From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
This is my Sandbox, yo.
I'll use this space to develop stuff over time.
Current project: *shrug*
Current progress: *shrug*

The following sections were salvaged from CP from Source View. I think it was the version before it was nominated for deletion/speedy. Date's January 2. I did one blind Search&Replace on the entire thing to turn all wikilinks into "CP:" versions. I'll leave it to others to restore some readability (since now several wikilinked words in the posts show up as "cp:" words) since I'm fairly busy right now. Oh, and images are missing (and "cp:"-linked, too), so that might need fixing, too. But at least it's just wikicode search-replace now, so that should make it easier, I guess.

Proposal: that atheists and unbelievers should be barred from participation in Conservapedia, and that the espousal of atheistic views should be a blockable offence, enshrined in the Conservapedia Commandments.


This may sound to some like a harsh or intolerant proposal. Surely we do not block on ideological grounds, we are capable of rational discourse, we can argue and exchange opinions with those who do not share our views. That is true - of conservatives and Conservapedians. But is it true of cp:atheists? I argue that it is not true of atheists. The very nature of atheism and its proponents is that rational exchange with them is not possible. They exist in a moral and intellectual void so enormous that all their mental and psychological energies are focused on the denial necessary to enable them to continue to function mentally in a rudimentary day-to-day fashion. Anything that might challenge this denial threatens the entire world view and self image of the typical atheist. Where debate and discussion should theoretically be possible, with atheists is met by a blank refusal to engage. They rely on reproducing their tired old mantras; one might as well debate with someone who believes - and refuses to even consider an alternative - that the moon is made of cheese.

Now, one might argue that this does no harm: the atheists come out with their tired old saws - the sort trotted out endlessly by 'Professor' Dawkins and his kind - and no-one gets hurt (just a trifle bored by them). But the cp:Liberal atheistic mindset is not content with just parroting its stock phrases. Snookered by the sterility and impossibility of their viewpoint, and terrified by the implications of considering any alternatives to the choice they have committed to, the only form of 'motion' open to atheists is to attack and attempt to damage their adversaries. Here is where they pose a danger to Conservapedia. Atheists see Conservapedia as a mortal enemy, and seek to destroy it. They may cause open damage as trolls and vandals; these are easy to detect and eliminate. More insidiously, they pretend to debate - creating endless circular arguments as sterile and futile as their own beliefs. This is why I argue for their removal. Conservapedia is a great project; it has the potential to become a far greater one, the truthful online encyclopaedic resource of choice, a great scholarly edifice. To do this we all need to redouble our hard work, and to focus this work on making Conservapedia better, and not on futile debates with the godless. Eliminate them, and our progress will accelerate. Truth, to paraphrase cp:Winston Churchill, needs a bodyguard of border guards, and the truth will set us free!

Bugler 06:57, 19 August 2008 (EDT)

Actually, (ironically enough) he said that truth is so precious it must be 'surrounded by a bodyguard of lies'. WillD 11:05, 19 August 2008 (EDT)
Yes, that is why I used the term paraphrase rather than "as Churchill said". Bugler 15:49, 19 August 2008 (EDT)

Atheists do not matter in world, so they should not matter or be allowed here. "To not believe in God is to not believe in the divinity of the human soul" as author CS Lewis put it. Atheists do not believe man is divine, just an animal. Animals cannot use the computer, so this is just what they want!!--Pakhyongshin 09:53, 19 August 2008 (EDT)

cp:Humans are animals[1]. I'm pretty sure that's what they [Atheists] mean. o.O Natebecause people listen to what I say? 11:57, 19 August 2008 (EDT)
Humans are not animals, they are made in the image of God. Mr Goeorge Orwell wrote a book about animals who use computers, but it is fiction!! If you want to live in a fairy tale, you should go!--Pakhyongshin 18:43, 19 August 2008 (EDT)

