Featured Conservapedia Entry Of The Week1/18/08
You're probably wondering if it's funny enough to be worth your time. Well, consider this quote which appears near the top of the entry. (I dare you.) It is actually taken from this web site as opposed to the method preferred by Wikipedia, a book.
Evolutionism is a world-view, which seeks to explain every aspect of this world in which we live. It encompasses a wide variety of topics, from astronomy to chemistry to biology. At its core, it teaches that there were different stages in the evolution of our universe...
Another point from the encyclopedia that claims to be less biased than Wikipedia.
All the viewpoints take a step of faith as some might refer to it. In other words, there is a common starting point or foundational question (it's a God-related question) that each one asks, and then forms their conclusions around.
So this is how people come to decide on creationism? I actually learned about evolution and the Big Bang from books 'n' school and what-not. But I think they prefer to define faith more broadly than we rotten old atheists do. Darn us! And to prove that we're crazy (not them) the Conservapedia offers us this step-by-step process, which is intended to prove how "believers" in evolution arrive at that conclusion:
- There is no God (world view)
- Therefore we need to explain everything based on that "fact"
- Thus science is altered based on the "no God" idea
- Evolutionism comes before the Scientific Theory of Evolution. The science is based on the world view.
In case this isn't irrefutable enough for you, the article later offers us some quotes near the end of the page. Note that some of them ... well ... go back a ways. Readers of the Watchtower Society's Creation Book are plenty familiar with the tactic of quote mining I trust?
Okay, I'm not so sure that this article is so much funny as it is kinda sad. But it might be worth a chuckle or three.
-the Atheist Geek-
For my fellow atheists, this will either make you laugh or fill you with rage. (What kind of day have you been having so far?) The right-wing Conservapedia web site has a post about militant atheism. I thought I'd mention it since my buddy at About.com Austin Cline has a related article on the subject. So how does Conservapedia remove the liberal bias from the term "militant atheism?"
Militant atheism is a movement which holds that religion has had its chance in the world, has proven to be a negative force, and therefore should be replaced with skepticism towards God or miracles. It can be found in varying degrees of militancy, from atheist authors such as Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins who advocate atheism and oppose religion though books and speeches but do not advocate violence against religious people...
Well, it's not great but it's not that bad. Like a lot of atheists, I'm not sure that the word "militant" is really warranted. At least their not associating us with those darn commies, right?
...but do not advocate violence against religious people, to communist regimes, who advocate atheism and oppose religion through the repression and murder of believers.
Yes, once again, atheism gets the blame for the evils of communism instead of the heads of state running those regimes. Apparently communists hate religion and religious people because they're atheists ... and that's all there is to it. You might want to compare their entry to Wikipedia's to see which one sounds less biased to you. Note that I hope to have everything back in full swing next week, including the Uncyclopedia entries I used to bring you. But for now, you may also wish to check out their entry on atheism just for the heck of it. Here's one thing they say about us:
"I find your lack of faith disturbing." -Darth Vader on Atheism
Make sure you check out the Rodney Stark reference at the bottom of the Conservapedia page as well.
Want to see the previous Conservapedia page? Click here!