Difference between revisions of "User talk:EJamesW"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(Undo revision 1135907 by Conservative (talk))
Line 302: Line 302:
I am working on some off wiki projects right now. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 03:24, 28 January 2015 (EST)
I am working on some off wiki projects right now. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 03:24, 28 January 2015 (EST)
User:conseravtive - you/your collective made a funny! Or maybe you/your collective should brush up on geography. [[User:EJamesW|EJamesW]] 14:42, 28 January 2015 (EST)
User:conseravtive - you/your collective made a funny! Or maybe you/your collective should brush up on European geography. [[User:EJamesW|EJamesW]] 14:42, 28 January 2015 (EST)

Revision as of 14:43, 28 January 2015

Useful links


Hello, EJamesW, and welcome to Conservapedia!

We're glad you are here to edit. We ask that you read our Editor's Guide before you edit.

At the right are some useful links for you. You can include these links on your user page by putting "{{Useful links}}" on the page. Any questions--ask!

Thanks for reading, EJamesW!

Joaquín Martínez 16:14, 13 February 2012 (EST)

Hi James ta!! Alexis 22:14, 25 February 2012 (EST)

Oi hey nobody answered my question how can i help and is there nething I can do?? Alexis 22:20, 25 February 2012 (EST)

My sincere apologies

I meant to block KoyogaBekijo but hit your name by mistake. Please accept my apology. Davidspencer 16:19, 16 March 2012 (EDT)

Blocking authority

Your account has been promoted to blocking authority. Congratulations!--Andy Schlafly 12:44, 16 May 2012 (EDT)

Got your message in my talk page message area

I got your message in my talk page message area. Thanks. Conservative 10:14, 26 June 2012 (EDT)


Great blocking. Please note, however, that a new user cannot create a second new account if the two boxes are not unchecked when blocking that user. Please observe the difference in messages between the block I just did (when I unchecked the boxes) and the blocks you did.

No big deal today - some of the users you blocked may not have created a legitimate second account anyway.--Andy Schlafly 15:18, 21 August 2012 (EDT)

examine this

Examine this: http://conservapedia.com/Talk:Main_Page#Prove_creationism_is_true Conservative 03:32, 30 September 2012 (EDT)

Proof Creationism! is true

Here is evidence that Christianity/creationism is true: Christianity and creationism is true.

Second, have you noticed this and this yet? Are the seedlings of a Creationism Proven! campaign already planted? Conservative 03:12, 30 September 2012 (EDT)

Bravo, good sir :)

Congratulations on your having somehow not only survived here for several months as a professed atheist and liberal, but on also gaining and judiciously applying your block rights. :) I wish some of the Wikias I've contributed to in the past had sysops with similarly-reasonable personalities. I may not agree with you religiously, but you seem to be a good person so more power to you. JGrant 13:14, 4 October 2012 (EDT)

debate challenge

Are you willing to have a debate centered around the 15 questions for evolutionists (see: http://creation.com/15-questions ) via a recorded oral debate which would be distributed to tens of thousands of people.

If you are confident in your evolutionary beliefs, please make the necessary arrangements via this free chat room: http://login.meetcheap.com/conference,89538844 You can make the necessary arrangements with the chat room moderators Shockofgod or VivaYehshua. Alternatively, you can email Shockofgod via his YouTube email at http://www.youtube.com/user/shockofgod

If you want to know more about the debate, any and all questions should be directed to Shockofgod or VivaYehshua Conservative 09:09, 13 October 2012 (EDT)

Hello user:conservative! Thankyou very much for inviting me to a debate but I really can't see what point that would serve. Winning or losing an argument which would invariably end up about semantics is not going to change reality.
I realise that accepting evolution as the reason why life exists is going to be a difficult truth about existence that goes against everything that you've chosen (or been indoctrinated) to believe.
I think you should lay off the incessant 'Question Evolution!' proclamations on the main page. To be honest with you they're starting to take on a desperate and pathetic quality to them and you're only attracting ridicule and mockery from Atheists, and exasperation from fellow Christians . Who, exactly, is this campaign aimed at? I find it hard to believe that any intelligent person would be swayed by such trite and disingenuous arguments. Or is this campaign only aimed at 'thick' people?
I would particularly advise you against linking to such 'news' items that proclaim a person is going to read a book (350+ pages long!) but then couldn't because of a cold so the incredible announcement that is going to destroy evolution is going to be delayed until the 15th October... This sounds like a cruel 'Monty Python' sketch.
I hope this incredible upcoming announcement is going radically change the scientific world or all your posts have been a complete and utter waste of time!
As always best wishes to you and your family EJamesW 17:15, 13 October 2012 (EDT)
p.s. as you have declined to have a talk page , I think it's only fair that a copy of this conservation is posted on the talk page of the main page.