Atheists are a millstone around the neck of this project. Bugler is absolutely right. They only hold the project back and their removal will constitute a great leap forward. Their tired arguments and incessant talk talk talk are the greatest obstacle preventing this project from becoming the premier online resource that it could be. It is time to act. --DenningMR 15:52, 19 August 2008 (EDT)

I will side with the answer Yes, but have reservations. Me more than anybody wants liberals out-of-here. But I realize us conservatives have more to learn about 'them'. Though, this requires a tremendous effort to monitor their asinine postings. I feel the same can be said for atheists, which also tend to be liberal. We can learn from their stupidity but at a cost to slowing the development of a highly credible website.--jp 23:24, 19 August 2008 (EDT)

It should be noted that despite the fact that probably 90% of atheists are liberals, there is a few secular conservatives, for example, cp:David Horowitz, is an agnostic, despite this he even opposes cp:gay marriage, unlike the vast majority of secular conservatives, I think they shouldn't be blocked unless they try to spread leftism, atheism, or anti-americanism, if they want to edit, or add articles so be it, besides they may end up becoming christian, conservative, or both, as a result of their editing of this site. -- 12px Deborah (contributions) (talk) email me 00:08, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

I strongly agree with what Bugler has stated. This, my fellow Conservapedians, has nothing to do with ideology. This has do to with people who have deliberately interfered with our project and are determined to destroy this. Atheists, people who in my opinion are simply closed minded and refuse to consider what they "do not understand" (see cp:Conservative parables) and are thus determined to destroy a reference source that dares to contradict their "truth" with real evidence. They also fear a reference source that, unlike Wikipedia, actually reflects what most of America believes! Why? Because atheists are cowards. Not only are they cowards- they are cowards who fear the truth. Your idea, Bugler, is NOT an intolerant one. It is simply a reasonable barrier constructed to prevent people who have only one goal: to destroy our website.

Bugler, you noted that:

They exist in a moral and intellectual void so enormous that all their mental and psychological energies are focused on the denial necessary to enable them to continue to function mentally in a rudimentary day-to-day fashion. Anything that might challenge this denial threatens the entire world view and self image of the typical atheist. Where debate and discussion should theoretically be possible, with atheists is met by a blank refusal to engage. They rely on reproducing their tired old mantras; one might as well debate with someone who believes - and refuses to even consider an alternative - that the moon is made of cheese.

I personally agree with this statement, but I do not feel that it is enough to warrant banning atheists from the website. Rather, what does warrant the fact that atheists should be banned is that, although I have no way of mathematically proving it, I know as well as you know that there is an incredibly strong correlation between atheism and a desire to treat this website with malice. Why should we allow vandals destined to harm this site, or even people who do not want to harm the site but want to arrogantly promote their own views, interfering with those committed to the truth?--RoyS 09:21, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

I think we should maybe go a step further and bar non-Americans from editing too. It is clear that the majority of non-Americans have a very poor concept of Christianity and American conservatism, and I would imagine that a very large proportion of the non-American visitors to this site are either vandals or parodists. After all, the Star-Spangled Banner is in the top left, and so this should remain an American-focussed site. And while this would prevent myself from editing (not that I do much, due to my busy lifestyle - I tend to access this place as a valuable resource when I need it), and other valued editors such as Bugler (who I suspect is non-American also), I believe that the site would be better off for it. If anyone needs to make amendments to articles, then maybe there could be a "suggestion box" page for us to contact the genuine people of this site. My tuppence worth, any way. Davidklein 09:28, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

This is a serious discussion about a serious issue and not the place for silly adolescent parodies. Bugler 15:32, 20 August 2008 (EDT)
Ummm, yeah... --Hsmom 15:41, 20 August 2008 (EDT)
That makes a lot of sense to me. I'm a I'd be barred, but the this site aims to be a US conservative viewpoint, yes? What's considered 'conservative' in the USA is not necessarily conservative in NZ, and vice versa. On the other hand, banning atheists would be closedminded - I have no doubt about that. What's more, it would be very easy to implement as all you'd have to do is bar users from non-US IP addresses from editing. The 'nightly' shut-down of editing already means this policy is unofficially halfway implemented - it means I can't make edits between 5pm - 12am approx, local time! UlyssesNZ 16:41, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

