Talk:Essay:The Problems with Conservapedia

This essay does bring up some good points. I've recently been particularly irritated with a certain zealous administrator for inserting bigotry on the Main Page comparing atheists and feminists to "mutants." —LT^{May D.C., his mother, and I.S. be all well!} Saturday, 15:28, October 16, 2021 (EDT)

Show me that I am wrong about atheists having an above average level of mutations. See: Atheists and genetic mutations

My article ranks #4 for the search "Atheists and genetic mutations" at a popular search engine that begins with a G. Miss G loves my article! It outranks Newsweek's article "Religious People Live Healthier, Longer Lives—While Atheists Collect Mutant Genes" for this search.

By the way, I am less zealous about confronting the atheist movement in the Western world - now that is dead! See: Decline of the atheist movement

At the same time, Sun Tzu did write: ""...when we are able to attack, we must seem unable; when using our forces, we must appear inactive; when we are near, we must make the enemy believe we are far away; when far away, we must make him believe we are near." Am I still engaged in anti-atheism efforts online? That is a mystery wrapped in an enigma! Conservative (talk) 19:37, October 16, 2021 (EDT)

Calling groups of people "mutants" is inappropriate, period. You should know better. —LT^{May D.C., his mother, and I.S. be all well!} Saturday, 19:39, October 16, 2021 (EDT)

Atheists love genetic mutations! They believe the whole human race would not exist if it were not for mutations. There is a high correlation between belief in evolutionism and atheism. Conservative (talk) 19:48, October 16, 2021 (EDT)

So all you have now are meaningless deflections. Typical... —LT^{May D.C., his mother, and I.S. be all well!} Saturday, 19:50, October 16, 2021 (EDT)

You have not refuted my position that atheists have an above average level of mutations. Until you do that, I am not going to take you seriously. Conservative (talk) 19:54, October 16, 2021 (EDT)

Why should I care if a bigot like you with no credibility takes me seriously or not? —LT^{May D.C., his mother, and I.S. be all well!} Saturday, 19:56, October 16, 2021 (EDT)

Ok. Game over. Once again, science and facts triump over emotionalism. Conservative (talk) 19:59, October 16, 2021 (EDT)

Of course you never understood the point in the first place. Calling groups of people "mutants" is simply inappropriate, period. Posting such nonsense on the Main Page does this site no good, and will only chase people away. —LT^{May D.C., his mother, and I.S. be all well!} Sunday, 20:02, October 16, 2021 (EDT)

The Webster-Merriam online dictionary defines the word mutant thusly: "of, relating to, or produced by mutation".[1]

Are you denying that the vast majority of atheists believe that the human race would not exist if it were not for mutations? Deny this and lose all credibility! See also: Evolution as a secular origins myth

It looks like your "period" in bold faced font was merely a rhetorical flourish and has no justification whatsoever. And again, show me that atheists do not have a significantly higher mutational load than the religious population of the world. You can't do it. Conservative (talk) 20:15, October 16, 2021 (EDT)

Reading the contents of ChenXiansheng's essay, it appears there's a 2–1 consensus that incendiary remarks like you calling atheists and feminists "mutants" is, simply put, hateful. You are standing alone in defending the inappropriate MPR post. By the testimony of two is the matter established. —LT^{May D.C., his mother, and I.S. be all well!} Sunday, 21:49, October 16, 2021 (EDT)

Evidence always trumps popularity in end. Truth matters. Conservative (talk) 00:35, October 17, 2021 (EDT)

But... that's not the truth... If Conservapedia wants to act like a serious, "trusworthy" wiki that documents the American right, it needs to stop using labels for people that it doesn't like. ChenXiansheng (talk) 15:10, October 17, 2021 (EDT)

I agree. "totalitarian fascist" and "racist" are suffient to describe leftists. RobS^{Free Kyle!}

Heck, we could even throw in "anti-science" or "flatearthers" without sounding too hateful. RobS^{Free Kyle!} 15:40, October 17, 2021 (EDT)

But Chen & LT have a valid point here: "mutant" is a little to close to Al Gore's widely criticized "extra chromosome" comment, for which he was justly called out for mocking people with Down's Syndrome and conservatives. Discretion needs to be used here, and that's why we should stick to the script with words like "commie", "totalitarian", "racist", etc. which are apt, deserved, and well earned. RobS^{Free Kyle!} 15:47, October 17, 2021 (EDT)

That reminds me, a top-notch professor has told me that eugenics was a doctrine traditionally promoted by progressives. So in other words, the same administrator calling himself "Conservative" is posting utter nonsense reminiscent to standard left-wing/progressive bigotry. —LT^{May D.C., his mother, and I.S. be all well!} Sunday, 16:13, October 17, 2021 (EDT)

The science and/or logic he uses is too convoluted for my simple brain. This is a danger many writers overlook - the assumption readers know what you are talking about. You need to bring readers along, step by step, to make a point and conclusion. Elsewise you're just shouting into an echo chamber, and there may not even be anybody there other than yourself to hear it. RobS^{Free Kyle!} 16:19, October 17, 2021 (EDT)

Once again, show me that I am wrong about atheists having an above average level of mutations compared to religious people. See: Atheists and genetic mutations

I am certainly not going to kowtow to political correctness. Conservative (talk) 16:40, October 17, 2021 (EDT)

Once again, you miss the larger point emphasized here. Posting bigotry on the Main Page is unacceptable. —LT^{May D.C., his mother, and I.S. be all well!} Sunday, 16:41, October 17, 2021 (EDT)

Once again his logic/science is too convoluted for my simple brain to make a point or conclusion. RobS^{Free Kyle!} 16:57, October 17, 2021 (EDT)

Okay, I broke down and actually read, Atheists and genetic mutations. It does not make the claims represented here. One academic in Finland says, lefthandedness is a sign of mutations, and lefthanded people are more likely to be atheists. That is not the same as "all atheists are mutants". This is an abuse of science, little different from naming a slime mold beetle after George Bush.

For everyone one academic making the claim, there are probably 5 atheist academics making counterclaims. That is not science, either.

This is not a put down of Prof. Dutton, he makes many very interesting and valid points, albeit a personal bias does also come through. Dutton says, “Religiousness makes you more pro-social, and you become more religious when you're stressed. Religious people would have been sexually selected for because their pro-social, moral, unstressed nature would be attractive," and "modern science means many people who would not previously have survived are making it to adulthood." No argument there on any of that. However, that is not a natural scientific analysis found under a microscope, it's purely from a social science perspective which again, dozens of atheist social scientists are waiting in the wings with their own, however lame, academic refutations.

Much of Dutton's work has a sound basis. It's how it's being used here that people find objections. RobS^{Free Kyle!} 20:26, October 17, 2021 (EDT)

So, how should scientific evidence of a greater likelihood of genetic mutations among atheists be used? Should it be used to mock people with disabilities? God created people with mutations, should they and/or God be mocked as well? No. This sort of evidence, or scientific evidence if you will, should be used like other warnings, like the signs of diabetes, sickle cell anemia, or warning signs of heart attack. I'm sure no one would object to informative content like that placed on MPR. RobS^{Free Kyle!} 20:46, October 17, 2021 (EDT)