unobservable, untestable past events.
:: 2. In a sense, that's true. That is, Skeptics keep complaining that the creation account is unfalsifiable, yet here we have the Skeptics trying to falsify it! But it's not totally true, because in this case there are arguments that could, ''in principle'', be made, such as arguing that the text does not allow for the explanation I gave. However, the text ''doesn't'' disallow the explanation, and you have no grounds for excluding it. You can't defend an argument by complaining that you have no way of defending it!
:: 3. Huh? It is biblical teaching (and therefore my view) that God created light. It is deducible from biblical teaching (and therefore my view) that the light came from a ''particular direction'' (which is not the same thins as "in a specific location").
:: 4. Okay, seeing as you've actually gone to the trouble of looking it up, I'll apologise for being misleading. Perhaps the idea of it being solid wasn't "invented" as such, as I think the idea of it being solid did arise inadvertently due to a misunderstanding or something like that. However, I was still correct in claiming that it doesn't mean "solid". Your definition "the vault of heaven" would most likely be a euphemism for "sky", the second part of your definition. In other words, it's still not something solid. Furthermore, anybody who's done a modicum of research on the subject should know that, and it's been pointed out before, so it doesn't excuse the Skeptics for using this at all. The best translation of the word is probably "expanse" ({{Bible ref|Genesis|1:2}}. See [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/1650 here] for a detailed study of the issue.
:: 5. First, how do you know that God didn't create them with stored energy? That is presuming something that supports your case rather than seeing if there really is a problem. Second, it still ignores that I gave two independent answers, and you are only attempting to address one of them.
:: Did you read [[Flat Earth]]? Your answer indicates that you didn't, but then it wouldn't be the first time you've distorted something beyond recognition.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:32, 7 March 2008 (EST)

== Correction and authorship ==

I believe it is the council of Jamnia not Jemnia.

Also, a reference to what Paul says of scripture 2tim3:16-17 "all scripture is given by god..." and Peter 2Peter1:20-21 "holy men of god spoke as they were moved by the holy ghost" would amplify what the NT says itself about authorship. --[[User:Dale77|Dale77]] 14:33, 1 March 2008 (EST)
:I've fixed the spelling. Your suggestion sounds good. Could you propose some actual wording and say where you think it should go, then I (or someone else) can simply pop it in? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:38, 1 March 2008 (EST)

{{QuoteBox|2.1.4 Inspiration Although the old testament is written by many human authors, new testament authors claim that these men were writing under the inspiration of God. The apostle Paul states in 2 Timothy 3:16 "All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness". Similarly the apostle Peter states in 2 Peter 1:20-21 "knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone's own interpretation. For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit."}}
{{unsigned|Dale77}}
:Done. I didn't know what Bible version you were quoting from, and the links default to the NIV, so I changed the quotes to that version. Thanks for the great suggestion. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 17:53, 2 March 2008 (EST)

== Violence ==
I'm thinking about adding Some Verses about violence in the bible like the Qu'ran page has.Does anyone disagree? {{unsigned|Gobber}}

:And why would you do that when this article does not cover themes? If you feel violence is a part of a story that should be addressed, then do so in the individual books or stories. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 21:29, 3 June 2008 (EDT)

== Authorship of Job ==

The article says that Moses wrote Job. I can't say that I've every heard that, and even if I have, I can't say that it's something that is universally agreed. What's the evidence for Mosaic authorship? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:03, 2 October 2008 (EDT)
:I am not aware of any direct link. I'm assuming the theory would be based on the idea that both are about equally old, although the Bible itself makes no statement or inference in this area. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 11:49, 3 October 2008 (EDT)
==Looking for some advise, not sure where to ask==
I am trying to learn more about the early Church(es), and the process of Canonization of the bible, but the only sources I'm finding seem to be very "academic" in that "the bible was written by man" way, rather than the presumption that the bible is indeed holy. What I'm looking for is a good history on how and why the various books of the bible were included in the canon, (Nicene Council), but from a true Christian point of view. Can anyone recommend any books or authors who deal with this area?--[[User:JeanJacques|JeanJacques]] 16:07, 3 November 2008 (EST)
: See [http://www.tektonics.org/lp/otcanon.html here] for the Old Testament and [http://www.tektonics.org/lp/ntcanon.html here] for the New Testament. That second one also recommends [http://www.christian-thinktank.com/canonout.html this]. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:17, 3 November 2008 (EST)

== Sources ==

Would some one be able to provide links to the bible's sources? -Brargrar 7:49 11 February, 2009.
: ?
:* The Bible was written before there were hyperlinked documents.
:* Much if not all of the Bible was written by eyewitnesses, not by people using pre-existing documents.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:48, 10 February 2009 (EST)
::I not think that is completely true. Off the top my head, 2 Mc 2:23 clearly states that book itself is an abridgement of a lost five-volume work. The author of Jude in verses 14 and 15 cite a prophecy that is in the apocryphal ''Book of Enoch'' (The same Enoch from Gn 5:21-24).

::There are other references if you can call them that; throughout Bible authors either quote or refer to reader to lost books like ''Book of Jasher'' in Jos 10:13 and 2 Sm 1:18; ''Book of Wars of the Lord'' in Nm 21:14. The ''Book of Jubilees'' is quoted in Rom 2:29, 9:24, 4:13. ''Sirach/Ecclesiasticus'' is quoted Jas 1:19, Lk 1:52, and Mk 4:5, 16-17. There are countless others and study bibles will do a better job than me pointing out references.--[[User:Kencaesi|Kencaesi]] 17:46, 12 February 2009 (EST)

::: I did say "''much'' if not all", but yes, you've proved that it's not all. However, I'll point out that ''referring'' to another book is not the same as being based on it, and I think a number of such references are merely that—pointing out that more information can be found in other books. But some will remain as being sources. Nevertheless, ''much'' of the Bible would still be eyewitness accounts. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:55, 12 February 2009 (EST)

== error in article ==

The article states that the Bible has been translated into "nearly every language on Earth" The complete Bible has only been translated into about 400 languages and the New Testament into about 700. There are still thousands of languages that the Bible has not been translated into. This article should also be expanded to include the work involved in translating the Bible. I have a large number of foreign language translations of the Bible and would like to help out on this page. --[[User:TedM|TedM]] 22:59, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

: Those 400-700 languages cover ... 99% of the world's population? Also, I think your numbers are on the low side.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:04, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

:: The numbers are a bit low, at least the NT one, it seems. [http://www.biblesociety.org/index.php?id=22 This site] lists complete translations being in 438 languages, and "Testaments" translations in 1,168 languages (apparently ''in addition to'' the 438). And yes, they would likely cover the vast majority of the world's population, but the claim that it has been translated into "nearly every language on Earth" is still an overstatement, as worded.
:: TedM, I've unlocked the page; it has been locked long enough.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:38, 14 March 2009 (EDT)

== Biblical Views ==

I would say I am proud not to have any preconceptions about religion, or the lack of it. With this spirit in mind, and a large amount of different educational viewpoints, I decided to read the bible. The overall message of the new testament is a good one (not so much with the old testament), that we should be kind and respect one another. But while this message is one we should all follow, certain things need to be stated. The bible isnt logical, as I've seen many people say. It has many contradictions, things which dont make coherent sence, and stories that can have many different interpritations. Can something about this please be said in the article, in the interest of fairness for all (i.e. the message of the bible). And please dont block me, flame me, or post stupid replys, and bear in mind I have read it, and i can cite opposing statements etc. Oh, and Mr Schlafly, I wouldnt object to a logical conversion attempt, if you agree to civil terms.

PS: I apologise for any bad spelling or grammer, I try my best but dyslexia isnt nice

--[[User:Unlikelyconvert|Unlikelyconvert]] 12:47, 20 May 2009 (EDT)

Dear Unlikelyconvert, I would say that it is very difficult to say that one doesn't have any preconception about religion. I can't say that for myself. That is why I often pray for God to undeceive me of anything needing it. I remain a believer in Jesus Christ. There is a great deal in the Bible that seems to be self-contradictory, incoherent, etc. The more I go on in study and in life (I am now 71 years old), the more I see that these flaws are only apparent, with very deep and satisfying solutions. I am sure that if you really quest in the right place and the right way, you will be drawn by God to faith in Jesus Christ.[[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] 05:34, 21 May 2009 (EDT)

==Fixed again==
While I did not delete the recent edits of RJJ and Bert, it needed a slight re-arrangement away from a poor format that pulled some of it off-topic. This article is essentially in three parts: 1) a description of the Bible itself (Old and New Testaments and Apocrypha; 2) the authority of the Bible is religious and daily life; 3) a history of the Bible ''as a document'' only. Anything else, such as specific textual cricisms of different versions, should be addressed in stand-alone articles. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 10:07, 24 May 2009 (EDT)

== Controversies ==

I have no objection to including the Evangelical version of Bible history, but it should be clearly labeled as such. The earlier part of the article clearly indicates there re multiple viewpoints--and the Evangelical/Fundamentalist one is not held by most Methodists, Presbyterians, Episcopalians, Lutherans, etc. I don't see any possible "synthetic" section that would a) assert Moses wrote key books and b) also assert that Moses did NOT write those books. So let's simply keep the theological assumptions clear; Mark Noll has written a lot about them. (My own background includes a lot of Bible study at Notre Dame and Yale, from two quite different perspectives.) [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 11:23, 24 May 2009 (EDT)
:If it's clearly stated that "so-and-so wrote this", then I have no problem with it, but the main details should be covered in separate articles. From my standpoint, this article and its structure should be about the three points addressed above, as well as respecting God's work as well. The pic I included of the Torah at the Western Wall should be included as well (or a similar one), as it does illustrate the reverence Jews have for it. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 11:34, 24 May 2009 (EDT)

== I fixed the number of books in the OT ==
I changed
:Most Christians, Protestant and Catholic, agree on the books of the New Testament, but the Protestant Bible includes '''66''' books of the Old Testament
to read
:Most Christians, Protestant and Catholic, agree on the '''27''' books of the New Testament, but the Protestant Bible includes '''39''' books of the Old Testament ((by Rickswartzentrover)

:Good correction. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:25, 20 November 2009 (EST)

== Liberal Criticism of the Bible ==

Would it be ok to add the following section to the main page?

Liberals, atheists, and secularists frequently attack the Bible and Christians by selectively taking certain passages out of context. Such attacks are excellent examples of [[liberal deceit]] and fall apart in the face of honest, thoughtful investigation.

Particular favorites of liberals include passages they claim are sexist, such as "Wives should be subordinate to their husbands as to the Lord." (Ephesians 5:22) or "I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man. She must be quiet." (1 Timothy 2:12). In reality, those passages reflect deliberate misunderstandings and mistranslations, often by liberals themselves. In the first example, for instance, the phrase "subordinate" would be more accurately translated from the Hebrew "לְהַכפִּיף" as "respectful and loving." Of course, even that might be a problem for liberal feminists.

Another group of passages liberals love to quote is those in which God appears to be violent or wrathful. For example, in Genesis 7:23 God causes a great flood which wipes the earth clean of sinners and evil by drowning the corrupt men who have perverted his vision for humanity. However, while liberals who believe in moral relativism may not understand, God was ensuring the future of humanity by destroying a 'false start' who betrayed his vision by engaging in all kinds of perversion and iniquity.

More importantly, since liberals do not accept that Jesus Christ came to redeem mankind for our sins, they do not understand that the perfection of the Old Testament is found in the New Testament and that the real Truth is His word. What this proves is that God is both stern and merciful; He punishes sinners for their crimes against Him, but also offers them a path to redemption through Christ.

== Weird typos & other issues in "Authority->Roman Catholic" ==

I was glancing at the article at noticed how that section contained odd misspellings ("bishop ov Rome", "Majesterium" instead of "Magisterium", "second comming", "regualtion" should be "regulation"), and there is an attempt to describe papal infallibility in an incorrect manner. Councils (such as Vatican I from which the papal infallibility dogma came) are considered infallible, but only two infallible decisions by a Pope have occurred to this date. It needs to be clarified that the infallible status of infallibility came from the First Vatican Council, not the Pope. Also, the Charismatic Movement is non-denominational. There seems to be a criticism woven into technical language on Scripture interpretation.

I see a lot of other sections with also-unusual typos ("Septuaginta" instead of "Septuagint").

This article is locked - here is my suggested replacement:

'''---BELOW THIS LINE---'''

The Roman Catholic Church, like the Orthodox Churches, has a strong sense of the authority given to the Bishops by Christ to teach, interpret, defend the Faith and therefore to exercise the responsibility to interpret Scripture to the faithful.

Since Vatican II, there has been an increased effort to bring knowledge of Scripture to the laity, resulting in an increase of Scripture reading and study programs throughout the Church. This has been abetted by the non-denominational Charismatic Movement, which has had the effect of promoting individual appropriation of the gifts and graces of the Holy Spirit, and with that, the devotional and intellectual use of Holy Scriptures.

However, the role of "Magisterium", that is the teaching authority of the Church, strongly sets limits to individual interpretation. The Roman Catholic Church understands that while the Magisterium is given to all the bishops, the definitive exercise is limited to one bishop - the bishop of Rome, the Pope. Further, it is believed that the Pope, when declaring dogma (teaching) ex-Cathedra (from the chair) speaks infallibly (on matters of faith and morals). This has happened twice since the dogma was defined in the First Vatican Council (Vatican I). In addition, Catholics believe that doctrine from Councils are also infallible.

Rather than hold to a literal interpretation of Scripture, Catholicism looks for "the meaning" and "the message" contained within, promoting the concept of "apostolic succession" - that the bishops are successors of the Apostles, with the successor of Peter, the Pope, as their leader. Interpretation of Scripture and Catholic Tradition by authorities result in such Catholic teachings as the prohibition of abortion."

'''---ABOVE THIS LINE---'''

-[[User:Danq|danq]] 23:25, 14 April 2010 (EDT)

Your revision looks pretty good to me![[User:BertSchlossberg|BertSchlossberg]] 23:40, 14 April 2010 (EDT)

== The Bible and Islam ==

There's a section here called "Authority of Bible in religious communities". I think it is worthwhile to note somewhere on the Bible page that Islam considers many Biblical characters to be prophets: Abraham and Jesus, for example, but also people such as Adam, Noah, and Mary (mother of Jesus). This is useful information for people considering how to talk about Scripture with Muslims.

== Bible Versions ==
Since the existence of a special version of the bible for the Jehovah's Witnesses is mentioned, would it be worth mentioning the "Inspired Version" by Joseph Smith? It's not really a "translation" so much as an edit of the King James Version, but is usually regarded by the various Latter Day Saints sects as the "best" version of the Bible (being the most in harmony with Smith's other teachings, for reasons one hopes are obvious). The Other Wiki has a reasonably neutral POV article on it. [[User:Ptorquemada|Ptorquemada]] 11:54, 6 April 2011 (EDT)

:That's fine. Please add and explain as you think best.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:17, 6 April 2011 (EDT)

== Deleted books ==

Shouldn't there be a mention of the numerous (ridiculous and liberal) pagan books that the Church removed early on? [[User:LogicalThinker|LogicalThinker]] 00:13, 17 June 2011 (EDT)
:They have nothing to do with the Bible. Perhaps separate articles will do. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 00:52, 17 June 2011 (EDT)

== Who are the greatest villains of the Bible? ==

I think the top three have to be [[Cain]] (first murderer), [[Haman]] (tried to kill all the Jews), and [[Judas Iscariot]] (betrayed Christ). What do other people think? [[User:Maratrean|Maratrean]] 20:47, 25 November 2011 (EST)

:Don't forget the serpent in the garden (who was Satan) and the Pharaoh who enslaved the Hebrews -[[User:Danq|danq]] 02:22, 3 December 2011 (EST)

== in "See Also" ==

I would like this article [[Singing the Hebrew Scriptures]] in the See Also section

== in "See Also" ==

I would like this article [[Singing the Hebrew Scriptures]] in the See Also section

== Most logical book? ==

Some atheists sent me this link:

http://sciencebasedlife.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/biblecontradictions-reasonproject.png

Of course it's nonsense, but could you please provide explanation for every so-called "contradictions" so that I could use it against them.
:How is anyone supposed to respond to that massive list? It would take days to research all those claimed contradictions. I can't speak for all of them, but some of their claimed "contradictions" are particularly silly. For example, number 31, claiming that Prov 26:4 contradicts Prov 26:5. Do you really think two adjacent verses would contradict each other? Wouldn't someone have noticed it by now? Or could it be, that the passage is describing what we call today a catch-22 situation? i.e. arguing with fools is not a wise course of action, but sometimes one has little choice. A Catch-22 situation is contradictory in a sense, but then it is life itself that is being contradictory here, not the Book of Proverbs. [[User:ZackMartin|ZackMartin]] 08:13, 25 June 2012 (EDT)

User talk:ZackMartin

2012-06-15T05:14:22Z

ZackMartin: /* Recreated original account only to stop impersonators */

{{Welcome|sig=--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 21:31, 26 March 2011 (EDT)}}

:Welcome! In reply to your comment on User:Maratrean, I don't specifically recall any disagreement with "A Storehouse of Knowledge," though it's possible there was a discussion about it. I welcome other wikis and approaches to providing knowledge and insights over the internet, and I have no quarrel with other efforts that disclose their point-of-view.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:41, 27 March 2011 (EDT)
::It's irrelevant anyway, I just deleted the sentence in question. --[[User:Maratrean|Maratrean]] 00:56, 27 March 2011 (EDT)

== suggestion/request ==

Could you significantly expand the [[Definition of atheism]] article so it incorporates some of this information:

http://creation.com/atheism-a-religion

http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/Kitzmiller%27s_error_summary.pdf

http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/Kitzmiller%27s_Error.pdf

If you choose to do this, let me know when you are done and I can make it the article of the week.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:17, 8 July 2011 (EDT)
:::You can contact me here: http://www.conservapedia.com/User:Conservative/messages If I am slow to respond, ask Admin RobS to contact me via email and that will expedite things. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:18, 8 July 2011 (EDT)

== other atheism articles ==

If you want to spearhead a project like this for atheism, go ahead and create one and I will feature it on the main page of Conservapedia: [[Conservapedia:Pro-life Project]]

Here is where you can create such a project: [[Conservapedia: Atheism Project]]

Below are some suggested articles if you want to spearhead such a project:

*[[Atheism symbols]]
*[[Soviet atheism]]
*[[Soviet realism and atheism]]
*[[Atheism organizations]]
*[[Atheism activists]]
*[[Atheism 1960s]]
*[[Atheism 1970s]]
*[[Atheism and consciousness]]
*[[Christian response to atheism]]
*[[Psychology of atheism]]
*[[Essay: Who is the father of atheism?]]
*[[Atheism and homosexuality]]
*[[Atheism and sexuality]]
*[[Four Horsemen of atheism]]
*[[Atheism and the founding fathers]]
*[[Atheism in popular culture]]
*[[Atheism vs. theism in education]]
*[[Isaac Newton and atheism]]
*[[Decline of atheism]]
*[[Difference between pantheism and atheism]]
*[[Atheism statistics]]
*[[Teenage atheism]]
*[[Atheism and logic]]
*[[Atheism in the media]]

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:47, 9 July 2011 (EDT)

== Quick Question ==

Do you want to further develop the [[Definition of atheism]] and for me to spotlight the article on the main page when you are done? I offered some suggestions.

Or are you done working on the article and I should spotlight it ASAP. I do think that if it were more fully developed it would rank high at the search engines and receive more traffic. I do think that although there is not a perfect correlation with quality informational content ranking high at the search engines, there is a correlation nonetheless. I am assuming you would prefer that your work be read by more readers all other things remaining equal.

Please let me know what you want me to do. I do want to honor the promise I believe I made to you. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 03:47, 13 July 2011 (EDT)
:Hi Conservative, thanks. I can't personally think of anything else to add, but if you can think of anything let me know. Otherwise, yes, you can spotlight it, thank you. [[User:Maratrean|Maratrean]] 20:30, 15 July 2011 (EDT)
:::I will make it the article of the week soon. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:35, 15 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::Please feel free to remind me if I drop the ball. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:36, 15 July 2011 (EDT)

== I put your Conservapedia Atheism Project on the main page ==

I put your [[Conservapedia:Atheism Project]] on the main page. Plus, I added more potential articles to write. If you need more article ideas, I can generate more. If you want to help make Conservapedia move closer to being the definitive resource on atheism on the internet, the more high quality articles the better. Best wishes with your project. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:57, 15 July 2011 (EDT)

== Featured your definition of atheism article, which if memory serves, I believe I promised to do ==

Featured your [[definition of atheism]] article as article of the week, which if memory serves, I believe I promised to do. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 14:59, 23 July 2011 (EDT)
:::Someone made another article the article of the week and there may have been a committee decision concerning this matter. I wanted to keep my promise to you in a prompt manner so I made your article the "atheism article of the week". [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:27, 24 July 2011 (EDT)

== i just signficantly expanded the range of atheism articles requested/suggested and... ==

I just significantly expanded the articles requested for the [[Conservapedia:Atheism Project]]. I think you might find some of the articles interesting to write about. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:32, 24 July 2011 (EDT)

== Recreated original account only to stop impersonators ==

I recreated my original account [[User:Maratrean]] simply to stop any wannabe impersonators from recreating it. I will not use it other than to leave this message. Thanks, ZackMartin. [[User:Maratrean|Maratrean]] 01:13, 15 June 2012 (EDT)
:Confirming the above message was posted by me. [[User:ZackMartin|ZackMartin]] 01:14, 15 June 2012 (EDT)

Talk:Early Aramaic Jewish Christian prophesying

2012-06-11T00:57:08Z

ZackMartin: Created page with "Hi BertSchlossberg, I take it you are talking about the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odes_of_Solomon Odes of Solomon]? Maybe someone should write a Conservapedia article about t..."

Hi BertSchlossberg, I take it you are talking about the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odes_of_Solomon Odes of Solomon]? Maybe someone should write a Conservapedia article about them - [[Odes of Solomon]]. [[User:Maratrean|Maratrean]] 20:57, 10 June 2012 (EDT)

Vicarious autotheism

2012-06-06T02:11:03Z

ZackMartin: #REDIRECT Self-projection as God - an alternate name for the atheist pseudoscience of "Self-projection as God"

#REDIRECT [[Self-projection as God]]

Pseudoscience

2012-06-06T02:10:22Z

ZackMartin: /* Examples of pseudosciences */ add Self-projection as God (also known as vicarious autotheism)

'''Pseudoscience''' is theory or speculation which has the trappings and [[rhetoric]] of [[science]], and is presented as science, but does not follow the [[scientific method]]. Pseudoscientific theories are typically not [[falsifiable]], and their purveyors show unwillingness to allow outsiders to observe, test, or replicate their findings.

== Falsifiability ==
The most cited element of scientific theory is [[falsifiability]], established by [[philosopher]] [[Karl Popper]]<ref>[http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/#BacHisTho Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, see in particular sections 2 and 3]</ref>. A falsifiable theory makes predictions, which can be used to test it. Thus, the theory of gravity is falsifiable, as it predicts that an apple held above the ground and released will fall. If it fails the test, it is discarded, and if it passes, it is not proven, but better supported.

== Disproven science ==
The term pseudoscience is also often applied to theories which ''are'' falsifiable and have in fact been falsified and discarded. [[Phrenology]] predicted that psychological traits could be inferred from the shape of the skull, but no actual link was ever found. Various [[astrology|astrological]] theories predicted regular planetary effects on the earth and human health, but testing those failed.

The existence of God is thus not considered scientific theory, as no test can possibly be conceived which categorically disproves His existence. The same is the case for [[string theory]], which is a mathematical unification of scientific theory, but makes no predictions. Such things fall outside the realm of science.

== Charlatanism ==
The label ''pseudoscientist'' is commonly given to cranks and charlatans, who claim abnormal powers and abilities, but refuse to demonstrate them in objective, controlled, monitored environments. For example, Uri Geller claims to be able to bend spoons without applying pressure to them, but he cannot do it in front of scientists or journalists<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N3vGGf-ZIkc Uri Geller debunked by James Randi and Johnny Carson</ref>. Countless conjurers and mediums claim to be able to speak with the dead, but controlled circumstances revealed that they were really only conducting clever psychological tricks.

== Metaphysics ==
Spiritual, metaphysical, philosophical, and religious beliefs are occasionally confused with pseudoscience, as there is often an overlap in rhetoric, and charlatans blur the lines between scientific and philosophical ideas of knowledge.

== Public belief ==
Despite evidence and logic against pseudoscientific theories, many remain popular among the public. Homeopathic medicine is available at most health-food stores and is a multi-billion dollar business, and 31% of Americans believe in astrology.

Notably, twice as many [[Democrats]] believe in astrology as [[Republicans]], showing a strong bent of irrationality and scientific illiteracy among [[liberals]].<ref>http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=359</ref>

There is no definitive or objective definition of the term "pseudoscience", so it is also sometimes used as a pejorative term.<ref>R. G. A. Dolby, ''Uncertain Knowledge: An Image of Science for a Changing World'', Published by Cambridge University Press, 2002. ISBN 0521892627, 9780521892629, 380 pages. [http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=xd3ylT3WTLEC&pg=PA191&dq=pseudoscience+pejorative&num=100&as_brr=3 Page 191]</ref><ref>Brian Stableford, ''Science Fact and Science Fiction'', Published by CRC Press, 2006, ISBN 0415974607, 9780415974608, 729 pages. [http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=uefwmdROKTAC&pg=PA410&dq=pseudoscience+pejorative&num=100&as_brr=3 Page 410]</ref>

==Examples of pseudosciences==
[[Image:5712dawkins.jpg|thumb|200px|right|Within the [[evolution|evolutionary]] science community and the [[creation science]] community, Richard Dawkins has faced charges of engaging in pseudoscience and also has faced charges of committing elementary errors.<ref>http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/send-clowns-–-richard-dawkins-obliges</ref><ref>http://creation.com/the-greatest-hoax-on-earth/main.php</ref> For more information, please see: [[Richard Dawkins and pseudoscience]] ]]
*[[Animal magnetism]]
*[[Astrology]]
*[[Big Bang]] astronomy
*Much of the work of [[Richard Dawkins]]<ref>http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/send-clowns-–-richard-dawkins-obliges</ref><ref>http://creation.com/the-greatest-hoax-on-earth/main.php</ref> (see: [[Richard Dawkins and pseudoscience]])
*Climatology
*[[Darwinism]]
*[[Dianetics]]
*[[Dominionism]]
*[[Environmentalism]]
*[[Evolution|Evolutionary biology]]<ref>http://www.icr.org/home/resources/resources_tracts_scientificcaseagainstevolution/</ref><ref>http://www.grisda.org/origins/04004.htm</ref><ref>http://www.uncommondescent.com/darwinism/there-is-no-theory-of-evolution/</ref> <ref>http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/PoE/pe05scnc.html</ref><ref>http://www.parentcompany.com/science_kit/sk3b.htm</ref><ref>http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/reprints/Evolution-Fact-or-Theory.pdf</ref>
*[[Free Energy]]
*[[Graphology]]
*[[Global warming]]
*Much of the work of [[Stephen Hawking]]
*[[Homeopathy]]
*[[Iridology]]
*[[Lysenkoism]]
*[[Mesmerism]]
*Much of the work of [[PZ Myers]]<ref>http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/pz-myers-pseudoscienceblogscom</ref>
*[[Old earth]] geology
*[[Orgone therapy]]
*[[Parapsychology]]
*[[Phrenology]]
*[[Population control]]
*[[Pseudoarchaeology]]
*[[Psychoanalysis]]
*[[Reflexology]]
*[[Self-projection as God]] (also known as [[vicarious autotheism]])
*[[Theory of Relativity|Relativity, Theory of]]
*Much of the work of [[Carl Sagan]]
*[[Transgenderism]]
*[[Ufology]]

== See also ==

*[[Essay: You obviously don't understand how science works|You obviously don't understand how science works]] - [[Satire]]
*[[Scientism]]

=== Refutations of Pseudoscience ===
*[[Counterexamples to Evolution]]
*[[Counterexamples to an Old Earth]]
*[[Counterexamples to Relativity]]

==References==
<references/>

[[Category: Pseudoscience]]

Self-projection as God

2012-06-05T13:28:06Z

ZackMartin: Created page with "'''Self-projection as God''' (SPAG) is a form of atheist pseudoscience which purports to explain the psychological origins of theistic belief. SPAG claims that [[..."

'''Self-projection as God''' (SPAG) is a form of [[atheism|atheist]] [[pseudoscience]] which purports to explain the psychological origins of theistic belief. SPAG claims that [[God]] is really a projection of the believer's own self, and that hence God endorses whatever the believer themselves happens to endorse. SPAG is also called '''vicarious autotheism''' ("autotheism" meaning "having one's own self as one's god"). However, there is a complete lack of any scientific [[evidence]] whatsoever to support it.

Counter-evidence to SPAG includes experiencing God as condemning acts which believers would like to engage in - e.g. a believer might earnestly desire to cheat on their income tax, yet feel that God would disapprove of them doing so - if God was nothing more than a projection of the believer's own beliefs and desires, then the believer would conclude that God approves of tax fraud.

SPAG is [[unfalsifiable]] - SPAG proponents cannot point to any experiment which would disprove SPAG. As an unfalsifiable idea lacking any evidence, SPAG should be classed as pseudoscience.

[[Category:Atheism]][[Category:Pseudoscience]]

Talk:Falsifiable

2012-06-05T13:24:21Z

ZackMartin: /* "Joe beats his children because his father beat him" */ new section

I've changed the definition, as the previous one was not accurate. A theory is falsifiable if it is hypothetically possible to refute it by test or observation [[User:Xyrophile|Xyrophile]] 10:30, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

== "Joe beats his children because his father beat him" ==

Is it true that this claim is non-falsifiable? I don't think it is. We could falsify it by providing convincing evidence that Joe's father did not beat his children. For example, testimony of his father and mother and siblings, testimony of Joe himself, etc., could be sufficient to falsify the claim "Joe's father beat Joe as a child" and thus also the claim "Joe beats his children because his father beat him". Even if it is true that Joe's father beat him, that still doesn't mean we can't falsify the claim that "Joe beats his children because his father beat him". Suppose Joe is a heavy drinker, but then gives up alcohol, and stops beating his children. If that happened, that would suggest it was the alcohol's fault, not the fact that Joe's father beat him, and thus falsify (at least in part) the claim that his own father beating him was the cause of him beating his own children. [[User:Maratrean|Maratrean]] 09:24, 5 June 2012 (EDT)

Falsifiable

2012-06-05T13:18:20Z

ZackMartin: the "Joe beats his children" example is not completely non-falsifiable

A proposition or theory is '''falsifiable''' if it is hypothetically possible for a test or observation to prove it false, regardless of the accuracy of the proposition.<ref>[http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O87-falsifiability.html Definition] A Dictionary of Psychology, Andrew M. Colman, via encyclopedia.com</ref> A proposal or theory that can never be shown to be false is not falsifiable.

To be considered [[scientific]], a [[hypothesis]] must be "[[falsifiable]]", i.e., capable of being proven false. If no one, not even the supporters of the hypothesis, can think of a way the hypothesis might be proven false, then most scientists would agree that it is not part of science (see [[pseudoscience]]). However, the [[history of science]] is full of examples whereby supporters of various theories refused to consider the prospect that someone might prove them wrong. Supporters of the [[evolution]] and [[global warming]] theories are like this.

For example, the suggestion that I would be very happy if I were ten years younger is not falsifiable, because it is impossible to test the hypothesis by making myself ten years younger and seeing how I feel.

Falsifiability is commonly used as a criterion for whether a particular proposition is "scientific." Philosopher [[Karl Popper]] popularized this criterion, arguing that science progresses through the process of "Observation, speculation, falsification;" That is, we observe the universe, we develop a speculative hypothesis about the universe, and we test our hypothesis. If our hypothesis is proven false, we discard it. If our hypothesis is not proven false, we can consider it provisionally true. According to Popper, there is no such thing as ''scientific certainty;'' on the contrary, all our beliefs are properly held ''provisionally,'' and always subject to the possibility that they will someday be disproven by experiment.

Popper, and those who agree with him, categorize many types of ideas as unfalsifiable, particularly in psychology and religion. For example, the proposition "Joe beats his children because his father beat him" is unfalsifiable, because we cannot perform a test in which Joe was ''not'' beaten by his father, and see if Joe still beats his children. Because the proposition is not testable, according to falsificationism, it is no better than any other hypothesis, and therefore not useful, and not scientific. However, the broader hypothesis "Parents who were beaten as children are more likely to beat their own children" can be falsified - e.g. through surveys - and if that broader hypothesis was supported, it would also lend weight to the position that it was true in Joe's particular case also. Thus, while propositions about specific historical persons or events are not directly falsifiable, they can be indirectly falsifiable insofar as they depend on broader claims that are falsifiable.

A good example of an unfalsifiable concept is the nature of matter inside [[Black hole|black holes]]. By definition, the interior of a black hole cannot be seen and thus assertions about the interior are unfalsifiable.

==Carl Sagan==

In his book, ''Demon-Haunted World'' [[Carl Sagan]], a noted [[astronomer]], gives an example of a statement with this sort of premise saying: "There is a dragon in my garage." In order for one to prove or disprove the statement they are allowed to ask questions.

*''Q. Can I see the dragon?''
*A. No, the dragon is invisible.

*''Q. Can I touch the dragon?''
*A. No, my dragon is incorporeal.

*''Q. Can I hear the dragon?''
*A. No, my dragon is silent.

and so on...

In this way, every question can be answered and therefore the existence of the dragon is unfalsifiable. However, in the absence of physical or other evidence of its existence, whether the dragon actually exists or not is a matter of faith.

== G.K. Chesterton ==
[[G.K. Chesterton]], a Christian [[Christian apologetics|apologist]] of the early 20th century, articulated the problem of falsifiability several years before Popper. He wrote:<ref>G.K. Chesterton, ''Everlasting Man'', II.</ref>

{{QuoteBox|Science is weak about these prehistoric things in a way that has hardly been noticed. The science whose modern marvels we all admire succeeds by incessantly adding to its data. In all practical inventions, in most natural discoveries, it can always increase evidence by experiment. But it cannot experiment in making men; or even in watching to see what the first men make. An inventor can advance step by step in the construction of an aeroplane, even if he is only experimenting with sticks and scraps of metal in his own back-yard. But he cannot watch the Missing Link evolving in his own back-yard. If he has made a mistake in his calculations, the aeroplane will correct it by crashing to the ground. But if he has made a mistake about the arboreal habitat of his ancestor, he cannot see his arboreal ancestor falling off the tree. He cannot keep a cave-man like a cat in the back-yard and watch him to see whether he does really practice cannibalism or carry off his mate on the principles of marriage by capture. He cannot keep a tribe of primitive men like a pack of hounds and notice how far they are influenced by the herd instinct. If he sees a particular bird behave in a particular way, he can get other birds and see if they behave in that way; but if he finds a skull, or the scrap of a skull, in the hollow of a hill, he cannot multiply it into a vision of the valley of dry bones. In dealing with a past that has almost entirely perished, he can only go by evidence and not by experiment. And there is hardly enough evidence to be even evidential. Thus while most science moves in a sort of curve, being constantly corrected by new evidence, this science flies off into space in a straight line uncorrected by anything. But the habit of forming conclusions, as they can really be formed in more fruitful fields, is so fixed in the scientific mind that it cannot resist talking like this. It talks about the idea suggested by one scrap of bone as if it were something like the aeroplane which is constructed at last out of whole scrapheaps of scraps of metal. The trouble with the professor of the prehistoric is that he cannot scrap his scrap. The marvellous and triumphant aeroplane is made out of a hundred mistakes. The student of origins can only make one mistake and stick to it.}}

== Falsifiability of religious beliefs ==
Many atheists claim that religious beliefs are inherently unfalsifiable. However, on the contrary, very many religious beliefs are capable of being falsified. Many religions predict a particular sort of afterlife; if, after death, one encountered a rather different sort of afterlife, that would falsify that religion. For example, Islam would claim that in the afterlife, one will be told that Muhammad was a true prophet and the Quran a true scripture. If, upon dying, one was not told these things - and, on the contrary, was told that Muhammad was a false prophet - that experience would falsify Islam.

