ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 28th July 2010, 04:36 PM   #121
geni
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
geni's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 28,185
Originally Posted by sadhatter View Post
I think it is deliberate, they realize a few things, not the least of which is that thier intended audience would probably have a small stroke if they attempted to read real science. So they keep things on the 3rd-4th grade level ( and fyi, not trying to be funny by saying 3rd -4th grade, that is about where i would put this stuff in terms of complexity. ), they know they are not going to convince someone who knows science, so option B is to pretend they know about science and go after those who don't.
That suggests it's deliberate and that doesn't appear to be the case. Certianly they are prepared to at least pretend to deal with some fairly advanced concepts.

The writing style is probably a mix of the need to argue a case and the small number of editors involved. Anyone wanting to deal with things to a more indepth extent is likely to stay on wikipedia and just put up with the fact that many wikipedians are not very good christians or in some cases not american at all. With only about 200 active users those with a greater depth of knowlage are unlikely be able to cover very many areas.

Andrew Schlafly who set up the site is very much a true believer. His academic record makes it pretty clear that he has a working brain. The problem appears to be that as a second generation fundamentalist christian conservative he doesn't have the compartmentalism needed to avoid serious clashes with reality.

It's also conservapedia's policy to be concise:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Conserv...ce_4_-_Concise
geni is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th July 2010, 05:06 PM   #122
Dinwar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 16,668
I grew up on Edgar Allen Poe ("Unity, brevity, and singleness of effect"). I've also read Science and Nature. Concise does not mean childish (3rd and 4th graders are children, after all).

Quote:
1...Everything you post must be true and verifiable.
Uh.........WHAT?

I'm sorry, but once you include Creationism you've thrown out the "true and verifiable" criteria for posting. That theory was shown to be flawed a few hundred years ago, by Hutton, Lyelle, Huxley, and the rest. Not to mention Hubble and all the scientists who worked on radiometric dating.

Oh, and the whole merical thing. Let's see the verification for those.
Dinwar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th July 2010, 09:17 PM   #123
secrets
Scholar
 
secrets's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 69
Originally Posted by TubbaBlubba View Post
To me, it's about as enfuriating as toddlers writing "POO" and a crude arrow pointing towards you in the sand.
I concur.
secrets is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th July 2010, 06:10 AM   #124
Worm
Master Poster
 
Worm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Dundee
Posts: 2,553
Conservapedia is simply laughable. Or it would be, if it wasn't so crazy.

See how far you can get into their article on President Obama without bursting out laughing. I didn't even finish the first line.
__________________
"Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent" Isaac Asimov

Not all cults are bad - I've joined a cult of niceness
Worm is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th July 2010, 06:30 AM   #125
Eddie Dane
Philosopher
 
Eddie Dane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 6,405
Originally Posted by foster zygote View Post
throw out your hands!!
Stick out your tush!!
Hands on your hips
give them a push!!
You'll be surprised
you're doing the french mistake!!
voila!
Eddie Dane is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th July 2010, 06:52 AM   #126
Mister Earl
Illuminator
 
Mister Earl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 3,504
The number of people inclined to believe Conservapedia, though, is what concerns me. I don't know why anyone is inclined to believe such things. It's almost like a miniature resurgence of the Dark Ages.
Mister Earl is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th July 2010, 09:49 AM   #127
Dinwar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 16,668
See, I don't like that. I re-enact the Middle Ages, and have spent a fair bit of time reading up on the thought process of the average low-ranking noble (sorry, but peasants didn't write much. More than people think, but not much). In the Dark Ages people were going off the only paradigm they had--Christianity, for the most part and of various local flavors. It wasn't so much that they rejected reason, science, etc.; it's just that Christianity was all they HAD, and so they obviously saw the world through those eyes. Discussing the various rungs of creation made as much sense to them, and for essentially the same reason, as discussing various quarks does to us.

Conservipedia is different. It's an active rejection of known facts. It's not doing the best you can with what you have, because that's what you have.