What about a 'don't ask don't tell' sort of policy, where people who are openly atheist are barred, but editors should not be permitted to hound anybody with unfounded accusations of atheism (or other unjustified accusations). BillyBarbarois 11:04, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

If this passes as a CP commandment[edit]

Use cp::Category:Atheist Conservapedians. I knew that Atheist Userbox was created for some reason! o.O Natemy opinion matters? 12:47, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

Ha! I am sure there are more! But as I said to Kotomi (below), existing users would remain welcome if they did not proselytise, propagandise, flaunt their disbelief or engage in destructive arguments. Bugler 12:51, 21 August 2008 (EDT)


There is simply no reason to allow anyone who has admitted they have no respect for the works of their creater to stand and cast stones down upon believers. This is our space and, like any private club, can remove people for any reason, stated or otherwise. Maybe we should describe this as an "at-will" wiki. LarryHapp 14:09, 21 August 2008 (EDT)


That sounds like a very harsh step Bugler. But you are right in a way: the success of creation wiki (even though limited) is due to that. Otherwise they would have been spending all the energy to ward off evolutionists looking for petty arguments. But the problem is in determining where you draw the line. Do you ban just atheists or all liberals? Some may have conservative values regarding some issues and liberal viewpoints regarding some other issues. So it is a grey area. So I would probably say no. --EmilyC 09:16, 19 August 2008 (EDT)

  • I am quite new here and already tired of all those Talk page liberals who come here only to mock and harass. But I vote NO, because if even ONLY ONE atheist, using Conservapedia, will doubt his beliefs, will start understanding and embracing the Christian view, and will eventually be Saved, then I'd say it was worth it. SilvioB 09:37, 19 August 2008 (EDT)
Yours is a powerful argument, Silvio, and one that I wrestled with before writing my proposal. Its expression does you great credit. My counter-argument is that while we are doing great work that reaches many, we could, without the constant need to fight these maggots, be doing greater work that reaches multitudes. Neither of us (of course!) could say for certain how many souls are saved, but we may honourably have different views about the better approach. Bugler 15:59, 19 August 2008 (EDT)

I am going to say "no" to this suggestion for one reason, which has serious undertones to my mind and raises a myriad of questions which need to be answered.

  • How, and more importantly, who, decides who is an atheist or not?
  • Where will the definition end?
  • Is an atheist somebody who doesn't believe in the Christian God, or in any Godhead figure?
  • What if an Orthodox Jew, or a devout Buddhist wanted to sign up - would they be allowed to or not?
  • Most importantly - how would it be policed? I have images of the cp:thought police running through my mind as I type this, which cannot be a good thing.
  • Would prospective members be put through some sort of "Inquisition" - maybe a harsh term, but it is all I can think of when it comes to testing if people meet a certain faith-based criteria.
  • What about existing editors? Would it be a case of guilty until proven innocent?

I'm sorry, but to invoke such a mechanism would only invite an inevitable witch-hunt. It is unfortunate that Conservapedia does come under attack so often, but this is not the way to solve the problem. What is? I do not know. --KotomiTUser formerly known as JessicaT 09:46, 19 August 2008 (EDT)

No. The reasons this would be an unwise move are manifold:

1. Such a ban would be impossible to enforce. While it would be possible to forbid any edits expressing an atheistic point of view, and to punish such edits with bans, this would be extremely labor-intensive. Too many editors at CP already spend too much of their time banning vandals and fixing the damage they do. This leads directly into the second point:

2. Banning atheists would be like waving a red flag in front of them. Consider the number of liberals who come here and commit acts of vandalism for no other reason than that their point of view is unwelcome. Truly militant atheists--the kind who believe that religion is evil and should be destroyed at all costs--tend to be far more belligerent and tenacious than the typical liberal. The surest way to get more of them to visit would be to announce that they're not allowed to do so.