== See also ==
*[[Falsifiability of evolution]]
*[[Deduction]]
*[[Induction]]
[[category:science]]
[[category:philosophy]]
== Reference ==
<references/>

Falsifiable

2012-06-05T13:15:11Z

ZackMartin: Falsifiability of religious beliefs

A proposition or theory is '''falsifiable''' if it is hypothetically possible for a test or observation to prove it false, regardless of the accuracy of the proposition.<ref>[http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O87-falsifiability.html Definition] A Dictionary of Psychology, Andrew M. Colman, via encyclopedia.com</ref> A proposal or theory that can never be shown to be false is not falsifiable.

To be considered [[scientific]], a [[hypothesis]] must be "[[falsifiable]]", i.e., capable of being proven false. If no one, not even the supporters of the hypothesis, can think of a way the hypothesis might be proven false, then most scientists would agree that it is not part of science (see [[pseudoscience]]). However, the [[history of science]] is full of examples whereby supporters of various theories refused to consider the prospect that someone might prove them wrong. Supporters of the [[evolution]] and [[global warming]] theories are like this.

For example, the suggestion that I would be very happy if I were ten years younger is not falsifiable, because it is impossible to test the hypothesis by making myself ten years younger and seeing how I feel.

Falsifiability is commonly used as a criterion for whether a particular proposition is "scientific." Philosopher [[Karl Popper]] popularized this criterion, arguing that science progresses through the process of "Observation, speculation, falsification;" That is, we observe the universe, we develop a speculative hypothesis about the universe, and we test our hypothesis. If our hypothesis is proven false, we discard it. If our hypothesis is not proven false, we can consider it provisionally true. According to Popper, there is no such thing as ''scientific certainty;'' on the contrary, all our beliefs are properly held ''provisionally,'' and always subject to the possibility that they will someday be disproven by experiment.

Popper, and those who agree with him, categorize many types of ideas as unfalsifiable, particularly in psychology and religion. For example, the proposition "Joe beats his children because his father beat him" is unfalsifiable, because we cannot perform a test in which Joe was ''not'' beaten by his father, and see if Joe still beats his children. Because the proposition is not testable, according to falsificationism, it is no better than any other hypothesis, and therefore not useful, and not scientific.

A good example of an unfalsifiable concept is the nature of matter inside [[Black hole|black holes]]. By definition, the interior of a black hole cannot be seen and thus assertions about the interior are unfalsifiable.

==Carl Sagan==

In his book, ''Demon-Haunted World'' [[Carl Sagan]], a noted [[astronomer]], gives an example of a statement with this sort of premise saying: "There is a dragon in my garage." In order for one to prove or disprove the statement they are allowed to ask questions.

*''Q. Can I see the dragon?''
*A. No, the dragon is invisible.

*''Q. Can I touch the dragon?''
*A. No, my dragon is incorporeal.

*''Q. Can I hear the dragon?''
*A. No, my dragon is silent.

and so on...

In this way, every question can be answered and therefore the existence of the dragon is unfalsifiable. However, in the absence of physical or other evidence of its existence, whether the dragon actually exists or not is a matter of faith.

== G.K. Chesterton ==
[[G.K. Chesterton]], a Christian [[Christian apologetics|apologist]] of the early 20th century, articulated the problem of falsifiability several years before Popper. He wrote:<ref>G.K. Chesterton, ''Everlasting Man'', II.</ref>

{{QuoteBox|Science is weak about these prehistoric things in a way that has hardly been noticed. The science whose modern marvels we all admire succeeds by incessantly adding to its data. In all practical inventions, in most natural discoveries, it can always increase evidence by experiment. But it cannot experiment in making men; or even in watching to see what the first men make. An inventor can advance step by step in the construction of an aeroplane, even if he is only experimenting with sticks and scraps of metal in his own back-yard. But he cannot watch the Missing Link evolving in his own back-yard. If he has made a mistake in his calculations, the aeroplane will correct it by crashing to the ground. But if he has made a mistake about the arboreal habitat of his ancestor, he cannot see his arboreal ancestor falling off the tree. He cannot keep a cave-man like a cat in the back-yard and watch him to see whether he does really practice cannibalism or carry off his mate on the principles of marriage by capture. He cannot keep a tribe of primitive men like a pack of hounds and notice how far they are influenced by the herd instinct. If he sees a particular bird behave in a particular way, he can get other birds and see if they behave in that way; but if he finds a skull, or the scrap of a skull, in the hollow of a hill, he cannot multiply it into a vision of the valley of dry bones. In dealing with a past that has almost entirely perished, he can only go by evidence and not by experiment. And there is hardly enough evidence to be even evidential. Thus while most science moves in a sort of curve, being constantly corrected by new evidence, this science flies off into space in a straight line uncorrected by anything. But the habit of forming conclusions, as they can really be formed in more fruitful fields, is so fixed in the scientific mind that it cannot resist talking like this. It talks about the idea suggested by one scrap of bone as if it were something like the aeroplane which is constructed at last out of whole scrapheaps of scraps of metal. The trouble with the professor of the prehistoric is that he cannot scrap his scrap. The marvellous and triumphant aeroplane is made out of a hundred mistakes. The student of origins can only make one mistake and stick to it.}}

== Falsifiability of religious beliefs ==
Many atheists claim that religious beliefs are inherently unfalsifiable. However, on the contrary, very many religious beliefs are capable of being falsified. Many religions predict a particular sort of afterlife; if, after death, one encountered a rather different sort of afterlife, that would falsify that religion. For example, Islam would claim that in the afterlife, one will be told that Muhammad was a true prophet and the Quran a true scripture. If, upon dying, one was not told these things - and, on the contrary, was told that Muhammad was a false prophet - that experience would falsify Islam.

== See also ==
*[[Falsifiability of evolution]]
*[[Deduction]]
*[[Induction]]
[[category:science]]
[[category:philosophy]]
== Reference ==
<references/>

Unfalsifiable

2012-06-05T13:10:41Z

ZackMartin: Redirected page to Falsifiable

#REDIRECT [[falsifiable]]

Talk:Name-a-fallacy fallacy

2012-04-24T23:00:17Z

ZackMartin: /* Dear "John Roc" */ new section

Note - if you so happen to find this content posted elsewhere, that is OK per copyright since it is my own work, including on other sites. [[User:Maratrean|Maratrean]] 16:16, 22 April 2012 (EDT)

== Dear "John Roc" ==

I know you've been banned anyway, so you can't respond, but just in case you happen to read this, I want to point out why you are wrong. You changed this:
:'''Christian''': Everything that begins to exist, must have a cause. The universe began to exist, therefore the universe must have a cause. And the cause of the universe, we call "God".
:'''Atheist''': That's special pleading.
to read this (your additions in italics):
:'''Christian''': Everything that begins to exist, must have a cause. The universe began to exist, therefore the universe must have a cause. And the cause of the universe, we call "God". ''God, however, does not require a cause, because He has existed for all time.''
:'''Atheist''': That's special pleading. ''You can't say that nothing exists without a cause and then say that God doesn't need one too.''
How is that special pleading? The Christian never said that "nothing exists without a cause". They said that "nothing that begins to exist, exists without a cause". No special pleading here.

However, I don't think you are guilty of this fallacy, because even though your assertion that the Christian committed special pleading is wrong, at least you've provided enough information for others to see how you are wrong. The original dialogue is guilty of this fallacy because no one can tell if the atheist is right or wrong, because the atheist has failed to provide sufficient information for that to be determined. [[User:Maratrean|Maratrean]] 19:00, 24 April 2012 (EDT)

Talk:Name-a-fallacy fallacy

2012-04-22T20:16:01Z

ZackMartin: Created page with "Note - if you so happen to find this content posted elsewhere, that is OK per copyright since it is my own work, including on other sites. ~~~~"

Note - if you so happen to find this content posted elsewhere, that is OK per copyright since it is my own work, including on other sites. [[User:Maratrean|Maratrean]] 16:16, 22 April 2012 (EDT)

Name-a-fallacy fallacy

2012-04-22T20:14:46Z

ZackMartin:

The '''name-a-fallacy fallacy''' refers to the fallacy in which, rather than engaging with their opponent's arguments in detail, a person responds with the mention of a logical fallacy, without any explanation of how the fallacy actually applies to the argument at hand.

This fallacy is particularly common among atheists, although not exclusive to them. Here is an example of the fallacy in action:
:'''Christian''': Everything that begins to exist, must have a cause. The universe began to exist, therefore the universe must have a cause. And the cause of the universe, we call "God".
:'''Atheist''': That's special pleading.
The Christian may or may not be guilty of special pleading; but the atheist is definitely guilty of the name-a-fallacy fallacy, because they have made no effort to actually engage with the Christian's argument, or explain how it constitutes special pleading (if it in fact does). Knowledge of logical fallacies can be a useful tool, but they are not magical talismans which will defeat any argument simply by being mentioned; and yet, practitioners of the name-a-fallacy seem to think that they are exactly that.

In order to legitimately accuse your opponent of a logical fallacy, there are three necessary elements:
#It is necessary to provide a clear definition of what the fallacy is. Many logical fallacies are defined in different ways by different people, and it is impossible to answer the subsequent two questions without a clear definition being adopted.
#Reason to believe that the fallacy is actually a fallacy. A form of argument does not become fallacious merely by having the label "fallacy" attached to it; anyone who wishes to label something fallacious, needs to provide a clear and convincing argument that what they claim to be fallacious in fact actually is. Even if it is agreed that some instances of a particular type of argument are clearly fallacious, it does not automatically follow that all arguments of that type are necessarily fallacious; to hold so would be to potentially commit the fallacy of overgeneralization.
#A clear and convincing explanation of why your opponent's argument is in fact an instance of that fallacy. One line answers have no place in serious debate.

This fallacy is also known as the "Catchy Fallacy Name Fallacy".<ref>[http://lesswrong.com/lw/g3/catchy_fallacy_name_fallacy_and_supporting/ J. G. Weissman, "Catchy Fallacy Name Fallacy (and Supporting Disagreement)", 21 May 2009, LessWrong]</ref>

{{reflist}}

[[Category:Logic]][[Category:Atheism]]

Name-a-fallacy fallacy

2012-04-22T20:11:49Z

ZackMartin: My own work - common logical error committed by atheists in debate

Talk:Bible

2011-11-26T01:47:33Z

ZackMartin: /* Who are the greatest villains of the Bible? */ new section

Conservapedia:Community Portal

2011-09-24T05:17:12Z

ZackMartin: /* Banned user */

<center>''This is the place to discuss issues of interest to the Conservapedia community.''</center>
__NEWSECTIONLINK__
[[Conservapedia:Community Portal/archive1|Archive 1]]
==How do I request/apply for upload rights?==

I would like to, in economics articles, to upload low resolution Bloomberg screenshots that demonstrate how the economy has actually gotten worse under Barack Obama. In my short time here, I have mainly contributed to economics articles, which is my speciality, including the featured article on the [[Federal Debt Limit]]. [[User:HP|HP]] 01:08, 2 August 2011 (EDT)
:I would recommend asking at [[User:Aschlafly]] talk page. He will review your edits. Expanded user rights are granted on a [[merit system]]. See: [[Conservapedia:User rights]]. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 19:56, 3 August 2011 (EDT)
::I would like to request as well. It would make it a bit easier, as I have had requested images for articles I was working on and it took a while to get the first singer ones.--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 20:14, 3 August 2011 (EDT)
:::I tried for the First Lady articles and was told I hadn't edited enough. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 20:18, 3 August 2011 (EDT)
HP, [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Federal_Debt_Limit&diff=prev&oldid=876420 this edit] is problematic; it looks like malevolent [[parody]] ("pervades the inner city culture greatly") and have advised Mr. Schlalfy of my opinion. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:51, 3 August 2011 (EDT)
:Parody? You're kidding me, right? Nah, I call it as I see it. Obama does not take personal responsibility, will not take personal responsibility, and this is typical of the inner city culture, which is pervaded by a handout culture. It's funny how you insult my work when you piggybacked off of my contributions on the debt ceiling article and most of my work still remains. I have two MS degrees (Finance and Statistics) and my criticisms, even if you think they're politically incorrect, are factual. {{personal remark removed}} [[User:HP|HP]] 23:15, 3 August 2011 (EDT)
::Funny, Rob comments on the edit, and you return with a personal attack. You might want to watch that. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 23:19, 3 August 2011 (EDT)
:::Rob, that wasn't personal, that was factual. It is factual that I laid most of the foundation for the featured article, which is not disputable. You then built upon this foundation with your upload rights and made it a featured article (for which you should be commended). But don't call me a parodist when you leave most of my contributions in the article. That is intellectually dishonest. [[User:HP|HP]] 23:32, 3 August 2011 (EDT)

== Blocking policy, RobS, atheists/evolutionists, deleting/oversighting and misc, ==

Here are a few comments for the record and a few comments:

1. I am not against improving CP's blocking policy and suggested a blocking review board [[User:Conservative/blocking-board-framework|HERE]].

2. In terms of blocking policy, I am somewhere between Karajou and RobS. Karajou is on the strict side and RobS is more on the permissive side. For example, I recently got someone on the liberal/evolutionist side of the aisle unbanned because their revision was correct on an article relating to a creation related topic.

3. Karajou and Andy are probably going to be more active than me at Conservapedia at least in the near future. Furthermore, given there is a lot of content at Conservapedia with multiple editors, I don't agree with all of Conservapedia's content. In addition, I don't agree with all the decisions that have been made in the past concerning Conservapedia which is not surprising as all websites/organizations make mistakes. With the above being said, realistically, if RobS wants to continue to be a drama queen and call Conservapedia a @$#%hole and refer to me as being "demonic" offsite (Is hissy fit, internet armchair "exorcist" commentary respectable behavior? No, it is not) plus engage in other unbecoming unnecessary tactics and drama, he is not going to get much cooperation from his fellow Sysops, from myself and from Andy. RobS is going to have to learn to be less hot-headed, show more self-restraint and engage in more constructive behavior. In addition, he is also going to have to repair some bridges in order to gain back trust. Already, he has lost his check user rights and his siteadmin rights.

Also, I had some strong words concerning RobS recently this was mainly due to his pestering me and his offsite behavior. If RobS truly believed I was "demonic" I am sure he would have approached Andy about this matter and his decision to engage in this behavior offsite shows his lack of conviction and it is merely a example of his hissy fit drama queen antics. The truth is that he didn't like being ignored by me so he shot off some hot-headed nonsense.

4. I have a feeling that if I do more in the future to get involved in blocking policy at Conservapedia it will be with someone like Iduan who I have had pleasant communication with in the past.

5. Evolutionist/atheist editors are going to have to be more realistic. Andy, Karajou and others are never going to allow the website to go pro-evolution/atheism or attempt to go neutral on these issues because they know evolution/atheism is nonsense and often just window dressing for people not wanting to live under biblical standards of conduct. There are a lot of other topics that they can contribute to and I would suggest covering other topics.

6. I feel no obligation to respond to or debate obscure atheists/evolutionists at Conservapedia. I am content that my material on these subjects gets a significant amount of internet traffic. Plus, I have responded to comments in the past and there are several pages of talk page archives. If more well-known atheists were to offer an attractive offer, I would consider debating them, but I am not going to lose any sleep over it if this does not occur as I believe they are often cowards (see: [[Daniel Came]]'s recent commentary about [[Richard Dawkins]] and [[Creation scientists tend to win the creation vs. evolution debates]]) and the fields of evolutionary biology/atheistic philosophy/secular religion and its promotion is filled with charlatans. On the other hand, Christianity has a great amount evidence supporting it and there is an abundance of websites offering excellent resources produced by scholars and others - see [[Christian apologetics website resources]].

7. I really don't fill any remorse about deleting vandalism or clearly inane comments in the past. For example, if someone says "Atheism is true because I say so" or posts some other nonsense that is often misspelled (public schools in too many cases produce atheists who can't even spell atheist, atheists and atheism) I can't say I lose any sleep in deleting it and I don't believe I did a great deal of deleting comments like these in the past. There is [[Attempts to dilute the definition of atheism|no proof and evidence for atheism]] and as mentioned above there is a [[Christian apologetics website resources|great deal of evidence for Christianity]]. On the other hand, I have responded to atheists/evolutionists in the past on the talk pages of atheism related content and also taken some suggestions in terms of the content. I can't predict the future in terms of vandalism/malicious behavior, but with that being said I do think I will do less oversighting/deleting in the future. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:19, 8 August 2011 (EDT)
:*''I don't agree with all of Conservapedia's content. ''
:Why don't you just come out and say it: you don't like Andy's [[Conservative Bible Project]].
:Now, my question, who on the open wiki, or in private discussion lists, gave you the permission or authority to speak for all of Conservapedia in "Conservapedia's challenge to ...(fill in the blank)...."?
:*'' I am sure he would have approached Andy about this matter ''
:I beleive I did here. [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Aschlafly&diff=prev&oldid=888699]
:*''suggested a blocking review board ''
:You would need editors to man the review board, which you don't have.
:*'' I do think I will do less oversighting/deleting in the future''
:And I thank you for that. It's unfortunate this disagreement got as large as it did, but that's all it ever was about. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 18:55, 8 August 2011 (EDT)
[[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 18:55, 8 August 2011 (EDT)
::RobS, given that I posted concerning you, I read your above comments on the off chance you might respond with a sincere and constructive response. That didn't happen. Unless something dramatic happens, I don't see myself inclined to read your future postings at this wiki or to read emails sent to me from you. Second, if memory serves, I thought I had commented on the [[Conservative Bible Project]] (CBP) earlier at this wiki or at the very least commented on what is required to do good Bible translation/exegesis, but I cannot find it on the talk page of the project. As far as posting on the CBP, maybe I posted on the talk page for the main page or the talk page for Andy's user page. I doubt it was oversighted. With that being said, I do think I should post on the talk page of the CBP and point out what I see are the major flaws of the CBP in terms of its approach. Good Bible translation uses some of the same principles as good Bible exegesis and these principles are explained [http://www.godward.org/archives/BS%20Notes/Basic%20rules%20for%20NT%20exegesis.htm HERE]. If you click that link, obviously good Bible exegesis/translation requires a lot of work to determine original intent and it is also very methodical. I also don't like the name of the project and it will become apparent why once I post my objections to the project on the talk page of the CBP. Lastly, I have expressed criticism of other CP content and expressed my misgivings at various times. Other times, I chose to remain silent as I didn't see it accomplishing anything in terms of the content being changed. I do plan on expressing my misgivings about some CP content at a later time when I think it is a more opportune time. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:02, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

:::*'' I cannot find it on the talk page of the project''
:::Well, duh, you probably deleted and oversighted it.
:::*'' I do plan on expressing my misgivings about some CP content at a later time when I think it is a more opportune time.
:::We're all waiting with baited breath. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:18, 9 August 2011 (EDT)

== Rude and insulting behaviour ==

Could someone please step in here. I made a simple, polite and non-contentious comment and another user has sought to [http://conservapedia.com/Talk:Atheism#Deceptive_statement_by_John_Calvert insult me and question my faith]. This is extremely insulting and it is not the first time the user has done this. I have given my soul, heart and life to Christ and for someone to suggest otherwise is saddening and offensive. No person should treat others this way. Someone please intervene and remind this user that they should not insult others in such a fashion. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:34, 9 August 2011 (EDT)
::Seems to me like standard operating procedure around these parts. You might as well complain about the sky being blue. [[User:JohnMcL|JohnMcL]] 22:40, 9 August 2011 (EDT)
:::The same user has now taken to insulting me and questioning MY faith, simply becaue I disagree with him about the best way to oppose evolutionism, and nobody else seems to be making any attempts to curtail his offensive behaviour. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 19:42, 17 September 2011 (EDT)
Max you wrote at this wiki: "Thanks for your kind words. I am not a catholic I am afraid and don't think I'll ever be one! '''I have however found Christ! Turns out he was in my heart all along.'''" (emphasis added). Setting aside the Catholicism issue, this is not in accordance with biblical doctrine. Ephesians 2:11-12: "Therefore remember that formerly you, the Gentiles in the flesh, who are called "Uncircumcision " by the so-called "Circumcision," which is performed in the flesh by human hands-- remember that you were at that time separate from Christ, excluded from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world." Unless you were writing unclearly, something sounds amiss. See: http://www.free-online-bible-study.com/become-a-christian.html and this http://www.godssimpleplan.org/gsps-english.html [[User:Conservative|Conservative]]
::I am sorry my poetic language has confused you. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:37, 9 August 2011 (EDT)

==Discussion on reversion (from User talk:Jcw)==
Please stop reverting comments you don't like and calling it trolling. Valid criticism is just that, valid criticism. Are we (you) so thin skinned that any critical comment must be reverted? Keep that in mind. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:57, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
:His last revert was to remove something vulgar, and the offender was rightfully called a troll. JCW will continue to do so as he sees fit. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:01, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
::Thanks for the support, Karajou. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 19:34, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
::Seems to be that those with blocking rights (i.e me, you, Jcw etc) are able to do what they want without repercussion. Are we trying to build a conservative community or just enjoy power over others I wonder...[[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:21, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
:::Well, exactly who are we blocking, and what do you know of him that is so vital we shouldn't be blocking him? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:24, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::I know nothing of the user, I just see those with extended privilages oversighting, deleting, blocking, harrasing and isulting others while being totally unable to respond to any criticism with patience, understanding and rationality. Not particulalry Christain. My Christianity teaches me forebearence, kindness and understanding which is what I see a lack of here. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:36, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::That's right, Max, you know nothing of him, yet I and a few senior sysops as well as Andy had the displeasure of having this clown here. All you're seeing is "sysops playing the bully", yet you're not seeing an individual who refuses to change his past behavior, refuses to respect the site, refuses to change himself at all. Jesus did not tolerate sin; he told sinners to quit sinning. We're not going to have someone shove his way into the site and demand that we compromise with him. We're going to shove such an individual right back out that door with the demand that he change his own ways or go elsewhere. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:47, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::Who are you talking about here, and can you provide a diff of the eggregious offense? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:48, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::Just one of the many intolerant malcontents that you are so desperate to get back into this website. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 00:20, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::I'm sorry, Karajou, but you simply do not have clue what you are talking about.
:::::::::I have been explicit since day one: Conservapedia needs a coherent blocking policy. Conservapedia needs Sysop standards of conduct. Conservapedia needs a mechinism whereby real life persons who feel there may be incorrect information about them have an avenue to present their case. Unfortunately, you have helped to set a standard that eradicates any discussion of these serious issues which have plagued this project since its inception.
:::::::::And you can begin right here and now by ceasing innuendo, false judgments, and unwarranted conclusions about other [[good faith]] contributors.
:::::::::And you can begin constructively engaging in this discussion thread by simply providing a link (i.e., diff, or evidence) that was requested. Elsewise, your intervention here is [[Conservapedia:Trolling|trolling]], nothing more. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 12:56, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
(unindent) RobS, look up - this discussion was started by an editor complaining about another editor being blocked, but without providing any diffs. He later admitted that he knew nothing about the blocked user, instead making general insinuations about behaviour of sysops. It's not up to Karajou or me to provide diffs, it's up to the complainants. So far I've seen no evidence even purporting to show unfair blocks by me. If anyone shows any, I'll gladly address it. I'd also like you to address the fact that you seem to be working to help these trolls and parodists against CP. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 16:29, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
::Jcw, thank you for responding; this is indeed a discussion on ''reversion'', not blocking. The request was for a diff on, what Karajou refered to as, "a vulgar" comment. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 16:43, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
:::I can't say which case Karajou has in mind, as no usernames were mentioned by the editor who began this discussion, but it may have been one of the many Horace socks we've had recently. They all left similar comments on various talk pages futilely begging for an intransigent troll to be unblocked. I'm sure you'll agree that those comments were intended only to sow discord and start arguments - that's how trolls operate. By getting involved in this inconsequential affair, you're giving them exactly what they want - discord on CP. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 16:48, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
::::So, there is essentially no checks on a sysops conduct. They can act arbitrarily with impugnity. As to reverts, it would be nice if (a) only the most eggregious, outrageuos, over the top, off-topic, intended to disrupt talk page edits we're ''immediately'' reverted; (b) a reverting editor would look, first, to see if the editor was actively involved in an ongoing discussion, particularly where ''other'' editors are involved, and particularly if a sysop or other editor with enhanced user rights are involved with the editor whose comments are being reverted. The net effect has been, and User:Karajou & User:Conservative are guilty of this, of '''disrupting''' ongoing discussions. Not everyone is present in real time in any discussion. If an editor makes an incivil, disruptive, or off-topic comment, the editor should be politely warned, either in the context of the active discussion, or on his/her user page, about a possible infraction. If the comment demands an immediate time-out, care should be taken to place the personal remark template and '''''not''''' disrupt the ''other'' editors who are involved in a discussion. Way too often, editors who in no way are involved in a discussion, show no concern whatsoever to ''other'' editors ''who are not complaining about the behavior of a participant, and totally disrupt an active discussion. This is extremely upsetting to all participants in a discussion, and rude behavior from sysops and blocking editors as well. Show some concern, some sensibility, to others, please''. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:45, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
:Max, your comments are way out of line. I'll be happy to hear complaints, but so far you're just throwing around insinuations. Critical comment has always been welcome on CP, but lots of trolls come here for no reason other than to make arguments. That sort of thing can't be tolerated; nor can uncivil or argumentative comments. Your own post above is undeniably argumentative in tone - if you can't express yourself civilly, how can you expect to be heeded? [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 19:34, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
::I have never been incivil on Conservapedia, not once and not to anyone. A look through my edits will show as much - I can hold my head high. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:36, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
:::Calling people 'thin skinned' isn't terribly civil, and ending your first post with 'Keep that in mind.' can only be called peremptory. That's not really the point though - you admit above that you don't have any idea why this user was blocked or have anything to say in his defense, yet you come here and accuse us of 'harassing' people. From where you're standing it might look that way, but why not treat us with some forbearance and understanding? There are large numbers of liberal vandals who actively plot to undermine this project, so naturally we block a lot of new users - anyone who makes a new account and immediately starts arguing about the vandals' favourite points is clearly a troll, so why try to reason with the unreasonable? [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 19:45, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
::::You and Karajou make good points...about blocking! I think reverting anything other than obscenity rather than actually addressing and blowing the complaints out of the water with a reasoned argument is why I made the "thin skinned" comment. I have skin like rock which means I never need to revert anyone because nothing gets to me! [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:51, 10 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::Sorry to butt in here, JCW, but it seems as if editors with blocking privileges are being indicted as a whole, so I'll add my two cents.
:::::Max, here's the thing: some things just don't belong here, and those things go beyond simple obscenity (although that's certainly one example.) Libelous comments, for example, do not belong here. Nor do endless debates that aren't going to be productive. When someone comes here to argue over why liberal ideas aren't portrayed more sympathetically, that's simply wasting time and space. Conservapedia makes no secret of the fact that it's a conservative site. We don't portray liberal ideas more sympathetically because they're bad ideas, plain and simple.
:::::It's a bit like dealing with telemarketers. You try to be polite at first and say "Thank you, we're not interested," and they persist. You say it again, more firmly, and STILL they persist. How long should you allow them to continue before simply saying "Goodbye" and hanging up on them? It's undoubtedly rude, but so's not taking "no" for an answer. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 20:58, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::Yes, you're all to be commended. The POV that conservatives are closed minded snobs, and suspected liberal trolls are to be banhammered from the git-go because they might say something witty and catch us off guard and make us look stupid is the watchword. Go to it. STOMP STOMP STOMP. Make sure this community never grows. Karajou blocked a fellow just cause he claimed CP said something unfair in his biographical scetch. We can have none of that. Reason? Fairness? Forget it. They're all trolls, including anybody who complains about CP's lack of accountability. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:57, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::I agree with Rob on this - I have been sneered at, jeered by and had my faith, '''my faith''', questioned by a CP sysop. I have no doubts that any other user would have been banned immediately. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:03, 10 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::How can we NOT question, Max? When you consider the number of people who come here proclaiming to be dyed-in-the-wool conservatives and Christians, only to turn around and vandalize the site, it's difficult not to be paranoid. I try to give people the benefit of the doubt, personally, but there have been more times than I care to remember where I've given someone said benefit and then looked like a gullible fool when they went on a vandalism spree shortly afterwards. Now, you seem like a sincere enough person to me, and I'm willing to take you at your word--but I don't spend nearly as much time here dealing with wave after wave of parodists and vandals as the sysops or some of the other editors. I suspect that if I did, I might be a lot more suspicious and (as you put it) thin-skinned. In any event, I don't want to fill up JCW's talk page with third-party discussion...but do try to see it from our position, if you would. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 22:38, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::''but do try to see it from our position'' "our" is also "me" because I am just as much a user as everybody else. But more to the point I have been here awhile now (can't remember exactly when) and i am demonstrably a good faith user. Andy has promoted me twice and I have been polite, candid and have also ushered vandals out. So I do understand your position because I am in it! My faith was questioned simple because I asked some basic questions. It is extremely offensive and I have no doubt if I were to call into question Karajou's faith, for example, I would be quickly shown the door. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:44, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::Might I suggest, if similiar behavior were to occur from a CP Sysop in the future, remind them [[Conservapedia:Guidelines#Civility]] states,
:::::::::::*''Conservapedia Administrators as well need to interact with others according to the same standards of civility we ask of editors,''
::::::::::::and [[Conservapedia:Administrator%27s_Guide#Civility|Conservapedia:Administrator's Guide#Civility]] states,
:::::::::::*''Conservapedia Administrators are expected to afford registered users the same standard of editing etiquette, decorum, and interaction you yourself, and the Conservapedia project as a whole, require and appreciate from others. You must be civil. No bullying.'' [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 16:06, 11 August 2011 (EDT)

==a perspective from a pianist==
MaxFletcher and RobSmith both bring up some excellent points, which certain sysops would do well to listen to rather than dismiss out of hand. In my own experience, I've also had my integrity, goodwill, and even faith belligerently questioned numerous times on this site for daring to disagree on the smallest matters of detail in relatively benign articles -- I never even touched the more ideological corners of the site. The first few times this happened, I fought back; the personal nature of the attacks which some sysops past and present have engaged in and continuously engage in as ''modus operandi'' is hard to take lightly. Naturally, in the power dynamics of this wiki a sysop is allowed to personally attack a lowly editor with impunity, but any talkback from the attacked editor is worthy of a stiff block; my own logs reflect this fact. After this cycle had happened several times, I learned to be more, well, Christian about the whole matter, and to repay brutish speculation with an attitude of somewhat bemused grace.

But the bottom line is, I originally came here to help build an educational resource. My contributions, beginning in early 2009, are the best evidence of that. Now, it's hard to see the point. Conservapedia has simply not progressed as an educational resource in the last two years. The only "original" content consists either of high-profile projects so extreme as to be rejected by the mainsream conservative community, or nonsensical "parody" pages which form their own small feedback loop (since for whatever reason their author does not welcome suggestion or comment). The core elements of any encyclopedia are still sorely lacking, since this site has a way of driving off people who actually know what they're writing about. It has essentially been reduced to a collection of fiefdoms owned by the small pool of sysops left. The sysop "community," if you can even call it that, has been fighting amongst itself in the ugliest, pettiest possible way. Obvious abuses are going on as a result of this fight between Conservative, RobSmith, and Karajou, with several innocent users being blocked for no reason other than as some sort of bizarre collateral damage. Most disappointing has been the absence of leadership in this from Andy, as he's the only one who could have defused this conflict.

My whole time here, I've heard it argued, "well, we're a 'conservative' project, and anyone editing here has to accept our zero-tolerance policy towards liberalism." In that case, I do not see why this project remains run as a wiki, when the editorial wishes of its administrators would be better served by the much simpler blog software. After all, on a blog you can moderate, delete, or even disallow reader comments, you can fix all of your errors without leaving a trace, and you don't have to put up with anyone changing or haggling over what you write. The wiki software was designed with goals diametrically opposed to this, namely to encourage transparency and collaboration, what Andy would call "the best of the public," and this guiding philosophy behind the wiki idea can only be subverted by clumsy abuse of some of its tools. Unfortunately, this is exactly what happens at Conservapedia with alarming frequency. You can object, revert, and engage in silly block wars with RobSmith all you want, but you ignore his attempts to instill sysop accountability at your own peril.

