Difference between revisions of "Talk:Essay: Are atheists smarter than the average bear?"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(open-mindedness?)
Line 4: Line 4:
 
::Imagine if, at the back of the Encyclopedia Britannica, there was a series of poorly written essays by a single editor where he compares groups he doesn't like to animals, insults their appearance, and includes numerous photos with captions like, "If you're so smart Mr. Atheist, then why are you so fat?" [sic] I imagine that such an inclusion might be considered a joke, something planted by a prankster, without the knowledge of the other editors. If only we could say the same here.[[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 10:26, 27 January 2012 (EST)
 
::Imagine if, at the back of the Encyclopedia Britannica, there was a series of poorly written essays by a single editor where he compares groups he doesn't like to animals, insults their appearance, and includes numerous photos with captions like, "If you're so smart Mr. Atheist, then why are you so fat?" [sic] I imagine that such an inclusion might be considered a joke, something planted by a prankster, without the knowledge of the other editors. If only we could say the same here.[[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 10:26, 27 January 2012 (EST)
 
:::The Britannica is a British publication, and they are a nation of obese atheists. Hardly the standard to which we should aspire. Why? Because liberals. That's why. [[User:ScottDG|ScottDG]] [[User talk:ScottDG|Talk]] <b>Is Gingrich an orphan? Conservapedia says yes. Why does nobody else? </b> 10:38, 27 January 2012 (EST)
 
:::The Britannica is a British publication, and they are a nation of obese atheists. Hardly the standard to which we should aspire. Why? Because liberals. That's why. [[User:ScottDG|ScottDG]] [[User talk:ScottDG|Talk]] <b>Is Gingrich an orphan? Conservapedia says yes. Why does nobody else? </b> 10:38, 27 January 2012 (EST)
 +
::::Or then again, maybe not every book or website ending in -pedia has to have the same policies just because they have -pedia in the name. Could people please try to be a bit more open-minded?--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 10:46, 27 January 2012 (EST)

Revision as of 10:46, 27 January 2012

Deleting the talk page was a good start. Now you should delete the article too. It's kind of embarrassing. --GeorgeLi 02:45, 27 January 2012 (EST)

Yes, it is embarrassing for liberal atheists - especially the Soviet Union section. :) Conservative 05:05, 27 January 2012 (EST)
This has been bugging me for a while, so I'm finally going to ask it... Why are you wasting your time creating these pointless essays? I know your overall contribution to this site is genuine and meaningful, but this constant stream of pointless essays on atheism comes across as petty and I can't help but think that they are there simply for provocation. --RedGoliath 15:06, 27 January 2012 (GMT)
Imagine if, at the back of the Encyclopedia Britannica, there was a series of poorly written essays by a single editor where he compares groups he doesn't like to animals, insults their appearance, and includes numerous photos with captions like, "If you're so smart Mr. Atheist, then why are you so fat?" [sic] I imagine that such an inclusion might be considered a joke, something planted by a prankster, without the knowledge of the other editors. If only we could say the same here.RachelW 10:26, 27 January 2012 (EST)
The Britannica is a British publication, and they are a nation of obese atheists. Hardly the standard to which we should aspire. Why? Because liberals. That's why. ScottDG Talk Is Gingrich an orphan? Conservapedia says yes. Why does nobody else? 10:38, 27 January 2012 (EST)
Or then again, maybe not every book or website ending in -pedia has to have the same policies just because they have -pedia in the name. Could people please try to be a bit more open-minded?--CPalmer 10:46, 27 January 2012 (EST)