Well done user:conseravtive! - You actually took my advice. We'll speak of the 'Question evolution! campaign' no more. EJamesW 17:22, 12 January 2015 (EST)

You wrote on your user page: "I'm atheist, liberal and think evolution is the best explanation for the appearance of life on Earth. But I'm interested to listen to other explanations."
Yet, when I write encyclopedia articles on atheism at an online encyclopedia (Imagine that!), you get upset and ask why I am writing them. Muslims, scientologists and atheists have fragile worldviews and get easily upset. I have never gone to Liberalpedia and asked them why they are writing articles on liberalism. It doesn't upset me when they do this. Conservative 18:26, 12 January 2015 (EST)

Nether the less - You did the did the right thing in dropping your 'sponsorship' of the 'Question! Evolution campaign'. You (or you collective) have followed the sensible path when you adhered to my advice. EJamesW 18:36, 12 January 2015 (EST)

Did you really need to block me?

Admittedly the language was a bit purple, but i feel my point was valid. Seems a bit tasteless to be so merry at the implementation of a law that will execute people for what they do in the bedroom.

Block revert

Not that I'm arguing, but how do you determine that a user who hasn't made an edit is a sock puppet when you don't have checkuser rights? (Would've sent this in a n email but you don't have that enabled). Just want to make sure that you're sure. --IDuan 13:36, 22 November 2012 (EST)

Welcome back....

...and, as an Australian, may I congratulate England for its wonderful showing at the Commonwealth Games. AlanE 23:54, 3 August 2014 (EDT)

Dear EJamesW: I see that you monitor the Recent Changes and make minor corrections as necessary (haunting->hounding). I do too, and I thought that was what people are supposed to do when editing a wiki. We are now at the point where that activity will become grounds for being blocked. Thanks, Wschact 15:21, 12 January 2015 (EST)

British Liberal Evolutionist User:EJamesW Changing My Essay Title by Removing the Word Liberal

British liberal evolutionist User:EJamesW should not be doggedly hounding trolling / liberal bullying by deliberately changing the title of my essay (Essay:France Pays Dearly - Liberal Gun Control Laws and Gun Free Zones that Welcome Terrorists) in the Essay page to remove the word liberal from the title. I guess he doesn't think that gun control, ammunition control and gun free zones were created by the progressive police state. See: http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia%3AEssays&action=historysubmit&diff=1131378&oldid=1131374 and Talk:Essay:France_Pays_Dearly_-_Liberal_Gun_Control_Laws_and_Gun_Free_Zones_that_Welcome_Terrorists#Show_some_machismo.21

TheAmericanRedoubt 11:49, 18 January 2015 (EST)

More Troll Edits from British Atheist Liberal Evolutionist User:EJamesW

Again self-identified British atheist liberal editor EJamesW, under the guise of "improving things", does more troll edits. See Talk:Nuclear_target_structures#User:EJamesW_Removing_References_and_Deleting_Majors_Sections_Unnecessarily_While_Adding_Just_1_Sentence TheAmericanRedoubt 18:58, 19 January 2015 (EST)

By the way, nice 1 sentence uncategorized stubs Mr. EJamesW created (http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Contributions/EJamesW): Swiss_Miss, Sovereign_state, Bobby Charlton. Perhaps when EJamesW's liberal friend User:Wschact comes back from the "cooler" he would give EJamesW some extensive long winded explanations via the Community Portal, his User Page and each stub article's Talk Pages about not creating 1 sentence stubs. TheAmericanRedoubt 19:06, 19 January 2015 (EST)

Biblical creationism will be strong in 2015

See: Essay: Biblical creationism will be strong in 2015.

Stronger, higher, faster! Conservative 19:46, 17 January 2015 (EST)

re: A recent article of yours

For the article Preaching to the choir you neglected to use category articles. In addition, you didn't appear to link to the article on any other page. This virtually guarantees that the article will be an orphan article.

If memory serves, and it may not, this is not the only time you have done this.