My two cents, for what it's worth. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 17:02, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
:Thank you JDW for your well thought out comments and I'd like to echo your position. This is, at its base, a conservative encyclopedia and, as such, should not accept liberal positions in its main-space. It also deals with religion and science. Now, not all religious perspectives are the same. I am a Christian but I don't inject it into my politics (as politics, in my view, is a human affair) nor into how I view the age of the earth (because it simply isn't relevant to me). But because of the non-relevence of creationism to me I have been jeered at and accused of being an atheist. All because I simply pointed out to User:Conservative that his 15 question had been answered and I was curious about why he keeps saying they haven't. He calls them "faux" answers but refuses to elaborate on what that means. I have been insulted for merely asking simple questions and had my comments deleted. This is why I originally posted on Jcw's page because I saw the wholesale deletion of comments which I thought was unfair - granted I didn't know the user was apparently a long-term troll but to say it was vulgar when I have had worse vulgarities directed to me by a sysop I found the whole thing curious and wanted to draw attention to what I viewed as a double standard. As to the Rob vs. Karajou: I have no opinion. Neither of these users seem right or wrong and both have treated me with fairness so I won't get into that debate. Mainly I want to see leadership, responsibility, and fairness from all users. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:19, 11 August 2011 (EDT)

::This has taken rather a tangent from the original discussion. In fact, JDW and Max seem to have taken the opportunity to return to an old saw by having yet another dig at Conservative while ignoring the point of this thread. If you don't like Conservative's Evolution article, make your own in your userspace and build a consensus on it; going on and on about your dislike of a sysop is not a productive way to spend your time. Meanwhile we'll carry on keeping the trolls at bay. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 17:27, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
:::You have completely missed the point I am afraid. I have never even read the Evolution article! I never mentioned I disliked anyone either. I dislike having my faith questioned and my simple questions rebutted with childish accusations. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:29, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
:::(edit conflict) Sorry, Jcw, but I have to agree with JDW and Max. I'm not sure if you were around at the time, but more than one sysop has routinely ignored the guidelines and chosen to block users and IP ranges on a personal whim. In each case they were revealed to be liars and parodists. This '''is''' a Conservative and Christian wiki, so there should be no problem in everyone - including the sysops - obeying basic rules. [[User:RobertE|RobertE]] 17:31, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
::::I didn't miss that point, I ignored it. If you want to complain about the behavior of sysops, there's a proper way to do it. Inserting these serious accusations against a senior sysop into an unrelated discussion is extremely unhelpful. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 17:33, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::No, there is not now an established, proper way to complain about sysop misconduct. This is another example of CP's stunted growth. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:59, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::So you ignored the main thrust of what I was saying and made a totally unrelated point and argued I was wrong? That is called a strawman. Secondly these are not "serious accusations" these are ''facts''. [http://conservapedia.com/Talk:Atheism#Deceptive_statement_by_John_Calvert Here conservative questions my faith] and this is but one page and [http://conservapedia.com/Talk:Main_Page#S._Africa_and_Question_Evolution.21_campaign_-_Everything_you_post_must_be_true_and_verifiable here again he displays open hostility towards me] for asking simple questions. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:38, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::My point, to re-clarify '''again''' is that vulgar statements from one person is treated differently from those of a sysop. I am not taking a "dig at conservative" i am using him as an example. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:39, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::I would agree with this assessment, questioning a persons professed religious faith is vulgar. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 22:03, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::Coming from the man who didn't have the evidence (nor chutzpah) to call me "demonic" at this website and resorted to posting his allegation at a cesspool website, I find RobS's comment rather amusing. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:35, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
(unindent)Max, please pause and consider what you're saying and where you're saying it. This thread has nothing to do with Conservative or with how sysops talk to editors; it's about me blocking someone. That question has been settled now, and Conservative never entered into it. If you'd like to criticize him, please do it elsewhere. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 17:44, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
:You keep introducing strawmen. No, it was never about blocking - it was about reverting which I have clarified twice: my initial comment was "Please stop reverting comments you don't like and calling it trolling. Valid criticism is just that, valid criticism. Are we (you) so thin skinned that any critical comment must be reverted? Keep that in mind." Now I am trying to point out that vulgar comments have been directed at me by those in a sysop position so we needs blanket civility standards that apply to all - what would happen I started reverting conservatives rude comments towards me? Would I be banned? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:51, 11 August 2011 (EDT)

Moved from above. If you must continue in this vein, do it here. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 17:57, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
:I have removed your dishonest section title. Don't put words in my mouth. I am talking civility here. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 18:00, 11 August 2011 (EDT)

(EC) I made this a section of its own, to allow for a broader discussion. IMO the most important point mentioned by the pianist is
:'''Most disappointing has been the absence of leadership in this from Andy, as he's the only one who could have defused this conflict.'''
But that's only me: instead of Andy's guidance we have a couple of sysops who all claim that they act according to his wishes, or perhaps with his silent support. The only action taken by Andy over the last couple of days was to revoke some of RobSmith's rights. It's left to the augurs to interpret these signs... [[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 18:01, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
:Agree with RonLar. I do not wish to snipe with you Jcw, lets us mend our rift.. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 18:04, 11 August 2011 (EDT)

==And end to this==

Max: I don't want to snipe with you either, or with anyone. All I'm trying to do is prevent the kind of heated argument that hurts this site and brings joy to the parodists. As you've no doubt inferred already, I'm not prepared to discuss Conservative's editing style - it's far above my station to do so. If you'd like to do that, please do, but do it somewhere appropriate - a fresh thread on this page, for example. However, I ask you for your own good and that of the site to consider your words very carefully and avoid anything that might inflame tempers or provide grist for the trolls' mills. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 18:17, 11 August 2011 (EDT)

== TracyS edits from the same IP address as RobS ==

TracyS edits from the same IP address as RobS. No wonder why TracyS was such a loser. Once again, RobS, "the greatest lawgiver and rule giver since Moses and Hammurabi", is breaking a Conservapedia rule. Way to stay on top of check user Karajou. It looks like RobS keeps slipping further down the moral high ground. First, he removes the protection from my "castle" and now this. Tsk. tsk. tsk. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:01, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

:May I draw you attention to [[Conservapedia:Proxy IP]]? For someone who thinks that he can keep his gender a mystery you are jumping utterly fast to conclusions about others! [[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 07:39, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
::::They have the same IP address. I can point out many things, but I will point out another thing. Both RobS and TracyS had an inordinate interest in my user page talk page layout despite Conservapedia saying a user's talk page is his/her castle. That was the clincher for me in terms of TracyS being a product of Rob's socketpuppetry. If only RobS had chosen not to pester me. I wonder if RobS pokes sleeping dogs and then complains if they bite him. Many of RobS's self-imposed problems could have been avoided merely by the absence of "pesterfesting".[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:10, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

::*You're articles are quite noticeable, so many (including me) have an interest to talk to you
::*You make a farce out of Conservapedia's saying that ''a user's talk page is his/her castle'': the main intention of a talk page is to allow for communication. This communication can be moderated - in Conservapedia's case ''heavily'' moderated by the user. Your treatment of your talk page doesn't further communication...
::*RobS was pestering you? *LOL*
::[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 11:36, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
:::RobSmith relies on proxies because his personal web connection has trouble with Conservapedia.--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 12:27, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
::::So do a lot of vandals, but in this case there's more than a dozen individually-named socks. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:29, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::The fact that there are many accounts created from an open proxy fails to persuade that Rob = Tracy. Did Rob also use the same Canadian proxies Tracy used? Did Rob ever edit from the same Kansas City IP? In combination, that might be more compelling. Then again, do Conservapedia administrators need to persuade anyone but themselves to act? [[User:BradB|BradB]] 12:45, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::And how do you know a Canadian proxy was used? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:53, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::That is an excellent question. I can't see how he can know unless he's a sock of one of the parties in this. Perhaps there's another explanation, BradB? [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 13:37, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::I found out by checking the block log, which you can find by going to TracyS' userpage and clicking "View full log". [[User:BradB|BradB]] 20:02, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
(unindent)Ah yes, so I see. Thanks for that. I also notice a rather unsavory comment in there from RobS regarding another sysop. This is starting to look very unsatisfactory. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 20:18, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

== User:Conservative ==

I take up an idea by Jcw to create a separate section to discuss User:Conservative. It is necessary to do so on this page, as his habit of blanking his own talk page (and keep it protected most of the time) makes a discussion meaningless over there.

Over the last days I tried to engage User:Conservative in a meaningful exchange of comments. I thought that this shouldn't be that difficult, as User:Conservative has often announced that he was willing to debate more or less skillful public orators, like R. Dawkins, PZ Myers, or some chap called Penn Jillette.

I wondered what made User:Conservative think that this is a good idea - his only motivation can be that even ''bad publicity is good publicity''. But there is not the slightest chance that any original good publicity comes from this: As the last days have shown that User:Conservative is lacking any skills for taking part in a debate.

A couple of times I asked him to show me to a talk page where he successfully debated with someone about [[Atheism]], [[Evolution]], etc. ([[Talk:Atheism and obesity#Via several weird redirected talk pages... |see here for example]].) There should be hundreds of such debates on talk pages, as User:Conservative generally claims that anyone criticizing his pet articles is a atheist, evolutionist, Darwinist, etc.

User:Conservative couldn't give any link. In fact, the main tactic of User:Conservative when confronted with awkward questions is a strategic withdrawal (sometimes after creating a fog of youtube-videos, baseless accusations,...) Examples: [[Talk:Evolution#We have decided that the article will not be changed in any major way.|(1)]], [[Talk:Evolution#The effects of the Question Evolution! Campaign will be devastating to evolutionary belief and atheism|(2)]] [[Talk:Evolution#Evolutionist science professors are cryin' to their mamas about the Question Evolution! Campaign|(3)]],[[Talk:Atheism#Dubious quote by John Calvert|(4)]], [[Talk:Atheism and obesity#Via several weird redirected talk pages...|(5)]] Obviously he hopes that his interlocutors get blocked, and that then he can delete (or archive) the whole episode into oblivion: out of sight, out of mind.

[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 11:28, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
::You're only figuring this out now? He's been doing this since, like 2007 or so with the full approval of the administration. Why would you expect anything to change? [[User:JohnMcL|JohnMcL]] 11:41, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
:::RonLar, I can see you are very frustrated. I would be frustrated too if I was an obscure atheist/evolutionists with no real evidence to offer for atheism/evolution. Lastly, I wouldn't call atheists PZ Myers or Penn Jillette skillful orators. For example, Jillette's speech is littered with obscenity. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:46, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

And again, no link to any talk-page where you showed your brilliant wit, where you outshone your opponents, where you were able to score actual points against your interlocutors, where you left the onlookers aghast, standing there in silence while admiring your abilities to lay out an well reasoned argument.

Why not? Because there is no place, not even here at Conservapedia, where anything remotely resembling such a discussion ever happened.

[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 13:18, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

== I suggest convening a panel on refining Conservapedia's blocking policy ==

I suggest convening a panel on refining Conservapedia's blocking policy.

Here are my suggestions:

1. I think every active Sysop/Admin should be on the panel; included in the mix should be a few senior editors with blocking rights who would be considered for sysop rights. Another Sysop agrees with me on this.

2. Given RobS's recent behavior (annoying/pestering sock of TracyS and about a dozen other socks I have been told, etc. etc.) and his recent loss of Admin rights, I suggest that he not be on the panel.

3. I suggest starting off with a clean slate and archiving this page's current content. The panel's deliberations could then commence here. Perhaps, a more civil tone would ensue. I also suggest that sockpuppet comments be reverted as far as commentary on the panel's deliberations plus brand new editors who are merely trolling.

4. I suggest that Andy weigh in on the final product.

Please let me know if you think such a panel is necessary and if you think the above suggestions are good suggestions.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:13, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
:Seems like a good idea.--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 13:30, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
::Likewise. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 13:38, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
::::I am asking others to get involved in this section. For near term decision making, does archiving much of this page to start things off with a new slate sound good. Please vote below. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:41, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

Well, I suggested it and got told it wouldn't work, but I still think it's a good idea, provided at least two things are included: 1) an appeal process that's open and transparent involving disinterested editors and sysops and 2) accountability on the part of the blocking editor. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 16:21, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
:I am in, I hav e already laid out some guidelines elsewhere on Conservapedia. I am commited to to making CP fair and a happy place to edit. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 16:43, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
:::The Conservapedian Iduan has expressed some interest in helping refine Conservapedia's blocking policy. He is currently on a summer vacation. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:55, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
A blocking policy refinement panel is meeting in Summer or early Fall. Here are the people who signed up so far:

*[[User:Conservative/Sysops who want to serve on a blocking policy refinement panel|Sysops and Sysop candidates with blocking rights]]

*[[User talk:Conservative/Sysops who want to serve on a blocking policy refinement panel|Sysop candidates with blocking rights]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:14, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

:::I sent an email to Iduan to find out when his vacation is over. I expect to receive a reply within 2-7 days. In the meantime, people who are going to be on the blocking policy refinement panel may want to look at these two pages: [[User:Iduan/Blocking Review Panel Ideas]] and [[User talk:Iduan/Blocking Review Panel Ideas]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:17, 14 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::The panel is convening on 8/17/11: [[Conservapedia:Blocking policy refinement panel proceedings]][[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:59, 15 August 2011 (EDT)

== Please vote - archiving much of this page's content to start off with clean and more civil slate as far as blocking policy refinement panel forming - see above ==

Please vote - archiving much of this page's content to start off with clean and more civil slate as far as discussing blocking policy refinement panel forming (I think every active Sysop/Admin should be on the panel; included in the mix should be a few senior editors with blocking rights who would be considered for sysop rights). By the way, the panel deliberations could occur elsewhere. I thought the community portal though would be a good place and perhaps allow for this community portal to be used more constructively henceforth.

'''Yes votes:'''

Yes. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:44, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

Yes. In my opinion much of the discussion on this page consists of editors who've got hot under the collar and written intemperate things. A continuation of this sort of thing can only be bad for CP. A future discussion of related points must happen in a more organized and civil way. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 13:47, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

Yes.--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 13:58, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

Yes. --[[User:AlejandroH|AlejandroH]] 16:12, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

Yes. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 01:32, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

'''No votes:'''

(EC) ''For near term decision making, does archiving much of this page to start things off with a new slate sound good. '' I assume that this was a question. Answer: No, it doesn't sound good. Please archive only those sections to which no user has contributed for more than one week. Thank you. [[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 13:45, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

No. Attempting to bury the past doesn't deal with the valid questions already present. [[User:RobertE|RobertE]] 14:31, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

No. There have been some valid concerns raised, and "archiving" the page would be the equivalent of pretending those concerns were settled without actually answering them. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 15:31, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

No. But since when has anything here been decided by voting? The vote was something like 30-5 against RobS losing his sysop rights (can't be certain, since that page has since been unceremoniously burned.) Even if 75% of his supporters were parodists (unlikely) he still had majority support from the non-sysop editors. The decision here is going be made by the usual suspects, regardless of the outcome of this "vote". --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 15:37, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

Archive it or not, it really doesn't matter. The conversations took place and they can't be taken back. Given some of the behavior I witnessed after RobS lost his admin rights, I'm very cynical about any changes occurring here, but I'm willing to try. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 16:30, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

=== A question for the ''ayes'' ===
Would you have voted for '''deleting''' the archives, too? [[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 16:04, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
:Yes. While there might have been some good points in those discussions, the vast majority was name-calling by troublemakers, trolls and sockpuppets. Keeping it around gives a false impression of the site, which is exactly what the troublemakers, trolls and sockpuppets want. If any of the discussion in those archives was worthwhile, I'm sure it'll be brought up again in a more orderly fashion. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 16:26, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
== Why were the archives deleted? ==

[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 08:50, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

:I second that question. "Starting off with a clean slate" should not mean burning all of the old discussions. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 09:00, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
::A community is not a dishonest fool, his sockpuppet(s) and his atheist website vandal pals and their sockpuppets. No reason to provide an audience for such a spectacle. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:07, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
:::Well, that is an answer, but not a very good one. Where was the vote on deleting the archives? Are you intending to single-handedly delete the current archive as well? [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 09:15, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::I found out the non-syops blockers I needed to invite so I de-archived the material. I wanted the notice about the panel not to get buried too far down the page. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 14:46, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

==On archiving==
By the way, I notice that Conservative has archived the recent discussions already. Since when does a 5-5 vote mean "yes, go ahead with it?" [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 09:01, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
::It was 5-4. Sharon, was neither yes or no. It was "it does not matter". [[User:Conservative|Conservative]]
:::That was up to interpretation. Anyway, how long did you have the vote up before closing the matter? By my count it's less than 12 hours. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 09:16, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

*the vote was up for less than 20 hours: that's an absurdly short time-
*it's even more absurd to vote on the minor matter (archiving, but preserving information) and act unilaterally on the big issue (destroying of information)
*To quote Sharon: ''The conversations took place and they can't be taken back.'' You are certainly trying, Conservative!
[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 09:17, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
:Most of this page served as an attack page on several individuals, and that's going to stop. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 09:22, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
::Karajou, there were also allegations that sysops have personally attacked editors. Those were "archived" without discussion of the issues. Do you have a comment on that? [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 09:26, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
:::Then they had better specify the reasons why these editors were attacked, and if these attacks were clearly for nothing, then I am open for sysop demotion; but if these alleged attacks were caused by the editors themselves through fighting, bad conduct, or the deliberate posting of false information, then they have no room to talk. For the record, the reasons why I will remove someone from the site are posted under the warning tag on my talk page. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 09:39, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

*Ah, love, peace and happiness at last. And quietness. The last may become a problem, as Andy Schlafly seems to enjoy record-breaking numbers of unique visitors, and these will be hard to come by when the contribution goes back to the level of the last quarter of 2010.
*And there are still attacks left on this page, like this comment about Rob Smith: ''(annoying/pestering sock of TracyS and about a dozen other socks I have been told, etc. etc.)''
[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 09:56, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
:::RonLar: A few comments: 1) Western liberalism is running out of other people's money (Asian money, etc.) 2) Conservatism and austerity budgets are on the rise in the Western World so conservative websites should experience some growth 3) Conservapedia does plan on reviewing and improving its block policy 4) At an opportune time, perhaps in a few years, I may unveil a plan which I think Conservapedia may be more receptive to which I believe could increase its viewership. By the way, how many websites have you considerably added traffic to? My guess is none so your "expert" opinion has little weight. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:46, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

::::Did you post this in the wrong place? It doesn't have anything to do with the topic at hand. [[User:RobertE|RobertE]] 11:53, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
:# ''Western liberalism is running out of other people's money (Asian money, etc.)'' And that is relevant because....?
:# ''Conservatism and austerity budgets are on the rise in the Western World so conservative websites should experience some growth'' And that is relevant because....?
:# ''Conservapedia does plan on reviewing and improving its block policy'' That may be a very promising development...
:# ''At an opportune time, perhaps in a few years, I may unveil a plan which I think Conservapedia may be more receptive too which I believe could increase its viewership.'' In the fast moving world of the internet, such intricate plans are of relatively little value.
:By the way: could you show me to a talk page where you successfully debated with someone about Atheism, Evolution, etc.? Thanks
:[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 11:58, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
:::RonLar, who said my plan was intricate? :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 12:26, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::I found out the non-syops blockers I needed to invite to the panel so I de-archived the material. I wanted the notice about the panel not to get buried too far down the page. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 14:48, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

== A blocking policy refinement panel is meeting in Summer or early Fall ==

A blocking policy refinement panel is meeting in Summer or early Fall. Here are the people who signed up so far:

*[[User:Conservative/Sysops who want to serve on a blocking policy refinement panel|Sysops and Sysop candidates with blocking rights]]

*[[User talk:Conservative/Sysops who want to serve on a blocking policy refinement panel|Sysop candidates with blocking rights]]

I am sending an email to [[User:Iduan]] to determine when he is returning from his vacation. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:16, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
:Just returned; first: sleep; then: back to business.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 17:01, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
::I have blocking rights. May I join?--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 17:10, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
:::I added you to list. I don't think there will be any objections to me doing so. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:58, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

==Response to Karajou==
I told Andy yesterday I would respond to these baseless charges today, but spent the better part of the last nine hours blocked after User:Conservative flip-flopped, reverted himself, and unblocked me (I'll accept your apology later, User:Conservative, for inconveniencing me). But to Mr. Karajou: you seem to be of the opinion that,
:'''A little leven leveneth the whole lump.'''
That would be true, if Conservapedia were a monolith, requiring ideological conformity. But it's not, and never has been. Let's not forget the Parable of the Wheat and the Tares,
:'''[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_Tares#Narrative An enemy hath done this]. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up? But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them. Let both grow together until the harvest.''' [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:29, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
Here is the evidence that I am aware of:

1. Both RobS and TracyS edited from the same IP address. After Karajou pointed this out, I personally confirmed this matter.

2. Both were somewhat obsessed with my talk page design in an annoying way despite the fact that Conservapedia says a user's talk page is his/her castle. At the time, I had a system for leaving messages to me. I have since closes my talk page for leaving messages due to RobS and his atheist pals use of pestering tactics.

3. Both were dishonest. For example, RobS claiming he referred to me as demonic at Conservapedia which he never did as he knows the charge was baseless plus he didn't have the guts to do this at Conservapedia, but instead chose to do this at an atheist gutter website that is filled with obscenity and gossip. TracyS claimed he/she was not trying to annoy me about my talk despite using language purposely meant to annoy.

4. Both were annoying and needlessly argumentative.

5. Karajou claims there were multiple sockpuppets of RobS, but I have not personally investigated this matter.

RobS is still an egotist and has learned nothing. It would be a big mistake at this time to give him back his Sysop/Admin rights. He would just foment a lot of useless drama and nonsense. Conservapedia doesn't need RobS the egotist to change its blocking policy and a panel of which he is not a part to refine its blocking policy is far better suited to the task. I invited people to take part in such a panel and some have accepted my invitation to take part in the panel.

I did block RobS earlier for a short spell due to him being disruptive to me posting a notice in this room that would be more constructive than much of the current content which I archived. However, with another Sysops's assistance I was able to send out invitations to the appropriate parties so the notice at the community portal was no longer needed so I unblocked RobS and de-archived the material. Given his past behavior, I see no reason to apologize for any inconvenience this caused RobS.

I will now let RobS give his empty sales pitch on how his desysoping was all a misunderstanding and a mistake on Aschlafly's part. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:28, 14 August 2011 (EDT)
:User:Conservative, I told Andy yesterday I would respond here, but was prevented by you and the whole day was wasted. Also, I see the whole page & its Archives have been vandalized, as well as other users private user space, so I hesitate in wasting anymore time here. I will however, respond with this:
:'''"pesterfesting"''': this is the term User:Conservative uses for what is commonly refereed to in the outside world as '''"[[Advocacy]]"'''. An advocate is a person who acts on behalf of others who are incapable, or have been prevented from acting on their own behalf. Two examples of advocates would be, (1) [[Andrew Schlafly]], noted attorney, and (2) [[Jesus Christ]], [[savior]] of the [[planet]]. Advocacy is very common in the world of wikis, but I can see where you would have difficultly with the idea. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 18:57, 14 August 2011 (EDT)
:::RobS, in retrospect, I believe your "pesterfesting" was just a petty and narcissistic post TK power grab which tried to show others that you were the "big man on campus". Second, I am sorry to hear that you couldn't find other things to do besides edit Conservapedia and that your whole day was wasted. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:07, 16 August 2011 (EDT)

== The Conservapedia Blocking policy refinement panel proceedings have begun ==

The Conservapedia Blocking policy refinement panel proceedings have begun and can be found [[Conservapedia:Blocking policy refinement panel proceedings|HERE]]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 12:16, 17 August 2011 (EDT)

== Android App? ==

Does anyone have the link to the android app? I am unable to find it for some strange reason. [[User:JacobSmith|JacobSmith]] 22:05, 20 August 2011 (EDT)
:I am an Android user. Nothing exists and was likely a person having fun with lies.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 22:14, 20 August 2011 (EDT)

== My Testimony ==

I was a liberal atheist. About two weeks ago, I was talking to a Conservative friend of mine and she pointed me to the site conservapedia.com. So I came here and read a few articles. Then read a few more. Then when I noticed registration was open, I signed up, but didn't contribute right away, but I kept reading. I read [[Christian apologetics]], [[Counterexamples to Evolution]], [[Counterexamples to an Old Earth]], [[Counterexamples to Relativity]], [[Resources for leaving atheism and becoming a Christian]] and some wonderful essays too numerous to list. While reading, I felt...something. Something I haven't felt since I was a child. Yesterday, Sunday Morning, I did something I haven't done in nearly 30 years: I went to church. It was wonderful and I do believe I felt the Holy Spirit. I don't believe I deserve to call myself a Christian yet, but I'm looking forward to next Sunday. :-) Thank you all. --[[User:OliviaB|OliviaB]] 13:51, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

== Summer Paper Gone Bad ==

Summer is drawing to a close and school is beginning again. I have decided to write my essay on the origin of the moon, citing Conservapedia several times. When my teacher (this is a public school) gave me my paper back with the grade an all, he gave me a 62. In addition, he gave me a "good talking to" on not using Wikipedia. I tried to explain him that Conservapedia is different, he just wouldn't listen! He gave me the opportunity to do the paper again using different sources. I don't want to use different sources, because they are most often plagued with bias. My question is simple- how do we separate ourselves from Wikipedia to the general public, and how to we improve our reputation? --[[User:WilliamMoran|WilliamMoran]] 17:13, 25 August 2011 (EDT)
:Wikis are not normally considered good sources for research as they are generally open and can be edited by anyone. And any decent teacher (public school or not) probably won't accept an encyclopedia of any kind (hard copy or online) as a source for a research paper, as they normally want the student to actually do some research. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 19:06, 25 August 2011 (EDT)
::William, the good news is you were docked points for your sources and not for content. That implies that your teacher has an open mind. I'd suggest Answers in Genesis, A Storehouse of Knowledge, Creation Ministries International or look at some of Ray Comfort's books. Of course, these sources are all the work of man and are therefore always biased and flawed. For the truth, you'll want to turn to the Bible. --[[User:OliviaB|OliviaB]] 19:57, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

== An open apology to Conservative and Aschlafly ==

I was [[User:WalterS]] and made an inappropriate comment several months ago. Then two days ago I signed up again under the name JefferyA and tried to make some contributions to the Conservative dictionary. I was banned by [[User:Karajou]] for my actions as WalterS and told that I could come back if I apologized. I am therefore offering my apologies to [[User:Aschlafly]] and [[User:Conservative]]. I am sorry. It was wrong to vandalize your site. I know I don't deserve to stay, but if you can find it within you to allow me to, I would very much appreciate it. God be with you. --[[User:JefferyA|JefferyA]] 09:23, 6 September 2011 (EDT)
::Your sentiments are appreciated. With the being said, to the best of my knowledge Mr. Schlafly is the sole owner of the website. My articles tend to receive web traffic, but for the most part I create articles and I have blocked some vandals as well. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 04:09, 23 September 2011 (EDT)

== Banned user ==

Conservative recently banned SamCoulter for "putting garbage into article". However, the 'garbage' was a legitimate point backed up by a valid reference. Indeed, the same reference has been cited by Conservative on the main page. [[User:DavidZa|DavidZa]] 23:07, 23 September 2011 (EDT)
:This is a non-starter. Conservative is a senior admin with tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of quality edits. This is a meritocracy, David. [[User:BrentH|BrentH]] 23:36, 23 September 2011 (EDT)
::Almost 5% of his "tens of thousands" of quality edits are minor edits. He also created 4 different articles all with the same information as a main article. From what it seemed, SamCoulter was just trying to bring more facts to the table. Three months seems too excessive for something that wasn't even explained as to "why it doesn't belong". [[User:JonG|~ ]][[User_talk:JonG|JonG]][[Special:Contributions/JonG| ~]] 23:52, 23 September 2011 (EDT)
:::I don't agree with Conservative's articles on this topic. That said, I did not get the impression that SamCoulter meant what he posted as a serious contribution, but rather simply as an attempt to "prove a point". He basically [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:SamCoulter&curid=114914&diff=920263&oldid=920262 admitted the same himself, and called himself "juvenile"]. One should consider those facts before drawing any conclusions. [[User:Maratrean|Maratrean]] 00:14, 24 September 2011 (EDT)
::::Nice job taking things out of context. [[User:JonG|~ ]][[User_talk:JonG|JonG]][[Special:Contributions/JonG| ~]] 00:32, 24 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::I do not see how I am doing so. [[User:Maratrean|Maratrean]] 00:55, 24 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::It's like people who quote verses from the Bible (specifically Leviticus). They quote what they want and not its entirety. He admitted what he did was juvenile, but he felt he had to do it that way to bring attention to a topic that Aschlafly appeared to be ignoring. [[User:JonG|~ ]][[User_talk:JonG|JonG]][[Special:Contributions/JonG| ~]] 01:04, 24 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::SamCoulter behaved in a manner which, by his own admission, was juvenile, and as a result was blocked. That is the topic being addressed in this section. The issue of those articles, and what position Mr. Schlafly takes or ought to take with respect to them, is a separate discussion which does not belong in this section. [[User:Maratrean|Maratrean]] 01:17, 24 September 2011 (EDT)

Conservapedia:Community Portal

2011-09-24T04:55:54Z

ZackMartin: /* Banned user */

Conservapedia:Community Portal

2011-09-24T04:14:00Z

ZackMartin: /* Banned user */

Talk:Big Bang theory

2011-09-15T19:22:02Z

ZackMartin: /* Hmm */

It looks like this page may have to be protected, since evolutionists are getting on here and posting nonsense such as YEC being "non-scientific". [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 22:39, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

::The only nonsense involves the religious thinking there is "proof" of YEC. Really? An article on the big bang contains one scientific paragraph and a longer one about creationist views? How does one explain cosmic background radiation? Or Hubble's Law? Or Deuterium Observation? Or the fact that if you use the big imaging telescopes to look beyond 14 billion light years in any direction all you see is, well, big bang? Inasmuch proof as science allows (remember, science can't "prove" anything, it can only disprove the false in order to make a better hypothesis) the Big Bang is accepted fact. In what peer-reviewed journal did Matthew, Mark, Luke or John publish? [[User:Scientz|Scientz]] 10:46 AM, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Feel free to expand the article if you wish. I might even join you. But you can do that without removing the creationist material. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 10:30, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

::::What I'm saying is, that material is fine--provided one acknowledges that the opinion of creationists, ESPECIALLY YEC's--is viewed in the scientific community as belonging to the lunatic fringe. One can be socially and politically conservative without making oneself look like idiot by espousing such nonsense as YEC. Science shouldn't be politicized--far too many things already are!! Scientific method should have nothing to with ideology; it should have everything to do with coming up with better hypotheses about the universe based on empirical observations. [[User:Scientz|Scientz]] 10:56 AM, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::There, finally finished typing it in Word. This works so much better, although feel free to add to its information. Quite frankly, its absurd to believe in YEC--and I'm a committed social, political and economic conservative!! Please don't associate lunatics with conservatives, because it hurts our credibility. In the 1800s, the Comte de Buffon took composite lumps of molten rock of varying sizes and estimated (based on how long it took his samples to cool to room temperature) that a molten ball the size of Earth would've taken at least 35,000 years just to cool. YEC is idiotic, and those who believe it are blinded by their own ignorance of basic physics. [[User:Scientz|Scientz]] 10:42 PM, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:I'm confused, Scorpionman. Are you saying that YEC is scientific?
:Personally, I don't see why a discussion of Biblical literalism has any place in an article about the Big Bang. If you want to dispute the current prevailing theory behind the origin of the cosmos, then you should do it scientific evidence or at the very least an attempt at refuting evidence presented for the theory and not with the contents of one religious text. As it is, the article abruptly changes the subject and goes totally off-topic. [[User:Dimensio|Dimensio]] 13:53, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Please update the article to include peer-reviewed scientific criticisms of Big Bang-like theories. Right now the article looks ridiculous: a half of a dozen scientific references followed by a bunch of references dominated by the Apologetic Press. Clearly somebody misunderstands the modern scientific process.

== Dominant theory ==

Would it ruffle too many feathers to mention that it is the dominant theory amongst scientists today. I suggest that such a statement is an uncontroversial fact. Thoughts? --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 05:12, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
:No, I agree, it is the dominant theory among scientists. [[User:Hengineer|Hengineer]] 05:23, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

== Sweeping generalisation ==

The following sentence should be removed:

:In contrast to young earth creationists, Old Earth Creationists and Theistic evolutionists agree that the Big Bang occured.

Just because you are an OEC or you believe evolution to be correct does not mean that you MUST believe in the Big Bang Theory. Does anyone remember Fred Hoyle?

Are there any objections to the removal of the sentence? --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 20:18, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

I think this article looks good right now. Good edits guys. Hopefully expressing positive emotions is not violative of probation.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 01:16, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

==Article split==

The intro confuses [[Big Bang]] with [[Expanding universe]]. I'd like to split the article up, with one short article treating each of these two distinct ideas. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 08:23, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:In fairness, no, an expanding universe is part of the "big bang" (which refers to far more than the universes creation. It's confusing, so I would leave it to someone with a background in physics. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 08:39, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

::Have the bounds of [[outer space]] expanded? Or is it just that the galaxies have been getting farther apart within boundless space? What exactly does the theory state? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 08:59, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Apparently, the answer is "both", at least according to http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html#MX --[[User:M|M]] 10:49, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Well, let's try to get this straight. Is [[outer space]] infinite or what? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 11:44, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:From what I understand most astrophysics believe that since the area that the universe is expanding into is void of matter and energy that yes currently, [[outer space]] is infinite.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 12:17, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:Unknown. The spatial extent of the Universe could be finite or infinite. If you're picturing a lump of matter dispersing in a larger void, you're thinking of the wrong thing, though. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 04:18, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

:Again, I'm pretty much an amateur when it comes to astrophysics...but I think that the confusion comes from the fact that we're currently uncertain as to the actual curvature of space. I think I remember hearing that space seems to be curved enough that it's actually finite (though boundless, like the three-dimensional equivalent of the surface of a sphere), but I can't provide citation of that at the moment.--[[User:M|M]] 07:11, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

I don't think a split is neccesary, however, on a related note, an article describing the Big Freeze, Big Rip, and Big Crunch theories for the end of the universe might be called for, as those also center on the way in which the universe is expanding (specifically, from measurements of type 1 supernovae in extremely distant galaxies, we have evidence that the universe's expansion is in fact, speeding up, giving support to the Big Freeze (everything expands until entropy is at a maximum), or possibly Big Rip (if Dark Energy is the cause of expansion, then if the universe keeps expanding, dark energy could start to rip apart galaxies, then solar systems, then stars and planets, and finally atoms). So yeah, an article on the possible ways the universe will 'end' (or if it is infinite) would probably help provide more information about the nature of the expanding universe, without having to create an article solely about the expansion of the universe. [[User:Warhawk|Warhawk]] 14:07, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

== YEC Citations ==

Conservative, your citations don't appear to agree with each other...compare:
<blockquote>
A prediction had been made prior to the discovery, that if the Big Bang were true, there should be some sort of constant radiation in space, although the prediction was for a temperature several times higher. (http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/30)
</blockquote>

with

<blockquote>
All matter radiates heat, regardless of its temperature. Astronomers can detect an extremely uniform radiation, called cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation, coming from all directions. It appears to come from perfectly radiating matter whose temperature is 2.73 K—nearly absolute zero. Many incorrectly believe that the big bang theory predicted this radiation.
</blockquote>

Is it standard procedure to use citations which don't agree with each other on the particulars?

:::Is it standard procedure to give me two citations without giving me the specific cite to the second citation? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:25, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

:::I found the second citation and it appears to use the following to support its contention: “The big bang made no quantitative prediction that the ‘background’ radiation would have a temperature of 3 degrees Kelvin (in fact its initial prediction [by George Gamow in 1946] was 30 degrees Kelvin); whereas Eddington in 1926 had already calculated that the ‘temperature of space’ produced by the radiation of starlight would be found to be 3 degrees Kelvin.” Tom Van Flandern, “Did the Universe Have a Beginning?” Meta Research Bulletin, Vol. 3, No. 3, 15 September 1994, p. 33. [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences16.html][http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes55.html#wp1077943] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:08, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
::::It's a good thing Tom Van Flandern didn't publish in peer-reviewed journals. I'll believe your numbers, but current data indicates that BOTH were wrong. Redoing a computation of the ambient temperature of the Universe (given modern observations) will ''not'' yield Eddington's prediction; reworking Gamow's calculation ''will'' reproduce the CMB temperature very accurately. Additionally, the CMB data is more than just temperature data; the anisotropies in the CMB are also indicative of the premordial expansion. Just because you can dig up a citation doesn't mean it's correct.

== Common Misconceptions ==

As previously written, this was untrue. The Big Bang does not claim that all matter was tightly packed together before the Big Bang started. That is an assumption that the Big Bang does not address. It is unfortunate that in a section titled common misconceptions that a misconception was added. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 16:08, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

==Misconception about Evolution==
I think evolution discredits itself. But I think it is unfortunate when us anti-evolutionist mistrepresent the theory. It is discreditable on many points, but this sentence mistrepresents it:

:''Many scientists who believe in the Big Bang Theory are Evolutionists, though not all are. One can believe that God both created the Universe AND laid out the plan for all life in the Big Bang, as opposed to the idea that life evolved randomly after the Big Bang. ''

Evolution does not say life evolved randomly. It says the intitial organism came about through essentially "random" events. (although not strictly random).

Evolution is wrong for other reasons. And if we are going to make evolutionists see its falsity, we have to correctly represent the theory. Or atleast not MISREPRESENT the theory. [[User:InTheEvent|InTheEvent]] 00:00, 20 June 2007 (EDT)

I agree and I'm glad that the article at least makes that distinction, although as an a Creationist who believes the Big Bang is one of the strongest theistic arguments out there, I'm not incredibly happy about Evolution being mentioned in there; one has nothing to do with the other. However, I won't press the issue because I think what's there is a reasonable compromise. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 14:23, 29 June 2007 (EDT)
==Big Bang proves Universe had a beginning==
Why are so many creationists against the big bang, it proves that the universe had a beginning point. It also seems to violate physics because matter can't be created from nothing. It indicates a creative force behind the universe.

:Well, for one thing the "billions of years" makes it just laughable, but more importantly it goes against the Bible which says God created the Earth in 6 days around 6000 years ago. --[[User:Rolloffle|Rolloffle]] 15:43, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

::Where, exactly, is the age of the Earth specified as being 6000 years in the Bible. Please reference the relevant chapters and verses. [[User:Dimensio|Dimensio]] 11:38, 8 August 2007 (EDT)

::"'Billions of years' makes it just laughable." The good old argument from ridiculity. It's like the argument from incredulity, but more fun.--[[User:All Fish Welcome|All Fish Welcome]] 12:10, 8 August 2007 (EDT)

==Most atheists?==
Does anyone have ANY reference that backs up the claim about "most atheists"? Or is it just made up off the top of people's heads?
: The scientific community (which I define as the doctorate-level degree holding scientists) in the U.S. overwhelmingly accept the Big Bang and old universe. I think most atheists just believe what scientists say is right despite the fact they don't know anything about it. I don't have a source for the U.S. public relating atheism to big bang belief, but I have a source for correlation between scientists' atheism and big bang belief, which we could extrapolate from. [http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html From Nature magazine]. --[[User:Theonlyconservative|Theonlyconservative]] 12:38, 9 November 2007 (EST)

== Article Depth ==

In all honesty, this article does not tell anyone very much about the big bang theory, evidence for it, or the reasons why it was formulated in the first place. The article basically introduces the topic with a mish mash of unrelated facts in no particular order, then the next section is "dissent letter" followed by "starlight problem". These are hardly the most relevant topics about the Big Bang theory. May I suggest that as this article is (hopefully) reworked, those doing the writing keep in mind that the Big Bang Theory is a very general class of theories that all have one thing in common - the assertion that long ago the universe "began" from a mathematical singularity and has been increasing in size ever since. Also, be wary about the throwing around the word "singularity" - contrary to popular belief and science fiction, a singularity is not a physical thing - it is an asymptotic point in a mathematical function where the function breaks down and can no longer make any predictions. Other singularities include the center of black holes, and objects traveling at the speed of light. The mathematical models for these systems break down at these values and become meaningless. Likewise, the Big Bang Theory has nothing to say about the origin of the singularity or what came "before" it. It is outside the realm of the theory, and in the opinion of some scientist (I'm not comfortable saying most or few here, as I'm basing this statement only on my personal discussions) outside the realm of science as a whole.