It's the difference between using bloodletting because you honestly think it'll work, and using it despite knowing that one pill could save your loved one's life.

I can understand the Middle Ages--if any of us were alive back then we'd probably see things the way they did. They were ignorant. I cannot understand or condone actively rejecting knowledge--there is no justification for willful stupidity.
Dinwar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th July 2010, 10:07 AM   #128
sadhatter
Philosopher
 
sadhatter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 8,349
Originally Posted by geni View Post
That suggests it's deliberate and that doesn't appear to be the case. Certianly they are prepared to at least pretend to deal with some fairly advanced concepts.

The writing style is probably a mix of the need to argue a case and the small number of editors involved. Anyone wanting to deal with things to a more indepth extent is likely to stay on wikipedia and just put up with the fact that many wikipedians are not very good christians or in some cases not american at all. With only about 200 active users those with a greater depth of knowlage are unlikely be able to cover very many areas.

Andrew Schlafly who set up the site is very much a true believer. His academic record makes it pretty clear that he has a working brain. The problem appears to be that as a second generation fundamentalist christian conservative he doesn't have the compartmentalism needed to avoid serious clashes with reality.

It's also conservapedia's policy to be concise:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Conserv...ce_4_-_Concise
Being a true believer and lying for a cause are not mutually exclusive concepts.

I have no doubt these people believe in the christian god, what i do doubt is that they are putting together arguments based on their best logic and facts. From the evidence presented i believe they are making their arguments based on what will appeal to their target audience, regardless of validity.

If i were to take a stab at the reasoning they use it would be along the lines of " science takes people away from god, if we can usurp it somehow we can bring people back to god, which regardless of method ( within reason) is a good thing. "
sadhatter is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th July 2010, 10:21 AM   #129
TraneWreck
Philosopher
 
TraneWreck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 7,929
Isn't there a part where they try to rewrite the Bible to exclude liberal ideas?

I'm going to have to look for it. I remember it being quite funny.

Edit-Enjoy:

http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservative_Bible_Project
TraneWreck is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th July 2010, 11:20 AM   #130
zooterkin
Nitpicking dilettante
Deputy Admin
 
zooterkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Berkshire, mostly
Posts: 41,936
Originally Posted by TraneWreck View Post
Isn't there a part where they try to rewrite the Bible to exclude liberal ideas?

I'm going to have to look for it. I remember it being quite funny.

Edit-Enjoy:

http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservative_Bible_Project
That's funny, but it has to be a wind-up.
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.Bertrand Russell
Zooterkin is correct Darat
Nerd! Hokulele
Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232
Ezekiel 23:20
zooterkin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th July 2010, 03:14 PM   #131
Simon39759
Master Poster
 
Simon39759's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,285
That's not the first time I heard about it, as far as I knowm they are serious...
Simon39759 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th July 2010, 04:41 PM   #132
Worm
Master Poster
 
Worm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Dundee
Posts: 2,553
Very serious unfortunately.

Andy 'I know more than you' Schlafly recently sent a letter to Douglas Moo, who is on the committee that is revising the NIV of the bible (someone correct me if the terms are wrong here - my knowledge of bible translations stops at King James)

Basically, Andy seems to be complaining that Mr Moo is taking too long to come up with a translation, as the Conservapedia version has been completed in record time, and speed is clearly the yardstick we should be using.

I could use derision, but I think it's redundant.
__________________
"Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent" Isaac Asimov

Not all cults are bad - I've joined a cult of niceness
Worm is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th July 2010, 07:32 PM   #133
geni
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
geni's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 28,185
Originally Posted by zooterkin View Post
That's funny, but it has to be a wind-up.
Some of the people invovled are yes but the original idea was serious. Even other far right christians think it is crazy though. See:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Conserv..._Bible_Project
geni is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th July 2010, 07:43 PM   #134
Cactus Wren
Muse
 
Cactus Wren's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 895
Originally Posted by devnull View Post
This article includes the line "Liberal cafeteria Christians refuse to consider Bible verses that contradict their preconceived notions of what the Bible should say."