Furthermore, please avoid writing stub articles. People don't like stub articles. And if you do write a short article, at least have an external link section so people can explore the subject further. Conservative 16:17, 24 January 2015 (EST)

In light of my previous comment, if you don't expand the article In bad taste and link to it from another article, I will delete it. I would suggest linking to it from our profanity and Atheism and profanity articles if you choose to expand it. Conservative 16:23, 24 January 2015 (EST)
Are you saying that any article created on this site must have a link to another article or it will be deleted? EJamesW 16:35, 24 January 2015 (EST)
If you don't make a good faith effort to expand the article and then link to it from other articles, I will delete it. The article was not a good faith article, but merely was a sour grapes article because I exposed the misdeeds/sins/ugliness/tackiness of atheistic societies/subcultures.
I know it and you know this. But feel free to expand the article in a significant way and prove me wrong. Should you expand the article, feel free to link to it from the profanity and Atheism and profanity and Atheism and musical–rhythmic intelligence and artistic intelligence articles. Conservative 16:59, 24 January 2015 (EST)

I had no idea this would upset you (or your collective) so much. I've added internal links to article but delete it if you want... EJamesW 17:30, 24 January 2015 (EST)

Re: Preaching to the choir

"Worldwide, the march of religion can probably only be reversed by a renewed, self-aware secularism. Today, it appears exhausted and lacking in confidence... Secularism's greatest triumphs owe less to science than to popular social movements like nationalism, socialism and 1960s anarchist-liberalism. Ironically, secularism's demographic deficit means that it will probably only succeed in the twenty-first century if it can create a secular form of 'religious' enthusiasm." - the agnostic professor Eric Kaufmann, Birbeck College, University of London, UK, 2010[1]

See also: Atheism and cowardice

On September 27, 2014 in a blog post entitled The Atheist Disillusionment, the prominent atheist PZ Myers declared:

"I will make a prediction, right here and now.... The number of people identifying as atheists will stagnate or even shrink, because organized atheism is happily in the process of destroying itself with regressive social attitudes, scandals, and their bizarre focus on irrelevant metaphysical differences that don’t help people...

Unless we change.

I don’t know that we can."[2] - the atheist PZ Myers, September 27, 2014

Furthermore, look at THIS! Truly bad news for advocates of atheism.

I have the impression you are upset that I am sharing my atheism articles with fellow theists such as the Freedom from Atheism Foundation. I would be upset too if I were an atheist given the sub-fertility rate of the atheist population and the decline of global atheism which is expected to continue and affect the Western World.

In addition, there has been a resurgence of Christian apologetics against atheism (See: Atheism vs. Christianity).

Meanwhile, global Christianity is exploding in its number of adherents. See also: Desecularization.

I hope you don't think that a few stub articles will curb my enthusiasm. Nothing could be further from the truth! 2015 will be a glorious year for Christendom!! Conservative 23:13, 24 January 2015 (EST)

The liberal leaning The Week just published an article about the green shoots of a religious revival occurring in secular France.[3] I have a feeling that 2015 is going to be a TERRIBLE year for atheism! Conservative 23:48, 24 January 2015 (EST)

The choir is singing their praises. Hallelujah!

The fans of the Freedom from Atheism Foundation love the Atheism statistics article.

Here are some of the reviews after only 16 hours:

John Barbagiannis: Damning statistics

Jennifer Michele: Interesting

Stephen J. Ardent: It's not surprising. When you think that the only value a human has is the value another human places on that life, it's really easy to treat the bulk of humanity as simply trash to be dealt with.

Grace Kim Kwon It's nearly a billion if the unborns are counted. Christianity saves and rescues, but atheism kills and destroys.

Scott O'Steen: ...I actually pity them , often it seems like arguing with a spoiled teenager, I have to be in the mood to argue with them

Rhoda Winters: Yup. Atheism is poison.

Keith Wade: You should check up on that, because Conservapedia is a website writing an article. They are not the "source". The whole article shows all references for people just like you who (for some reason) think they wrote it all themselves despite the repeated explanations throughout.

Jeffrey McMunn: Good stuff, Señor Maickon

Will the article be widely shared among Christian YouTubers and Christian bloggers/websites? Stay tuned for further developments! Conservative 02:08, 25 January 2015 (EST)

74 people told their friends about this article - so far.  :) Is this just the beginning? :) Conservative 13:17, 25 January 2015 (EST)

One prediction which came true

In the future, my editing and reading of CP will largely/exclusively be focused on editing the main page and article pages.