== Georges-Henri Lemaître ==

Could somebody add something in about how Roman Catholic priest [[Georges-Henri Lemaître]], the original proposer of the Big Bang theory, felt that the theory fitted beautifully with his faith as it supports a "creation event"? [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 12:51, 8 January 2008 (EST)

== Change "Starlight problem" to "Horizon problem"? ==

There's a section in this article that refers to the "starlight problem" but I believe scientists actually refer to this issue as the "horizon problem." See [http://archive.ncsa.uiuc.edu/Cyberia/Cosmos/HorizonProblem.html here] and [http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/astro/cosmo.html#c5 here] for example. One reason is that the problem has to do with more than starlight--there are questions about density, temperature, etc. The term "starlight problem" is generally used by people discussing creationist cosmological models, while "horizon problem" is more appropriate in the context of the big bang model.--[[User:JamesR|JamesR]] 20:07, 23 March 2008 (EDT)
: I've changed it. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:27, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

== Inflation and YEC ==

Couldn't inflation make the Big Bang and YEC compatible? I mean if it happened faster than the speed of light. Then why couldn't it happen in the YEC time scale? [[jfraatz|jfraatz]]

== "God's Role" ==

Can someone help me come up with a better way of saying "God's role in creating the universe." ? Obviously God didn't just have a 'role,' He simply created it by Himself! Thanks! [[User:WillS|WillS]] 18:16, 21 May 2010 (EDT)

:I tried; do you think my wording is OK? [[User:DanielPulido|DanielPulido]] 03:06, 22 May 2010 (EDT)

::Looks great. And good job catching some other areas where liberal bias crept in as well!

== Correcting "scientific" ==

I just corrected "scientific" the word used in description of the Big Bang to the proper in this case term "pseudo scientific". See also my [[Essay:Demystified gravitation]] where I explain why the Big Bang is a pseudo scientific hypothesis (between other things it assumes "curved" spacetime for which there is no evidence and a lot of to contrary) and how Einsteinian gravitation works. The essay is still not finished and so I invite anybody to expres their opinion on the talk page of the essay. Thanks. [[User:JimJast|JimJast]] 17:35, 13 September 2011 (EDT)

:I have already expressed my opinion on the talk page of that essay: you're a crackpot. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 20:02, 13 September 2011 (EDT)

::Sam, the fact that I'm a crackpot has certain influence on my credibility (which I never claimed being high, while I'm only a sculptor, with only one year training in general realativity, and the rest of my formal education being in electrical engineeiring) but it surely has no influence on the truth of Big Bang hypothesis (BBH).

::The biggest flaw of BBH is an assumption that the universe is expanding while it is not.

::This error of expansion of universe was created many years ago by [[relativists]] giving up the checking what is the ''[[intrinsic redshift]]'' in the universe before jumping to conclusion that the ''redshift is a '''proof''' that the universe is expanding''. It is clearly a non scientific approach to science. There are no proofs in science (except in math, and that's why math is not considered to be science). There are only better or worse ''hypotheses'' that are surely no proof. Some last long time until they collapse when a '''proof of their invalidity''' turns up and usually it is not accepted since no scientist cares about looking like an idiot who overlooke something important and assumed an impossible. Error that Newton avoided, not believeing in his own theory being more than just math.

::[[Intrinsic redshift]] is as it is observed in our universe (see my step-by-step derivation in [[Essay:Demystified gravitation]] and please comment on possible errors in this derivation). My derivation is done in such a simple way that an intelligent high school student shouldn't have problems with repeating it him/herself. Besides I'm here to explain if something is too difficult. Just ask a question about this derivation or other things since from 1985, when I discovered this derivation, I found out also many other thing. E.g. why the universe is looking as if it were expanding with accelerating expansion and the acceleration has just its value, observed with accuracy of only one standard deviation (max possible) by Supernova Cosmology Project team in 1998, which is

:::<math>dH/dt=-H_o^2/2</math>

::where <math>dH/dt</math> is acceleration of expansion in terms of derivation of Hubble constant with respect to time <math>t</math>, and <math>H_o</math> is the Hubble constant itself. [[User:JimJast|JimJast]] 16:44, 14 September 2011 (EDT)

== "even though the theory is based on little more than guesswork, speculation, and dubious assumptions." ==

I must agree with the removal of the above sentence. The big bang theory is based on the observations of red shifts, background radiation and other observational and physical properties of the universe. However, it is the assumptions the Big Bang theorists draw from this that are the debatable part. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:51, 13 September 2011 (EDT)

:Thanks Max. I don't accept the Big Bang theory myself, but only on the grounds of my faith. The error - and I think it's a sincere one - that astrophysicists are making is in the use of methodological naturalism, which of course is a requirement of the scientific method. Within the constraints of that method it's a very sound theory; it just isn't correct. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 20:01, 13 September 2011 (EDT)

::Yes Sam, ''"it just isn't correct"''. But can we say it while [[relativists]] maintain that it is correct? We have to have a proof that it isn't correct.

::I don't blame Max for him doing what he had to do not knowing such a proof. I just would like to start a discussion whether my proof is sound one, and justifying dumping BBH. I'm sure it is but I'm the author so I may be biased (though I took a general realtivity course at Harvard to be sure that I'm right and thought about this for over quater of a century so I'm relatively sure that it is a sound proof of invalidity of BBH).

::Anyway, I can only help in discussion by keeping it on track when I see wrong arguments, and without anybody discussing this issue it won't be even known that the proof of invalidity of BBH even exists. No mainstream scientific journal ever wanted to publish this proof despite it is only one page of print. It was published in conservapedia (after being blocked on my university server) as [[Essay:Hubble redshift in Einstein's universe]] in a short form suitable for physicists. Longer form with step-by-step derivation of redshift in our universe, and more, is in [[Essay:Demystified gravitation]]. [[User:JimJast|JimJast]] 17:25, 14 September 2011 (EDT)

::Just as a note, Sam, the Scientific Theory (i.e. Scientific Method) was codified by two individuals that were deeply religious (Descartes and Francis Bacon). It is also derived from the theories of logic codified by Roger Bacon, a monk. I don't think it is a difference between faith and reason. St. Thomas Aquinas made the argument that we should seek to combine the two, which John Calvin said was a very important advancement that allowed us to move beyond Greek philosophy/science. [[User:Ottava|Ottava]] ([[user talk:Ottava|talk]]) 19:00, 14 September 2011 (EDT)

:::It's irrelevant that Descartes and the Bacons were religious; the scientific method does NOT combine faith and reason and in fact explicitly rejects faith. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 15:14, 15 September 2011 (EDT)

:::Additional note, Sam, what good it would do if we believed in things that are not true? As pseudo scientific theories usually are. [[User:JimJast|JimJast]] 14:29, 15 September 2011 (EDT)

== Hmm ==

As a Catholic, I hope people realize that the Catholic Church was involved in the matter. The Catholic Church is home to one of the most conservative Christian organizations in the US, the Knights of Columbus (1.8 million members), mind you. I do hope that we can at least acknowledge that this isn't an "atheist" view or a "liberal" view, but one that spreads across boundaries. :) After all, the Catholic Church's view about Genesis is based on St. Augustine's determination that Genesis was allegorical, which was something both Martin Luther and John Calvin agreed with. Just keep this in mind. :) [[User:Ottava|Ottava]] ([[user talk:Ottava|talk]]) 18:56, 14 September 2011 (EDT)

:In what sense ''"the Catholic Church was involved in the matter"''? The fact that ''"Martin Luther and John Calvin agreed (that Genesis was allegorical)"'' isn't a clear indication that ''"the Catholic Church was involved in the matter"''. At least to me (the crank :) that's why I'd appreciate if you explained it in more detail.

:My opinion is the same as yours that there was an involvement but I'm not sure that I understand it the same way as you do. I know that Gorges Lemaître, the Catholic prist, proposed what became known as the Big Bang theory<ref>

After wikipedia and believed this time.

</ref>, and also that the theory is false since I personally executed the for long time neglected calculation of value of [[intrinsic redshift]] and it turned out roughly as it is observed, which implies that practically there is no expansion of universe. Results of my calculations were not published since 1985 when they were done, except recently in conservapedia<ref>

[[Essay:Hubble redshift in Einstein's universe]].

</ref>, but I don't think that the Catholic Church was involved in the matter of blocking the publication. Do you? :) [[User:JimJast|JimJast]] 14:08, 15 September 2011 (EDT)

::Ottava, are you saying that a large percentage of Catholics accept the Big Bang theory? If so, is it because it seems reasonable to them? Or because it's Catholic dogma, or what? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:36, 15 September 2011 (EDT)
:::It is both accepted by Catholics and given official approval by the Vatican. After all, [[Georges-Henri Lemaitre]] was a famous Catholic Priest and the originator of it. The Catholic Church also says there is enough reason to believe that evolution is okay. Afterall, Darwin made it clear that he believed in Aristotelian theory (and thus, Aristotelian Metaphysics which St. Thomas Aquinas relied upon), and that Darwin was Anglican his whole life, whether High Church or not is a different matter. [[User:Ottava|Ottava]] ([[user talk:Ottava|talk]]) 15:03, 15 September 2011 (EDT)

:::Would you mind seeing to it that the above information gets into the appropriate articles? I'd like to see a [[Catholic views on evolution]] article, for example. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:06, 15 September 2011 (EDT)
::::Eventually. However, I do have a rather strong conflict with my personal involvement with the Church, publications on Catholic Theology, Cathology apologia, my work with Catholic advocacy groups, etc. I merely wanted to add a little note that you don't have to be liberal to believe in it. :) [[User:Ottava|Ottava]] ([[user talk:Ottava|talk]]) 15:08, 15 September 2011 (EDT)

::JimJast, I'm a tad confused by your response. I was merely stating that belief in the Big Bang wasn't necessarily "liberal" or reflected a liberal bias. [[User:Ottava|Ottava]] ([[user talk:Ottava|talk]]) 15:08, 15 September 2011 (EDT)

My understanding is the Catholic Church has given ''qualified'' acceptance to Big Bang / evolution / etc., on the basis that that was the predominant scientific opinion, and they want Catholicism and Science to coexist harmoniously. The major qualification, as I understand it, is the need for a literal Adam and Eve and a literal Fall. But God could have say, permitted life to evolve up to higher animals, but then as a special act of creation God created Adam. (Maybe he created Adam out of some evolved primate species). The Church doesn't insist that Genesis need be read completely literally, but some elements (existence of Adam/Eve) are so important theologically they can't be dispensed with. How can Christ be the New Adam if there never was an old one? If the Fall never happened, who needs Redemption? Of course, while I understand this to be the official position, not all Catholics agree with it, or are even aware of it, which is not an uncommon thing in the Catholic church. [[User:Maratrean|Maratrean]] 15:22, 15 September 2011 (EDT)

==References==
<References/>

Talk:Conservative Dictionary Project

2011-09-10T22:30:57Z

ZackMartin: /* Formatting - please read */

== a couple thoughts ==

I love the idea, but i feel like I have a couple helpful ideas to act as guidelines. First people will need to decide if this should be a total dictionary or just key words. Right now we have the conservativemeaning of lawn, is there a liberal meaning ? Second,to use useful as a dictionary, does every word need its mainstream and conservative definition? If a liberal uses a word and someone doesnt know what it means, I doubt the conservative definition will help them understand what the person was saying. Since that is the main benefit in the age of spell checkers of dictionaries.--[[User:KenN|KenN]] 09:10, 3 September 2011 (EDT)

:Lawn is actually the ''perfect'' example of a word that should be on the list. Some people might refer to it as 'grass', which is of course, a slang for an illicit drug. Conservatives are beyond such stupidity, so 'lawn' belongs on the list. You must remember that the process of changing our language is slow and insidious. It begins with trivial, laughable things and ends up with Christians in death camps. Putting it another way, if you spot a weed in your garden you pull it out rather than let it fester and spread. (perhaps "weed" can also be on there for the same reason- can anyone suggest an alternative word?) --[[User:SallyMartinez|<3 Sally]] 09:21, 3 September 2011 (EDT)

:: Seems like you are suggesting more of a conservative Thesaurus then a Dictionary. A dictionary is a book used to find the spellings and meanings of words. A Thesaurus is useful for finding the best words. I'm thinking a conservative thesaurus would actually be a great idea. --[[User:KenN|KenN]] 13:12, 3 September 2011 (EDT)

::: This seems to be an issue we have to address soon. I notice there are entries for deltiology, chair, door, and doorknob. Are we attempting to create a complete dictionary, or just create a lexicon of words that are relevant to conservatives, or have proper conservative meanings. My suggestion would be for the latter, there are plenty of websites that can define a chair as well as conservapedia can, so it doesn't seem like the best use of our time. My suggestion would be, if you can't come up with a particular conservative definition that differs from the false liberal definition, preferably filling out both the true conservative and false liberal sections, it isn't for this project. I am as suspicious of liberals as anyone, but they probably can define a chair. Whether this is the ultimate decision or not, I do think we should figure this out before the project gets too far along.--[[User:GrahamB|GrahamB]] 16:12, 4 September 2011 (EDT)

:::: While one word may be safe from [[liberal redefinition]] today, it doesn't mean it's safe from [[liberal redefinition]] tomorrow. This project is a safehaven for words against liberals and their [[secularized language]]. Conservapedia contains many articles that aren't political. We have articles on [[door]], [[chair]], and [[doorknob]]. What Conservapedia is to encylopedias this dictionary is to dictionaries. Instead of trying to limit people's [[freedom of speech]], why don't you contribute to the project? --[[User:BradleyS|BradleyS]] 16:26, 4 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::My apologies for giving offense, I certainly wasn't trying to limit anyone's freedom of speech. I am OK with whichever direction this project ends up taking, and I have and will continue to contribute to it. If this is the direction it goes on, I am fully on board, I was just raising the question. --[[User:GrahamB|GrahamB]] 16:32, 4 September 2011 (EDT)

== Conservative redefinition. ==

I agree with the premise that liberals have changed the meaning of many important words; freedom and equality being two of the most important. But if we're talking about liberal redefinition then it's important to avoid conservative redefinition. There needs to be serious and proper guidelines for this dictionary BEFORE we start adding words or it's just going to be a massive mess of peoples' opinions, and never a credible resource. Take, for example, "liberal." We're defined this as, "Somone who rejects logic and supports an overbearing government and anti-Christian policies," and coming from the 14th century. Liberal has meant many things through its time, and if we look at the Gladstonian Liberalism, it was economically very right-wing. But we must acknowledge that the word has changed. By acknowledging that the word's meaning has changed over time and simply putting an overbearingly conservative definition which doesn't even address their beliefs properly, we're not making a serious resource. And, come on, cheap comments like, "a liberal is someone who rejects logic," is just conservative redefinition, and it makes us just as bad as anyone who we accuse of liberal definition. We should always hold ourselves to the standards who hold others. And saying, "But the liberals do it," isn't an excuse. [[User:AlycaZ|AlycaZ]] 10:28, 3 September 2011 (EDT)

:: I agree that this shouldn't become a conservative redefinition, which is kind of an oxymoron. If we are to take back words liberals have changed the meanings of, we have to use the original conservative meaning, not some new meaning. --[[User:KenN|KenN]] 13:12, 3 September 2011 (EDT)

:::Well, we're already doing it. "Liberal" is the classic example. We can all agree that liberals like big government, are anti-Christian and reject logic. But has that ever been the definition of liberal? We might all agree that Muslims reject Christianity, and as such, are going to hell. But we do not define Muslim as someone who is going to hell. The idea posted above about 'lawn' is textbook revisionism. The idea that, because people have come to use 'grass' as a term for drugs, it is no longer a conservative thing to do to consider your 'lawn' to be 'grass' is preposterous. If grass ORIGINALLY meant that, and now means something else, then claiming back the true meaning is not to call it something else. Also, when talking about using the word lawn, to say, " remember that the process of changing our language is slow and insidious. It begins with trivial, laughable things and ends up with Christians in death camps." is absurd and unnecessary. [[User:AlycaZ|AlycaZ]] 13:25, 3 September 2011 (EDT)

::::I say "mow the grass", and I call weeds weeds and weed weed. Different parts of the country have different slang and dialects. Liberal can mean lots of things, and will probably mean something different, it as depends on where you set the medium of the political spectrum at. Infanticide means killing of infants, which a fetus isn't an infant. --[[User:KenN|KenN]] 13:46, 3 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::Regretabbly, this is not correct. A fetus '''is''' an infant. Christianity teaches that life begins at conception -- a fetus is an infant much like how a child is a person. Fetus is also a medical term rather than a general term (such as 'fratricide' vs 'friendly fire'). --[[User:SallyMartinez|<3 Sally]] 01:41, 4 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::: Conservapedia's article on [[Liberal]] clearly states right at the beginning "is someone who rejects logical and biblical standards". If you have a problem with this definition, take it there.
:::::: This project complements Conservapedia; if you want a quick, true definition of a word, come here. If you want more in-depth analysis and insights, read the Conservapedia article. The same way Conservapedia contains all the knowledge an encyclopedia should, this dictionary should contain all the knowledge a dictionary should. --[[User:BradleyS|BradleyS]] 02:00, 4 September 2011 (EDT)

::::::: How come when Ambrose Bierce writes [[The Devil's Dictionary|a dictionary for the devil]] he gets praised, but when we want to write a dictionary for conservatives suddenly it's "conservative redifinition"? --[[User:BradleyS|BradleyS]] 02:16, 4 September 2011 (EDT)

== Maybe a template could be useful here? ==

I don't know much, if anything, about creating templates on Mediawiki, but maybe a template that mimics the popular dictionary sites would make this a bit more organized? Something along the lines of the [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/word output from dictionary.com] (minus the advertisements, of course), perhaps? [[User:KevinDavis|KevinDavis]] [[User talk:KevinDavis|Talk]] 13:41, 3 September 2011 (EDT)
:How about [[User:KevinDavis/dictionary|this]] as a template? [[User:KevinDavis|KevinDavis]] [[User talk:KevinDavis|Talk]] 17:54, 3 September 2011 (EDT)

== May I make some suggestions ==

:[[atheism]] - conscious denial of God's existence, the belief that God does not exist
:[[atheist]] - one who consciously denies that God exists, who believes that God does not exist
:[[agnosticism]] - not having an opinion about whether God exists, not knowing whether God exists
:[[agnostic]] - someone who does not have a definite opinion about whether God exists, who does not claim to know whether God exists
:[[cosmodicy]] - the problem of evil for atheists, the problem of justifying the fundamental goodness of the universe in the face of evil
See the article [[Definition of atheism]] for some justification of why these are correct definitions, and alternate definitions proposed by atheists are an attempt to redefine some of these words.
I didn't want to just go ahead and add them myself, because I wasn't sure if I had the right idea or not. But if others agree, please add them. [[User:Maratrean|Maratrean]] 01:30, 4 September 2011 (EDT)
:I added "agnosticism" and "cosmodicy". I didn't do "atheism" because someone had already done it. For now, have only done the -ism words, not the -ist words. [[User:Maratrean|Maratrean]] 19:09, 9 September 2011 (EDT)

== Dictionary API ==

Are we aiming for a complete dictionary? If so, I could use [http://googlesystem.blogspot.com/2009/12/on-googles-unofficial-dictionary-api.html Google's dictionary API] and the Mediawiki API to write a lot of definitions quickly. I'm still having trouble accessing the site regularly from my home and a local university library, but if that gets cleared up I could probably write something in a few days that could work. What does everyone think? [[User:KevinDavis|KevinDavis]] [[User talk:KevinDavis|Talk]] 11:30, 4 September 2011 (EDT)

== Parody ==

I just wanted ask if this is suppose to be satire or parady ? Personally i wouldn't define bigotry as pointing out the truth or bureaucracy as bloated ineffectiv ase government. Bigotry is a very unchristian,and bureaucracy is a hierarchy used in any corporate structure. As a conservative with a BS in Business Administration they treat you bureaucracy is part of any corporation.--[[User:KenN|KenN]] 22:49, 4 September 2011 (EDT)

: Good comments, resulting in corrections. Please feel free to edit the entry yourself.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:58, 4 September 2011 (EDT)

::Also, a lot of users are adding words like "cow" and "door knob" which don't have any political controversy attached to them. As this project is designed to combat liberal redefinition, rather than just list every word (I assume), perhaps we should make it a requirement that any new entry is made with the 'Liberal false definition' clearly stated. Otherwise troublemakers will sneak any old word in. Thoughts? [[User:Patrick78|Patrick78]] 10:27, 7 September 2011 (EDT)
::: As BradleyS states above, Consevapedia itself has an article on [[doorknob]] and other non-political subjects. Has anyone suggested removing these articles? If Conservapedia, a conservative encyclopedia, has entries on these why shouldn't a conservative dictionary have them? Also, I don't see why a word has to have a [[liberal redefinition]] to be here. Fighting liberal redefinition is just one aspect of this project. But even in this respect, it's useful. Liberals might try to redefine any word in the future, so we should define them here before then. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 22:26, 7 September 2011 (EDT)
::::Because the implication of it being on here with the statement "True conservative definition" implies somebody is trying to create a false definition. When the liberals try and redefine '''Zebra''', you let us know.--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 22:28, 7 September 2011 (EDT)
::::: No, it doesn't. Something can be true without someone else trying to make false definitions.
::::: The creator of the project above seemed to indicate all words that should belong in a dictionary should be in the Conservative Dictionary Project. Perhaps we should ask Andy Schlafly how to proceed? In the meantime, can you restore the non-political entries and cease with the mass deletions of entries? (Unless it's parody, of course). --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 22:39, 7 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::Pretty much each one i removed was never going to experience a definition change unless the language itself started to shift, or was parody. --[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 22:41, 7 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::: Languages shift all the time. Again, I think we should ask Mr. Schlafly the purpose of the project before removing entries. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 23:45, 7 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::And it wouldn't be a liberal redefinition then. IT would be society itself saying we like this word better for X definition, and word C should be something else or dropped. --[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 18:13, 8 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::: They have redefined '''Zebra''' as a member of the Equidae family, as opposed to the horse baramin. --[[User:JefferyA|JefferyA]] 22:43, 7 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::Considering Equidae is also known as horses anyways... this is honestly not a big deal.--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 22:45, 7 September 2011 (EDT)

== A suggestion for proceeding ==

My grandfather is in the process of writing a French-Occitanian dictionary, and what he has been doing is to go through each page in his dictionaries and writing the translations. He's currently at over a thousand pages, so this precise method probably wouldn't be much good here, but perhaps if there exists a political dictionary (preferably not one written by a pundit) this could be used as a basis?--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 14:51, 5 September 2011 (EDT)

== Formatting - please read ==

I think the words should be arranged in a table format, instead of simply a list. Not only will it scale better, but since Mediawiki [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Help:Sorting supports sortable tables], I think we could implement that syntax. Does this sound like a good idea? I'll try to write out the syntax when I have the chance, but please tell me what you think before I do so. [[User:KevinDavis|Kevin Davis]] [[User talk:KevinDavis|Talk]] 09:14, 7 September 2011 (EDT)
:Interesting idea, not sure whether it will actually work in practice or not. Here's a suggestion: why not copy one of the existing pages to a user subpage, e.g. [[User:KevinDavis/Conservative Dictionary Project (A)]], and then you can experiment there... I think, once it becomes something concrete people can see, people will find it easier to make their minds up whether it is a good idea or not. [[User:Maratrean|Maratrean]] 21:22, 9 September 2011 (EDT)
::This is a start; I don't know enough about how Mediawiki formats table to specifically collapse the borders, but how does [[User:KevinDavis/dictionary|this]] look as a first step? Thanks! [[User:KevinDavis|Kevin Davis]] [[User talk:KevinDavis|Talk]] 10:43, 10 September 2011 (EDT)
:::On the first line, change <nowiki>{|border="1" align="center" style="text-align:center;" cellpadding="2"</nowiki> to read <nowiki>{|border="1" align="center" style="text-align:center;" cellpadding="2" class="wikitable"</nowiki>. That should collapse borders, and make it nicer looking. Also, I think we had a date of origin for some words as well? [[User:Maratrean|Maratrean]] 18:30, 10 September 2011 (EDT)

== So... Parody ==

Can we try and keep it out?--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 21:56, 7 September 2011 (EDT)

:: I feel too new to remove peoples entries.... but im pretty sure the old true meaning of teabagger is ummmmm.......--[[User:KenN|KenN]] 23:47, 7 September 2011 (EDT)

== Different types of redefinitions ==

One of the headings is "False liberal redefinition". I am wondering if in some cases "liberal" is the most accurate word to use here. For some words, e.g. those about religious topics, maybe "atheist" is more precise? Liberalism and atheism go together often, but not always - not all liberals are atheists (there are religious liberals), and not all atheists are liberals (e.g. [[S.E. Cupp]]) [[User:Maratrean|Maratrean]] 20:19, 9 September 2011 (EDT)

Talk:Conservative Dictionary Project

2011-09-10T01:22:56Z

ZackMartin: /* Formatting - please read */

== a couple thoughts ==

I love the idea, but i feel like I have a couple helpful ideas to act as guidelines. First people will need to decide if this should be a total dictionary or just key words. Right now we have the conservativemeaning of lawn, is there a liberal meaning ? Second,to use useful as a dictionary, does every word need its mainstream and conservative definition? If a liberal uses a word and someone doesnt know what it means, I doubt the conservative definition will help them understand what the person was saying. Since that is the main benefit in the age of spell checkers of dictionaries.--[[User:KenN|KenN]] 09:10, 3 September 2011 (EDT)

:Lawn is actually the ''perfect'' example of a word that should be on the list. Some people might refer to it as 'grass', which is of course, a slang for an illicit drug. Conservatives are beyond such stupidity, so 'lawn' belongs on the list. You must remember that the process of changing our language is slow and insidious. It begins with trivial, laughable things and ends up with Christians in death camps. Putting it another way, if you spot a weed in your garden you pull it out rather than let it fester and spread. (perhaps "weed" can also be on there for the same reason- can anyone suggest an alternative word?) --[[User:SallyMartinez|<3 Sally]] 09:21, 3 September 2011 (EDT)

:: Seems like you are suggesting more of a conservative Thesaurus then a Dictionary. A dictionary is a book used to find the spellings and meanings of words. A Thesaurus is useful for finding the best words. I'm thinking a conservative thesaurus would actually be a great idea. --[[User:KenN|KenN]] 13:12, 3 September 2011 (EDT)

::: This seems to be an issue we have to address soon. I notice there are entries for deltiology, chair, door, and doorknob. Are we attempting to create a complete dictionary, or just create a lexicon of words that are relevant to conservatives, or have proper conservative meanings. My suggestion would be for the latter, there are plenty of websites that can define a chair as well as conservapedia can, so it doesn't seem like the best use of our time. My suggestion would be, if you can't come up with a particular conservative definition that differs from the false liberal definition, preferably filling out both the true conservative and false liberal sections, it isn't for this project. I am as suspicious of liberals as anyone, but they probably can define a chair. Whether this is the ultimate decision or not, I do think we should figure this out before the project gets too far along.--[[User:GrahamB|GrahamB]] 16:12, 4 September 2011 (EDT)

:::: While one word may be safe from [[liberal redefinition]] today, it doesn't mean it's safe from [[liberal redefinition]] tomorrow. This project is a safehaven for words against liberals and their [[secularized language]]. Conservapedia contains many articles that aren't political. We have articles on [[door]], [[chair]], and [[doorknob]]. What Conservapedia is to encylopedias this dictionary is to dictionaries. Instead of trying to limit people's [[freedom of speech]], why don't you contribute to the project? --[[User:BradleyS|BradleyS]] 16:26, 4 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::My apologies for giving offense, I certainly wasn't trying to limit anyone's freedom of speech. I am OK with whichever direction this project ends up taking, and I have and will continue to contribute to it. If this is the direction it goes on, I am fully on board, I was just raising the question. --[[User:GrahamB|GrahamB]] 16:32, 4 September 2011 (EDT)

== Conservative redefinition. ==

I agree with the premise that liberals have changed the meaning of many important words; freedom and equality being two of the most important. But if we're talking about liberal redefinition then it's important to avoid conservative redefinition. There needs to be serious and proper guidelines for this dictionary BEFORE we start adding words or it's just going to be a massive mess of peoples' opinions, and never a credible resource. Take, for example, "liberal." We're defined this as, "Somone who rejects logic and supports an overbearing government and anti-Christian policies," and coming from the 14th century. Liberal has meant many things through its time, and if we look at the Gladstonian Liberalism, it was economically very right-wing. But we must acknowledge that the word has changed. By acknowledging that the word's meaning has changed over time and simply putting an overbearingly conservative definition which doesn't even address their beliefs properly, we're not making a serious resource. And, come on, cheap comments like, "a liberal is someone who rejects logic," is just conservative redefinition, and it makes us just as bad as anyone who we accuse of liberal definition. We should always hold ourselves to the standards who hold others. And saying, "But the liberals do it," isn't an excuse. [[User:AlycaZ|AlycaZ]] 10:28, 3 September 2011 (EDT)

:: I agree that this shouldn't become a conservative redefinition, which is kind of an oxymoron. If we are to take back words liberals have changed the meanings of, we have to use the original conservative meaning, not some new meaning. --[[User:KenN|KenN]] 13:12, 3 September 2011 (EDT)

:::Well, we're already doing it. "Liberal" is the classic example. We can all agree that liberals like big government, are anti-Christian and reject logic. But has that ever been the definition of liberal? We might all agree that Muslims reject Christianity, and as such, are going to hell. But we do not define Muslim as someone who is going to hell. The idea posted above about 'lawn' is textbook revisionism. The idea that, because people have come to use 'grass' as a term for drugs, it is no longer a conservative thing to do to consider your 'lawn' to be 'grass' is preposterous. If grass ORIGINALLY meant that, and now means something else, then claiming back the true meaning is not to call it something else. Also, when talking about using the word lawn, to say, " remember that the process of changing our language is slow and insidious. It begins with trivial, laughable things and ends up with Christians in death camps." is absurd and unnecessary. [[User:AlycaZ|AlycaZ]] 13:25, 3 September 2011 (EDT)

::::I say "mow the grass", and I call weeds weeds and weed weed. Different parts of the country have different slang and dialects. Liberal can mean lots of things, and will probably mean something different, it as depends on where you set the medium of the political spectrum at. Infanticide means killing of infants, which a fetus isn't an infant. --[[User:KenN|KenN]] 13:46, 3 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::Regretabbly, this is not correct. A fetus '''is''' an infant. Christianity teaches that life begins at conception -- a fetus is an infant much like how a child is a person. Fetus is also a medical term rather than a general term (such as 'fratricide' vs 'friendly fire'). --[[User:SallyMartinez|<3 Sally]] 01:41, 4 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::: Conservapedia's article on [[Liberal]] clearly states right at the beginning "is someone who rejects logical and biblical standards". If you have a problem with this definition, take it there.
:::::: This project complements Conservapedia; if you want a quick, true definition of a word, come here. If you want more in-depth analysis and insights, read the Conservapedia article. The same way Conservapedia contains all the knowledge an encyclopedia should, this dictionary should contain all the knowledge a dictionary should. --[[User:BradleyS|BradleyS]] 02:00, 4 September 2011 (EDT)

::::::: How come when Ambrose Bierce writes [[The Devil's Dictionary|a dictionary for the devil]] he gets praised, but when we want to write a dictionary for conservatives suddenly it's "conservative redifinition"? --[[User:BradleyS|BradleyS]] 02:16, 4 September 2011 (EDT)

== Maybe a template could be useful here? ==

I don't know much, if anything, about creating templates on Mediawiki, but maybe a template that mimics the popular dictionary sites would make this a bit more organized? Something along the lines of the [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/word output from dictionary.com] (minus the advertisements, of course), perhaps? [[User:KevinDavis|KevinDavis]] [[User talk:KevinDavis|Talk]] 13:41, 3 September 2011 (EDT)
:How about [[User:KevinDavis/dictionary|this]] as a template? [[User:KevinDavis|KevinDavis]] [[User talk:KevinDavis|Talk]] 17:54, 3 September 2011 (EDT)

== May I make some suggestions ==

:[[atheism]] - conscious denial of God's existence, the belief that God does not exist
:[[atheist]] - one who consciously denies that God exists, who believes that God does not exist
:[[agnosticism]] - not having an opinion about whether God exists, not knowing whether God exists
:[[agnostic]] - someone who does not have a definite opinion about whether God exists, who does not claim to know whether God exists
:[[cosmodicy]] - the problem of evil for atheists, the problem of justifying the fundamental goodness of the universe in the face of evil
See the article [[Definition of atheism]] for some justification of why these are correct definitions, and alternate definitions proposed by atheists are an attempt to redefine some of these words.
I didn't want to just go ahead and add them myself, because I wasn't sure if I had the right idea or not. But if others agree, please add them. [[User:Maratrean|Maratrean]] 01:30, 4 September 2011 (EDT)
:I added "agnosticism" and "cosmodicy". I didn't do "atheism" because someone had already done it. For now, have only done the -ism words, not the -ist words. [[User:Maratrean|Maratrean]] 19:09, 9 September 2011 (EDT)

== Dictionary API ==

Are we aiming for a complete dictionary? If so, I could use [http://googlesystem.blogspot.com/2009/12/on-googles-unofficial-dictionary-api.html Google's dictionary API] and the Mediawiki API to write a lot of definitions quickly. I'm still having trouble accessing the site regularly from my home and a local university library, but if that gets cleared up I could probably write something in a few days that could work. What does everyone think? [[User:KevinDavis|KevinDavis]] [[User talk:KevinDavis|Talk]] 11:30, 4 September 2011 (EDT)

== Parody ==

I just wanted ask if this is suppose to be satire or parady ? Personally i wouldn't define bigotry as pointing out the truth or bureaucracy as bloated ineffectiv ase government. Bigotry is a very unchristian,and bureaucracy is a hierarchy used in any corporate structure. As a conservative with a BS in Business Administration they treat you bureaucracy is part of any corporation.--[[User:KenN|KenN]] 22:49, 4 September 2011 (EDT)

: Good comments, resulting in corrections. Please feel free to edit the entry yourself.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:58, 4 September 2011 (EDT)