Originally Posted by TraneWreck View Post
Isn't there a part where they try to rewrite the Bible to exclude liberal ideas?

I'm going to have to look for it. I remember it being quite funny.

Edit-Enjoy:

http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservative_Bible_Project
Irony as art form.
Cactus Wren is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st July 2010, 02:11 PM   #135
Nosi
Master Poster
 
Nosi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,808
Originally Posted by NWO Sentryman View Post
there's a difference. ED espouses the 4chan worldview while Conservapedia espouses the Creationist worldview. It's near impossible to tell which one is a parody and which one is serious.
They're two brain cells in the lonely harts club looking for one another...
__________________
__________

Hiding from the
Nosi is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st July 2010, 02:14 PM   #136
Nosi
Master Poster
 
Nosi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,808
Originally Posted by Ladewig View Post
From their current front page: "BP -- one of the most liberal oil companies -- is throwing its CEO Tony Hayward overboard due to his handling of the BP Oil Spill."

Is this a joke or are they really that bat**** crazy?
I heard rumor there was some bat feces found nearby when that quote was made...
__________________
__________

Hiding from the
Nosi is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th August 2010, 07:46 AM   #137
Ladewig
I lost an avatar bet.
 
Ladewig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 26,237
Conservapedia is referenced in Rationalwiki under Poe's Paradox http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Poe's_Law#Poe_Paradox
__________________
I lost an avatar bet to Doghouse Reilly.
Ladewig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th August 2010, 07:59 AM   #138
Ladewig
I lost an avatar bet.
 
Ladewig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 26,237
OK, hilarity is definitely out. Please read this article on Shaken Baby Syndrome

http://www.conservapedia.com/Shaken_baby_syndrome

Apparently it doesn't exist because it is impossible to shake a baby enough to cause intracranial injuries.
__________________
I lost an avatar bet to Doghouse Reilly.
Ladewig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th August 2010, 08:18 AM   #139
KingMerv00
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 14,458
Originally Posted by Ladewig View Post
OK, hilarity is definitely out. Please read this article on Shaken Baby Syndrome

http://www.conservapedia.com/Shaken_baby_syndrome

Apparently it doesn't exist because it is impossible to shake a baby enough to cause intracranial injuries.
How is that a conservative issue?
KingMerv00 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th August 2010, 08:18 AM   #140
Olowkow
Philosopher
 
Olowkow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 8,230
Originally Posted by Ladewig View Post
OK, hilarity is definitely out. Please read this article on Shaken Baby Syndrome

http://www.conservapedia.com/Shaken_baby_syndrome

Apparently it doesn't exist because it is impossible to shake a baby enough to cause intracranial injuries.
Wow. From the talk page:

Quote:
Let's be clear here, Mr. Schlafly; you are currently defending people who pick up an infant and shake the child so violently that it causes damage to the spinal cord and causes the brain to carom off the inside of the skull rupturing blood vessels and destroying tissue. I repeat, this is not simply a fiction concocted by an overeager prosecutor in order to punish some poor unsuspecting guardian. SSchultz 12:19, 19 January 2008 (EST)
Olowkow is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th August 2010, 08:45 AM   #141
Eddie Dane
Philosopher
 
Eddie Dane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 6,405
Originally Posted by KingMerv00 View Post
How is that a conservative issue?
Babies that are shaken violently are more likely to become creationists adults.
Eddie Dane is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th August 2010, 09:14 AM   #142
aggle-rithm
Ardent Formulist
 
aggle-rithm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 15,334
Originally Posted by TraneWreck View Post
Isn't there a part where they try to rewrite the Bible to exclude liberal ideas?
That liberal stuff wasn't meant to be taken literally.
__________________
To understand recursion, you must first understand recursion.