3. Such a ban would be grist for the mill as far as detractors of the site are concerned; they would constantly bring it up as support for the claim that CP is intolerant and censors dissenting viewpoints.

The Founding Fathers were wise enough to understand why free speech is of value: falsehoods are best brought out into the open and openly confronted. Let's take a page from their book. --Benp 10:42, 19 August 2008 (EDT)

I don't think they should be banned, but I do think that at the very least they should wear yellow stars, or better yet have a number tattooed on their arms. ChristopherH 11:33, 19 August 2008 (EDT)

ChrisH, are you a fan of the cp:Holocaust? o.O Natebecause people listen to what I say? 11:46, 19 August 2008 (EDT)
Goodness no. The attitude of demonizing/banning anyone because of their beliefs (or lack thereof), is as repugnant to me as Nazism. ChristopherH 11:49, 19 August 2008 (EDT)
I hope that you are not implicitly (or, indeed, explicitly) accusing me of demonising anyone. My attitude to atheists is that they are poor, impoverished people, howling impotently at the face of God; I hate their sin, but love the sinner. I do not demonise them, but they do demonise themselves by their rejection of the Almighty and their deliberate efforts to live a life that God would find abhorrent. I advocate banning them for practical and logical reasons as stated abovem, although I admit the power of SilvioB's argument. Bugler 15:54, 19 August 2008 (EDT).
You claim that you do not demonize atheists and that you have love for them. Do you call everybody that you love a maggot? Corry 16:06, 19 August 2008 (EDT)
Maggots are those that seek to destroy that which they do not understand. Believe me, they will not be permitted to do so. Those that live in error are forgiven if they repent. Bugler 16:08, 19 August 2008 (EDT)
And this isn't demonization? Calling non-believers maggots? Corry

Your deliberate distortion of my words, a common cp:Liberal trick, is only to be expected. I love the sinner, but abhor the sin, the sin of atheism, and the sin of nihilisticly vandalising an educational, wholesome, scholarly resource for immoral adolescent kicks. Those who do the latter I happily describe as maggots, yet even they are not beyond the pale, if only they repent, seek forgiveness, and work to expiate their sins. Bugler 16:16, 19 August 2008 (EDT)

How is this distortion? You say that you're not demonizing atheists, and then you call them maggots. You didn't say anything about vandals, etc. You are calling atheists who don't agree with you maggots. Corry 16:25, 19 August 2008 (EDT)
No. That is untrue. There are millions of atheists. They are sad, bereft, damaged people, but not maggots. Those who come to damage Conservapedia, overtly by wrecking, obscenity and inserting nonsense, or covertly by starting circular arguments, I do call maggots. Bugler 16:30, 19 August 2008 (EDT)

No. I actually think both religious positions you're describing are just as intractable. Fundamentalists aren't going to be swayed to atheism any more than dyed-in-the-wool atheists are going to be born again. That said, trying to kick out atheists would be like shooting emergency flares as far as drawing negative attention to yourself. Furthermore, any moderates you might ever have a chance of persuading will immediately dismiss you as raving. This would be an extremely self-destructive action. Corry 11:50, 19 August 2008 (EDT)

