Talk:Thunderf00t

Off topic

A large portion of this article appears to be off topic. A small paragraph about him, mostly about his discussion with Ray comfort (which I have watched, and the only problem he had was stuttering), compared to a much larger paragraph about Atheists debating with Creationists as a whole. --MacN 14:51, 9 February 2011 (EST)

Thanks for the input. I added some material. Conservative 04:17, 2 October 2011 (EDT)

Pointless, offensive, and full of childish, not to mention baseless attacks

Last I checked, this site was named Conservapedia, not Christian Conservapedia. This does not so much describe Thunderf00t as it does attack him, and furthermore attacks all Atheists without regard for political affiliation. Not all Atheists are Liberals, and not all Conservatives are Christians. Editors would do well in remembering this when creating info pages, as well as bringing forth substantiations for their arguments about Atheists in general. --KiloByter 20:05, 25 April 2011 (EST)

You're entitled to your opinion, and we are entitled to our's. DMorris 23:15, 25 April 2011 (EDT)

Indeed, I'm entitled to my opinion; however, frankly, I should think these pages should have absolutely as little to do with opinion as possible, given that Encyclopedias are supposed to shed objective knowledge. If it is the will of the site administrators and community to skew facts due to petty bias, then by all means go ahead. I would however suggest then that the sites name be changed from Conservapedia to Authoritopedia, as Organic Conservatism, and indeed Conservatism should have no need for half-truths and bogus claims.

This is not to say that I disagree with any of the staff or members in general, after all, I am entitled to my opinion. But, I must wholeheartedly disagree with the representation of atheists in general among the political spectrum, and in general by this community as being vile and unwanted. Believers among you, make enemies of atheists if you must, but I find it is irresponsible and shameful to shun fellow conservatives simply because of religious beliefs or lack-thereof. Pardon, moreover to the point, it should be said that I am not trying to make an attack here. I am also not trying to imply that bias is encouraged. I only meant that, if it was or should ever be the will of the community to do so, then they have every right, but I believe the moniker they use would then be inappropriate concerning the political history surrounding Conservatism. KiloByter 22:14, May 1st 2011 (EDT)

Something you'll learn from me if you remain here is that I am a nice guy. You just simply don't seem to understand how Conservapedia works. You should refrain from trying to tell us what to do in your first edit, it makes you look like you're here to cause trouble, a possibility I haven't ruled out yet, but I'm assuming good faith for now. DMorris 22:23, 1 May 2011 (EDT)

Kilobyter, even atheist Matt Dillahunty indicated he was "disappointed" in Thunderf00t's debate performance and referred to his debate performance as "weak sauce".VIDEO Plus this is true as well: On October 1, 2011, the popular video creator Shockofgod created a video mentioning Thunderf00t and atheist Matt Dillahunty which discussed Thunderf00t's and Matt Dillahunty's inability to answer Creation Ministries International's list of 15 Questions that evolutionists cannot satisfactorily answer which are a focus of their Question evolution! campaign. VIDEO Conservative 04:15, 2 October 2011 (EDT)

As time progresses, I am sure this article will have less and less importance to Conservapedia. Right now, atheism is but a sqeak in American society and it is heading towards being just a half a squeak in American society - atheism will be CUT in half.VIDEO Atheism will be just be a footnote in American history no doubt or perhaps even half a footnote. :) Conservative 06:04, 2 October 2011 (EDT)

No Useful Information - No Editing Allowed

This article lives up to none of the requirements of a "Trustworthy Encyclopedia". The entire article was undoubtedly written by Shockofgod. The only references included in this article are from Youtube user Shockofgod, and consist only of his ability to lie through his teeth about the Ray Comfort debate. Matt Dillahunty, as well as "other atheists" as Shockofgod had irresponsibly claimed, had never indicated that Thunderf00t lost the debate against Ray Comfort. Matt simply said he was disappointed with Thunderf00t's performance and that it was, indeed, "weak sauce". Thunderf00t, in Matt's opinion, Thunderf00t "Let him [Ray Comfort] get away with too much" implying not that Thunderf00t had lost the debate, but rather had missed several opportunities to provide potential counterarguments for Ray Comfort. "Other atheists" have often expressed the same sentiment regarding Thunderf00t's performance during the Ray Comfort debate. Furthermore, even had Matt Dillahunty said at any point that Thunderf00t had lost the debate, it would not be an ultimate end to the debate between Christianity and Atheism. As quoted from an anonymous contributor to Conservapedia (whom I, personally, strongly believe to be Shockofgod), "In nearly all Christianity vs. atheism debates, atheists fare very poorly." There are no sources provided to support this claim, and whoever controls this page has restricted editing so that contributors cannot provide the necessary references to back up such a statement. There is no other information in this article about Thunderf00t rather than he allegedly lost a debate to Ray Comfort (which is false data, because the only "evidence" to suggest Ray Comfort's victory is Shockofgod's personal interpretation of Matt Dillahunty's commentary stating that Thunderf00t's performance was "weak sauce"). This article makes no mention of the fact that Thunderf00t is also a Chemist, Biochemist, Astrophysicist and Nuclear Physicist. It makes no mention of all of the William Lane Craig arguments debunked in Thunderf00t's Why Do People Laugh At Creationists? series. It makes no mention of Venomfangx's incident with Thunderf00t in which false Digital Millennium Copyright Act notices were filed against Thunderf00t, and Venomfangx was required to issue an apology to the whole of Youtube in order to avoid legal action. This is a poorly written article with little to no valid resources, and it seems to be hardly the work of a "Trustworthy Encyclopedia". The option to edit this article has been childishly removed, and this is only a testament to the fact that Conservapedia is not a trustworthy encyclopedia. This is academic dishonesty at its best, and deserves no place on Conservapedia or any other website intended to provide objective information, free of bias, to innocent consumers.