Woo's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be adequately explained by aliens.
aggle-rithm is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th August 2010, 09:16 AM   #143
aggle-rithm
Ardent Formulist
 
aggle-rithm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 15,334
Originally Posted by Ladewig View Post
OK, hilarity is definitely out. Please read this article on Shaken Baby Syndrome

http://www.conservapedia.com/Shaken_baby_syndrome

Apparently it doesn't exist because it is impossible to shake a baby enough to cause intracranial injuries.
Well, you gotta show the baby who's boss.
__________________
To understand recursion, you must first understand recursion.

Woo's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be adequately explained by aliens.
aggle-rithm is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th August 2010, 09:18 AM   #144
I Am The Scum
Illuminator
 
I Am The Scum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 3,707
The baby should have just picked himself up by his bootstraps and stabilized himself.
I Am The Scum is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th August 2010, 09:20 AM   #145
TraneWreck
Philosopher
 
TraneWreck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 7,929
Originally Posted by I Am The Scum View Post
The baby should have just picked himself up by his bootstraps and stabilized himself.
More evidence we didn't come from monkeys. Those little bastards toss their kids all over the place as they swing through the trees.
TraneWreck is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th August 2010, 09:59 AM   #146
Olowkow
Philosopher
 
Olowkow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 8,230
Originally Posted by KingMerv00 View Post
How is that a conservative issue?
Spare the rod and spoil the child?
Olowkow is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th August 2010, 10:02 AM   #147
NWO Sentryman
Proud NWO Gatekeeper
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 6,835
the bible project reminds me of ED's lolcat bible
__________________
If I now say "dominoes", you won't think "pizza". Will you? - FireGarden on the Middle East
NWO Sentryman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th August 2010, 10:07 AM   #148
carlitos
"más divertido"
 
carlitos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 19,451
Originally Posted by TraneWreck View Post
We've yet to mention Conservapedia's most notorious moment.

They were young, they were dumb, they were full of...chutzpah, and they tried to challenge Lenski's important work on evolution, even demanding samples of the bacteria he studied.

This all led to one of the more enjoyable smackdowns in the long, glorious history of scientists trying to explain to religious goofballs why they're completely wrong about almos everything:

http://www.conservapedia.com/Conserv...:Lenski_dialog

To their credit, conservapedia has left the letters up.
To their discredit, it's usually spelled dialogue. Thanks for posting that. His response actually was a very readable description of the study, which was his intent. Good stuff.
carlitos is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th August 2010, 10:27 AM   #149
WanderingSkeptic
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 83
OK ... I was curious ... I've just surfed over to Conservapadia, then clicked the Statistics button (Left hand side under help to see what Conservatives ... the folks who would treat this site as a reliable reference site .... wish to know about. Here is what I found ...

WanderingSkeptic is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th August 2010, 12:14 PM   #150
Ladewig
I lost an avatar bet.
 
Ladewig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 26,237
Originally Posted by KingMerv00 View Post
How is that a conservative issue?
I don't want to put words in their mouth, but it seems to be some sort of conspiracy between liberal social workers and liberal prosecutors to put certain parents in jail.
__________________
I lost an avatar bet to Doghouse Reilly.
Ladewig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th August 2010, 12:28 PM   #151
nvidiot
Botanical Jedi
 
nvidiot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 2,121
I don't know if anyone's pointed to this yet, but check out the list in the "global warming" page which describes the...

Quote:
Reported effects of Climate Change

Besides Global Warming, reported past or expected/possible future environmental and societal consequences of Climate Change include,

* Global cooling.[69]

* Decreased food production.[70]

* Increased food production. [71]

* Killer cornflakes.[72]

* Shrinking forests.[73]

* Increased tree foliage.[74]

* Increased productivity of high-elevation forests.'[75]

* Melting glaciers.[76]

* Growing glaciers.[77]

* Increasing landmass in Antarctica.[78]

* Colder winters [79]

* A new ice age.[80]

* Prevention of an ice age.[81]

* Taller mountains.[82]

* A lop-sided planet.[83]