You imply a moral equivalence between Conservapedians and the cp:Liberal cp:atheist vandals who seek only to destroy. Can you really mean this? Bugler 16:10, 19 August 2008 (EDT)
You say that debating an atheist is pointless because of atheist closed-mindedness. I am saying that both sides of the debate would be equally unlikely to walk away with a different viewpoint. Corry 16:14, 19 August 2008 (EDT)
Very true. The Godly, because their view is correct and proven. The atheists, because - as I have demonstrated above - their aspiritual emptiness acts as a potent reason to cling to their nihilistic world outlook, and to comfort them against the howling void that they have embraced. Bugler 16:19, 19 August 2008 (EDT)
So you would agree that it is futile to debate a fundamentalist because they are closed minded? Corry 16:25, 19 August 2008 (EDT)
'Fundamentalist' is a term often employed as a smear by cp:Liberals. Atheists are closed-minded. Bugler 16:31, 19 August 2008 (EDT)
Ok, strike "fundamentalist" and use "believers." How are believers any more closed minded than non-believers? Can you explain this without the precondition that believers are right and non-believers are wrong? Corry 16:36, 19 August 2008 (EDT)

But the precondition is the revealed truth. Bugler 16:38, 19 August 2008 (EDT)

So I'll take that as a no. Corry 16:39, 19 August 2008 (EDT)
Take it as you wish - you are making an impossible comparison. And note my words above, about the tactics of atheistic liberals: More insidiously, they pretend to debate - creating endless circular arguments as sterile and futile as their own beliefs. Bugler 16:44, 19 August 2008 (EDT)
I've never said anything about my own religious beliefs. And you are the one only pretending to debate. You either refuse to answer a question or you accuse me of supporting eugenics. Just because a person continues to disagree with you doesn't mean that they are only pretending to debate. And how are my arguments circular? Because I don't think that "I know I'm right" is a valid argument? Corry 16:50, 19 August 2008 (EDT)

Before the supposed events of Mt. Sinai did nobody know that murder, theft, rape and perjury were wrong? Of course not. To say vicious things about all atheists is no different then attacking all Jews, Hindus, Mormons etc. You're attacking them for their [lack of] religious beliefs, that is despicable. I am grateful for the contributions of non-believers (Einstein, Spinoza, Voltaire...) aren't you? ChristopherH 18:22, 19 August 2008 (EDT)

I like cp:Albert Einstein's contributions to physics, but what evidence is there that he was a non-believer? (If you have such evidence, please be sure to put it in our bio of him.) --Ed Poor Talk 06:51, 21 August 2008 (EDT)
Here's some evidence. UlyssesNZ 16:51, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

No. We should ban parodists and saboteurs, but atheists who are willing to come here and engage with us, perhaps even to learn, should be encouraged. Surely one of our primary duties in life is to spread the word to non-believers - how can we do that if we refuse to talk to them? MikeR 19:25, 19 August 2008 (EDT)

Aren't atheists barred from Conservapedia already? Sure feels like it. --SCarter 20:06, 19 August 2008 (EDT)

Two minutes after registering, you "sure feel like it"? SilvioB 20:14, 19 August 2008 (EDT)

And after atheists, who next? Old age creationists? Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists? Catholics? Anybody who disagrees even slightly with anything? Sideways 11:08, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

Atheists should not be barred unless they make ideological edits. This is the same rule for political liberals. In fact, if a writer were to make "conservative" ideological edits, I would also object because the truth should not be played with.
A blanket ban on people who positively disbelieve what the rest of us believe would not help as much as some would think. I would prefer that such people tell us what they think and why, as on these debate pages. They can also expound on the liberal POV in articles - as long as they don't confuse their POV with reality. --Ed Poor Talk 06:49, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

No. I've known some brilliantly reasonable atheists and some dogmatic and grossly doctrinally erring, closed-minded Christians. This site is 'conservapedia', not 'Christian-pedia' and its policies should reflect that. Christian and conservative are NOT the same - for instance, Christopher Hitchens is an atheist who wrote the book "God is not Great", he now takes up some conservative positions like approval of the War in Iraq. Peter Hitchens, his brother, on the other hand, opposes neoconservativism, the war, and is a Christian (although he's conservative on many other issues). Users should be allowed or banned on the basis of their behavior. Valued contributors should be allowed to stay; people who make false statements and attempt to deceive readers should be kicked out. It's that simple. UlyssesNZ 17:01, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