—--Conservative 15:22, 17 January 2015 (EST)

Another announcement. Well, I'm inclined to make a prediction myself: in a couple of days you will be back to your normal self, chattering on talk-pages about incoming successes, and amusing us with your "I am many" - routine.

—--AugustO 06:34, 18 January 2015 (EST)

Thank you, User:Conservative, for proving me right in just one week! --AugustO 03:36, 25 January 2015 (EST)

AugustO, your prediction failed to come true! Please notice the word LARGELY above. Most of my recent edits have been related to article/main page edits. Also, the word COUPLE generally means two. Conservative 04:16, 25 January 2015 (EST)
Well, it shouldn't be surprising that someone who has his own concept of "soon" doesn't understand the word "couple". Take a look a the Merriam-Webster, especially no. 4... --AugustO 04:32, 25 January 2015 (EST)
Notice your definition was #4 and not among definitions 1,2 or 3. That is why I used the word GENERALLY. Furthermore, most of the information on the talk pages has been about historical matters and not incoming successes. You FAILED! :) Conservative 04:40, 25 January 2015 (EST)
You failed to read & understand a dictionary! That's quite impressive. --AugustO 04:45, 25 January 2015 (EST)
Still a proud and stubborn German evolutionist I see. The German evolutionist Adolf Hitler no doubt believed in his 1,000 year reich right up until the end! I suggest you go back to your talk page bunker because you are clearly losing on the User talk:EJamesW front! Conservative 04:56, 25 January 2015 (EST)
Here is something to help you: The University of Alabama, Center for Academic Success: How to Use A Dictionary:
A dictionary will give you the following information about a word:
6. Different meanings that the word has, as well as synonyms (same meaning) and antonyms (opposite meaning)
Applying the following pointers will save time when you use a dictionary:
5: Substitute the meaning you find for the word in the sentence. Be sure you select the most appropriate meaning, not merely the first one you come to
Glad to help, --AugustO 04:58, 25 January 2015 (EST)
PS: we don't know whether A. Hitler was able to use a dictionary correctly. But that shouldn't prevent you from trying! --AugustO 05:00, 25 January 2015 (EST)

In order for your prediction to come true, it has to satisfy all three of the LARGELY/Couple/incoming victories acid tests. If clearly failed on the LARGELY test. Hence, it failed.

Are you so desperate for a victory that you are now reduced to this? Your thirst for victory is overriding all your logical thought processes. Snap out of it man! Pull yourself together!  :) Conservative 05:14, 25 January 2015 (EST)

Just checking my prediction

"In order for your prediction to come true, it has to satisfy all three of the LARGELY/Couple/incoming victories acid tests. " Well, my prediction was the following:

In a couple of days
you will be back to your normal self,
chattering on talk-pages
about incoming successes,
and amusing us with your "I am many" - routine.

I got the time-frame wrong: it took roughly a week, while I thought that 2-5 days would be sufficient. You cannot win them all. How is the "Question Evolution! book" for middle-school pupils going? --AugustO 09:38, 26 January 2015 (EST)

AugustO, why you focus your attention on satisfactorily answering the 15 questions for evolutionists? It seems appropriate to me that someone who failed to satisfactorily answer the 15 questions for evolutionists would be a far less smug evolutionists. Frankly, any evolutionists who claims to have satisfactorily answered those 15 questions is either intellectually lazy, a liar or deluded.
Furthermore, churches that embrace evolutionism invariably are more corrupt and are very often shrinking. For example, see: Liberal Christianity and marital infidelity. You told me that within your denomination there are some churches which are "blessing" homosexual "marriages". And no doubt, your church body is shrinking. And one of the reasons for the shrinking is because the members often do not value having children. The church bodies which embrace creationism in Germany are growing.
So your smugness is totally out of order. Conservative 11:07, 26 January 2015 (EST)

re: blowing your own trumpet

2 Corinthians 12:1 (NASB version of the Bible).

All is going according to plan.

人皆知我所以勝之形,而莫知我所以制勝之形。 :) Conservative 14:38, 25 January 2015 (EST)

By the way, why did you use the word "your" as in "your trumpet". Shouldn't you have used the phrase "your/our"? I/we are not amused. :)
The User: Conservative collective. :) Conservative 15:24, 25 January 2015 (EST)

What do you mean? I hope this helps:

Your - meaning possession. For example: 'That's your car over there'.