::Also, a lot of users are adding words like "cow" and "door knob" which don't have any political controversy attached to them. As this project is designed to combat liberal redefinition, rather than just list every word (I assume), perhaps we should make it a requirement that any new entry is made with the 'Liberal false definition' clearly stated. Otherwise troublemakers will sneak any old word in. Thoughts? [[User:Patrick78|Patrick78]] 10:27, 7 September 2011 (EDT)
::: As BradleyS states above, Consevapedia itself has an article on [[doorknob]] and other non-political subjects. Has anyone suggested removing these articles? If Conservapedia, a conservative encyclopedia, has entries on these why shouldn't a conservative dictionary have them? Also, I don't see why a word has to have a [[liberal redefinition]] to be here. Fighting liberal redefinition is just one aspect of this project. But even in this respect, it's useful. Liberals might try to redefine any word in the future, so we should define them here before then. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 22:26, 7 September 2011 (EDT)
::::Because the implication of it being on here with the statement "True conservative definition" implies somebody is trying to create a false definition. When the liberals try and redefine '''Zebra''', you let us know.--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 22:28, 7 September 2011 (EDT)
::::: No, it doesn't. Something can be true without someone else trying to make false definitions.
::::: The creator of the project above seemed to indicate all words that should belong in a dictionary should be in the Conservative Dictionary Project. Perhaps we should ask Andy Schlafly how to proceed? In the meantime, can you restore the non-political entries and cease with the mass deletions of entries? (Unless it's parody, of course). --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 22:39, 7 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::Pretty much each one i removed was never going to experience a definition change unless the language itself started to shift, or was parody. --[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 22:41, 7 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::: Languages shift all the time. Again, I think we should ask Mr. Schlafly the purpose of the project before removing entries. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 23:45, 7 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::And it wouldn't be a liberal redefinition then. IT would be society itself saying we like this word better for X definition, and word C should be something else or dropped. --[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 18:13, 8 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::: They have redefined '''Zebra''' as a member of the Equidae family, as opposed to the horse baramin. --[[User:JefferyA|JefferyA]] 22:43, 7 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::Considering Equidae is also known as horses anyways... this is honestly not a big deal.--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 22:45, 7 September 2011 (EDT)

== A suggestion for proceeding ==

My grandfather is in the process of writing a French-Occitanian dictionary, and what he has been doing is to go through each page in his dictionaries and writing the translations. He's currently at over a thousand pages, so this precise method probably wouldn't be much good here, but perhaps if there exists a political dictionary (preferably not one written by a pundit) this could be used as a basis?--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 14:51, 5 September 2011 (EDT)

== Formatting - please read ==

I think the words should be arranged in a table format, instead of simply a list. Not only will it scale better, but since Mediawiki [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Help:Sorting supports sortable tables], I think we could implement that syntax. Does this sound like a good idea? I'll try to write out the syntax when I have the chance, but please tell me what you think before I do so. [[User:KevinDavis|Kevin Davis]] [[User talk:KevinDavis|Talk]] 09:14, 7 September 2011 (EDT)
:Interesting idea, not sure whether it will actually work in practice or not. Here's a suggestion: why not copy one of the existing pages to a user subpage, e.g. [[User:KevinDavis/Conservative Dictionary Project (A)]], and then you can experiment there... I think, once it becomes something concrete people can see, people will find it easier to make their minds up whether it is a good idea or not. [[User:Maratrean|Maratrean]] 21:22, 9 September 2011 (EDT)

== So... Parody ==

Can we try and keep it out?--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 21:56, 7 September 2011 (EDT)

:: I feel too new to remove peoples entries.... but im pretty sure the old true meaning of teabagger is ummmmm.......--[[User:KenN|KenN]] 23:47, 7 September 2011 (EDT)

== Different types of redefinitions ==

One of the headings is "False liberal redefinition". I am wondering if in some cases "liberal" is the most accurate word to use here. For some words, e.g. those about religious topics, maybe "atheist" is more precise? Liberalism and atheism go together often, but not always - not all liberals are atheists (there are religious liberals), and not all atheists are liberals (e.g. [[S.E. Cupp]]) [[User:Maratrean|Maratrean]] 20:19, 9 September 2011 (EDT)

Talk:Conservative Dictionary Project (C)

2011-09-10T00:20:13Z

ZackMartin:

BrentH, would you mind explaining what I did wrong, so I can learn? Was it the choice of word that was inappropriate? Or the formatting of the entry? If the word itself is OK, just the formatting is wrong, maybe you could fix it up for me so I can see how to do it? [[User:Maratrean|Maratrean]] 19:34, 9 September 2011 (EDT)
:I'd assume it was because it didnt fit the standard format. Standard format seems to be
*Word X
*Maybe Date of first known use
*Real/Original/Conservative/Blah Definition
*Liberal Redefinition
--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 20:13, 9 September 2011 (EDT)
:Thanks for the help SeanS, I added it back in a more standard format. I'm not sure if "Liberal Redefinition" is always the right term to use, but rather than address that here, I've raised the issue on [[Talk:Conservative Dictionary Project]] instead. [[User:Maratrean|Maratrean]] 20:20, 9 September 2011 (EDT)

Talk:Conservative Dictionary Project

2011-09-10T00:19:03Z

ZackMartin: /* Different types of redefinitions */ new section

== a couple thoughts ==

I love the idea, but i feel like I have a couple helpful ideas to act as guidelines. First people will need to decide if this should be a total dictionary or just key words. Right now we have the conservativemeaning of lawn, is there a liberal meaning ? Second,to use useful as a dictionary, does every word need its mainstream and conservative definition? If a liberal uses a word and someone doesnt know what it means, I doubt the conservative definition will help them understand what the person was saying. Since that is the main benefit in the age of spell checkers of dictionaries.--[[User:KenN|KenN]] 09:10, 3 September 2011 (EDT)

:Lawn is actually the ''perfect'' example of a word that should be on the list. Some people might refer to it as 'grass', which is of course, a slang for an illicit drug. Conservatives are beyond such stupidity, so 'lawn' belongs on the list. You must remember that the process of changing our language is slow and insidious. It begins with trivial, laughable things and ends up with Christians in death camps. Putting it another way, if you spot a weed in your garden you pull it out rather than let it fester and spread. (perhaps "weed" can also be on there for the same reason- can anyone suggest an alternative word?) --[[User:SallyMartinez|<3 Sally]] 09:21, 3 September 2011 (EDT)

:: Seems like you are suggesting more of a conservative Thesaurus then a Dictionary. A dictionary is a book used to find the spellings and meanings of words. A Thesaurus is useful for finding the best words. I'm thinking a conservative thesaurus would actually be a great idea. --[[User:KenN|KenN]] 13:12, 3 September 2011 (EDT)

::: This seems to be an issue we have to address soon. I notice there are entries for deltiology, chair, door, and doorknob. Are we attempting to create a complete dictionary, or just create a lexicon of words that are relevant to conservatives, or have proper conservative meanings. My suggestion would be for the latter, there are plenty of websites that can define a chair as well as conservapedia can, so it doesn't seem like the best use of our time. My suggestion would be, if you can't come up with a particular conservative definition that differs from the false liberal definition, preferably filling out both the true conservative and false liberal sections, it isn't for this project. I am as suspicious of liberals as anyone, but they probably can define a chair. Whether this is the ultimate decision or not, I do think we should figure this out before the project gets too far along.--[[User:GrahamB|GrahamB]] 16:12, 4 September 2011 (EDT)

:::: While one word may be safe from [[liberal redefinition]] today, it doesn't mean it's safe from [[liberal redefinition]] tomorrow. This project is a safehaven for words against liberals and their [[secularized language]]. Conservapedia contains many articles that aren't political. We have articles on [[door]], [[chair]], and [[doorknob]]. What Conservapedia is to encylopedias this dictionary is to dictionaries. Instead of trying to limit people's [[freedom of speech]], why don't you contribute to the project? --[[User:BradleyS|BradleyS]] 16:26, 4 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::My apologies for giving offense, I certainly wasn't trying to limit anyone's freedom of speech. I am OK with whichever direction this project ends up taking, and I have and will continue to contribute to it. If this is the direction it goes on, I am fully on board, I was just raising the question. --[[User:GrahamB|GrahamB]] 16:32, 4 September 2011 (EDT)

== Conservative redefinition. ==

I agree with the premise that liberals have changed the meaning of many important words; freedom and equality being two of the most important. But if we're talking about liberal redefinition then it's important to avoid conservative redefinition. There needs to be serious and proper guidelines for this dictionary BEFORE we start adding words or it's just going to be a massive mess of peoples' opinions, and never a credible resource. Take, for example, "liberal." We're defined this as, "Somone who rejects logic and supports an overbearing government and anti-Christian policies," and coming from the 14th century. Liberal has meant many things through its time, and if we look at the Gladstonian Liberalism, it was economically very right-wing. But we must acknowledge that the word has changed. By acknowledging that the word's meaning has changed over time and simply putting an overbearingly conservative definition which doesn't even address their beliefs properly, we're not making a serious resource. And, come on, cheap comments like, "a liberal is someone who rejects logic," is just conservative redefinition, and it makes us just as bad as anyone who we accuse of liberal definition. We should always hold ourselves to the standards who hold others. And saying, "But the liberals do it," isn't an excuse. [[User:AlycaZ|AlycaZ]] 10:28, 3 September 2011 (EDT)

:: I agree that this shouldn't become a conservative redefinition, which is kind of an oxymoron. If we are to take back words liberals have changed the meanings of, we have to use the original conservative meaning, not some new meaning. --[[User:KenN|KenN]] 13:12, 3 September 2011 (EDT)

:::Well, we're already doing it. "Liberal" is the classic example. We can all agree that liberals like big government, are anti-Christian and reject logic. But has that ever been the definition of liberal? We might all agree that Muslims reject Christianity, and as such, are going to hell. But we do not define Muslim as someone who is going to hell. The idea posted above about 'lawn' is textbook revisionism. The idea that, because people have come to use 'grass' as a term for drugs, it is no longer a conservative thing to do to consider your 'lawn' to be 'grass' is preposterous. If grass ORIGINALLY meant that, and now means something else, then claiming back the true meaning is not to call it something else. Also, when talking about using the word lawn, to say, " remember that the process of changing our language is slow and insidious. It begins with trivial, laughable things and ends up with Christians in death camps." is absurd and unnecessary. [[User:AlycaZ|AlycaZ]] 13:25, 3 September 2011 (EDT)

::::I say "mow the grass", and I call weeds weeds and weed weed. Different parts of the country have different slang and dialects. Liberal can mean lots of things, and will probably mean something different, it as depends on where you set the medium of the political spectrum at. Infanticide means killing of infants, which a fetus isn't an infant. --[[User:KenN|KenN]] 13:46, 3 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::Regretabbly, this is not correct. A fetus '''is''' an infant. Christianity teaches that life begins at conception -- a fetus is an infant much like how a child is a person. Fetus is also a medical term rather than a general term (such as 'fratricide' vs 'friendly fire'). --[[User:SallyMartinez|<3 Sally]] 01:41, 4 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::: Conservapedia's article on [[Liberal]] clearly states right at the beginning "is someone who rejects logical and biblical standards". If you have a problem with this definition, take it there.
:::::: This project complements Conservapedia; if you want a quick, true definition of a word, come here. If you want more in-depth analysis and insights, read the Conservapedia article. The same way Conservapedia contains all the knowledge an encyclopedia should, this dictionary should contain all the knowledge a dictionary should. --[[User:BradleyS|BradleyS]] 02:00, 4 September 2011 (EDT)

::::::: How come when Ambrose Bierce writes [[The Devil's Dictionary|a dictionary for the devil]] he gets praised, but when we want to write a dictionary for conservatives suddenly it's "conservative redifinition"? --[[User:BradleyS|BradleyS]] 02:16, 4 September 2011 (EDT)

== Maybe a template could be useful here? ==

I don't know much, if anything, about creating templates on Mediawiki, but maybe a template that mimics the popular dictionary sites would make this a bit more organized? Something along the lines of the [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/word output from dictionary.com] (minus the advertisements, of course), perhaps? [[User:KevinDavis|KevinDavis]] [[User talk:KevinDavis|Talk]] 13:41, 3 September 2011 (EDT)
:How about [[User:KevinDavis/dictionary|this]] as a template? [[User:KevinDavis|KevinDavis]] [[User talk:KevinDavis|Talk]] 17:54, 3 September 2011 (EDT)

== May I make some suggestions ==

:[[atheism]] - conscious denial of God's existence, the belief that God does not exist
:[[atheist]] - one who consciously denies that God exists, who believes that God does not exist
:[[agnosticism]] - not having an opinion about whether God exists, not knowing whether God exists
:[[agnostic]] - someone who does not have a definite opinion about whether God exists, who does not claim to know whether God exists
:[[cosmodicy]] - the problem of evil for atheists, the problem of justifying the fundamental goodness of the universe in the face of evil
See the article [[Definition of atheism]] for some justification of why these are correct definitions, and alternate definitions proposed by atheists are an attempt to redefine some of these words.
I didn't want to just go ahead and add them myself, because I wasn't sure if I had the right idea or not. But if others agree, please add them. [[User:Maratrean|Maratrean]] 01:30, 4 September 2011 (EDT)
:I added "agnosticism" and "cosmodicy". I didn't do "atheism" because someone had already done it. For now, have only done the -ism words, not the -ist words. [[User:Maratrean|Maratrean]] 19:09, 9 September 2011 (EDT)

== Dictionary API ==

Are we aiming for a complete dictionary? If so, I could use [http://googlesystem.blogspot.com/2009/12/on-googles-unofficial-dictionary-api.html Google's dictionary API] and the Mediawiki API to write a lot of definitions quickly. I'm still having trouble accessing the site regularly from my home and a local university library, but if that gets cleared up I could probably write something in a few days that could work. What does everyone think? [[User:KevinDavis|KevinDavis]] [[User talk:KevinDavis|Talk]] 11:30, 4 September 2011 (EDT)

== Parody ==

I just wanted ask if this is suppose to be satire or parady ? Personally i wouldn't define bigotry as pointing out the truth or bureaucracy as bloated ineffectiv ase government. Bigotry is a very unchristian,and bureaucracy is a hierarchy used in any corporate structure. As a conservative with a BS in Business Administration they treat you bureaucracy is part of any corporation.--[[User:KenN|KenN]] 22:49, 4 September 2011 (EDT)

: Good comments, resulting in corrections. Please feel free to edit the entry yourself.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:58, 4 September 2011 (EDT)

::Also, a lot of users are adding words like "cow" and "door knob" which don't have any political controversy attached to them. As this project is designed to combat liberal redefinition, rather than just list every word (I assume), perhaps we should make it a requirement that any new entry is made with the 'Liberal false definition' clearly stated. Otherwise troublemakers will sneak any old word in. Thoughts? [[User:Patrick78|Patrick78]] 10:27, 7 September 2011 (EDT)
::: As BradleyS states above, Consevapedia itself has an article on [[doorknob]] and other non-political subjects. Has anyone suggested removing these articles? If Conservapedia, a conservative encyclopedia, has entries on these why shouldn't a conservative dictionary have them? Also, I don't see why a word has to have a [[liberal redefinition]] to be here. Fighting liberal redefinition is just one aspect of this project. But even in this respect, it's useful. Liberals might try to redefine any word in the future, so we should define them here before then. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 22:26, 7 September 2011 (EDT)
::::Because the implication of it being on here with the statement "True conservative definition" implies somebody is trying to create a false definition. When the liberals try and redefine '''Zebra''', you let us know.--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 22:28, 7 September 2011 (EDT)
::::: No, it doesn't. Something can be true without someone else trying to make false definitions.
::::: The creator of the project above seemed to indicate all words that should belong in a dictionary should be in the Conservative Dictionary Project. Perhaps we should ask Andy Schlafly how to proceed? In the meantime, can you restore the non-political entries and cease with the mass deletions of entries? (Unless it's parody, of course). --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 22:39, 7 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::Pretty much each one i removed was never going to experience a definition change unless the language itself started to shift, or was parody. --[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 22:41, 7 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::: Languages shift all the time. Again, I think we should ask Mr. Schlafly the purpose of the project before removing entries. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 23:45, 7 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::And it wouldn't be a liberal redefinition then. IT would be society itself saying we like this word better for X definition, and word C should be something else or dropped. --[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 18:13, 8 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::: They have redefined '''Zebra''' as a member of the Equidae family, as opposed to the horse baramin. --[[User:JefferyA|JefferyA]] 22:43, 7 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::Considering Equidae is also known as horses anyways... this is honestly not a big deal.--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 22:45, 7 September 2011 (EDT)

== A suggestion for proceeding ==

My grandfather is in the process of writing a French-Occitanian dictionary, and what he has been doing is to go through each page in his dictionaries and writing the translations. He's currently at over a thousand pages, so this precise method probably wouldn't be much good here, but perhaps if there exists a political dictionary (preferably not one written by a pundit) this could be used as a basis?--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 14:51, 5 September 2011 (EDT)

== Formatting - please read ==

I think the words should be arranged in a table format, instead of simply a list. Not only will it scale better, but since Mediawiki [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Help:Sorting supports sortable tables], I think we could implement that syntax. Does this sound like a good idea? I'll try to write out the syntax when I have the chance, but please tell me what you think before I do so. [[User:KevinDavis|Kevin Davis]] [[User talk:KevinDavis|Talk]] 09:14, 7 September 2011 (EDT)

== So... Parody ==

Can we try and keep it out?--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 21:56, 7 September 2011 (EDT)

:: I feel too new to remove peoples entries.... but im pretty sure the old true meaning of teabagger is ummmmm.......--[[User:KenN|KenN]] 23:47, 7 September 2011 (EDT)

== Different types of redefinitions ==

One of the headings is "False liberal redefinition". I am wondering if in some cases "liberal" is the most accurate word to use here. For some words, e.g. those about religious topics, maybe "atheist" is more precise? Liberalism and atheism go together often, but not always - not all liberals are atheists (there are religious liberals), and not all atheists are liberals (e.g. [[S.E. Cupp]]) [[User:Maratrean|Maratrean]] 20:19, 9 September 2011 (EDT)

Conservative Dictionary Project (C)

2011-09-10T00:15:26Z

ZackMartin: Is this better?

:'''[[Campaign finance reform]]'''
:''True conservative meaning'' - A method to curtail the free speech of corporations.
:''False liberal redefinition'' - A way of limiting the valid effect of money on politics.

:'''[[capitalism]]'''
:Date: 1850-1855
:''True conservative meaning'' - the best economic system known to man; involves the [[free market]], private ownership and personal responsibility
:''False liberal redefinition'' - greedy system where the rich flourish

:'''[[car]]'''
:''True conservative meaning'' - A highly efficient method of transportation using an internal combustion engine for power.
: ''False liberal redefinition'' - A dangerous device that harms the "environment."
:'''[[ceiling]]'''
:''True conservative meaning'' - the top of a room
:''False liberal redefinition'' - a barrier in business that minorities or women cannot rise above

:'''[[censorship]]'''
:''True conservative meaning'' - Banning certain information based on ideology, a liberal tactic.
:''False liberal redefinition'' - A method of not offending people.

:'''centrist'''
:''True conservative meaning'' - a word misleadingly used to describe a [[liberal]] who may not support every single aspect of the liberal philosophy
:''False liberal redefinition'' - someone whose personal politics falls in between [[conservative]] and [[liberal]]

:'''[[charity]]'''
:Date: 13th century
:''True conservative meaning'' - voluntarily helping out others
:''False liberal redefinition'' - forcibly helping the less fortunate through oppressive taxes

:'''Christian'''
:''True conservative meaning'' - A secularized term preferred by atheists to describe the Followers of Christ
:''False liberal redefinition'' - One who believes in Christianity

:'''[[Christianity]]'''
:''True conservative meaning'' - The true religion.
:''False liberal redefinition'' - One religion among others.

:'''claptrap'''
:Date: 1799
:''True Conservative meaning'' - liberal nonsense

:'''[[class]]'''
:Date: 1850-1855
:''True conservative meaning'' - A method of grouping society into sets based on employment.
:''False liberal redefinition'' - Different groups within society who are in opposition to one another. See [[Class warefare]].

:'''[[Climate change]]'''
:''True conservative meaning'' - Normal seasonal variation in temperature and weather.
:''False liberal redefinition'' - A conspiracy that claims humans are somehow raising the temperature of the entire planet. This is used as a pretext to raise taxes and impose burdensome regulations on small business.

:'''[[Compassion]]'''
:''True conservative meaning'' - Freeing people by making society more capitalist.
:''False liberal redefinition'' - Caring about those less fortunate than oneself and using the state to promote some basic protections against extreme poverty and destitution.

:'''[[communism]]'''
:Date: 1840
:''True conservative meaning'' - a liberal and atheistic system based on state ownership of the economy and murder
:''False liberal redefinition'' - democracy

:'''community'''
:Date: 14th century
:''True conservative meaning'' - a group of people; society
:''False liberal redefinition'' - the government

:'''[[Conservapedia]]'''
:Date: 2006
:''True conservative meaning'' - The Trustworthy Encyclopedia.
:''False liberal redefinition'' - an American conservative Christian biased encyclopedia.

:'''[[conservative]]'''
:Date: 14th century
:''True conservative meaning'' - a good person who believes in personal responsibility, free markets and good Christian values.
:''False liberal redefinition'' - an evil person

:'''[[constitution]]'''
:''True conservative meaning'' - a fundamental law that defines a system of government and provides enforceable limits on the power of that government
:''False liberal redefinition'' - an excuse for [[judicial activism|activist judges]] to undo [[democracy]]

:'''[[corporation]]'''
:''True conservative meaning'' - A job creator and legal person entitled to all the constitutional rights afforded human Americans, including freedom of speech in the form of money donated to political candidates
:''False liberal redefinition'' - An evil, oppressive entity with limitless power to sway elections and write laws for their own benefit at the expense of the people. (Liberals like to deny that corporations are, in fact, people.)

:'''[[cosmodicy]]'''
:''True conservative meaning'' - the problem atheists have of justifying the fundamental goodness of the universe in the face of evil
:''False liberal redefinition'' - no such problem exists

:'''[[creationism]]'''
:''True conservative meaning'' - The correct scientific position, that God created the universe and humanity in six days.
:''False liberal redefinition'' - A foolish ideology.

:'''[[cyber-terrorism]]'''
:''True conservative meaning'' - Attacking a website with an ideology you disprove of. Frequently used by liberals.
:''False liberal redefinition'' - Harmless fun.

{{ConservativeDictionary}}

Talk:Conservative Dictionary Project (C)

2011-09-09T23:34:42Z

ZackMartin: Created page with "BrentH, would you mind explaining what I did wrong, so I can learn? Was it the choice of word that was inappropriate? Or the formatting of the entry? If the word itself is OK, ju..."

Talk:Conservative Dictionary Project

2011-09-09T23:09:11Z

ZackMartin: /* May I make some suggestions */

== a couple thoughts ==

I love the idea, but i feel like I have a couple helpful ideas to act as guidelines. First people will need to decide if this should be a total dictionary or just key words. Right now we have the conservativemeaning of lawn, is there a liberal meaning ? Second,to use useful as a dictionary, does every word need its mainstream and conservative definition? If a liberal uses a word and someone doesnt know what it means, I doubt the conservative definition will help them understand what the person was saying. Since that is the main benefit in the age of spell checkers of dictionaries.--[[User:KenN|KenN]] 09:10, 3 September 2011 (EDT)

:Lawn is actually the ''perfect'' example of a word that should be on the list. Some people might refer to it as 'grass', which is of course, a slang for an illicit drug. Conservatives are beyond such stupidity, so 'lawn' belongs on the list. You must remember that the process of changing our language is slow and insidious. It begins with trivial, laughable things and ends up with Christians in death camps. Putting it another way, if you spot a weed in your garden you pull it out rather than let it fester and spread. (perhaps "weed" can also be on there for the same reason- can anyone suggest an alternative word?) --[[User:SallyMartinez|<3 Sally]] 09:21, 3 September 2011 (EDT)

:: Seems like you are suggesting more of a conservative Thesaurus then a Dictionary. A dictionary is a book used to find the spellings and meanings of words. A Thesaurus is useful for finding the best words. I'm thinking a conservative thesaurus would actually be a great idea. --[[User:KenN|KenN]] 13:12, 3 September 2011 (EDT)

::: This seems to be an issue we have to address soon. I notice there are entries for deltiology, chair, door, and doorknob. Are we attempting to create a complete dictionary, or just create a lexicon of words that are relevant to conservatives, or have proper conservative meanings. My suggestion would be for the latter, there are plenty of websites that can define a chair as well as conservapedia can, so it doesn't seem like the best use of our time. My suggestion would be, if you can't come up with a particular conservative definition that differs from the false liberal definition, preferably filling out both the true conservative and false liberal sections, it isn't for this project. I am as suspicious of liberals as anyone, but they probably can define a chair. Whether this is the ultimate decision or not, I do think we should figure this out before the project gets too far along.--[[User:GrahamB|GrahamB]] 16:12, 4 September 2011 (EDT)

:::: While one word may be safe from [[liberal redefinition]] today, it doesn't mean it's safe from [[liberal redefinition]] tomorrow. This project is a safehaven for words against liberals and their [[secularized language]]. Conservapedia contains many articles that aren't political. We have articles on [[door]], [[chair]], and [[doorknob]]. What Conservapedia is to encylopedias this dictionary is to dictionaries. Instead of trying to limit people's [[freedom of speech]], why don't you contribute to the project? --[[User:BradleyS|BradleyS]] 16:26, 4 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::My apologies for giving offense, I certainly wasn't trying to limit anyone's freedom of speech. I am OK with whichever direction this project ends up taking, and I have and will continue to contribute to it. If this is the direction it goes on, I am fully on board, I was just raising the question. --[[User:GrahamB|GrahamB]] 16:32, 4 September 2011 (EDT)

== Conservative redefinition. ==

I agree with the premise that liberals have changed the meaning of many important words; freedom and equality being two of the most important. But if we're talking about liberal redefinition then it's important to avoid conservative redefinition. There needs to be serious and proper guidelines for this dictionary BEFORE we start adding words or it's just going to be a massive mess of peoples' opinions, and never a credible resource. Take, for example, "liberal." We're defined this as, "Somone who rejects logic and supports an overbearing government and anti-Christian policies," and coming from the 14th century. Liberal has meant many things through its time, and if we look at the Gladstonian Liberalism, it was economically very right-wing. But we must acknowledge that the word has changed. By acknowledging that the word's meaning has changed over time and simply putting an overbearingly conservative definition which doesn't even address their beliefs properly, we're not making a serious resource. And, come on, cheap comments like, "a liberal is someone who rejects logic," is just conservative redefinition, and it makes us just as bad as anyone who we accuse of liberal definition. We should always hold ourselves to the standards who hold others. And saying, "But the liberals do it," isn't an excuse. [[User:AlycaZ|AlycaZ]] 10:28, 3 September 2011 (EDT)

:: I agree that this shouldn't become a conservative redefinition, which is kind of an oxymoron. If we are to take back words liberals have changed the meanings of, we have to use the original conservative meaning, not some new meaning. --[[User:KenN|KenN]] 13:12, 3 September 2011 (EDT)

:::Well, we're already doing it. "Liberal" is the classic example. We can all agree that liberals like big government, are anti-Christian and reject logic. But has that ever been the definition of liberal? We might all agree that Muslims reject Christianity, and as such, are going to hell. But we do not define Muslim as someone who is going to hell. The idea posted above about 'lawn' is textbook revisionism. The idea that, because people have come to use 'grass' as a term for drugs, it is no longer a conservative thing to do to consider your 'lawn' to be 'grass' is preposterous. If grass ORIGINALLY meant that, and now means something else, then claiming back the true meaning is not to call it something else. Also, when talking about using the word lawn, to say, " remember that the process of changing our language is slow and insidious. It begins with trivial, laughable things and ends up with Christians in death camps." is absurd and unnecessary. [[User:AlycaZ|AlycaZ]] 13:25, 3 September 2011 (EDT)

::::I say "mow the grass", and I call weeds weeds and weed weed. Different parts of the country have different slang and dialects. Liberal can mean lots of things, and will probably mean something different, it as depends on where you set the medium of the political spectrum at. Infanticide means killing of infants, which a fetus isn't an infant. --[[User:KenN|KenN]] 13:46, 3 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::Regretabbly, this is not correct. A fetus '''is''' an infant. Christianity teaches that life begins at conception -- a fetus is an infant much like how a child is a person. Fetus is also a medical term rather than a general term (such as 'fratricide' vs 'friendly fire'). --[[User:SallyMartinez|<3 Sally]] 01:41, 4 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::: Conservapedia's article on [[Liberal]] clearly states right at the beginning "is someone who rejects logical and biblical standards". If you have a problem with this definition, take it there.
:::::: This project complements Conservapedia; if you want a quick, true definition of a word, come here. If you want more in-depth analysis and insights, read the Conservapedia article. The same way Conservapedia contains all the knowledge an encyclopedia should, this dictionary should contain all the knowledge a dictionary should. --[[User:BradleyS|BradleyS]] 02:00, 4 September 2011 (EDT)

::::::: How come when Ambrose Bierce writes [[The Devil's Dictionary|a dictionary for the devil]] he gets praised, but when we want to write a dictionary for conservatives suddenly it's "conservative redifinition"? --[[User:BradleyS|BradleyS]] 02:16, 4 September 2011 (EDT)

== Maybe a template could be useful here? ==

I don't know much, if anything, about creating templates on Mediawiki, but maybe a template that mimics the popular dictionary sites would make this a bit more organized? Something along the lines of the [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/word output from dictionary.com] (minus the advertisements, of course), perhaps? [[User:KevinDavis|KevinDavis]] [[User talk:KevinDavis|Talk]] 13:41, 3 September 2011 (EDT)
:How about [[User:KevinDavis/dictionary|this]] as a template? [[User:KevinDavis|KevinDavis]] [[User talk:KevinDavis|Talk]] 17:54, 3 September 2011 (EDT)

== May I make some suggestions ==

:[[atheism]] - conscious denial of God's existence, the belief that God does not exist
:[[atheist]] - one who consciously denies that God exists, who believes that God does not exist
:[[agnosticism]] - not having an opinion about whether God exists, not knowing whether God exists
:[[agnostic]] - someone who does not have a definite opinion about whether God exists, who does not claim to know whether God exists
:[[cosmodicy]] - the problem of evil for atheists, the problem of justifying the fundamental goodness of the universe in the face of evil
See the article [[Definition of atheism]] for some justification of why these are correct definitions, and alternate definitions proposed by atheists are an attempt to redefine some of these words.
I didn't want to just go ahead and add them myself, because I wasn't sure if I had the right idea or not. But if others agree, please add them. [[User:Maratrean|Maratrean]] 01:30, 4 September 2011 (EDT)
:I added "agnosticism" and "cosmodicy". I didn't do "atheism" because someone had already done it. For now, have only done the -ism words, not the -ist words. [[User:Maratrean|Maratrean]] 19:09, 9 September 2011 (EDT)

== Dictionary API ==

Are we aiming for a complete dictionary? If so, I could use [http://googlesystem.blogspot.com/2009/12/on-googles-unofficial-dictionary-api.html Google's dictionary API] and the Mediawiki API to write a lot of definitions quickly. I'm still having trouble accessing the site regularly from my home and a local university library, but if that gets cleared up I could probably write something in a few days that could work. What does everyone think? [[User:KevinDavis|KevinDavis]] [[User talk:KevinDavis|Talk]] 11:30, 4 September 2011 (EDT)

== Parody ==

I just wanted ask if this is suppose to be satire or parady ? Personally i wouldn't define bigotry as pointing out the truth or bureaucracy as bloated ineffectiv ase government. Bigotry is a very unchristian,and bureaucracy is a hierarchy used in any corporate structure. As a conservative with a BS in Business Administration they treat you bureaucracy is part of any corporation.--[[User:KenN|KenN]] 22:49, 4 September 2011 (EDT)

: Good comments, resulting in corrections. Please feel free to edit the entry yourself.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:58, 4 September 2011 (EDT)

::Also, a lot of users are adding words like "cow" and "door knob" which don't have any political controversy attached to them. As this project is designed to combat liberal redefinition, rather than just list every word (I assume), perhaps we should make it a requirement that any new entry is made with the 'Liberal false definition' clearly stated. Otherwise troublemakers will sneak any old word in. Thoughts? [[User:Patrick78|Patrick78]] 10:27, 7 September 2011 (EDT)
::: As BradleyS states above, Consevapedia itself has an article on [[doorknob]] and other non-political subjects. Has anyone suggested removing these articles? If Conservapedia, a conservative encyclopedia, has entries on these why shouldn't a conservative dictionary have them? Also, I don't see why a word has to have a [[liberal redefinition]] to be here. Fighting liberal redefinition is just one aspect of this project. But even in this respect, it's useful. Liberals might try to redefine any word in the future, so we should define them here before then. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 22:26, 7 September 2011 (EDT)
::::Because the implication of it being on here with the statement "True conservative definition" implies somebody is trying to create a false definition. When the liberals try and redefine '''Zebra''', you let us know.--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 22:28, 7 September 2011 (EDT)
::::: No, it doesn't. Something can be true without someone else trying to make false definitions.
::::: The creator of the project above seemed to indicate all words that should belong in a dictionary should be in the Conservative Dictionary Project. Perhaps we should ask Andy Schlafly how to proceed? In the meantime, can you restore the non-political entries and cease with the mass deletions of entries? (Unless it's parody, of course). --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 22:39, 7 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::Pretty much each one i removed was never going to experience a definition change unless the language itself started to shift, or was parody. --[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 22:41, 7 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::: Languages shift all the time. Again, I think we should ask Mr. Schlafly the purpose of the project before removing entries. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 23:45, 7 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::And it wouldn't be a liberal redefinition then. IT would be society itself saying we like this word better for X definition, and word C should be something else or dropped. --[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 18:13, 8 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::: They have redefined '''Zebra''' as a member of the Equidae family, as opposed to the horse baramin. --[[User:JefferyA|JefferyA]] 22:43, 7 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::Considering Equidae is also known as horses anyways... this is honestly not a big deal.--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 22:45, 7 September 2011 (EDT)

== A suggestion for proceeding ==

My grandfather is in the process of writing a French-Occitanian dictionary, and what he has been doing is to go through each page in his dictionaries and writing the translations. He's currently at over a thousand pages, so this precise method probably wouldn't be much good here, but perhaps if there exists a political dictionary (preferably not one written by a pundit) this could be used as a basis?--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 14:51, 5 September 2011 (EDT)

== Formatting - please read ==

I think the words should be arranged in a table format, instead of simply a list. Not only will it scale better, but since Mediawiki [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Help:Sorting supports sortable tables], I think we could implement that syntax. Does this sound like a good idea? I'll try to write out the syntax when I have the chance, but please tell me what you think before I do so. [[User:KevinDavis|Kevin Davis]] [[User talk:KevinDavis|Talk]] 09:14, 7 September 2011 (EDT)

== So... Parody ==

Can we try and keep it out?--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 21:56, 7 September 2011 (EDT)

:: I feel too new to remove peoples entries.... but im pretty sure the old true meaning of teabagger is ummmmm.......--[[User:KenN|KenN]] 23:47, 7 September 2011 (EDT)

Conservative Dictionary Project (A)

2011-09-09T23:07:06Z

ZackMartin: I hope I have the right idea here, please correct me if I did it wrong

:'''[[Abstinence]]'''
:''True conservative meaning'' - Choosing to remain true to one's values and refraining from sexual behaviour until marriage
:''False liberal redefinition''- Denying one's true impulses

:'''[[Acid rain]]'''
:''True conservative meaning'' - Possibly true idea that pollution returns to earth in the harmful rain.
:''False liberal redefinition''- An excuse to stifle industry with government regulation.

:'''[[Ad Hominem]]'''
:''True conservative meaning'' - A debate tactic where the opponent is attacked instead of their ideas, frequently used by foolish liberals.
:''False liberal redefinition'' - Accurately pointing out that someone is not qualified or informed enough to give a relevant opinion, sometimes used by conservatives and objected to by liberals.

:'''[[Affirmative Action]]'''
:Date: 20th century
:''True conservative meaning'' - Reverse discrimination.
:''False liberal redefinition'' - A way of helping minorities.

:'''[[Agnosticism]]'''
:''True conservative meaning'' - Not being sure whether God exists, neither believing or disbelieving in Him; not an atheist
:''False atheist redefinition'' - A form of atheism

:'''[[Altruism]]'''
:''True conservative meaning'' - Self sacrifice in the model of Jesus.
:''False liberal redefinition'' - No definition (Liberals frequently argue that altruism doesn't exist.)