So we are going to reward heathens for denying the existance of The Lord? We need to drawl the line here. Liberals and atheists have no business spreading their science "facts" (lies) on the internet, in contrary to The Lord. --Patriot1505

No. We are not in the business of belitteling others, nor should we be. We are not in the business of saying that humans are bad, or their ideas are bad, in and of themselves, simply because of who they are. If we follow a good hearted path, each human should be judged on what he actually says and does *in relation to content here*, and not just "who or what" he is. If he or she is editing a comment about a birthdate, or changes the spelling of a typo, or adds indisputable, uncontriversal comments about the function of a square root (do square roots have functions per say? I failed math, grins) they are not harming the site and should not be silenced. It is not our place to judge, though it is your (sysops) place to protect from vandals, excessive work in redoing articles ect. Michelle --MHayes 16:40, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

That would make us the sheep in wolves clothing. Jesus wanted everyone to be happy together. He would never exclude anyone. Isn't that the idea of love to live together regardless of our differences? --tehliberator


What if we just made them indicate it on their user page? -DrSandstone 15:43, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

Sounds like McCarthyism. They deserve the same treatments as theists they shouldn't have to wear badge that alerts others of their being.-- Tehliberator

McCarthy strove to protect freedom, and had he not been undermined by cp:Liberal cp:fellow travellers we should not have had to undergo the enormities of cp:The Sixties. Atheists should not be allowed to creep on here under cover. And there is nothing wrong or unChristian about the use of strength to protect an ideal. After all, did not cp:Christ himself drive the blasphemers from the Temple with cp:scourges? Bugler 16:35, 13 October 2008 (EDT)

Alternative #2[edit]

To paraphrase Dr. King, what if we just ignored the personal beliefs of the editors, and judge them on the content and character of their edits instead? --DinsdaleP 15:49, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

...which involves us in protracted sterile, circular debates, initiated by the atheists not to seek enlightenment or progress but merely to disrupt and damage. Overt vandals are preferable - they can swiftly be rooted out. But these people take advantage of our openness and willingness to engage. Bugler 15:52, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

Um, yes. Yes they do.--Hsmom 16:13, 20 August 2008 (EDT)
I suppose, but I've found that the easiest way to avoid protracted sterile, circular debates is to simply not take the bait. To each his own, I guess. --DinsdaleP 16:05, 20 August 2008 (EDT)
And that leaves their toxic views standing unchallenged to poison the mind of our youth. We have to take them on, one way or the other. And what I propose is quicker, cleaner, and leaves more time for our proper work. Bugler 16:27, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

This Debate[edit]

This debate was deliberately started by a parodist to stir up contentious feelings. It is remarkable that people choose to feed this trouble-maker again and again with arguments to his deliberately divisive and clearly deliberately ludicrous statments. Kacey G 16:25, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

I will let this libellous and lying statement stand as an appropriate memorial to User:Kacey G. It reflects far more on him than on me. Bugler 16:27, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

A request[edit]

Before I get my day on the go, I wonder if I could ask you, Bugler, to please provide an answer to the questions I listed in my original objection. I've listed them again below for simplicity's sake. Although you have provided a motivation for your stance in this debate, I am, however, more interested (and concerned) how you see it being implemented and controlled. I must confess that I am also curious to know why you have chosen the religious angle for exclusion, rather than say "exclude liberals" given that Conservapedia purports to be Conservative, not necessarily Christian - or do you see the two as being mutually exclusive?

