"Science is liberal and anti-American." (Conservapedia)

[buckshot24]

Maybe I am reading your image wrong but it looks to me that it means plotted, planned, etc. and the root is the word that means deceived.

And?

 

[buckshot24]

Maybe I am reading your image wrong but it looks to me that it means plotted, planned, etc. and the root is the word that means deceived.

Then you ignore the story in which this term is used. How is that not a deception?

 

[disappoint]

Ah, but that is exactly how I knew you were angry despite your denials because you took a few words about pearls and went into a diatribe in which you accused DSF of being angry. Any anger you saw was your own, not his. You are pretty funny.

If you really do not suppress your anger, as you lie to me here that you don't, you would be able to tell me what anger is. Go ahead, feel your anger and you will be able to tell me.

For science, could you tell me on a scale of 0 to 100 what percent sure you are that you knew I was angry? (0 being not sure at all and 100 being 100% certain)

 

[disappoint]

I'm not angry in the slightest. My comment was more directed towards Moonie as I don't understand why he bothers attempting to explain something that is impossible to explain by merely using words. Personally, I would love for you to know what I know and would give you that understanding in a heartbeat if that were possible.

I know. I could have worded my post differently thusly: "You don't want to just take your pearls home without sharing them with swine do you? For if you do what chance will there then be for the swine to learn something so that they may even if ever so slightly grow more human?"

But I chose a more negative intonation for a reason, that reason being to elicit a more genuine response from you. I have to admit your response took the high road excellently.

 

[Moonbeam]

I'm not angry in the slightest. My comment was more directed towards Moonie as I don't understand why he bothers attempting to explain something that is impossible to explain by merely using words. Personally, I would love for you to know what I know and would give you that understanding in a heartbeat if that were possible.

I don't find it a bother and I have no expectations of success. But most people don't even know there IS something that can't be explained. What I try to do is to provide honest answers to the traps others find themselves in. I try to give those answers that can only be had from a perspective that lies in another dimension. If your blackboard is blank you recognize when people are reading things they imagine they see on theirs. The truth is arrived at by unlearning. Even swine can do that.

 

[woolfe9998]

Not being meant as satire and not being satire are two vastly different things when the public is free to play with your site.

Perhaps, but when you look at the articles on, for example, Encylopedia Dramatica, they read like parodies of far right wing opinions. On Conservapedia, they look like...nutty right wing opinions. Meaning that in each case, the general tone and content of the articles appears to be consistent with the creator's statement of intent.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

I don't find it a bother and I have no expectations of success. But most people don't even know there IS something that can't be explained. What I try to do is to provide honest answers to the traps others find themselves in. I try to give those answers that can only be had from a perspective that lies in another dimension. If your blackboard is blank you recognize when people are reading things they imagine they see on theirs. The truth is arrived at by unlearning. Even swine can do that.

I admire your perseverance. But for me, it's difficult to watch. It's seems that the swine here are much too "intelligent" to fall for such a ruse.

 

[fskimospy]

Perhaps, but when you look at the articles on, for example, Encylopedia Dramatica, they read like parodies of far right wing opinions. On Conservapedia, they look like...nutty right wing opinions. Meaning that in each case, the general tone and content of the articles appears to be consistent with the creator's statement of intent.

Easiest way to see this is to go into the talk pages on more controversial articles. Lenski's bacteria experiment and others are good examples. The creator of the site was/is an active participant in these talk pages and once you see how he behaves there the nuttiness of the site makes perfect sense.

There might be a few satirical entries here and there (I remember the arboreal tree octopus making it in for a bit), but by and large the site appears to accurately represent the viewpoint of Andrew Schlafly. It just so happens to be that he's completely fucking insane.

 

[Moonbeam]

For science, could you tell me on a scale of 0 to 100 what percent sure you are that you knew I was angry? (0 being not sure at all and 100 being 100% certain)

How could one person possibly know what another person is feeling?

 

[dank69]

How?

How what? You can read the definitions, right? They all include the words infinite or unlimited, right?

 

[dank69]

Then you ignore the story in which this term is used. How is that not a deception?

Can you point me to the verses where it is said that Allah tricked them into believing he had been crucified? I just finished reading 3:51-3:56 and don't see anything about that.

 

[buckshot24]

How what? You can read the definitions, right? They all include the words infinite or unlimited, right?

So what!?

If I had unlimited money does that mean I can do anything and everything or does that mean I can do anything and everything that having money can achieve?

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

I know. I could have worded my post differently thusly: "You don't want to just take your pearls home without sharing them with swine do you? For if you do what chance will there then be for the swine to learn something so that they may even if ever so slightly grow more human?"

But I chose a more negative intonation for a reason, that reason being to elicit a more genuine response from you. I have to admit your response took the high road excellently.

For me, I had to surrender and die to myself and this world before I could know God. Imo, most religions are essentially constructs with the same core objective....connecting people to God or whatever other name you want to call it. As best as I'm capable, I love to help those who genuinely want to understand; however, I have zero desire to "push my faith" on those who already "know" all the answers. And I see that some would immediately turn this on me and I understand this...so to preempt such discussion, I freely admit that I don't know much of anything...except that this God exists and He pursues each and every one of us...even assholes like me.

 

[woolfe9998]

Its original intent is definitely not as a satire site and the guy who runs it (Andrew Schlafly) is a certifiable nutcase. As of last time I checked he's in the process of rewriting the bible to remove all the supposed 'liberal bias'.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia#Conservative_Bible_Project

Andrew Schlafly, as in the son of Phyllis Shlafly, who in the 1970's succeeded in getting laws passed to ban homosexuals from teaching in schools? Well that explains a lot about Conservadpedia. If Conservapedia is "parody," then it's self-parody.

 

[buckshot24]

Can you point me to the verses where it is said that Allah tricked them into believing he had been crucified? I just finished reading 3:51-3:56 and don't see anything about that.

http://quran.com/4/157-158

"And [for] their saying, "Indeed, we have killed the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, the messenger of Allah ." And they did not kill him, nor did they crucify him; but [another] was made to resemble him to them."

So, it wasn't Jesus who was killed but somebody who was made to resemble him. Deception.

Muslim tradition says it was Judas Iscariot who was killed.

 

[dank69]

http://quran.com/4/157-158

"And [for] their saying, "Indeed, we have killed the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, the messenger of Allah ." And they did not kill him, nor did they crucify him; but [another] was made to resemble him to them."

So, it wasn't Jesus who was killed but somebody who was made to resemble him. Deception.

Muslim tradition says it was Judas Iscariot who was killed.

What the hell? How is that part of the same story if it is from a completely different chapter? Forgive my ignorance of the Koran here, is it chapter or volume or ? I don't know.

 

[soulcougher73]

So what!?

If I had unlimited money does that mean I can do anything and everything or does that mean I can do anything and everything that having money can achieve?

Bad analogy as usual

 

[buckshot24]

What the hell? How is that part of the same story if it is from a completely different chapter? Forgive my ignorance of the Koran here, is it chapter or volume or ? I don't know.

Did Allah deceive them from this passage or not?

 

[buckshot24]

So we have the root of the world makr meaning to deceive, we have Allah switching out Jesus with some other person before he was killed. I think you should just hang it up and move on, you're wrong.