:'''[[Amendment]]'''
:''True conservative meaning'' - An alteration to a bill or constitution.

:'''[[American Exceptionalism]]'''
:''True conservative meaning'' - The belief that The United States is a Christian nation, a force for good, and unique in the history of the world.

:'''[[Anarchist]]'''
:''True conservative meaning'' - Far left extremists who use terrorism to promote the failed concept of communism.
:''False liberal redefinition'' - Someone who supports the [[free market]].

:'''[[Animal]]'''
:''True conservative meaning'' - One of the creatures of the land, earth, and sea given to man to have dominion over.
:''False liberal redefinition'' - Simply a scientific term for one of the kingdoms of life, a definition which does not lift humans above others.

:'''[[Atheism]]'''
:''True conservative meaning'' - Denial of God's existence, a discredited and failing liberal worldview known to cause mass murder, immorality, uncharitableness, obesity and other negative consequences.
:''False liberal redefinition'' - Lack of belief of a deity

:'''[[Autocracy]]'''
:''True conservative meaning'' - The rule of a single person with unlimited authority. This is the system liberals want.
:''False liberal redefinition'' - Dictatorship of the proletariat.

:'''[[Axis of Evil]]'''
:''True conservative meaning'' - A group of countries who are sworn enemies of the US: [[North Korea]], [[Iran]], [[Venezuela]], [[Cuba]]
:''False liberal redefinition'' - A term made up by [[George W. Bush]] to get support to go to war.

{{ConservativeDictionary}}

Conservative Dictionary Project (C)

2011-09-09T23:04:38Z

ZackMartin: I hope I have the right idea here, please correct me if I did it wrong

:'''[[Campaign finance reform]]'''
:''True conservative meaning'' - A method to curtail the free speech of corporations.
:''False liberal redefinition'' - A way of limiting the valid effect of money on politics.

:'''[[capitalism]]'''
:Date: 1850-1855
:''True conservative meaning'' - the best economic system known to man; involves the [[free market]], private ownership and personal responsibility
:''False liberal redefinition'' - greedy system where the rich flourish

:'''[[car]]'''
:''True conservative meaning'' - A highly efficient method of transportation using an internal combustion engine for power.
: ''False liberal redefinition'' - A dangerous device that harms the "environment."
:'''[[ceiling]]'''
:''True conservative meaning'' - the top of a room
:''False liberal redefinition'' - a barrier in business that minorities or women cannot rise above

:'''[[censorship]]'''
:''True conservative meaning'' - Banning certain information based on ideology, a liberal tactic.
:''False liberal redefinition'' - A method of not offending people.

:'''centrist'''
:''True conservative meaning'' - a word misleadingly used to describe a [[liberal]] who may not support every single aspect of the liberal philosophy
:''False liberal redefinition'' - someone whose personal politics falls in between [[conservative]] and [[liberal]]

:'''[[charity]]'''
:Date: 13th century
:''True conservative meaning'' - voluntarily helping out others
:''False liberal redefinition'' - forcibly helping the less fortunate through oppressive taxes

:'''Christian'''
:''True conservative meaning'' - A secularized term preferred by atheists to describe the Followers of Christ
:''False liberal redefinition'' - One who believes in Christianity

:'''[[Christianity]]'''
:''True conservative meaning'' - The true religion.
:''False liberal redefinition'' - One religion among others.

:'''claptrap'''
:Date: 1799
:''True Conservative meaning'' - liberal nonsense

:'''[[class]]'''
:Date: 1850-1855
:''True conservative meaning'' - A method of grouping society into sets based on employment.
:''False liberal redefinition'' - Different groups within society who are in opposition to one another. See [[Class warefare]].

:'''[[Climate change]]'''
:''True conservative meaning'' - Normal seasonal variation in temperature and weather.
:''False liberal redefinition'' - A conspiracy that claims humans are somehow raising the temperature of the entire planet. This is used as a pretext to raise taxes and impose burdensome regulations on small business.

:'''[[Compassion]]'''
:''True conservative meaning'' - Freeing people by making society more capitalist.
:''False liberal redefinition'' - Caring about those less fortunate than oneself and using the state to promote some basic protections against extreme poverty and destitution.

:'''[[communism]]'''
:Date: 1840
:''True conservative meaning'' - a liberal and atheistic system based on state ownership of the economy and murder
:''False liberal redefinition'' - democracy

:'''community'''
:Date: 14th century
:''True conservative meaning'' - a group of people; society
:''False liberal redefinition'' - the government

:'''[[Conservapedia]]'''
:Date: 2006
:''True conservative meaning'' - The Trustworthy Encyclopedia.
:''False liberal redefinition'' - an American conservative Christian biased encyclopedia.

:'''[[conservative]]'''
:Date: 14th century
:''True conservative meaning'' - a good person who believes in personal responsibility, free markets and good Christian values.
:''False liberal redefinition'' - an evil person

:'''[[constitution]]'''
:''True conservative meaning'' - a fundamental law that defines a system of government and provides enforceable limits on the power of that government
:''False liberal redefinition'' - an excuse for [[judicial activism|activist judges]] to undo [[democracy]]

:'''[[corporation]]'''
:''True conservative meaning'' - A job creator and legal person entitled to all the constitutional rights afforded human Americans, including freedom of speech in the form of money donated to political candidates
:''False liberal redefinition'' - An evil, oppressive entity with limitless power to sway elections and write laws for their own benefit at the expense of the people. (Liberals like to deny that corporations are, in fact, people.)

:'''[[cosmodicy]]'''
:the problem atheists have of justifying the fundamental goodness of the universe in the face of evil

:'''[[creationism]]'''
:''True conservative meaning'' - The correct scientific position, that God created the universe and humanity in six days.
:''False liberal redefinition'' - A foolish ideology.

:'''[[cyber-terrorism]]'''
:''True conservative meaning'' - Attacking a website with an ideology you disprove of. Frequently used by liberals.
:''False liberal redefinition'' - Harmless fun.

{{ConservativeDictionary}}

Talk:Conservative Dictionary Project

2011-09-04T05:30:49Z

ZackMartin: /* May I make some suggestions */ new section

James Whale

2011-08-27T11:18:45Z

ZackMartin: blank vandalism

'''James Whale''' is a combative UK talk radio "shock jock", who established his reputation for short-fuse [[libertarian]]ism on local radio in Newcastle upon Tyne and Leeds in northern [[England]], moving in the 1990s to the UK-wide TalkSport radio station. Despite an openly avowed skepticism towards religions of all kind, he provided a courteous if challenging environment for religious spokespeople on his late-night program<ref>http://www1.talksport.net/presenters/presenter_detail.asp?pres_id=99976</ref>. In May 2008 he was fired by TalkSport for urging listeners to vote for [[Conservative Party]] candidate [[Boris Johnson]] in the [[London]] mayoral election.

==References==
<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT: Whale, James}}
[[Category:Broadcasters]]

Walt Whitman

2011-08-27T11:10:04Z

ZackMartin: Reverting vandalism

[[Image:Whitman.gif|right|thumb|Walt Whitman]]

'''Walt Whitman''' (1819-1892) was an America poet and school teacher. Born in Huntington, on [[New York]]'s [[Long Island]], and raised in [[Brooklyn]], he received little formal education.

His poetry usually eschews traditional rhymes, meters and themes in favor of free verse, reflecting the themes of democratic egalitarianism and personal liberty that permeated his verse. The first edition of his major work, ''Leaves of Grass'', was self-published in 1855 as a 95-page volume containing a preface and twelve untitled poems.<ref>http://www.whitmanarchive.org/criticism/current/encyclopedia/entry_21.html</ref> One of the first to receive a copy of ''Leaves of Grass'' was the American intellectual and essayist [[Ralph Waldo Emerson]], who praised the book as "the most extraordinary piece of wit and wisdom that America has yet contributed".<ref>http://web.csustan.edu/english/reuben/pal/chap4/whitman.html</ref> Later Emerson would become critical of Whitman's mode of expressing sexuality, a criticism shared by others who perceived amoral and homoerotic aspects in his writings. Only in later years did his powerful writing style and American themes win Whitman the admiration of the literary community. Whitman spent his later years working as a nurse in hospitals during the Civil War caring for the wounded. There are still extant many letters from soldiers and their families expressing deep thanks and love for Whitman's benevolence at this time. [[Henry James]] attempted to emulate Whitman by visiting hospitals during WWI but his biographies have noted that despite his sincerity he was not able to connect as deeply as Whitman was.

Whitman died and was buried in [[Camden]], [[New Jersey]]. By the 1891-92 "Deathbed" edition, ''Leaves of Grass'' had grown to encompass 293 poems.<ref>http://www.whitmanarchive.org/criticism/current/encyclopedia/entry_27.html</ref>

==Major Poems==
*"I Hear America Singing"
*"Song of Myself"
*"I Sing the Body Electric"
*"I Saw in Louisiana a Live-Oak Growing"
*"Song of the Open Road"
*"Crossing Brooklyn Ferry"
*"Out of the Cradle Endlessly Rocking"
*"When Lilacs Last in the Dooryard Bloom'd"
*"O Captain! My Captain!"

==References==
<references/>

==External links==
*[http://www.whitmanarchive.org/ The Walt Whitman Archive]
*[http://www.waltwhitman.org/ Walt Whitman Birthplace State Historic Site and Interpretive Center]
*[http://www.state.nj.us/dep/parksandforests/historic/whitman/index.html The Walt Whitman House]

[[category:Poets|Whitman, Walt]]

James Whale

2011-08-27T11:09:26Z

ZackMartin: Reverting vandalism

Talk:Movement conservative

2011-08-27T04:38:14Z

ZackMartin: /* A recommendation */

Don't think [[Sean Hannity]] qualifies. He typically prefers less [[conservative]] guests, and has even been unfair to at least one real conservative.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:55, 3 November 2010 (EDT)

== Sarah Palin ==

Added a few words before Sarah Palin since everyone else listed has (except for St. Paul). Not sure if Vice Presidential running mate in 2008 or former governor of Alaska or something else was the way to go, went with former governor (first thing listed on her page on conservapedia)

:I agree...normal appellation should be last and highest office actually elected to. Good call! --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 14:17, 7 December 2010 (EST)

== A recommendation ==

I think it would really help illustrate the point if a table were drawn up that listed all of the characteristics of a movement conservative (pro-life, strong defense, pro-business, low taxes, 2nd amendment, Christian) and showed all of the movement conservatives filling out the list, then showed where different cafeteria conservatives fall. I don't think that I'm philosophically savvy enough to do this on my own. Any takers? --[[User:DrDean|DrDean]] 15:16, 26 August 2011 (EDT)
:Maybe a good list of people to look at would be the authors/editors of intellectually serious conservative publications, like First Things or Commentary magazine in the US, or Quadrant here in Australia. Although, it would probably be a somewhat unfair comparison, since authors and intellectuals have the luxury of holding to an intellectually pure position, while political leaders sometimes have to make real world compromises, and choose the possible over the perfect. [[User:Maratrean|Maratrean]] 00:38, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

Faith

2011-08-21T12:45:46Z

ZackMartin: /* Faith as a virtue */

[[Image:Faith.jpg|right]]
'''Faith''' (1200–50; Middle English feith < Anglo-French fed, Old French feid, feit < Latin fidem, accusative of fidēs trust, akin to fīdere to trust.) is a confidence or trust in a person or thing, can be a believe that is not based on proof. A Belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion. It is also a belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc. It can also mean a system of religiious belief : ''the Christian faith; the Jewish faith''.
<ref>http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/faith</ref>

Faith embodies more than belief. Faith elevates one's being, while belief is limited to a mental state or emotion. Faith implies a [[causation|causal]] role by the believer in an outcome<ref>For example, the Biblical [[Peter]]'s walking on water based on his faith.</ref> or in overcoming a personal fear. Faith also implies advancement or accomplishment rather than wrongdoing, while belief implies neither.

== Faith in God vs. secular psychology for solving addictions and other personal problems ==

''See also:'' [[Ineffectivness of counseling psychology]]

The Christian group [[Teen Challenge]] reported:
{{Cquote|Teen Challenge claims of a 70% cure rate for the drug addicts graduating from their program attracted the attention of the U.S. Federal Government in 1973. Most secular drug rehabilitation programs only experienced a cure rate of 1-15% of their graduates. The National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), part of the U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, funded the first year of this study to evaluate the long term results of the Teen Challenge program.<ref>http://teenchallengeusa.com/studies2.php</ref>}}

Teen Challenge has a number of studies that indicate the high effectiveness of their drug treatment program compared to other programs.<ref>http://teenchallengeusa.com/studies.php</ref> Studies indicate that consumers of secular counseling [[psychology]] for [[alcoholism]] receive hardly any benefit at all.<ref>http://www.spring.org.uk/2005/07/psychological-treatments-for-alcoholism.php</ref><ref>http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/5/75/abstract</ref> The [[Apostle Paul]] in a letter to the church of [[Corinth]] indicated that [[Christianity|Christians]] were able to overcome being drunkards through the power of [[Jesus Christ]] (I Corinthians 6:9-11).

[[Image:St Paul Preaching.jpg|right|thumb|200px|St. [[Paul]] defends his preaching (Giovanni Ricco)]]
The [[Apostle Paul]] wrote:
{{cquote|Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were [[Justification (theology)|justified]] in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the [[Holy Spirit|Spirit of our God]]." - I Corinthians 6:9-11 (NIV)}}

The website ''The Berean Call'' has a number of articles on various false claims and unbiblical notions that many practioners counseling psychology promote.<ref>http://www.thebereancall.org/topic/psychology</ref>

Faith plays a central role in overcoming [[addiction]]. Virtually everyone is plagued by one or more addictions, and faith enables overcoming those weaknesses. Similar to this is faith's key role in overcoming [[recidivism]]. This role is unique to Christian faith and has not been shown with regard to other religions' belief systems or to secular humanist ideologies.

Faith is also helpful in overcoming fear, such as fear of public speaking, appearing on [[television]], or standing up to a [[bully]] or unpleasant situations. Jesus reprimanded the [[Apostles]] for their [[faithless]] fear: "The disciples went and woke him, saying, 'Lord, save us! We're going to drown!' He replied, 'You of little faith, why are you so afraid?' Then he got up and rebuked the winds and the waves, and it was completely calm."<ref>Mt 8:25-26 (NIV)</ref>

Lack of faith can lead to fear, anxiety, depression, lack of confidence and sometimes death. A lack of faith can be very harmful, leading to self-destructive behavior. Faith can be described as the power to ignore the [[devil]] and all his antics.

Often faith inspires extra initiative or effort, adding confidence that it will yield the desired good result. "Since they could not get him to Jesus because of the crowd, they made an opening in the roof above Jesus and, after digging through it, lowered the mat the paralyzed man was lying on," and Jesus cured him.<ref>Mark 2:4</ref>

==Frequency==
[[File:Belief-god.jpg|thumb|550px|Financial Times (FT)/Harris Poll among adults in 5 countries in 2006]]

==Expression==
A classic statement of faith in the [[Bible]] was by the [[Roman Empire|Roman]] centurion of [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew%208:5-10;&version=49; Matthew 8:5-10], who expressed his confidence that [[Jesus]] could cure his beloved servant from a distance without even seeing him. [[Jesus]] repeatedly emphasized the importance and value of faith to his disciples.

Faith is expressed in [[Greek]] using the term ''pistis'', and in [[Latin]] using the term ''fides''. Faith is mentioned in 229 verses in the [[New Testament]] ([[KJV]]), but only twice in the much larger [[Old Testament]] ([[KJV]]).<ref>http://www.crosswalk.com</ref> In attempt to convert [[Jews]] to [[Christianity]], [[Paul]] described [[Abraham]]'s willingness to sacrifice his beloved son [[Isaac]] to [[God]] as an act of faith, though the [[Old Testament]] did not describe it with that term.

Faith is strengthened by prayer ([http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=jude%2020;&version=9; Jude 20]). For those who strengthen their faith, [[Jesus]] promised "I tell you the truth, anyone who has faith in me will do what I have been doing. He will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father."<ref>John 14:12 (NIV).</ref>

Life itself may be the manifestation of God's faith. Decay and death may be the manifestation of a lack or denial of faith.

==Biblical examples==

Perhaps the greatest description of faith is Hebrews 11. It states: "Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see."<ref>Hebrews 11:1 (NIV).</ref>

[[Paul]] indicated that faith itself is a gift of the [[Holy Spirit]]. 1 Corinthians 12:8-9 For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit; to another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit

As discussed above, a potential reference to faith is [[Genesis]] 22 where [[God]] tested [[Abraham]] by commanding him to sacrifice his only son [[Isaac]]. As Abraham prepared to do what God commanded -he was stopped.
Genesis 22:12
"Do not lay a hand on the boy," he said. "Do not do anything to him. Now I know that you fear God, because you have not withheld from me your son, your only son." 

==Martin Luther on Faith==

Luther in his Table Talk papers writes this thought provoking and rather difficult passage on faith:

"This is the acme of faith, to believe that God, who saves so few and condemns so many, is merciful; that he is just who, at his own pleasure, has made us necessarily doomed to damnation, so that he seems to delight in the torture of the wretched and is more deserving of hate than of love. If by any effort of reason I could conceive how God, who shows so much anger and harshness, could be merciful and just, there would be no need of faith."

==The Moral Basis of Biblical Faith==

The biblical expression of faith is belief in what God reveals to man to be so. Since New Testament times, that means belief in what God reveals to be so concerning Jesus Christ. There is a steady progression through time of what God reveals and so belief also finds expression in progessive content and emphasis. What God reveals to Adam, to Noah, to Moses (and through them), to the prophets, to the Ninevites, to Simeon and Anna, Mary, to the Apostles, differ in content and in emphasis, but the culmination of the content of faith is the person of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

The moral basis of faith is the positive response of belief, and the obedience of one's life to the requirement implied by the revelation. That is why Adam (and his generation) was not required to belief what Noah was, Noah not required what Abraham was, Abraham not required what Moses was. Moses not required and his generation what Isaiah was, until the time of Jesus. Neither were they allowed less, each one, as if they were of a previous generation and a previous revelation.

The moral basis of Faith continues on in effect, content and emphasis, since the time of the Son of God on earth. That is why the "good man" is required to believe in the Son of God preached to him, as He, the Son of God, is the source of his goodness, and the forgiver of his badness, through His sacrifice on the cross; the "bad man" required to believe in Him who bore his sin, through His sacrifice on the cross; the "gentile", wherever found, of whatever stage, required to live up to what is given him by his conscience and whatever good has come to him through his culture, and believe in the light God is actually giving him, and in the Jesus being preached to him, but not required to believe in and practice the Law of Moses; the Jew required to keep the Law given him, and then to despair at not having fulfilled it, and believe in the Son of God being revealed to him; the infant respond, as infants can, and not as adolescents and adults are required, each in his own order, until the greater revelation comes, and separation from the dominance and protection of the elders; and why an embryo aborted is required to respond as only an embryo can, which God alone knows, and not be required to be at the level of response he would have been moments and days and months and years later, if he would have been let live - saved - though the embryo would never have known how - by the Cross of the sin bearing Savior, who knew him well and loved him. "to him whom much has been given, of him much will be required."

==The natural and the supernatural aspects of Faith==
Faith is a gift from God that may be viewed two ways. One is clearly an intrusion or at least and introjection into our ordinary lives. Under this aspect, we see it as pure grace. "For by grace are you saved through faith, and this is not as a result of your deeds, It is God's gift and not something from ourselves". Our response, is from the extremity of our situation and as a clear product of something outside ourselves - the new word of God, the message concerning Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord. Even the ability to hear and understand is given to us from above, "Faith comes by hearing, and "hearing" itself, comes by the Word of God". And thus we call out, from the depth and from consiousness, for salvation. " Whoever shall call on the name of the Lord, will be saved/"

The other aspect of Faith is not by intrusion or introjection, but by infusion and irradiation. This too is of the grace of God. Whereas the first aspect had come to us at our extremity from without, this aspect comes to us from within and around, pervading the so-called natural structures that we experience every day, that are so supportive of stability, confidence, trust and hope. Good parenting, solidity of home and provision, loving faithfulness among friends as we grow, continual exposure to the truth of the Word of God (and truth is always therapeutic), strengthens our faith, and our expectation for the continuing faithfulness and involvment of a loving and good God. Faith seems so natural, so in accord, with our experience, that we could even be surprised that it could have been otherwise. Here we experience, most often, not a crisis of faith, but the need to give ourselves more fully to Him in whom we are believing. Under this aspect, God is to be appreciated and acknowledged for being our good and heavenly Father. The Old Testament presents us with the reality of this aspect of faith. Amidst even the miraculous events as the parting of the "Red" Sea, and the many deliverences Israel experience so beyond their natural ability to effect, little is said, is acknowledged consciously, of the quality of faith itself. It is air that a fish is most conscious of, not his home in the water.

==Faith: the Access to Reality==
Christianity demands Faith and insists that Faith be turned into sight. "Do you believe, Thomas, because you have seen. Blessed are those who do not see and yet believe." Throughout the New Testament, this theme occurs, belief in Jesus, belief in the Heavenly Father, belief in the readiness of God to still waves, cause you too to walk on water, to return a dead girl back to her grieving, believing mother, to see small insignificant things as a seed grow, as if miraculously of itself, into a startling display of fruit to eat and protection for birds, all of this, with only the sky to limit, comes into our lives, according to Jesus, if we have Faith. Reality is gained by the exercise of Faith, a reality unattainable by the ordinary means frequented by men.

But this reality attained, so extraordinary in this sordid and marred sin-infested world, is seen to be the "normal" reality of the Kingdom of Heaven, just waiting to enter in. Entirely right in the presence of the Kingdom of God and the King Himself for the dead boy to get up from his bier to run to his mother, entirely right that that adultress be pardoned, strengthened, challenged, and hold her head up high once again, entirely right the demons come out of the tormented boy to be commanded to go to the place that God has prepared for them, all entirely right at the entrance of this new reality of the Kingdom of Heaven among us, and the King Himself, Jesus. The overwhelming of reality, by Reality.

As God is palpable in Jesus, so the Reality of the Kingdom of God is palpable, and can be seen, on this earth. The entrance to the Garden was by faith, but the reality of the garden is as tangible as was Jesus eating fish with his disciples after he got up from the dead. As much as the New Testament presents Faith as the entrance to the Kingdom, so does it insist that Faith, perhaps not fully in this world, shall turn to sight in the end... and on the way. "It is not apparent what we who are called the children of God shall yet be, but we know that we shall be like Him for we shall see Him as He really is."

==Faith as a virtue==
[[Image:Konrad Witz – Petri fiskafänge.jpg|thumb|right|210px|The 'walking on water' episode, which both showed and tested St Peter's faith (painting by Konrad Witz).]]
[[St Paul]] identified faith, [[hope]] and [[love]] (or [[charity]]) as the three greatest [[virtue]]s that are central to Christianity, and this idea is repeated and elaborated upon throughout Christian tradition. Faith is put first because it provides the foundation upon which the other two are built: a faithful heart and mind cause one to have hope, and hope causes one to have love for God and one's fellow man.

In [[Dante]]'s [[Divine Comedy]], [[St Peter]] is most identified with faith. This is appropriate, since he was the 'rock' on which the Church was built, just as a Christian life must be rooted in faith. Peter's great faith is shown in Matthew 14:28-31, when he is briefly able to walk on water until doubt enters his mind.

Christian philosopher [[Robert Merrihew Adams]] wrote a book, ''The Virtue of Faith'', to defend the idea of faith as virtuous. Consider the case of a loved one accused of some wrongdoing, but who protests their innocence - our relationship with them creates a special ethical obligation to believe what they say, which does not apply to the protestations of innocence of strangers; at the same time, that obligation is not absolute, but can be overturned by the evidence. Adams uses this example to argue that some beliefs we are ethically obliged to hold, and argues that the existence of God could be such a belief for the believer.

Contrary to Adams' view is that favored by many atheists, classically expressed by William Kingdon Clifford, in his 1877 essay ''The Ethics of Belief'', which states "it is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence." However, while Clifford can point to individual cases where believing things without evidence is unethical, those cases fail to demonstrate that his principle is true in every case, and he ignores valid cases such as those which Adams cites which lead to the opposite conclusion.

{{clear}}

== Uniqueness to Christianity ==
Christianity is unique among religions in that its followers are defined by faith rather than by adherence to a prescribed code. St Paul makes this distinction clear in Galatians 3:24-25:
{{cquote|The law was a kind of tutor in charge of us until Christ should come, when we should be justified through faith; and now that faith has come, the tutor's charge is at an end.}}
That is to say, whereas [[Judaism]] required (and still requires) its followers to obey the law, Christianity begins with faith, and any moral or ethical decisions must follow from that. In this regard, Islam has much more in common with Judaism than it does with Christianity: the word 'Islam' itself means 'submission to God'.

==Other Definitions and Religions==

Outside of [[Christianity]], faith is misused as a synonym for "belief". The [[Merriam-Webster]] dictionary, for example, includes this definition of faith: "a system of religious beliefs."<ref>http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/faith</ref>

Alternatively, faith often refers to a "firm belief in something for which there is no proof" or evidence.

In the [[Koran]], the concept of submission to [[Allah]] is mentioned 11 times, while the concept of faith in Allah is mentioned only once.

Etymologically, the word 'faith' is closely linked to the concept of "fidelity," which emphasizes commitment to something or someone, specifically [[Christ]]. Thus, faith is often understood to mean 'loyalty' to a particular view of [[divinity]]. Yet, faith can also be envisioned more broadly as a trust in [[providence]], as it entails an active role for the believer himself for advancing good.

The literary critic Harold Bloom distinguishes Christianity from the other two dominant monotheistic religions in his book Agon by contrasting them with Gnosticism:

"Gnosticism polemically is decidedly not a faith, whether in the Christian sense, pisits, a believing that something was, is, and will be so; or in the Hebraic sense, emunah, a trusting in the Covenant. If religion is a binding, then Gnosticism is an unbinding, but not for the sake of things or persons merely as they are. Gnostic freedom is a freedom for knowledge, knowledge of what in the self, not in the psyche or soul, is Godlike, and knowledge of God beyond the cosmos. But also it is a freedom to be known, to be known by God, by what is alien to everything created, by what is alien to and beyond the stars and the cosmic system and our earth."

Faith is emphasized in Christianity but is unrecognized by the worldview of [[Philosophical Skepticism|philosophical skepticism]].
== See also ==

*[[Resources on becoming a Christian]]
*[[Salvation]]
*[[Atheism]]

==References==
<references/>
[[Category:religion]]
[[Category:philosophy]]

== External links ==
*[[Resources on becoming a Christian]]
* Holding, James Patrick, [http://tektonics.org/whatis/whatfaith.html Fallacious Faith]
*[http://jesuschrist.lds.org/SonOfGod/eng/finding-faith-in-christ/video/finding-faith-in-christ Finding Faith in Christ], video at ''JesusChrist.lds.org''

Pope Anacletus

2011-08-21T02:06:52Z

ZackMartin: +Category:Popes

Anacletus was the third [[Pope]], about whom little is known with certainty save that he died a martyr, perhaps in AD 91. <ref>http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01446a.htm</ref>

<references />
[[Category:Popes]]

Problem of Evil

2011-08-17T12:39:26Z

ZackMartin: /* God's love for us as particular persons */

The so-called '''problem of evil''' is a topic of much debate in [[theology]] and the [[philosophy]] of [[religion]]. Many [[atheist]]s base their views to some degree on their assessment of this argument's strength:

[[God]] is, according to accounts given by the holy texts of most monotheistic religions, [[omniscience|omniscient]], [[omnipotence|omnipotent]] and [[omnibenevolence|omnibenevolent]].

# An omniscient being knows all the true propositions, including those which describe all the [[evil]] that exists.
# A [[benevolence|benevolent]] person seeks to prevent evil from befalling others, to the extent that he or she knows of it and can do something about it (ought implies can), and an ''omnibenevolent'' being never strays from this goal.
# However, an omnipotent being has the power to prevent evil from befalling persons.
# Given 1, 2 and 3, we would expect that God should prevent evil from occurring. However, we know evil occurs from time to time.
# Therefore, God lacks at least one trait usually ascribed to Him or else does not exist at all.

This is an example of an [[inconsistent triad]].
== Is the Argument Sound? ==

As with all logical arguments, we must ask if the premises of the "argument from evil" are true. If one or more premise is false, then an argument does not constitute a good reason for believing its conclusion.

The argument can be dismissed if one is willing to drop one or more of its premises: that God is omniscient, that God is omnipotent, that God is omnibenevolent, or that evil exists.

'''Rejecting omnipotence:'''

If God is not all powerful, then his ability to constrain all evil in any given moment is limited.

'''Rejecting Omnibenevolence:'''

If God is not all good, then evil may exist.

'''Rejecting the existence of evil:'''

Perhaps evil does not exist - a view taken by [[Augustine]] who classified evil as a [[privation]]. Perhaps we call those things we do not like 'moral evils' without justification. But it strikes at the heart of our intuitions about what it means for something to be morally wrong if something like the torture of innocent children would not count.

Also, rejecting the existence of evil would appear to contradict Scripture: ''I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these [things].'' (Isaiah 45:7, KJV)

Although denying any one of the premises is sufficient to deflate the argument, such a move is not likely to satisfy a theist who wants to preserve the rationality of believing in the God as described in scripture. Thus, most theists do not attempt such a strategy.

== Is the Argument Logically Valid? ==

If a deductive argument is valid, the conclusion ''must be'' true if the premises are true. If it turns out that the conclusion is false while all the premises are true, then one has exposed an "argument" as invalid. Many theists think the argument from evil is logically invalid, meaning that the conclusion (God does not exist) does not necessarily follow from the premises (which theists tend to accept as true).

One who objects to the conclusion along these lines might say something like the following:

If allowing some evil serves a greater good, then allowing that evil is not by itself inconsistent with the existence of an omnibenevolent God. In other words, it is possible that an event that we observe as "evil" is, invisible to us, an event which serves the greater good.

Theists point to many possible explanations, called theodicies, that attempt to show how some greater good is achieved by allowing some evil. Some common examples:

*God allows evil in order to allow for soul-making - the process by which humans grow spiritually, from self-centered beings to moral beings who have compassion for others.
*God allows evil because it is necessary for the existence of free will.
*God allows evil so that we may come to see what life is like for human creatures when they have separate themselves from God and His will.

An atheist usually replies to such explanations by reminding the theist that each explanation's plausibility depends on one already believing in God. Thus, using simple theodicies as arguments against the logical validity of the problem of evil amounts to circular reasoning, in which the claim to be proved is assumed true at the beginning. Circular reasoning does not imply the claim is false, but it is a logical error. Therefore, theodicies cannot give anyone ''more'' reason(s) to believe that God exists than they already possessed.

An alternative reply that a theist might offer attempts to compare the finite pains associated with human existence to the infinite bliss of heaven. Given that the reward for the faithful is immeasurable bliss for eternity, then any amount of finite pain caused in a finite time period is vanishingly irrelevant.

A likely reply to ''this'' like of objection is that such a calculus illegitimately treats human persons as objects that can be manipulated to one's own ends so long as one returns the favor at a later date. It is utterly implausible that a person would be justified in enslaving another for a year, even if their plan was to give the victim a billion dollars in compensation afterwards. To treat a human in such a way is to lack respect for humanity's essential nature: we are autonomous moral agents who are ends in ourselves, rather than means to ends.

== Free Will ==

The twentieth century saw the rise of a "reformed" philosophy of religion, spearheaded primarily by Alvin Plantinga, a prominent professor at Notre Dame. Plantinga introduced, in his 1967 work ''God and Other Minds'', a defense of theism that counters the argument of evil with several observations about freedom of will. Rather than trying to give a moral justification for evil, Plantinga prefers to establish only that the existence of God and evil are jointly ''possible''.

Plantinga argues that God has a sufficient reason to allow some moral evil: only in this way can He make possible the greater moral good of human freedom. Thus, Plantinga opposes theological compatiblism - the view that God can allow human freedom and prevent moral evil. If he is right, theological compatiblism is incoherent; and could be likened to the claim that 'God can make a color that is bluer than blue.'

Plantinga's view hinges on the claim that even God cannot ensure free moral agents always do the right thing:

Suppose God creates an agent with the intent that this agent freely chooses good all the time. Now, if the agent is to ''freely'' choose some good, he must actually be free to choose it or to refrain from choosing it. Further suppose that there is a world - the world God wants to make actual - in which that agent does choose the good all the time. This world can only be made actual if its predecessor - a "world segment" that includes all of the world's states of affairs save the agent's choice - is first made actual (before it can be true that an agent chooses the right thing in a situation, the agent must be presented with the situation at hand). But if a world segment is made actual, then, if the agent is free with respect to the decision that must be made, God cannot control whether the agent will ''freely'' choose to do right or wrong. The upshot is that theological compatiblism must be false - for God to determine that an agent will do right all the time is inconsistent with that agent freely choosing to do right all the time. "God determines that an agent must freely choose to do right" is analogous to "God creates a married bachelor."

Plantinga furthers his defense in ''God, Freedom and Evil.'' If it is ''logically possible'' that all agents are depraved (will go wrong with respect to some action or other) in any world in which they exist, then it is logically possible that God could, no matter which agents he caused to exist, never create a world with human freedom and no moral evil. 

He thinks there is no reason to question the possibility of "transworld depravity," and thus concludes that his defense fends off the problem of evil. Many philosophers - both theistic and atheistic - agree with this assessment{{who says}}, although there is no settled consensus. The problem of evil will not likely go away so easily, as the matter of non-moral evils (diseases, predation and natural disasters, for instance) cannot be solved by Plantinga's defense alone.

== God's love for us as particular persons ==
One proposed solution to the problem of evil argues that, although people in general could exist without evil, the particular people who now exist could not. The lives of all who now live are so deeply entwined with the evils of the past, that without all of those evils, or the bulk of them, everyone now alive would never have existed. In a perfect world, none of us would have ever been born; in a perfect world, people would still exist, but we would not be among them, nor anyone whom we love. If God loves people in general, the best thing He could have done for people in general would have been to create a perfect world for them to live in. But if God loves particular people — the particular people who now exist — the best thing He could have done for those particular people is to create a world containing whatever is necessary for their existence — in other words, the best thing God could do ''for us'' is to create the very world which now exists. God could have done better; but God could not have done better for us, only for other people.

We creatures really have no right to complain about God creating a world which contains evil, for without evil we would not exist — when we are complaining about God creating a world which contains evil, what we are really objecting to is our own existence, for God creating such a world is necessary to our own existence.

The objection is made to this account, that it could also justify all kinds of evil acts committed by human beings, e.g. the mass murderer could claim that they comitted their crimes out of a special love for those who would only exist as a result of those crimes. On the contrary, this justification is only valid for a being who has perfect foreknowledge of the future — i.e. God. Although the mass murderer can know that certain people will only exist as a consequence of their mass murder, the mass murderer cannot claim to know and love those people as specific individuals, only as an amorphous potentiality. Only God can know and love those people as individuals, thus this is only a valid moral justification for acts of God, not for the acts of any lesser beings.

== The problem of evil for [[atheists]] ==
Rejecting God does not dispose of the problem of evil; evil continues to exist, and continues to be as problematic as before. While the atheist, having rejected God, no longer needs to justify the goodness of God to themselves ([[theodicy]]), now they are faced with the equally difficult task of justifying the goodness of their new objects of faith, humanity and the universe. Thus they turn to what are the atheistic equivalents of theodicy, [[anthropodicy]] (the attempt to justify humanity as good despite the great evils humanity has been responsible for) and [[cosmodicy]] (the attempt to justify the universe as good in face of the great evils it contains). These disciplines are as difficult as theodicy is.