Thanks, Kotomi. I give my replies indented under your questions.
  • How, and more importantly, who, on here decides who is an atheist or not?
Sysops and those with blocking powers would be entrusted with those decisions.
  • Where will the definition end? Is an atheist somebody who doesn't believe in the Christian God, or in any Godhead figure?
in any Godhead figure
  • What if an Orthodox Jew, or a devout Buddhist wanted to sign up - would they be allowed to or not?
Yes they would, and be very warmly welcomed
That is very interesting... Eventhough Buddhism is an atheistic religion? So why the descrimination against other types of atheists?
  • Most importantly - how would it be policed?
People would be judged by their behaviour. The adoption of usernames or tags advocating atheism, or making edits promoting or supporting atheism, atheists, or other atheistic posters, would be grouunds for banning.
  • Would prospective members be put through some sort of "Inquisition" - maybe a harsh term, but it is all I can think of when it comes to testing if people meet a certain faith-based criteria. For that matter - whose criteria would be used?
No: see above. People would be judged on their behaviour.
  • What about existing editors? Would it be a case of business as usual, or would a witch-hunt ensue?
I don't really like the term 'witch-hunt', which perhaps implies vindictive motives. Rather, there would be a selective cull of existing editors who choose to continue with atheistic propagandising. They have the choice not to do this; should they choose otherwise, then they would be electing their own deletion.
As for the point made in your preamble, why do I not opt for 'exclude liberals', I would say there are a number of reasons. Firstly, there is a clear gulf between atheism and belief, where as political views are on a continuum, without clear dividing lines between shades of opinion. Secondly, while I have argued above that there is little, if any, point in arguing with atheists due to their closed minds and inability to engage in a meaningful way, one could make a case for arguing with liberals - there is, I believe, a greater chance of conversion. This may be through argument and exposure to the rationality and clarity of Conservative beliefs, something most libs are not exposed to in the liberal-dominated mass media. It may be through outside causes - as the saying goes, 'a Conservative is a Liberal who has been mugged'. Either way, though it's tempting to throw the liberals out too, there are more valid reasons to let them stay - subject to keen monitoring of their behaviour, of course!

I thank you in advance and look forward to your replies. --KotomiTUser formerly known as JessicaT 16:49, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

Thank you, too, for your well-put questions. Bugler 05:03, 21 August 2008 (EDT)
Thank you for your swift reply Bugler, I really appreciate it. I think it is fair to state I am still saying "No" to the proposal, as I feel that the blocking procedure could still be too subjective and blocks would be handed out on a "block now, ask later" basis, with little hope of appeal from the unfortunate blockee. I hope I am wrong in this assumption. I am also siding with the school of thought that feel that initiating such a policy would be like drawing moths to a flame and would probably leave those with the duty busier than they ever are now. Thank you for the opportunity to bounce ideas around with you, however. --KotomiTHajimemashite! 09:23, 21 August 2008 (EDT)
Bugler, I think your proposal to shun atheists and to make sysops the arbiters of who is considered an atheist will be open to abuse. For example, I already have a warning on my talk page from a sysop insinuating that my comments in this debate must make me an atheist, when in fact I have made no expression of my own beliefs.
Also, you seem to be drawing a hard line between theists and atheists, but in reality this is not so straightforward. You say a Buddhist would be welcome - are you aware that Buddhists do not believe in the concept of God as such? (I assume that's why Kotomi chose it as an example). There are other non-theistic philosophies and belief systems, such as Confucianism, which uphold a conservative value system. And there are polytheistic and pantheistic faiths such as Hinduism and Shinto, which do not have one central God figure. Lastly, you say CP should accept believers in "any Godhead figure". Well, what about Satanists? They believe in a Godhead figure. Are their contributions more valued than an atheist's? Sideways 14:07, 21 August 2008 (EDT)
Well, what about Satanists? They believe in a Godhead figure. We don't confuse Christ with the antichrist. Bugler 14:11, 21 August 2008 (EDT)
In other words, contrary to your "any Godhead figure" comment, you are looking for specifically Christian belief. . . . Sideways 14:14, 21 August 2008 (EDT)
That is an absolutely nonsensical and illogical statement. Bugler 07:51, 22 August 2008 (EDT)
How so? You could have answered the example of Satanists anyway you chose - I think that the fact you found it necessary to mention Christ (whom I had not mentioned at all) says a lot about your real intentions with this proposed ban. & You still haven't addressed my other points, regarding the full range of beliefs which do not fall within a theist-athist dichotomy. Sideways 11:46, 25 August 2008 (EDT)
I do nt advocate banning people of faith, and that icludes Buddhists and Confucians. As for your attempts to promote Satanism - be warned. Bugler 11:54, 25 August 2008 (EDT)
- Sigh - I make no sincere attempt to promote Satanism. This is what is called playing cp:Devil's advocate (literally in this case!) It is a well recognised debating technique, in which I point out the weaknesses of your argument by pushing it to its logical conclusions - in this case, the fact that you propose to ban atheists but not those worshipping a central figure, whereas you have now come to the point of denouncing a religion which worships a central figure, while accepting Buddhists and Confucianists (who do not worship a God). Sideways 12:46, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

