Conservapedia:Conservapedia Group

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Wigocp.svg This Conservapedia-related article is of largely historical interest and is no longer the focus of RationalWiki today.
Conservapedia (and religious fundamentalism to an extent) was a major focal point in the early history of RationalWiki, but long ago ceased coming up with new ways to appall and amuse.
Our energies are now spent debunking other, fresher examples of pseudoscientific claims, authoritarianism, and deceit.
For RationalWiki's less ancient content, try the Best of RationalWiki.
Trus me
Conservlogo late april.png
In-depth analysis

The Conservapedia Group was the successor Google group for the Conservapedia administrators, which was created around June, 2010, following the closure of the previous group, the The Zeuglodon Blues. The purpose of the group remained the same: to discuss matters affecting Conservapedia, and blame all their woes on RationalWiki. The contents of the group were leaked on February 9, 2011.

Quotes by individual users[edit]


On several occasions, Karajou has expressed his disapproval for Andy's pet conservative Bible.

  • "As I recall, the CBT was meant to counter the liberalization of the Bible. What liberalization? Where is it? I want to see it. Start putting in the specific, liberal-corrupted Bibles; identify for the readers exactly which ones they are, and why they are corrupted, right down to the specific verses." [1]
  • "In the main, PRIMARY interest of not offending God by the alteration or "dumbing down" of His Word, the following are suggestions for the improvement of the CBP:" and "Look at it this way: God's Word is not going to pass away, but everyone who ever lived is going to have to give an account. In this case, I want the translation to be done right - His way - and not wrong."[2]

A nice Christian thought about Darwin burning in hell[3]:

One side states that he died a Christian; the other states he died an...well...he's now roasting at 450 degrees since 1882. Which one is valid? Could both accounts be included?

And another about Stephen Hawking[4]:

It was physics - and not God - that created the universe, according to scientist Hawking. Now, I wanted to put my question to him in this fashion on the main page, but it possibly might cause an uproar: "Stephan [sic] Hawking says God wasn't involved in creating the universe; it was physics. Well, Steve, if you know that much about the universe, then try getting out of your wheel chair!"


No one has asked for or agreed with my opinion. But all have now, I trust, witnessed my vindication."[5]

The quote is revealing of CP organization and sysop interaction. After having not been asked an opinion, nor expressing an opinion (that no one agrees with anyway), TerryH's views are telepathically vindicated among the sysop group.

See also[edit]

External links[edit]


  1. CG /121-150/676cd2a7f7958a85.htm "Conservative Bible Translation"
  2. CG 1-30/8d6866432fb84112.htm Bible project proposals
  3. 1-30/c27dfc4b6d3de86a
  4. CP/181-210/f70bf25e8c40908c
  5. Unblocking of Human, Temlakos to CP Sysop discussion group, 8/1/11. [1]