* Stronger hurricanes.[84]

* Weaker Hurricanes.[85]

* Shorter days.[86]

* Earthquakes and volcanoes, and other geological disasters. Attempts to prevent climate change may do the same.[87]

* Earth exploding[88]

* Shrinking brains.[89]

* Shrinking sheep.[90]

* Tiger Attacks.[91]

* Shark attacks.[92]

* Walrus stampede deaths.[93]

* Imminent cannibalism.[94]

* The death of the the Loch Ness Monster.[95]

* Black Hawk Down, when 18 members of a U.S. military team were killed in a helicopter crash in Mogadishu, Somalia, in 1993.[96][97]

* The need for a drastic reduction of the earth’s population.[98]

* A strong increase in people dying of AIDS[99] [100]

* Increased risk of civil war in Africa.[101]

* Child climate cops.[102]

* Increase in depression.[103]

* Increase in psychiatric illness.[104] [105]

* Increased anxiety and loss of sleep among many children.[106]


One stood out to me, ref number 88 being "Earth Exploding", which then suggests in the references that it comes from....


Quote:
Australian scientist Dr Tom Chalko, June 17,2008

Which then directs you to following link in that reference...

http://nujournal.net/EarthquakeEnergyRise.pdf





.....


I mean seriously, they actually, truly believe this kind of stuff? Really?

REALLY?
nvidiot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th August 2010, 12:46 PM   #152
I Ratant
Penultimate Amazing
 
I Ratant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 19,258
* Tiger Attacks.[91]

* Shark attacks.[92]

* Walrus stampede deaths.[93]
.
Living here in the desert, I'm comfortably safe from sharks and walruses, but tigers... there's a couple wild animal places here.
I'm really concerned about these!
I Ratant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th August 2010, 04:58 PM   #153
Dinwar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 16,668
WanderingSkeptic: To be fair, how often have people gone there to see just how crazy the crazy is? It's like reading something by Ann Culture--you don't necessarily agree with it, you may have borrowed it just to see how insane it really was (I say "borrow" because I cannot bring myself to purchase one of her books. No one involved with her deserves any money).

Quote:
How is that a conservative issue?
No, see, you still don't get it. What you're using is called "logic". That is a tool of the devil, sent to tempt you. You must reject the superstition of "logic", and focus on praying and being guided by God's word. Which we who know better will tell you. And which just happens to agree with whatever we want.
Dinwar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th August 2010, 01:19 AM   #154
Worm
Master Poster
 
Worm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Dundee
Posts: 2,553
'Conservative' by conservapedia standards is 'whatever Andrew Schlafly says is conservative' - he doesn't have to have a reason, he can just make it up, and if you disagree, well you're not only an ignorant librul, you're banned. Simples.

For example see : Best New Conservative Words and glory in the wrong.
__________________
"Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent" Isaac Asimov

Not all cults are bad - I've joined a cult of niceness
Worm is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th August 2010, 07:55 AM   #155
KingMerv00
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 14,458
Originally Posted by Ladewig View Post
I don't want to put words in their mouth, but it seems to be some sort of conspiracy between liberal social workers and liberal prosecutors to put certain parents in jail.
Ah, the social workers need babies for medical experiments. Brilliant.
KingMerv00 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th August 2010, 08:43 AM   #156
Schrodinger's Cat
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 3,456
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
That's what I find most appalling about this thing, not the stupidity of the ideas but the ridiculously unpolished and naive presentation. Do the people writing these things really have that complete a lack of writing ability? Can they really not see the glaring difference between how they write and present their ideas and how the grown-ups do? Are they aware of how childish it sounds? Is it deliberate? Do they honestly believe that anyone would be convinced by such poorly-written stuff? And, I shudder to ask, is anyone convinced, ever, by such poorly-written stuff? It reads like something written by grade school children. Unsophisticated ones. Even the samples of North Korean propaganda translations posted in another thread have more sophistication!
They don't believe in intelligent arguments, Tragic.