You're - A shortened version of 'You are'. For example: 'You're grasping at straws'

Hope this clears this up.

EJamesW 15:40, 25 January 2015 (EST)

How many people created the Atheism statistics article? No true skeptic pretends to know the answer to this question! Conservative 15:44, 25 January 2015 (EST)Conservative 15:43, 25 January 2015 (EST

Can you please cite proof and evidence that your statement 'No true skeptic pretends to know the answer to this question!' is true? EJamesW 15:54, 25 January 2015 (EST)

Also 是故勝兵先勝而後求戰,敗兵先戰而後求勝. EJamesW 16:07, 25 January 2015 (EST)

Why is the footnoting style different in the Homosexuality and Atheist actions against homosexuals articles? The User: Conservative account was used to create both articles. A liberal atheist such as your yourself was puzzled by this matter. He indicated that articles seem to have been written by two different authors.
And why is the phrase "LGBT community" used in one article, but not the other? How many TRUE conservatives do you know that use the term "LGBT community"? :)
微乎微乎,至于无形;神乎神乎,至于无声;故能为敌之司命。 Conservative 16:10, 25 January 2015 (EST)
What do you mean? EJamesW 16:14, 25 January 2015 (EST)
Are you a native English speaker? The reason I ask is that I was very clear. Solve the mystery of the homosexuality articles! Conservative 16:22, 25 January 2015 (EST)

Yikes! Are you serious? You're saying you've planted planted a 'mystery' in your/your group's 'homosexuality articles'? Intriguing. I'm sure this isn't something you just made on the Spur of the moment. EJamesW 16:45, 25 January 2015 (EST)

What a delight it is to see that the latest meeting of the Conservapedia Philosphical Society is meeting at EJamesW's house today. And what a delightful place it is—we don't take fireplaces very seriously in America. But we do take backyard patios seriously, and I like this one. The weather is lousy now, of course, but in the summer I hope we can meet on your patio.

EJames (may I call you "British liberal evolutionist User:EJamesW, the way some of your friends do?), the previous meetings have been at the bottom of my house and near the bottom of August's house.

Down to business. Cons, I'm pleased to see that you are back to intense editing (I'm thinking of "Atheism statistics" in particular.) For a short while, I thought you might have lost your touch, and were ceding the high ground in this matter to TAR. Your[1] writing is vastly more interesting than his[2]. In fact, as I've said before, you are the most interesting and fun person here. TAR isn't fun. Also, you don't have a malicious bone in your body.

But there's another matter of writing style that I'd like to address. You've moved away from starting a sentence with "Plus", but I see, in a lot of your writing, sentences of the form "X said regarding Y, Z." Where X is a person, Y is a topic, and Z is the statement being quoted. I think the sentence would flow more smoothly if you said something like "X had this to say on subject Y....." Or, even better, make it clear what the topic is from the context. This requires that your paragraphs stay on topic, so that you don't need to repeat the topic. Then you have a lot more freedom in your sentence choice, like "X had this to say on the subject: ...." or "This comment on the topic by X was particularly telling: ...." or whatever makes the paragraph flow well.

As long as I'm commenting on your style, there's another issue, that I think causes your material not to be put in the appropriate place. You sometimes fail to follow the topic of a discussion, and write whatever you're thinking, on whatever page you have open. A case of this is your response above to the Preaching to the choir article. You put in two whole sections ("Re: Preaching to the choir" and "The choir is singing their praises. Hallelujah!") about how pleased you are with your recent "statistics" article, and about the predicted progress in Christianity. Here's the problem: Shouldn't that be on the main page, or someplace where it can be seen by lots of people? You put it on one person's user talk page. People coming to Conservapedia don't typically go looking for wisdom on user talk pages. Furthermore, it was on a totally unrelated discussion of a recent article. I'm sure there are better places where you can put this prediction for 2015 and atheism, that will have a larger audience.

The Preaching to the choir article is excellent, by the way. Though it is very short, it pretty much says all that needs to be said on the subject. Some topics merit long articles, and some don't. The phrase "Preaching to the choir" is one that one often hears, and explanations of what it means are often hard to come by. This short article is an example of Conservapedia at its finest, as a resource for students. The "blowing your own horn" and "spur of the moment" articles are also very good. Just the right length for an explanation of a common idiom. EJamesW is to be congratulated for writing these.