J. Matthew Ashley explains the relationship between theodicy, anthropodicy and cosmodicy:
:In classical terms, this is to broach the problem of theodicy: how to think about God in the face of the presence of suffering in God's creation. After God's dethronement as the subject of history, the question rebounds to the new subject of history: the human being. As a consequence, theodicy becomes anthropodicy — justifications of our faith in humanity as the subject of history, in the face of the suffering that is so inextricably woven into the history that humanity makes. Mutatis mutandis, the universe story brings with it the need for a "cosmodicy." How do we think about the presence of suffering, on a massive scale, in the story of the cosmos, particularly when the cosmos itself is understood to be the subject of history? How do we justify our faith in the cosmos?<ref>J. Matthew Ashley, "Reading the universe story theologically: the contribution of a biblical narrative imagination", ''Theological studies'', 2010, vol. 71, no. 4, pp. 870-902</ref>

== References ==

*Plantinga, Alvin: ''God and Other Minds'' (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1967).
*Plantinga, Alvin: ''God, Freedom and Evil'' (Grand Rapids: Eerdman's Publishing Co, 1977).

{{reflist}}

[[Category: Philosophy]][[Category:Theology]]

Problem of Evil

2011-08-16T21:08:32Z

ZackMartin: /* Free Will */ God's love for us as particular persons

The so-called '''problem of evil''' is a topic of much debate in [[theology]] and the [[philosophy]] of [[religion]]. Many [[atheist]]s base their views to some degree on their assessment of this argument's strength:

[[God]] is, according to accounts given by the holy texts of most monotheistic religions, [[omniscience|omniscient]], [[omnipotence|omnipotent]] and [[omnibenevolence|omnibenevolent]].

# An omniscient being knows all the true propositions, including those which describe all the [[evil]] that exists.
# A [[benevolence|benevolent]] person seeks to prevent evil from befalling others, to the extent that he or she knows of it and can do something about it (ought implies can), and an ''omnibenevolent'' being never strays from this goal.
# However, an omnipotent being has the power to prevent evil from befalling persons.
# Given 1, 2 and 3, we would expect that God should prevent evil from occurring. However, we know evil occurs from time to time.
# Therefore, God lacks at least one trait usually ascribed to Him or else does not exist at all.

This is an example of an [[inconsistent triad]].
== Is the Argument Sound? ==

As with all logical arguments, we must ask if the premises of the "argument from evil" are true. If one or more premise is false, then an argument does not constitute a good reason for believing its conclusion.

The argument can be dismissed if one is willing to drop one or more of its premises: that God is omniscient, that God is omnipotent, that God is omnibenevolent, or that evil exists.

'''Rejecting omnipotence:'''

If God is not all powerful, then his ability to constrain all evil in any given moment is limited.

'''Rejecting Omnibenevolence:'''

If God is not all good, then evil may exist.

'''Rejecting the existence of evil:'''

Perhaps evil does not exist - a view taken by [[Augustine]] who classified evil as a [[privation]]. Perhaps we call those things we do not like 'moral evils' without justification. But it strikes at the heart of our intuitions about what it means for something to be morally wrong if something like the torture of innocent children would not count.

Also, rejecting the existence of evil would appear to contradict Scripture: ''I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these [things].'' (Isaiah 45:7, KJV)

Although denying any one of the premises is sufficient to deflate the argument, such a move is not likely to satisfy a theist who wants to preserve the rationality of believing in the God as described in scripture. Thus, most theists do not attempt such a strategy.

== Is the Argument Logically Valid? ==

If a deductive argument is valid, the conclusion ''must be'' true if the premises are true. If it turns out that the conclusion is false while all the premises are true, then one has exposed an "argument" as invalid. Many theists think the argument from evil is logically invalid, meaning that the conclusion (God does not exist) does not necessarily follow from the premises (which theists tend to accept as true).

One who objects to the conclusion along these lines might say something like the following:

If allowing some evil serves a greater good, then allowing that evil is not by itself inconsistent with the existence of an omnibenevolent God. In other words, it is possible that an event that we observe as "evil" is, invisible to us, an event which serves the greater good.

Theists point to many possible explanations, called theodicies, that attempt to show how some greater good is achieved by allowing some evil. Some common examples:

*God allows evil in order to allow for soul-making - the process by which humans grow spiritually, from self-centered beings to moral beings who have compassion for others.
*God allows evil because it is necessary for the existence of free will.
*God allows evil so that we may come to see what life is like for human creatures when they have separate themselves from God and His will.

An atheist usually replies to such explanations by reminding the theist that each explanation's plausibility depends on one already believing in God. Thus, using simple theodicies as arguments against the logical validity of the problem of evil amounts to circular reasoning, in which the claim to be proved is assumed true at the beginning. Circular reasoning does not imply the claim is false, but it is a logical error. Therefore, theodicies cannot give anyone ''more'' reason(s) to believe that God exists than they already possessed.

An alternative reply that a theist might offer attempts to compare the finite pains associated with human existence to the infinite bliss of heaven. Given that the reward for the faithful is immeasurable bliss for eternity, then any amount of finite pain caused in a finite time period is vanishingly irrelevant.

A likely reply to ''this'' like of objection is that such a calculus illegitimately treats human persons as objects that can be manipulated to one's own ends so long as one returns the favor at a later date. It is utterly implausible that a person would be justified in enslaving another for a year, even if their plan was to give the victim a billion dollars in compensation afterwards. To treat a human in such a way is to lack respect for humanity's essential nature: we are autonomous moral agents who are ends in ourselves, rather than means to ends.

== Free Will ==

The twentieth century saw the rise of a "reformed" philosophy of religion, spearheaded primarily by Alvin Plantinga, a prominent professor at Notre Dame. Plantinga introduced, in his 1967 work ''God and Other Minds'', a defense of theism that counters the argument of evil with several observations about freedom of will. Rather than trying to give a moral justification for evil, Plantinga prefers to establish only that the existence of God and evil are jointly ''possible''.

Plantinga argues that God has a sufficient reason to allow some moral evil: only in this way can He make possible the greater moral good of human freedom. Thus, Plantinga opposes theological compatiblism - the view that God can allow human freedom and prevent moral evil. If he is right, theological compatiblism is incoherent; and could be likened to the claim that 'God can make a color that is bluer than blue.'

Plantinga's view hinges on the claim that even God cannot ensure free moral agents always do the right thing:

Suppose God creates an agent with the intent that this agent freely chooses good all the time. Now, if the agent is to ''freely'' choose some good, he must actually be free to choose it or to refrain from choosing it. Further suppose that there is a world - the world God wants to make actual - in which that agent does choose the good all the time. This world can only be made actual if its predecessor - a "world segment" that includes all of the world's states of affairs save the agent's choice - is first made actual (before it can be true that an agent chooses the right thing in a situation, the agent must be presented with the situation at hand). But if a world segment is made actual, then, if the agent is free with respect to the decision that must be made, God cannot control whether the agent will ''freely'' choose to do right or wrong. The upshot is that theological compatiblism must be false - for God to determine that an agent will do right all the time is inconsistent with that agent freely choosing to do right all the time. "God determines that an agent must freely choose to do right" is analogous to "God creates a married bachelor."

Plantinga furthers his defense in ''God, Freedom and Evil.'' If it is ''logically possible'' that all agents are depraved (will go wrong with respect to some action or other) in any world in which they exist, then it is logically possible that God could, no matter which agents he caused to exist, never create a world with human freedom and no moral evil. 

He thinks there is no reason to question the possibility of "transworld depravity," and thus concludes that his defense fends off the problem of evil. Many philosophers - both theistic and atheistic - agree with this assessment{{who says}}, although there is no settled consensus. The problem of evil will not likely go away so easily, as the matter of non-moral evils (diseases, predation and natural disasters, for instance) cannot be solved by Plantinga's defense alone.

== God's love for us as particular persons ==
One proposed solution to the problem of evil argues that, although people in general could exist without evil, the particular people who now exist could not. The lives of all who now live are so deeply entwined with the evils of the past, that without all of those evils, or the bulk of them, everyone now alive would never have existed. In a perfect world, none of us would have ever been born; in a perfect world, people would still exist, but we would not be among them, nor anyone whom we love. If God loves people in general, the best thing He could have done for people in general would have been to create a perfect world for them to live in. But if God loves particular people — the particular people who now exist — the best thing He could have done for those particular people is to create a world containing whatever is necessary for their existence — in other words, the best thing God could do ''for us'' is to create the very world which now exists. God could have done better; but God could not have done better for us, only for other people.

We creatures really have no right to complain about God creating a world which contains evil, for without evil we would not exist — when we are complaining about God creating a world which contains evil, what we are really objecting to is our own existence, for God creating such a world is necessary to our own existence.

== The problem of evil for [[atheists]] ==
Rejecting God does not dispose of the problem of evil; evil continues to exist, and continues to be as problematic as before. While the atheist, having rejected God, no longer needs to justify the goodness of God to themselves ([[theodicy]]), now they are faced with the equally difficult task of justifying the goodness of their new objects of faith, humanity and the universe. Thus they turn to what are the atheistic equivalents of theodicy, [[anthropodicy]] (the attempt to justify humanity as good despite the great evils humanity has been responsible for) and [[cosmodicy]] (the attempt to justify the universe as good in face of the great evils it contains). These disciplines are as difficult as theodicy is.

J. Matthew Ashley explains the relationship between theodicy, anthropodicy and cosmodicy:
:In classical terms, this is to broach the problem of theodicy: how to think about God in the face of the presence of suffering in God's creation. After God's dethronement as the subject of history, the question rebounds to the new subject of history: the human being. As a consequence, theodicy becomes anthropodicy — justifications of our faith in humanity as the subject of history, in the face of the suffering that is so inextricably woven into the history that humanity makes. Mutatis mutandis, the universe story brings with it the need for a "cosmodicy." How do we think about the presence of suffering, on a massive scale, in the story of the cosmos, particularly when the cosmos itself is understood to be the subject of history? How do we justify our faith in the cosmos?<ref>J. Matthew Ashley, "Reading the universe story theologically: the contribution of a biblical narrative imagination", ''Theological studies'', 2010, vol. 71, no. 4, pp. 870-902</ref>

== References ==

*Plantinga, Alvin: ''God and Other Minds'' (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1967).
*Plantinga, Alvin: ''God, Freedom and Evil'' (Grand Rapids: Eerdman's Publishing Co, 1977).

{{reflist}}

[[Category: Philosophy]][[Category:Theology]]

Problem of Evil

2011-08-16T20:59:25Z

ZackMartin: /* References */ categories

The so-called '''problem of evil''' is a topic of much debate in [[theology]] and the [[philosophy]] of [[religion]]. Many [[atheist]]s base their views to some degree on their assessment of this argument's strength:

[[God]] is, according to accounts given by the holy texts of most monotheistic religions, [[omniscience|omniscient]], [[omnipotence|omnipotent]] and [[omnibenevolence|omnibenevolent]].

# An omniscient being knows all the true propositions, including those which describe all the [[evil]] that exists.
# A [[benevolence|benevolent]] person seeks to prevent evil from befalling others, to the extent that he or she knows of it and can do something about it (ought implies can), and an ''omnibenevolent'' being never strays from this goal.
# However, an omnipotent being has the power to prevent evil from befalling persons.
# Given 1, 2 and 3, we would expect that God should prevent evil from occurring. However, we know evil occurs from time to time.
# Therefore, God lacks at least one trait usually ascribed to Him or else does not exist at all.

This is an example of an [[inconsistent triad]].
== Is the Argument Sound? ==

As with all logical arguments, we must ask if the premises of the "argument from evil" are true. If one or more premise is false, then an argument does not constitute a good reason for believing its conclusion.

The argument can be dismissed if one is willing to drop one or more of its premises: that God is omniscient, that God is omnipotent, that God is omnibenevolent, or that evil exists.

'''Rejecting omnipotence:'''

If God is not all powerful, then his ability to constrain all evil in any given moment is limited.

'''Rejecting Omnibenevolence:'''

If God is not all good, then evil may exist.

'''Rejecting the existence of evil:'''

Perhaps evil does not exist - a view taken by [[Augustine]] who classified evil as a [[privation]]. Perhaps we call those things we do not like 'moral evils' without justification. But it strikes at the heart of our intuitions about what it means for something to be morally wrong if something like the torture of innocent children would not count.

Also, rejecting the existence of evil would appear to contradict Scripture: ''I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these [things].'' (Isaiah 45:7, KJV)

Although denying any one of the premises is sufficient to deflate the argument, such a move is not likely to satisfy a theist who wants to preserve the rationality of believing in the God as described in scripture. Thus, most theists do not attempt such a strategy.

== Is the Argument Logically Valid? ==

If a deductive argument is valid, the conclusion ''must be'' true if the premises are true. If it turns out that the conclusion is false while all the premises are true, then one has exposed an "argument" as invalid. Many theists think the argument from evil is logically invalid, meaning that the conclusion (God does not exist) does not necessarily follow from the premises (which theists tend to accept as true).

One who objects to the conclusion along these lines might say something like the following:

If allowing some evil serves a greater good, then allowing that evil is not by itself inconsistent with the existence of an omnibenevolent God. In other words, it is possible that an event that we observe as "evil" is, invisible to us, an event which serves the greater good.

Theists point to many possible explanations, called theodicies, that attempt to show how some greater good is achieved by allowing some evil. Some common examples:

*God allows evil in order to allow for soul-making - the process by which humans grow spiritually, from self-centered beings to moral beings who have compassion for others.
*God allows evil because it is necessary for the existence of free will.
*God allows evil so that we may come to see what life is like for human creatures when they have separate themselves from God and His will.

An atheist usually replies to such explanations by reminding the theist that each explanation's plausibility depends on one already believing in God. Thus, using simple theodicies as arguments against the logical validity of the problem of evil amounts to circular reasoning, in which the claim to be proved is assumed true at the beginning. Circular reasoning does not imply the claim is false, but it is a logical error. Therefore, theodicies cannot give anyone ''more'' reason(s) to believe that God exists than they already possessed.

An alternative reply that a theist might offer attempts to compare the finite pains associated with human existence to the infinite bliss of heaven. Given that the reward for the faithful is immeasurable bliss for eternity, then any amount of finite pain caused in a finite time period is vanishingly irrelevant.

A likely reply to ''this'' like of objection is that such a calculus illegitimately treats human persons as objects that can be manipulated to one's own ends so long as one returns the favor at a later date. It is utterly implausible that a person would be justified in enslaving another for a year, even if their plan was to give the victim a billion dollars in compensation afterwards. To treat a human in such a way is to lack respect for humanity's essential nature: we are autonomous moral agents who are ends in ourselves, rather than means to ends.

== Free Will ==

The twentieth century saw the rise of a "reformed" philosophy of religion, spearheaded primarily by Alvin Plantinga, a prominent professor at Notre Dame. Plantinga introduced, in his 1967 work ''God and Other Minds'', a defense of theism that counters the argument of evil with several observations about freedom of will. Rather than trying to give a moral justification for evil, Plantinga prefers to establish only that the existence of God and evil are jointly ''possible''.

Plantinga argues that God has a sufficient reason to allow some moral evil: only in this way can He make possible the greater moral good of human freedom. Thus, Plantinga opposes theological compatiblism - the view that God can allow human freedom and prevent moral evil. If he is right, theological compatiblism is incoherent; and could be likened to the claim that 'God can make a color that is bluer than blue.'

Plantinga's view hinges on the claim that even God cannot ensure free moral agents always do the right thing:

Suppose God creates an agent with the intent that this agent freely chooses good all the time. Now, if the agent is to ''freely'' choose some good, he must actually be free to choose it or to refrain from choosing it. Further suppose that there is a world - the world God wants to make actual - in which that agent does choose the good all the time. This world can only be made actual if its predecessor - a "world segment" that includes all of the world's states of affairs save the agent's choice - is first made actual (before it can be true that an agent chooses the right thing in a situation, the agent must be presented with the situation at hand). But if a world segment is made actual, then, if the agent is free with respect to the decision that must be made, God cannot control whether the agent will ''freely'' choose to do right or wrong. The upshot is that theological compatiblism must be false - for God to determine that an agent will do right all the time is inconsistent with that agent freely choosing to do right all the time. "God determines that an agent must freely choose to do right" is analogous to "God creates a married bachelor."

Plantinga furthers his defense in ''God, Freedom and Evil.'' If it is ''logically possible'' that all agents are depraved (will go wrong with respect to some action or other) in any world in which they exist, then it is logically possible that God could, no matter which agents he caused to exist, never create a world with human freedom and no moral evil. 

He thinks there is no reason to question the possibility of "transworld depravity," and thus concludes that his defense fends off the problem of evil. Many philosophers - both theistic and atheistic - agree with this assessment{{who says}}, although there is no settled consensus. The problem of evil will not likely go away so easily, as the matter of non-moral evils (diseases, predation and natural disasters, for instance) cannot be solved by Plantinga's defense alone.

== The problem of evil for [[atheists]] ==
Rejecting God does not dispose of the problem of evil; evil continues to exist, and continues to be as problematic as before. While the atheist, having rejected God, no longer needs to justify the goodness of God to themselves ([[theodicy]]), now they are faced with the equally difficult task of justifying the goodness of their new objects of faith, humanity and the universe. Thus they turn to what are the atheistic equivalents of theodicy, [[anthropodicy]] (the attempt to justify humanity as good despite the great evils humanity has been responsible for) and [[cosmodicy]] (the attempt to justify the universe as good in face of the great evils it contains). These disciplines are as difficult as theodicy is.

J. Matthew Ashley explains the relationship between theodicy, anthropodicy and cosmodicy:
:In classical terms, this is to broach the problem of theodicy: how to think about God in the face of the presence of suffering in God's creation. After God's dethronement as the subject of history, the question rebounds to the new subject of history: the human being. As a consequence, theodicy becomes anthropodicy — justifications of our faith in humanity as the subject of history, in the face of the suffering that is so inextricably woven into the history that humanity makes. Mutatis mutandis, the universe story brings with it the need for a "cosmodicy." How do we think about the presence of suffering, on a massive scale, in the story of the cosmos, particularly when the cosmos itself is understood to be the subject of history? How do we justify our faith in the cosmos?<ref>J. Matthew Ashley, "Reading the universe story theologically: the contribution of a biblical narrative imagination", ''Theological studies'', 2010, vol. 71, no. 4, pp. 870-902</ref>

== References ==

*Plantinga, Alvin: ''God and Other Minds'' (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1967).
*Plantinga, Alvin: ''God, Freedom and Evil'' (Grand Rapids: Eerdman's Publishing Co, 1977).

{{reflist}}

[[Category: Philosophy]][[Category:Theology]]

Problem of Evil

2011-08-16T20:59:00Z

ZackMartin: /* The problem of evil for atheists */

The so-called '''problem of evil''' is a topic of much debate in [[theology]] and the [[philosophy]] of [[religion]]. Many [[atheist]]s base their views to some degree on their assessment of this argument's strength:

[[God]] is, according to accounts given by the holy texts of most monotheistic religions, [[omniscience|omniscient]], [[omnipotence|omnipotent]] and [[omnibenevolence|omnibenevolent]].

# An omniscient being knows all the true propositions, including those which describe all the [[evil]] that exists.
# A [[benevolence|benevolent]] person seeks to prevent evil from befalling others, to the extent that he or she knows of it and can do something about it (ought implies can), and an ''omnibenevolent'' being never strays from this goal.
# However, an omnipotent being has the power to prevent evil from befalling persons.
# Given 1, 2 and 3, we would expect that God should prevent evil from occurring. However, we know evil occurs from time to time.
# Therefore, God lacks at least one trait usually ascribed to Him or else does not exist at all.

This is an example of an [[inconsistent triad]].
== Is the Argument Sound? ==

As with all logical arguments, we must ask if the premises of the "argument from evil" are true. If one or more premise is false, then an argument does not constitute a good reason for believing its conclusion.

The argument can be dismissed if one is willing to drop one or more of its premises: that God is omniscient, that God is omnipotent, that God is omnibenevolent, or that evil exists.

'''Rejecting omnipotence:'''

If God is not all powerful, then his ability to constrain all evil in any given moment is limited.

'''Rejecting Omnibenevolence:'''

If God is not all good, then evil may exist.

'''Rejecting the existence of evil:'''

Perhaps evil does not exist - a view taken by [[Augustine]] who classified evil as a [[privation]]. Perhaps we call those things we do not like 'moral evils' without justification. But it strikes at the heart of our intuitions about what it means for something to be morally wrong if something like the torture of innocent children would not count.

Also, rejecting the existence of evil would appear to contradict Scripture: ''I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these [things].'' (Isaiah 45:7, KJV)

Although denying any one of the premises is sufficient to deflate the argument, such a move is not likely to satisfy a theist who wants to preserve the rationality of believing in the God as described in scripture. Thus, most theists do not attempt such a strategy.

== Is the Argument Logically Valid? ==

If a deductive argument is valid, the conclusion ''must be'' true if the premises are true. If it turns out that the conclusion is false while all the premises are true, then one has exposed an "argument" as invalid. Many theists think the argument from evil is logically invalid, meaning that the conclusion (God does not exist) does not necessarily follow from the premises (which theists tend to accept as true).

One who objects to the conclusion along these lines might say something like the following:

If allowing some evil serves a greater good, then allowing that evil is not by itself inconsistent with the existence of an omnibenevolent God. In other words, it is possible that an event that we observe as "evil" is, invisible to us, an event which serves the greater good.

Theists point to many possible explanations, called theodicies, that attempt to show how some greater good is achieved by allowing some evil. Some common examples:

*God allows evil in order to allow for soul-making - the process by which humans grow spiritually, from self-centered beings to moral beings who have compassion for others.
*God allows evil because it is necessary for the existence of free will.
*God allows evil so that we may come to see what life is like for human creatures when they have separate themselves from God and His will.

An atheist usually replies to such explanations by reminding the theist that each explanation's plausibility depends on one already believing in God. Thus, using simple theodicies as arguments against the logical validity of the problem of evil amounts to circular reasoning, in which the claim to be proved is assumed true at the beginning. Circular reasoning does not imply the claim is false, but it is a logical error. Therefore, theodicies cannot give anyone ''more'' reason(s) to believe that God exists than they already possessed.

An alternative reply that a theist might offer attempts to compare the finite pains associated with human existence to the infinite bliss of heaven. Given that the reward for the faithful is immeasurable bliss for eternity, then any amount of finite pain caused in a finite time period is vanishingly irrelevant.

A likely reply to ''this'' like of objection is that such a calculus illegitimately treats human persons as objects that can be manipulated to one's own ends so long as one returns the favor at a later date. It is utterly implausible that a person would be justified in enslaving another for a year, even if their plan was to give the victim a billion dollars in compensation afterwards. To treat a human in such a way is to lack respect for humanity's essential nature: we are autonomous moral agents who are ends in ourselves, rather than means to ends.

== Free Will ==

The twentieth century saw the rise of a "reformed" philosophy of religion, spearheaded primarily by Alvin Plantinga, a prominent professor at Notre Dame. Plantinga introduced, in his 1967 work ''God and Other Minds'', a defense of theism that counters the argument of evil with several observations about freedom of will. Rather than trying to give a moral justification for evil, Plantinga prefers to establish only that the existence of God and evil are jointly ''possible''.

Plantinga argues that God has a sufficient reason to allow some moral evil: only in this way can He make possible the greater moral good of human freedom. Thus, Plantinga opposes theological compatiblism - the view that God can allow human freedom and prevent moral evil. If he is right, theological compatiblism is incoherent; and could be likened to the claim that 'God can make a color that is bluer than blue.'

Plantinga's view hinges on the claim that even God cannot ensure free moral agents always do the right thing:

Suppose God creates an agent with the intent that this agent freely chooses good all the time. Now, if the agent is to ''freely'' choose some good, he must actually be free to choose it or to refrain from choosing it. Further suppose that there is a world - the world God wants to make actual - in which that agent does choose the good all the time. This world can only be made actual if its predecessor - a "world segment" that includes all of the world's states of affairs save the agent's choice - is first made actual (before it can be true that an agent chooses the right thing in a situation, the agent must be presented with the situation at hand). But if a world segment is made actual, then, if the agent is free with respect to the decision that must be made, God cannot control whether the agent will ''freely'' choose to do right or wrong. The upshot is that theological compatiblism must be false - for God to determine that an agent will do right all the time is inconsistent with that agent freely choosing to do right all the time. "God determines that an agent must freely choose to do right" is analogous to "God creates a married bachelor."

Plantinga furthers his defense in ''God, Freedom and Evil.'' If it is ''logically possible'' that all agents are depraved (will go wrong with respect to some action or other) in any world in which they exist, then it is logically possible that God could, no matter which agents he caused to exist, never create a world with human freedom and no moral evil. 

He thinks there is no reason to question the possibility of "transworld depravity," and thus concludes that his defense fends off the problem of evil. Many philosophers - both theistic and atheistic - agree with this assessment{{who says}}, although there is no settled consensus. The problem of evil will not likely go away so easily, as the matter of non-moral evils (diseases, predation and natural disasters, for instance) cannot be solved by Plantinga's defense alone.

== The problem of evil for [[atheists]] ==
Rejecting God does not dispose of the problem of evil; evil continues to exist, and continues to be as problematic as before. While the atheist, having rejected God, no longer needs to justify the goodness of God to themselves ([[theodicy]]), now they are faced with the equally difficult task of justifying the goodness of their new objects of faith, humanity and the universe. Thus they turn to what are the atheistic equivalents of theodicy, [[anthropodicy]] (the attempt to justify humanity as good despite the great evils humanity has been responsible for) and [[cosmodicy]] (the attempt to justify the universe as good in face of the great evils it contains). These disciplines are as difficult as theodicy is.

J. Matthew Ashley explains the relationship between theodicy, anthropodicy and cosmodicy:
:In classical terms, this is to broach the problem of theodicy: how to think about God in the face of the presence of suffering in God's creation. After God's dethronement as the subject of history, the question rebounds to the new subject of history: the human being. As a consequence, theodicy becomes anthropodicy — justifications of our faith in humanity as the subject of history, in the face of the suffering that is so inextricably woven into the history that humanity makes. Mutatis mutandis, the universe story brings with it the need for a "cosmodicy." How do we think about the presence of suffering, on a massive scale, in the story of the cosmos, particularly when the cosmos itself is understood to be the subject of history? How do we justify our faith in the cosmos?<ref>J. Matthew Ashley, "Reading the universe story theologically: the contribution of a biblical narrative imagination", ''Theological studies'', 2010, vol. 71, no. 4, pp. 870-902</ref>

== References ==

*Plantinga, Alvin: ''God and Other Minds'' (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1967).
*Plantinga, Alvin: ''God, Freedom and Evil'' (Grand Rapids: Eerdman's Publishing Co, 1977).

{{reflist}}

[[Category: Philosophy]]

Problem of Evil

2011-08-16T20:58:22Z

ZackMartin: New section: "The problem of evil for atheists"

The so-called '''problem of evil''' is a topic of much debate in [[theology]] and the [[philosophy]] of [[religion]]. Many [[atheist]]s base their views to some degree on their assessment of this argument's strength:

[[God]] is, according to accounts given by the holy texts of most monotheistic religions, [[omniscience|omniscient]], [[omnipotence|omnipotent]] and [[omnibenevolence|omnibenevolent]].

# An omniscient being knows all the true propositions, including those which describe all the [[evil]] that exists.
# A [[benevolence|benevolent]] person seeks to prevent evil from befalling others, to the extent that he or she knows of it and can do something about it (ought implies can), and an ''omnibenevolent'' being never strays from this goal.
# However, an omnipotent being has the power to prevent evil from befalling persons.
# Given 1, 2 and 3, we would expect that God should prevent evil from occurring. However, we know evil occurs from time to time.
# Therefore, God lacks at least one trait usually ascribed to Him or else does not exist at all.

This is an example of an [[inconsistent triad]].
== Is the Argument Sound? ==

As with all logical arguments, we must ask if the premises of the "argument from evil" are true. If one or more premise is false, then an argument does not constitute a good reason for believing its conclusion.

The argument can be dismissed if one is willing to drop one or more of its premises: that God is omniscient, that God is omnipotent, that God is omnibenevolent, or that evil exists.

'''Rejecting omnipotence:'''

If God is not all powerful, then his ability to constrain all evil in any given moment is limited.

'''Rejecting Omnibenevolence:'''

If God is not all good, then evil may exist.

'''Rejecting the existence of evil:'''

Perhaps evil does not exist - a view taken by [[Augustine]] who classified evil as a [[privation]]. Perhaps we call those things we do not like 'moral evils' without justification. But it strikes at the heart of our intuitions about what it means for something to be morally wrong if something like the torture of innocent children would not count.

Also, rejecting the existence of evil would appear to contradict Scripture: ''I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these [things].'' (Isaiah 45:7, KJV)

Although denying any one of the premises is sufficient to deflate the argument, such a move is not likely to satisfy a theist who wants to preserve the rationality of believing in the God as described in scripture. Thus, most theists do not attempt such a strategy.

== Is the Argument Logically Valid? ==

If a deductive argument is valid, the conclusion ''must be'' true if the premises are true. If it turns out that the conclusion is false while all the premises are true, then one has exposed an "argument" as invalid. Many theists think the argument from evil is logically invalid, meaning that the conclusion (God does not exist) does not necessarily follow from the premises (which theists tend to accept as true).

One who objects to the conclusion along these lines might say something like the following:

If allowing some evil serves a greater good, then allowing that evil is not by itself inconsistent with the existence of an omnibenevolent God. In other words, it is possible that an event that we observe as "evil" is, invisible to us, an event which serves the greater good.

Theists point to many possible explanations, called theodicies, that attempt to show how some greater good is achieved by allowing some evil. Some common examples:

*God allows evil in order to allow for soul-making - the process by which humans grow spiritually, from self-centered beings to moral beings who have compassion for others.
*God allows evil because it is necessary for the existence of free will.
*God allows evil so that we may come to see what life is like for human creatures when they have separate themselves from God and His will.

An atheist usually replies to such explanations by reminding the theist that each explanation's plausibility depends on one already believing in God. Thus, using simple theodicies as arguments against the logical validity of the problem of evil amounts to circular reasoning, in which the claim to be proved is assumed true at the beginning. Circular reasoning does not imply the claim is false, but it is a logical error. Therefore, theodicies cannot give anyone ''more'' reason(s) to believe that God exists than they already possessed.

An alternative reply that a theist might offer attempts to compare the finite pains associated with human existence to the infinite bliss of heaven. Given that the reward for the faithful is immeasurable bliss for eternity, then any amount of finite pain caused in a finite time period is vanishingly irrelevant.

A likely reply to ''this'' like of objection is that such a calculus illegitimately treats human persons as objects that can be manipulated to one's own ends so long as one returns the favor at a later date. It is utterly implausible that a person would be justified in enslaving another for a year, even if their plan was to give the victim a billion dollars in compensation afterwards. To treat a human in such a way is to lack respect for humanity's essential nature: we are autonomous moral agents who are ends in ourselves, rather than means to ends.

== Free Will ==

The twentieth century saw the rise of a "reformed" philosophy of religion, spearheaded primarily by Alvin Plantinga, a prominent professor at Notre Dame. Plantinga introduced, in his 1967 work ''God and Other Minds'', a defense of theism that counters the argument of evil with several observations about freedom of will. Rather than trying to give a moral justification for evil, Plantinga prefers to establish only that the existence of God and evil are jointly ''possible''.

Plantinga argues that God has a sufficient reason to allow some moral evil: only in this way can He make possible the greater moral good of human freedom. Thus, Plantinga opposes theological compatiblism - the view that God can allow human freedom and prevent moral evil. If he is right, theological compatiblism is incoherent; and could be likened to the claim that 'God can make a color that is bluer than blue.'

Plantinga's view hinges on the claim that even God cannot ensure free moral agents always do the right thing:

Suppose God creates an agent with the intent that this agent freely chooses good all the time. Now, if the agent is to ''freely'' choose some good, he must actually be free to choose it or to refrain from choosing it. Further suppose that there is a world - the world God wants to make actual - in which that agent does choose the good all the time. This world can only be made actual if its predecessor - a "world segment" that includes all of the world's states of affairs save the agent's choice - is first made actual (before it can be true that an agent chooses the right thing in a situation, the agent must be presented with the situation at hand). But if a world segment is made actual, then, if the agent is free with respect to the decision that must be made, God cannot control whether the agent will ''freely'' choose to do right or wrong. The upshot is that theological compatiblism must be false - for God to determine that an agent will do right all the time is inconsistent with that agent freely choosing to do right all the time. "God determines that an agent must freely choose to do right" is analogous to "God creates a married bachelor."

Plantinga furthers his defense in ''God, Freedom and Evil.'' If it is ''logically possible'' that all agents are depraved (will go wrong with respect to some action or other) in any world in which they exist, then it is logically possible that God could, no matter which agents he caused to exist, never create a world with human freedom and no moral evil. 

He thinks there is no reason to question the possibility of "transworld depravity," and thus concludes that his defense fends off the problem of evil. Many philosophers - both theistic and atheistic - agree with this assessment{{who says}}, although there is no settled consensus. The problem of evil will not likely go away so easily, as the matter of non-moral evils (diseases, predation and natural disasters, for instance) cannot be solved by Plantinga's defense alone.

== The problem of evil for [[atheists]] ==
Rejecting God does not dispose of the problem of evil; evil continues to exist, and continues to be as problematic as before. While the atheist, having rejected God, no longer needs to justify the goodness of God to themselves ([[theodicy]]), now they are faced with the equally difficult task of justifying the goodness of their new objects of faith, humanity and the universe. Thus they turn to what are the atheistic equivalents of theodicy, [[anthropodicy]] (the attempt to justify humanity as good despite the great evils humanity has been responsible for) and [[cosmodicy]] (the attempt to justify the universe as good in face of the great evils it contains). These disciplines are as difficult as theodicy is.

J. Matthew Ashley explains the relationship between theodicy, anthropodicy and cosmodicy:
:In classical terms, this is to broach the problem of theodicy: how to think about God in the face of the presence of suffering in God's creation. After God's dethronement as the subject of history, the question rebounds to the new subject of history: the human being. As a consequence, theodicy becomes anthropodicy — justifications of our faith in humanity as the subject of history, in the face of the suffering that is so inextricably woven into the history that humanity makes. Mutatis mutandis, the universe story brings with it the need for a "cosmodicy." How do we think about the presence of suffering, on a massive scale, in the story of the cosmos, particularly when the cosmos itself is understood to be the subject of history? How do we justify our faith in the cosmos?<ref>J. Matthew Ashley, "Reading the universe story theologically: the contribution of a biblical narrative imagination", ''Theological studies'', 2010, vol. 71, no. 4, pp. 870-902</ref>

{{reflist}}

[[Category:Philosophy]][[Category:Theology]]

== References ==

*Plantinga, Alvin: ''God and Other Minds'' (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1967).
*Plantinga, Alvin: ''God, Freedom and Evil'' (Grand Rapids: Eerdman's Publishing Co, 1977).

{{reflist}}

[[Category: Philosophy]]

Cosmodicy

2011-08-16T20:46:42Z

ZackMartin: This is all my own work hence free to repost here

'''Cosmodicy''' is the problem for [[atheists]] of justifying the fundamental goodness of the universe in the face of evil. It is closely connected with [[theodicy]], which attempts to do this given the existence of [[God]]; yet, while many atheists think that by getting rid of God they have got rid of the [[problem of evil]], cosmodicy demonstrates that the problem still exists, it has only assumed a different form. As one author has said "atheists are not supposed to have such thoughts"; and yet they do.<ref>[http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/atlarge/2011/08/15/110815crat_atlarge_wood#ixzz1Ut5ikoYb James Wood, "Secularism and its discontents: Is That All There Is?", ''The New Yorker'', August 15, 2011]</ref>

A number of theologians have grappled with the relationship between cosmodicy and theodicy. Johannes van der Ven argues that the choice between theodicy and cosmodicy is a false dilemma.<ref>see van der Ven, J.A. “Theodicy or cosmodicy: a false dilemma?”, ''Journal of Empirical Theology'', Volume 2, Number 1, 1989 , pp. 5-27(23); see also Johannes A. van der Ven, ''God reinvented?: a theological search in texts and tables'', Empirical studies in theology, Vol. 1, Leiden [u.a.] Brill 1998, p. 205</ref>. Philip E. Devenish proposes "a nuanced view in which theodicy and cosmodicy are rendered complementary, rather than alternative concepts"<ref>Devenish, Philip E. “Theodicy and Cosmodicy: The Contribution of Neoclassical Theism”, Journal of Empirical Theology 4 (1992): 5-23</ref>.