You know how occasionally you'll get a really far off woo poster (probably mentally ill, to be frank) who types utter nonsense? I don't mean a poorly constructed argument, I mean just nonsensible nonsense that is unintelligble to read, that reflects that the person either is messing around, mentally ill, not a native english speaker, etc?

That's what they think when they hear something intelligent. They don't recognize it as intelligence. They think it's the babbling nonsense of an idiot, because they cannot understand it.

I'm reminded of the Scopes Monkey Trial. One of the tactics Bryant used was simply reading from the more difficult passages of "On the Origin of Species." Passages that had a lot of scientific terms, and big words. He then would say to the jury something along the lines of, "See? This makes no sense. They're speaking nonsense, you can't even understand what they're trying to argue. It's gibberish." He simply did not recognize that the reason he did not understand what he read was because he had no understanding of science, it was completely over his head and he didn't understand the terminology involved. He just thought that he didn't understand it because it was jibberish because the person who wrote it was so stupid/crazy/etc that he couldn't even form complete sentences using real words.

I can't remember who said it, I think Vonnegut or Twain, but there's a quote about how the problem with stupid people is not so much that they are stupid, but that they actually think they are smart.

They think that an intelligent argument is one that is easy to understand. If it's not easy to understand, it must because the arguer is incapable of expressing themselves in an understandable way, because they're incompetent. Thus the "God did it" creationism explanation is far superior to the long, involved, and complicated explanation of evolution. They think if something cannot be boiled down to very easily comprehended terms, than it's wrong. How many times have you heard a creationist demand, "show me a video of evolution" or "explain evolution to me in 100 words or less" here on this forum? They DEMAND the expanation/proof of evolution be easy for them to understand, and then when you can't do it (because evolution ISN'T that simple), that proves to them that they're right.

I'm not saying they ALL think like this, but I think it's a pretty common mindset.

Last edited by Schrodinger's Cat; 5th August 2010 at 09:07 AM.
Schrodinger's Cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th August 2010, 08:46 AM   #157
Cleon
King of the Pod People
 
Cleon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 25,659
I actually kinda feel bad for Andy Schlafly. His childhood had to be rife with emotional abuse.
__________________
"People like me are what stand between us and Auschwitz." - Newt Gingrich
Cleon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th August 2010, 08:51 AM   #158
KingMerv00
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 14,458
Originally Posted by Schrodinger's Cat View Post
I can't remember who said it, I think Vonnegut or Twain, but there's a quote about how the problem with stupid people is not so much that they are stupid, but that they actually think they are smart.
Bertrand Russell maybe?

"The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. "
KingMerv00 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th August 2010, 09:01 AM   #159
Eddie Dane
Philosopher
 
Eddie Dane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 6,405
Originally Posted by Schrodinger's Cat View Post
I'm reminded of the Scopes Monkey Trial. One of the tactics Bryant used was simply reading from the more difficult passages of "On the Origin of Species." Passages that had a lot of scientific terms, and big words. He then would say to the jury something along the lines of, "See? This makes no sense. They're speaking nonsense, you can't even understand what they're trying to argue. It's gibberish." He simply did not recognize that the reason he did not understand what he read was because he had no understanding of science, it was completely over his head and he didn't understand the terminology involved. He just thought that he didn't understand it because it was jibberish because the person who wrote it was so stupid/crazy/etc that he couldn't even form complete sentences using real words.
So true.

Also they turn the tables on those science teachers who take part in evolution vs creation debates.

That's when the Creationist starts using a lot of made-up scientific-sounding words that the science teacher (or the audience) doesn't understand.

Thus "winning" the debate.
Eddie Dane is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th August 2010, 09:01 AM   #160
Schrodinger's Cat
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 3,456
Originally Posted by KingMerv00 View Post
Bertrand Russell maybe?

"The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. "
Now I remember, it was an interview with Kurt Vonnegut in which he was discussing this quote. Thanks!
Schrodinger's Cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:28 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.