SamHB 20:24, 25 January 2015 (EST)

SamHB, thanks for your kind words about my/our recent material.
Varying sentence structure is the best way to go. I have been negligent on that front to some degree, but the decent size quotes inject some additional varied sentence structure into the articles.
Lastly, another torpedo is heading towards the S.S. Atheism this week. It will be announced this week on the main page. She has been taking on a lot of water these past few years. I think it is time to round up the few atheist women that are left after Elevatorgate and put them in the lifeboats so they can head towards the far more seaworthy ship the S.S. Jesus. :) Conservative 21:00, 25 January 2015 (EST)
Your (just kidding) You're welcome. You're Your writing style has been improving. So much so that I'm going to stop the your/you're jokes. Plus Furthermore, I'll stop hassling you about "plus". Those jokes have run their course. And yes, varying your sentence structure is good.
But I notice that the Spur of the moment link has turned red. Apparently by you. Why? It was a very short article, as descriptions of idioms are wont to be. There's much less that needs to be said about it than, say, thermodynamics, relativity, or Dedekind cuts. Please restore the article. I looked at the Category:Idioms page, and there are a bunch of nice things in there. There's another one I'd like to add, but I'm not inclined to do so if you are going to delete idiom articles. Actually, there's another one I will add, about "shaking in ones boots", that I was reminded of when I saw what you wrote above about a torpedo heading toward the S.S. Atheism. Spoken ironically, of course. The atheists that I know would not be particularly impressed by what they see on the subject at Conservapedia. Also, "taking on water", as a metaphor for getting into an increasingly difficult situation, would be another idiom page to write. SamHB 21:02, 26 January 2015 (EST)


  1. I recently chewed someone out for confusing "your" and "you're", but I can't find it just now. Apparently it wasn't you.
  2. or maybe I should say "You're writing in a vastly more interesting way than he is."

Article requests

I know you are an atheist and you recently created some Conservapedia articles.

You also wrote on your user page: "I'm atheist, liberal and...I'm interested to listen to other explanations. I may have opposite views to the vast majority of people on this site but I respect people who can explain and defend their beliefs."

Could you look into this matter, Child pornography and atheistic Denmark/Holland: https://books.google.com/books?id=yfpCY3PdpDoC&pg=PA59&lpg=PA59&dq=child+pornography+and+denmark&source=bl&ots=lNd5_DfHHK&sig=fb-56rbCz_fTVP1jYPppNwshfcY&hl=en&sa=X&ei=QpPIVPKDFpH-sASSt4CICg&ved=0CGEQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q&f=false and see the section on child pornography and Denmark/Holland here: https://books.google.com/books?id=MruKQz2ZdKMC&pg=PA28&lpg=PA28&dq=denmark+and+child+pornography&source=bl&ots=NrEcB3qRsY&sig=R2AqOKCKo0b0_Z-yM1fkOOMiP5M&hl=en&sa=X&ei=6ZvIVNiCHNPisASerIDABQ&ved=0CGQQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q&f=false

If warranted, and it very much seems it is, could you create the article Atheistic Denmark and child pornography?

You could also look into Atheistic Holland and child pornography and Atheistic Netherlands and child pornography.

Also, an article entitled Secular Europe and child pornography could be written.

Related statistics

Denmark has the highest rate of belief in evolution in the Western World.[1] In addition, in 2005 Denmark was ranked the third most atheistic country in the world and the website adherents.com reported that in 2005 43 - 80% of Danes are agnostics/atheists/non-believers in God.[2]

In 2005, the Netherlands was ranked the 13th most atheistic country in the world and the website adherents.com reports that in 2005 39 - 44%% of the Dutch were agnostics/atheists/non-believers in God.[3] The Netherlands also has the 11th highest rate of belief in evolution as far as Western World nations [4]

I am working on some off wiki projects right now. Conservative 03:24, 28 January 2015 (EST)

User:conseravtive - you/your collective made a funny! Or maybe you/your collective should brush up on European geography. EJamesW 14:42, 28 January 2015 (EST)


  1. Photo: Evolution Less Accepted in U.S. Than Other Western Countries, Study Finds
  2. Top 50 Countries With Highest Proportion of Atheists / Agnostics(Zuckerman, 2005)
  3. Top 50 Countries With Highest Proportion of Atheists / Agnostics(Zuckerman, 2005)
  4. Photo: Evolution Less Accepted in U.S. Than Other Western Countries, Study Finds