Cosmodicy is a major theme in the philosophy of [[Friedrich Nietzsche]]<ref>[http://www.ul.ie/~philos/vol10/Logos.html Mark Balto, “Logos As Will And Cosmodicy”], ''Minerva - An Internet Journal of Philosophy'' Vol. 10 2006</ref>.

{{reflist}}
[[Category:Philosophy]][[Category:Theology]]

Definition of atheism

2011-08-13T07:21:58Z

ZackMartin: /* Is atheism a religion? */ Daniel Smartt is actually quoting Ninian Smart (confusing, I know)

[[File:Atheism.jpg|thumb|alt=atheism|right|175px|[[Paul-Henri Thiry]], Baron d'Holbach (1723 - 1789), was an early advocate of atheism in [[Europe]].]]
[[Atheism]], as defined by the ''Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy'', the ''Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy'', and other [[philosophy]] reference works, is the denial of the existence of [[God]].<ref>[http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism Stanford Encyclopedia of Philisophy - Atheism and Agnosticism]</ref><ref name="cw">[http://creation.com/atheism-is-more-rational Is Atheism More Rational?] by [[Creation Ministries International]]</ref><ref>[http://www.thedivineconspiracy.org/athart3.htm Atheism - Etymology]</ref> "The Merriam-Webster dictionary '''definition of atheism''' is "a disbelief in the existence of deity".<ref>http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism</ref>

== Some purported varieties of atheism ==
Many atheists like to make a distinction between ''[[strong atheism]]'' and ''[[weak atheism]]''. They define ''strong atheism'' as believing God does not exist, while ''weak atheism'' as neither believing nor disbelieving. However, this usage is incorrect, and has been invented by atheists to boost their numbers. If you believe God does not exist, you are an atheist. If you neither believe nor disbelieve, you aren't an atheist, you are some kind of agnostic.

Another distinction atheists like to propose is between ''implicit'' and ''explicit'' atheism. Explicit atheism means active conscious rejection of God's existence. "Implicit atheism" refers to having no belief in God, due to not being aware of the concept. Atheists use this to argue that "babies are atheists", again in order to boost their numbers. However, again, this is an abuse of terminology. "Implicit atheism" is not atheism. Babies, just because they haven't learnt the concept of "God" yet, are not atheists. To be an atheist, you must have encountered the idea of "God", and chosen to reject it. A baby isn't even an agnostic, since an agnostic has encountered the idea, and isn't personally sure whether it is right, or even thinks we'll never know if it is. A baby hasn't encountered the idea yet.

Another specious atheist argument is "Christians are atheists about all Gods but one". But this ignores that ''god'' is used in two different ways. Little-g god, refers to a limited being, like the gods of mythology, with immense but not absolute power. It is possible for multiple such limited beings to exist. Capital-G God, refers to an omnipotent being, as conceived in religions such as Judaism and Christianity. It is impossible for there to exist more than one omnipotent being - what happens if two omnipotent beings have a disagreement? So, Zeus is not comparable to the Christian God, and the Christian's disbelief in Zeus is not a form of atheism.

Also, Christians need not deny the existence of the gods of other religions, and hence can not truly be called atheists with respect to them:
*A traditional belief in Christianity (see {{bibleref|1Corinthians|10|20}}) is that the gods of other religions may be demons presenting themselves as gods. So, a Christian may not deny the existence of Zeus, but understand Zeus very differently from how his worshippers back in ancient times would have (as an evil demon rather than as a good spirit)
*Another Christian belief is that other religions are distorted versions of the religion originally revealed by God. As such, they do not believe in different gods, but in the same God as the Christian; but only the Christian has an undistorted view of God, while the other religions are laboring under distorted ideas of His nature. It is like comparing a distorted rumour about a person to an accurate account; the accounts can be so different that they seem like different people, even though they are actually both about the same person (but one is accurate, the other highly inaccurate). So too may it be for the various religions and God.

== Attempts to Dilute the Definition of Atheism ==
[[File:Charles Bradlaugh.jpg|thumb|right|195px|[[Charles Bradlaugh]] ]]
''See also:'' [[Attempts to dilute the definition of atheism]]

[[Charles Bradlaugh]], in 1876, proposed that atheism does not assert "there is no God," and by doing so he diluted the traditional definition of atheism. Since 1979, many atheists have followed Bradlaugh's thinking further and stated that atheism is merely a lack of belief in any god.<ref name="DivCon">http://www.thedivineconspiracy.org/athart3.htm</ref><ref>[http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/bradlaugh.htm Positive Atheism's Big List of Charles Bradlaugh Quotations]</ref> The motive for such a shift in meaning appears to be to an attempt to shift the burden of proof regarding the existence of God to the [[theism]] side.<ref name="DivCon" />

In the article, ''Is Atheism Presumptuous''?, atheist [[Jeffery Jay Lowder]], a founder of [[Internet Infidels]] which owns and operates the Secular Web (the Secular Web is a website focused on promoting atheism, [[agnosticism|agnostics]] and [[Philosophical skepticism|skeptics]] on the internet), states that "I agree (with Copan) that anyone who claims, "God does not exist," must shoulder a burden of proof just as much as anyone who claims, "God exists."<ref name="DivCon" />
In short, the attempt to redefine atheism is merely an attempt to make no assertions so no facts need be offered. The attempt to redefine atheism, however, is not in accordance with the standard definitions of atheism that encyclopedias of philosophy employ which is that atheism is a denial of the existence of God or gods.<ref>[http://www.thedivineconspiracy.org/athart3.htm Atheism - Etymology]</ref>

The purpose of all these exercises in redefinition is to try to slant the rhetorical playing field in favor of the atheists and against believers:
*By redefining atheism to include agnosticism, they both boost their numbers - there are many non-religious folks who will admit they aren't sure whether God exists, but far fewer who have the presumptousness to claim to know for a fact that He does not - and also make their case easier to make (an agnostic, to justify their agnosticism, need only overcome the positive evidence in favor of God's existence; an atheist, in addition to that, must also find positive evidence against God's existence)
*By redefining atheism so that babies are atheists, they try to falsely paint atheism as some sort of ''natural state'', despite the fact that religion is a universal across human cultures, up until modern times; there is no traditional culture which totally lacks religious beliefs, and religious belief goes back thousands of years
*By ignoring the definition of traditional God (which refers to an omnipotent being, not a more limited being such as that found in Greek mythology), they try to claim that ''Christians are atheists'', with respect to all the gods of mythology. However, this specious argument ignores the fact that these other supposed beings are not Gods, only gods. There can only be one God, when the definition of God includes omnipotence.

== Is atheism a religion? ==

''See also:'' [[Atheism is a religion]]

Atheists claim that atheism is not a religion; that "calling atheism a religion is like calling baldness a hair color". But, to answer this question properly, we need to ask, what actually is a religion? Religion is a difficult concept to define precisely, given the immense variety of different religions that exist. Not all religions believe in God; a good example of this is many forms of Buddhism. So, the mere fact that atheists reject belief in God, does not necessarily imply they are not a religion.

Many of the leaders of the atheist movement (such as [[Richard Dawkins]]) argue for atheism with a religious fervor - atheism plays a role in the life of Dawkins', or other atheist leaders, similar to the role which Christianity plays in the life of a Christian minister or author.

Ninian Smart has identified seven dimensions which make up religion: narrative, experiential, social, ethical, doctrinal, ritual and material. It is not necessary in Smart's model for every one of these to be present in order for something to be a religion.<ref>[http://creation.com/atheism-a-religion "Atheism: A religion"], Daniel Smartt, Creation.com</ref>. However, it can be argued that all seven are present in the case of atheism:
*''Narrative'' - this dimension is concerned with stories which explain the origin of the universe and the human life. For Christians, there is the Book of Genesis. For atheists, the Big Bang, abiogenesis, the theory of evolution, etc., play a similar role<ref>[http://creation.com/atheism-a-religion "Atheism: A religion"], Daniel Smartt, Creation.com</ref>
*''Experiential'' - this dimension is concerned with personal or spiritual experiences. Many religious believers report experiences of being near to God. Many atheists report an experience of "liberation" in the moment when they first rejected God<ref>[http://creation.com/atheism-a-religion "Atheism: A religion"], Daniel Smartt, Creation.com</ref>
*''Social'' - the social dimension of religion is concerned with religious leadership and community in congregations. Contemporary atheism has its own leadership (authors such as Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris) and social gatherings (e.g. the Global Atheist Convention held in Melbourne, Australia)<ref>[http://creation.com/atheism-a-religion "Atheism: A religion"], Daniel Smartt, Creation.com</ref>
*''Ethical'' - this dimension is concerned with the ethical teachings of a religion. Logically speaking, if there is no God, how can there be any objective ethics? Ethics is reduced to each person's individual whims. Despite this, the leaders of atheism are insistent that they do have ethics, and even claim to have better ethics than religious people<ref>[http://creation.com/atheism-a-religion "Atheism: A religion"], Daniel Smartt, Creation.com</ref>
*''Doctrinal'' - this dimension is concerned with the philosophical teachings of a religion, its claims about the ultimate nature of reality. Some of the central dogmas of atheism include the non-existence of God, the non-existence of afterlife or an immortal soul, that all which exists is ultimately reducible to matter ([[materialism]]), and that faith is illegitimate<ref>[http://creation.com/atheism-a-religion "Atheism: A religion"], Daniel Smartt, Creation.com</ref>
*''Ritual''<ref>[http://creation.com/atheism-a-religion "Atheism: A religion"], Daniel Smartt, Creation.com</ref> - this dimension is concerned with rituals, the celebration of rites, ceremonies or festivals. Although atheism at present has few rituals, there are explicitly atheist versions of rituals to celebrate major life events (birth, marriage, death), and some atheists have proposed annual festivals to substitute for Christmas or Easter, such as Charles Darwin's birthday
*''Material''<ref>[http://creation.com/atheism-a-religion "Atheism: A religion"], Daniel Smartt, Creation.com</ref> - this dimension is concerned with the physical artifacts of a religion, such as buildings, monuments, art, etc., and with physical places considered sacred. Many atheists argue that all nature is sacred
In conclusion, all of these seven dimensions are present for atheism, and hence atheism is a religion under Smartt's model. Although atheism possesses some of these elements more strongly than others, Smart's model does not require all of these dimensions to be present, or present equally, for the existence of religion to be established.

== Atheism recognized legally as a religion ==
In the [[United States]], it is a settled matter of law that atheism is a religion for the purposes of the Constitution:
:In the last sixty years the Supreme Court and other courts have recognized that a number of non-theistic belief systems function in the lives of their adherents in the same manner as traditional theism functions in the lives of its adherents. To ensure that the First Amendment satisfies its non-discriminatory purpose the courts have recognized that these functional equivalents are just as religious as the views of traditional theists. Hence the courts have embraced an inclusive definition that is not confined to just belief in God, but rather includes beliefs about God and other “matters of ultimate concern.” This was explained by the Supreme Court in a 1992 opinion holding that government cannot prefer “theistic over nontheistic religion,” and that the “settled law” is that the “Clause applies ‘to each of us, be he Jew or Agnostic, Christian or Atheist, Buddhist or Freethinker’” [Lee v. Weisman, 1992] The Court has also recognized that “Secular” Humanism is a non-theistic religion. According to the Humanist Manifesto, adherents to the faith include Atheists, Freethinkers, Agnostics, Skeptics, Deists, and other “liberal religions.”<ref>[http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/Kitzmiller%27s_error_summary.pdf John Calvert, J.D., "Summary of ''Kitzmiller’s Error: Using an Exclusive rather than Inclusive Definition of Religion'', Liberty University Law Review, pp 213-328, Vol. 3, No. 2 (Spring 2009)", June 22, 2010]</ref><ref>[http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/Kitzmiller%27s_Error.pdf ''KITZMILLER’S ERROR: DEFINING “RELIGION” EXCLUSIVELY RATHER THAN INCLUSIVELY'', 3 Liberty U. L. Rev. 213 (Spring 2009)]</ref>

John Calvert, a lawyer and [[intelligent design]] proponent declared:
{{cquote|The Seventh Judicial Circuit of the Court of Appeals of the [[United States]] held that atheism is a [[religion]]. Therefore, it cannot be promoted by a public school. Currently, public schools are often unwittingly promoting atheism through a dogmatic and uncritical teaching of [[Evolution|materialistic theories of origins]].<ref>[http://shockawenow.blogspot.com/2011/08/intelligent-design-leader-john-calvert.html The effects of the Question Evolution! Campaign will be devastating to evolutionary belief and atheism]</ref>}}

== See also ==
*[[Definitions of Atheist and Agnostic]]
*[[Atheists doubting the validity of atheism]]
*[[Resources for leaving atheism and becoming a Christian]]
*[[Essay: The question atheists fear|The question atheists fear]]
*[[Christian apologetics|Evidence for Christianity]]
*[[Weak atheism]]
*[[Strong atheism]]

== External links ==
*[http://www.leaderu.com/truth/1truth11.html Why the Burden of Proof is on the Atheist] by Professor Ralph McInerny
* [http://home.earthlink.net/~gbl111/resurrection.htm Atheists and the Resurrection - Framing the Argument] by G. Brady Lenardos
* [http://www.examiner.com/x-19682-Atlanta-Church--Culture-Examiner~y2009m8d10-Atheisms-house-of-cards-Part-3 Atheism's House of Cards]
* [http://www.examiner.com/x-19682-Atlanta-Church--Culture-Examiner~y2009m8d13-Arguments-Built-upon-Assumptions Arguments Built by Assumptions]

General articles on atheism and agnosticism:

* [http://creation.com/atheism Atheism] by [[Creation Ministries International]]
*[http://creation.com/atheism-agnosticism-and-humanism-godless-religions-questions-and-answers Atheism, agnosticism and humanism: godless religions] by [[Creation Ministries International]]
* [http://www.carm.org/atheism.htm Atheism] by [[Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry]]
* [http://www.greatcom.org/resources/secular_religions/ch01/default.htm Atheism, Agnosticism, and Skepticism] Synopsis of Understanding Secular Religions by [[Josh McDowell]] and Don Stewart

{{Nb Atheism}}

== Notes ==
{{reflist|2}}

[[Category: Atheism]]

Talk:Definition of atheism

2011-08-07T02:44:26Z

ZackMartin:

There's a huge difference between saying that everything is made of matter, and materialism.
Saying that everything is made of matter is a scientific concept, which actually has different definitions of matter (ie. some don't consider light to be matter because their definition of matter requires it to have mass. Whilst some do consider light to be matter because it is made up of particles). 
Materialism is something different entirely. Materialism is a philosophical viewpoint, and is about wanting only physical things, such as a big house or a nice car, and not caring about emotional things such as love and friendship.
Because they are different, it is improper to put 'materialism' in brackets after mentioning the idea that everything is made of matter, and is why I removed that implication. - JamesCA, July 31 2011

:Maybe you should look at the [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/materialism definition of materialism] again. [[User:JonG|~ ]][[User_talk:JonG|JonG]][[Special:Contributions/JonG| ~]] 21:30, 30 July 2011 (EDT)

Putting the issue into context, here's the line: "Some of the central dogmas of atheism include the non-existence of God, the non-existence of afterlife or an immortal soul, that all which exists is ultimately reducible to matter (materialism), and that faith is illegitimate". okay, fair point, but as the word 'materialism' is associated more often with the philosophical definition, rather than the science one, perhaps it would be better to put "(the scientific theory of materialism)" instead of just "materialism". - JamesCA, 31 July 2011
:JamesCA, there is a distinction between the ''philosophical'' definition of materialism (all reality is reducible to matter), and the ''popular'' one (excessive focus on material wealth). It should be obvious from the context that the first definition is meant, not the second. [[User:Maratrean|Maratrean]] 00:12, 6 August 2011 (EDT)
:It is only obvious to those who know of both. It was only after following the link above that I was aware of the philosophical definition. So I think that a bit of clarity is useful, and is not harmful to the article. JamesCA, August 6 2011
::Well, the article reads now: ''Some of the central dogmas of atheism include... that all which exists is ultimately reducible to matter ([[materialism]])''. I think it was clear enough already, given that we explciitly state what definition of materialism we are using "all which exists is ultimately reducible to matter". But now there is a link to the article which discusses the same definition, so if there is any doubt in the reader's mind, they should click on that link and enlighten themselves. :) [[User:Maratrean|Maratrean]] 22:44, 6 August 2011 (EDT)

Definition of atheism

2011-08-07T02:42:40Z

ZackMartin: /* Is atheism a religion? */ linkify materialism

[[File:Atheism.jpg|thumb|alt=atheism|right|175px|[[Paul-Henri Thiry]], Baron d'Holbach (1723 - 1789), was an early advocate of atheism in [[Europe]].]]
[[Atheism]], as defined by the ''Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy'', the ''Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy'', and other [[philosophy]] reference works, is the denial of the existence of [[God]].<ref>[http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism Stanford Encyclopedia of Philisophy - Atheism and Agnosticism]</ref><ref name="cw">[http://creation.com/atheism-is-more-rational Is Atheism More Rational?] by [[Creation Ministries International]]</ref><ref>[http://www.thedivineconspiracy.org/athart3.htm Atheism - Etymology]</ref> "The Merriam-Webster dictionary '''definition of atheism''' is "a disbelief in the existence of deity".<ref>http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism</ref>

== Some purported varieties of atheism ==
Many atheists like to make a distinction between ''[[strong atheism]]'' and ''[[weak atheism]]''. They define ''strong atheism'' as believing God does not exist, while ''weak atheism'' as neither believing nor disbelieving. However, this usage is incorrect, and has been invented by atheists to boost their numbers. If you believe God does not exist, you are an atheist. If you neither believe nor disbelieve, you aren't an atheist, you are some kind of agnostic.

Another distinction atheists like to propose is between ''implicit'' and ''explicit'' atheism. Explicit atheism means active conscious rejection of God's existence. "Implicit atheism" refers to having no belief in God, due to not being aware of the concept. Atheists use this to argue that "babies are atheists", again in order to boost their numbers. However, again, this is an abuse of terminology. "Implicit atheism" is not atheism. Babies, just because they haven't learnt the concept of "God" yet, are not atheists. To be an atheist, you must have encountered the idea of "God", and chosen to reject it. A baby isn't even an agnostic, since an agnostic has encountered the idea, and isn't personally sure whether it is right, or even thinks we'll never know if it is. A baby hasn't encountered the idea yet.

Another specious atheist argument is "Christians are atheists about all Gods but one". But this ignores that ''god'' is used in two different ways. Little-g god, refers to a limited being, like the gods of mythology, with immense but not absolute power. It is possible for multiple such limited beings to exist. Capital-G God, refers to an omnipotent being, as conceived in religions such as Judaism and Christianity. It is impossible for there to exist more than one omnipotent being - what happens if two omnipotent beings have a disagreement? So, Zeus is not comparable to the Christian God, and the Christian's disbelief in Zeus is not a form of atheism.

Also, Christians need not deny the existence of the gods of other religions, and hence can not truly be called atheists with respect to them:
*A traditional belief in Christianity (see {{bibleref|1Corinthians|10|20}}) is that the gods of other religions may be demons presenting themselves as gods. So, a Christian may not deny the existence of Zeus, but understand Zeus very differently from how his worshippers back in ancient times would have (as an evil demon rather than as a good spirit)
*Another Christian belief is that other religions are distorted versions of the religion originally revealed by God. As such, they do not believe in different gods, but in the same God as the Christian; but only the Christian has an undistorted view of God, while the other religions are laboring under distorted ideas of His nature. It is like comparing a distorted rumour about a person to an accurate account; the accounts can be so different that they seem like different people, even though they are actually both about the same person (but one is accurate, the other highly inaccurate). So too may it be for the various religions and God.

== Attempts to Dilute the Definition of Atheism ==
[[File:Charles Bradlaugh.jpg|thumb|right|195px|[[Charles Bradlaugh]] ]]
''See also:'' [[Attempts to dilute the definition of atheism]]

[[Charles Bradlaugh]], in 1876, proposed that atheism does not assert "there is no God," and by doing so he diluted the traditional definition of atheism. Since 1979, many atheists have followed Bradlaugh's thinking further and stated that atheism is merely a lack of belief in any god.<ref name="DivCon">http://www.thedivineconspiracy.org/athart3.htm</ref><ref>[http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/bradlaugh.htm Positive Atheism's Big List of Charles Bradlaugh Quotations]</ref> The motive for such a shift in meaning appears to be to an attempt to shift the burden of proof regarding the existence of God to the [[theism]] side.<ref name="DivCon" />

In the article, ''Is Atheism Presumptuous''?, atheist [[Jeffery Jay Lowder]], a founder of [[Internet Infidels]] which owns and operates the Secular Web (the Secular Web is a website focused on promoting atheism, [[agnosticism|agnostics]] and [[Philosophical skepticism|skeptics]] on the internet), states that "I agree (with Copan) that anyone who claims, "God does not exist," must shoulder a burden of proof just as much as anyone who claims, "God exists."<ref name="DivCon" />
In short, the attempt to redefine atheism is merely an attempt to make no assertions so no facts need be offered. The attempt to redefine atheism, however, is not in accordance with the standard definitions of atheism that encyclopedias of philosophy employ which is that atheism is a denial of the existence of God or gods.<ref>[http://www.thedivineconspiracy.org/athart3.htm Atheism - Etymology]</ref>

The purpose of all these exercises in redefinition is to try to slant the rhetorical playing field in favor of the atheists and against believers:
*By redefining atheism to include agnosticism, they both boost their numbers - there are many non-religious folks who will admit they aren't sure whether God exists, but far fewer who have the presumptousness to claim to know for a fact that He does not - and also make their case easier to make (an agnostic, to justify their agnosticism, need only overcome the positive evidence in favor of God's existence; an atheist, in addition to that, must also find positive evidence against God's existence)
*By redefining atheism so that babies are atheists, they try to falsely paint atheism as some sort of ''natural state'', despite the fact that religion is a universal across human cultures, up until modern times; there is no traditional culture which totally lacks religious beliefs, and religious belief goes back thousands of years
*By ignoring the definition of traditional God (which refers to an omnipotent being, not a more limited being such as that found in Greek mythology), they try to claim that ''Christians are atheists'', with respect to all the gods of mythology. However, this specious argument ignores the fact that these other supposed beings are not Gods, only gods. There can only be one God, when the definition of God includes omnipotence.

== Is atheism a religion? ==

''See also:'' [[Atheism is a religion]]

Atheists claim that atheism is not a religion; that "calling atheism a religion is like calling baldness a hair color". But, to answer this question properly, we need to ask, what actually is a religion? Religion is a difficult concept to define precisely, given the immense variety of different religions that exist. Not all religions believe in God; a good example of this is many forms of Buddhism. So, the mere fact that atheists reject belief in God, does not necessarily imply they are not a religion.

Many of the leaders of the atheist movement (such as [[Richard Dawkins]]) argue for atheism with a religious fervor - atheism plays a role in the life of Dawkins', or other atheist leaders, similar to the role which Christianity plays in the life of a Christian minister or author.

Daniel Smartt has identified seven dimensions which make up religion: narrative, experiential, social, ethical, doctrinal, ritual and material. It is not necessary in Smart's model for every one of these to be present in order for something to be a religion.<ref>[http://creation.com/atheism-a-religion "Atheism: A religion"], Daniel Smartt, Creation.com</ref>. However, it can be argued that all seven are present in the case of atheism:
*''Narrative'' - this dimension is concerned with stories which explain the origin of the universe and the human life. For Christians, there is the Book of Genesis. For atheists, the Big Bang, abiogenesis, the theory of evolution, etc., play a similar role<ref>[http://creation.com/atheism-a-religion "Atheism: A religion"], Daniel Smartt, Creation.com</ref>
*''Experiential'' - this dimension is concerned with personal or spiritual experiences. Many religious believers report experiences of being near to God. Many atheists report an experience of "liberation" in the moment when they first rejected God<ref>[http://creation.com/atheism-a-religion "Atheism: A religion"], Daniel Smartt, Creation.com</ref>
*''Social'' - the social dimension of religion is concerned with religious leadership and community in congregations. Contemporary atheism has its own leadership (authors such as Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris) and social gatherings (e.g. the Global Atheist Convention held in Melbourne, Australia)<ref>[http://creation.com/atheism-a-religion "Atheism: A religion"], Daniel Smartt, Creation.com</ref>
*''Ethical'' - this dimension is concerned with the ethical teachings of a religion. Logically speaking, if there is no God, how can there be any objective ethics? Ethics is reduced to each person's individual whims. Despite this, the leaders of atheism are insistent that they do have ethics, and even claim to have better ethics than religious people<ref>[http://creation.com/atheism-a-religion "Atheism: A religion"], Daniel Smartt, Creation.com</ref>
*''Doctrinal'' - this dimension is concerned with the philosophical teachings of a religion, its claims about the ultimate nature of reality. Some of the central dogmas of atheism include the non-existence of God, the non-existence of afterlife or an immortal soul, that all which exists is ultimately reducible to matter ([[materialism]]), and that faith is illegitimate<ref>[http://creation.com/atheism-a-religion "Atheism: A religion"], Daniel Smartt, Creation.com</ref>
*''Ritual''<ref>[http://creation.com/atheism-a-religion "Atheism: A religion"], Daniel Smartt, Creation.com</ref> - this dimension is concerned with rituals, the celebration of rites, ceremonies or festivals. Although atheism at present has few rituals, there are explicitly atheist versions of rituals to celebrate major life events (birth, marriage, death), and some atheists have proposed annual festivals to substitute for Christmas or Easter, such as Charles Darwin's birthday
*''Material''<ref>[http://creation.com/atheism-a-religion "Atheism: A religion"], Daniel Smartt, Creation.com</ref> - this dimension is concerned with the physical artifacts of a religion, such as buildings, monuments, art, etc., and with physical places considered sacred. Many atheists argue that all nature is sacred
In conclusion, all of these seven dimensions are present for atheism, and hence atheism is a religion under Smartt's model. Although atheism possesses some of these elements more strongly than others, Smart's model does not require all of these dimensions to be present, or present equally, for the existence of religion to be established.

== Atheism recognized legally as a religion ==
In the [[United States]], it is a settled matter of law that atheism is a religion for the purposes of the Constitution:
:In the last sixty years the Supreme Court and other courts have recognized that a number of non-theistic belief systems function in the lives of their adherents in the same manner as traditional theism functions in the lives of its adherents. To ensure that the First Amendment satisfies its non-discriminatory purpose the courts have recognized that these functional equivalents are just as religious as the views of traditional theists. Hence the courts have embraced an inclusive definition that is not confined to just belief in God, but rather includes beliefs about God and other “matters of ultimate concern.” This was explained by the Supreme Court in a 1992 opinion holding that government cannot prefer “theistic over nontheistic religion,” and that the “settled law” is that the “Clause applies ‘to each of us, be he Jew or Agnostic, Christian or Atheist, Buddhist or Freethinker’” [Lee v. Weisman, 1992] The Court has also recognized that “Secular” Humanism is a non-theistic religion. According to the Humanist Manifesto, adherents to the faith include Atheists, Freethinkers, Agnostics, Skeptics, Deists, and other “liberal religions.”<ref>[http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/Kitzmiller%27s_error_summary.pdf John Calvert, J.D., "Summary of ''Kitzmiller’s Error: Using an Exclusive rather than Inclusive Definition of Religion'', Liberty University Law Review, pp 213-328, Vol. 3, No. 2 (Spring 2009)", June 22, 2010]</ref><ref>[http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/Kitzmiller%27s_Error.pdf ''KITZMILLER’S ERROR: DEFINING “RELIGION” EXCLUSIVELY RATHER THAN INCLUSIVELY'', 3 Liberty U. L. Rev. 213 (Spring 2009)]</ref>

== See also ==
*[[Definitions of Atheist and Agnostic]]
*[[Atheists doubting the validity of atheism]]
*[[Resources for leaving atheism and becoming a Christian]]
*[[Essay: The question atheists fear|The question atheists fear]]
*[[Christian apologetics|Evidence for Christianity]]
*[[Weak atheism]]
*[[Strong atheism]]

== External links ==
*[http://www.leaderu.com/truth/1truth11.html Why the Burden of Proof is on the Atheist] by Professor Ralph McInerny
* [http://home.earthlink.net/~gbl111/resurrection.htm Atheists and the Resurrection - Framing the Argument] by G. Brady Lenardos
* [http://www.examiner.com/x-19682-Atlanta-Church--Culture-Examiner~y2009m8d10-Atheisms-house-of-cards-Part-3 Atheism's House of Cards]
* [http://www.examiner.com/x-19682-Atlanta-Church--Culture-Examiner~y2009m8d13-Arguments-Built-upon-Assumptions Arguments Built by Assumptions]

General articles on atheism and agnosticism:

* [http://creation.com/atheism Atheism] by [[Creation Ministries International]]
*[http://creation.com/atheism-agnosticism-and-humanism-godless-religions-questions-and-answers Atheism, agnosticism and humanism: godless religions] by [[Creation Ministries International]]
* [http://www.carm.org/atheism.htm Atheism] by [[Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry]]
* [http://www.greatcom.org/resources/secular_religions/ch01/default.htm Atheism, Agnosticism, and Skepticism] Synopsis of Understanding Secular Religions by [[Josh McDowell]] and Don Stewart

{{Nb Atheism}}

== Notes ==
{{reflist|2}}

[[Category: Atheism]]

User:ZackMartin

2011-08-06T21:48:34Z

ZackMartin:

I think the main problem with Wikipedia is NPOV (neutral point of view) — in reality, no one can agree on what a neutral point of view is.

I think a much better approach is to have several encyclopedias with competing viewpoints (POVs).

I don't really share Conservapedia's viewpoint, but I don't want to sabotage it either. I think the more POV-specific encyclopedia choices, the better — whether they are my POV or not. Let's have a free market of encyclopedias.

I have written several articles for [http://astorehouseofknowledge.info A Storehouse of Knowledge], I have copied some here when I think they would fit in with this site. I am careful however to only copy what I have written, not any edits by other people.

I identify as a religious liberal — my religion is [http://sites.google.com/site/maratreans/ Maratreanism] — I disagree with the average conservative on many issues, e.g. I support same-sex marriage and I strongly oppose the death penalty; but one thing I do have in common with many Conservapedia editors, is a disagreement with atheism, especially organized atheism. So I am hopeful I can contribute positively to articles on the topic of atheism.

User:ZackMartin

2011-08-06T21:48:03Z

ZackMartin:

I think the main problem with Wikipedia is NPOV (neutral point of view) — in reality, no one can agree on what a neutral point of view is.

I think a much better approach is to have several encyclopedias with competing viewpoints (POVs).

I don't really share Conservapedia's viewpoint, but I don't want to sabotage it either. I think the more POV-specific encyclopedia choices, the better — whether they are my POV or not. Let's have a free market of encyclopedias.

I have written several articles for [http://astorehouseofknowledge.info A Storehouse of Knowledge], I have copied some here when I think they would fit in with this site. I am careful however to only copy what I have written, not any edits by other people.

I identify as a religious liberal — my religion is [https://sites.google.com/site/maratreans/ Maratreanism] — I disagree with the average conservative on many issues, e.g. I support same-sex marriage and I strongly oppose the death penalty; but one thing I do have in common with many Conservapedia editors, is a disagreement with atheism, especially organized atheism. So I am hopeful I can contribute positively to articles on the topic of atheism.

Talk:Definition of atheism

2011-08-06T04:12:39Z

ZackMartin:

Talk:Gravitation demystified

2011-07-16T00:50:38Z

ZackMartin: Suggest to rename this as "Essay:"

Hi JimJast, I think you would be better to rename this to "Essay:Gravitation demystified". Ask an administrator if they would do that for you. [[User:Maratrean|Maratrean]] 20:50, 15 July 2011 (EDT)

User talk:JimJast

2011-07-16T00:48:39Z

ZackMartin: Hi Jim Jast

{{welcome}}
Hi Jim Jast, welcome to Conservapedia. Knowing your interests, I would suggest a good article for you to work on would be [[Big Bang theory]]. But I'd suggest you edit the [[Talk:Big Bang theory|Talk page]] first, to check if other editors are happy with your edits, before making them to the proper article (at least until you get the feel for the site.) If you want to check on anything, good people to talk to would be [[User talk:Conservative|Conservative]] or [[User talk:RobSmith|RobSmith]], since they are both admins and have been around much longer than me. [[User:Maratrean|Maratrean]] 20:48, 15 July 2011 (EDT)

Conservapedia:Atheism Project

2011-07-16T00:38:07Z

ZackMartin: /* Additional Atheism related articles needed */

[[Conservapedia]] has initiated a campaign to expand its number of articles relating to [[atheism]]. Editors are encouraged to create [[Conservapedia:Commandments|high quality articles]] on the subjects below. The objective is to have a source of refutations of common atheist arguments. Conservapedia also encourages individuals to spread awareness about the Conservapedia Atheism Project, as we are seeking to expand our anti-atheist editor base and greatly expand our readership among the general public concerning the general subject area of atheism.

== Guidelines ==
*Note to individuals or teams of individuals creating articles: Where appropriate, please try to make the articles or essays at least 500 words in length rather than making stubs. There is a helpful tool located [http://www.wordcounttool.com/ HERE] for web writers that indicates how many words are on a web page.

*Please cite your sources for articles via footnotes (see: [[Conservapedia:Footnotes - technical help]]).

*In addition, it is important that the articles be original and not created by merely cutting and pasting content from other websites.

== Additional Atheism related articles needed ==
''This is a list of articles suggested by [[User:Conservative]]. Please feel free to add any other article suggestions.''
*[[Atheism symbols]]
*[[Soviet atheism]]
*[[Soviet realism and atheism]]
*[[Atheism organizations]]
*[[Atheism activists]]
*[[Atheism 1960s]]
*[[Atheism 1970s]]
*[[Atheism and consciousness]]
*[[Christian response to atheism]]
*[[Psychology of atheism]]
*[[Essay: Who is the father of atheism?]]
*[[Atheism and homosexuality]]
*[[Atheism and sexuality]]
*[[Four Horsemen of atheism]]
*[[Atheism and the founding fathers]]
*[[Atheism in popular culture]]
*[[Atheism vs. theism in education]]
*[[Isaac Newton and atheism]]
*[[Decline of atheism]]
*[[Difference between pantheism and atheism]]
*[[Atheism statistics]]
*[[Teenage atheism]]
*[[Atheism and logic]]
*[[Atheism in the media]]

== Spreading Awareness Concerning Conservapedia's Atheism Project ==

'''Attention Anti-Atheists!''' Conservapedia wishes to increase public awareness of its Atheism Project to counter many atheism websites targeting young people.

=== Spreading awareness via personal email ===

Email everyone in your contacts and tell them about them about the Conservapedia Atheism Project so ''they'' can help us do something to counter atheists targeting young people with their false and morally bankrupt ideology.

=== Anti-atheism email list subscribers ===
Are you on an anti-atheist or conservative email list? Please forward a message to your fellow subscribers inviting them to take part in this exciting project!

=== Members of social networking sites ===
Are you a member of a site like [[Facebook]], [[Myspace]], [http://www.myichthus.com/ myIchthus], [http://www.mychurch.org/ MyChurch] or other social networking websites? Spread the word about the Conservapedia Atheism Project!

=== Anti-atheist Bloggers ===
Please tell people about the Conservapedia Atheism Project!

=== Anti-atheist Tangle, YouTube, and other video sharing website fans ===
Are you active on [http://www.tangle.com Tangle],[http://www.youtube.com/ YouTube], or other video sharing websites? Create a video about the Conservapedia Atheism Project!

{{Atheism}}

[[Category: Conservapedia]]
[[Category: Atheism]]