Yes! It is time to secure our boarders! Atheists bring nothing of valuable to the website except for spreading there unGodly reasoning. Patriot1505

"How, and more importantly, who, on here decides who is an atheist or not?"

Simple: the create account dialog box should be modified to require the user to fill in a Religious Affiliation box (along with Login and Password). This affiliation would then be added onto that person's User page. If "none" or "atheist" is specified, that person would not get his account. That would take care of all new users. Current users would get a reminder they have 90 days to fill in their Religious Affiliation box on their User page or have their account temporarily deactivated. --Mycosaur 19:47, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

...and unbelievers should be barred from participation in Conservapedia[edit]

What does this mean? Does this it mean, non-Christians? Also if your meaning is Christians should be the only people allowed to edit, does your definition of Christianity exclude Seventh-day Adventists, Mormons, or members of the Unification Church? -- 12px Deborah (contributions) (talk) email me 21:18, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

See my replies to Kotomi above. I just advocate the exclusion of atheists.

Atheists have always been banned from Conservapedia using one reason or other..So this is nothing new. --StanleyB 14:28, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

We are not going to ban atheists[edit]

No, we are not going to ban atheists from Conservapedia based on their belief in atheism. We have a number of users here who have expressed such beliefs, but have contributed to the site in a positive, respectful manner. Yes, this is a Judeo/Christian site, and yes, we disagree with what atheism is, but we should ban those who deliberately cause trouble for the site. So-and-so stating he doesn't believe in God doesn't constitute that kind of trouble. Karajou 14:21, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

I would respectfully disagree. I think you'd find that 99.99% of the people banned here are foaming-at-the-mouth atheists. Just my two cents, but I fail to see what damage it would do. LarryHapp 14:36, 21 August 2008 (EDT)
Quite so. How, Karajou, would you deal with the endless, sterile, round-and-round debates which cause so much damage? Bugler 07:52, 22 August 2008 (EDT)

Well said, Karajou. Users should be judged on their contributions, not their beliefs. Sideways 11:48, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

But what when beliefs cause conflict with contributions? Surely atheists will be foaming from how they are shown to be wrong in the cp:Atheism article so will attempt to alter it to suit their wrong views, so beliefs are going to affect contributions. Can you expect cp:liberals to put aside their beliefs to make worthwhile contributions rather than needless vandalism? DessipF 10:20, 26 August 2008 (EDT)
Karajou is absolutely right. If you want a conservative wiki, you should accept contributions from non-Christian conservatives like myself. Efloean 13:58, 28 August 2008 (EDT)

Only banning people who make overly atheist 'contributions'[edit]

Though probably a lot of atheists would just prefer to vandalize Conservapedia, I think some might be prepared to view things from a conservative point of view. Ofcourse if someone's contributions are made up out of overly atheist rambling, it would be justified to ban that person. OneWayOrAnother 08:40, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

To ban vandals in general is normal, but to specify it as atheistic vandals makes it sound like atheist in general aren't welcome here. Efloean 14:52, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

I can not help but feel[edit]

that this page is sort of a microcosm of what would happen if the editors here were in charge of the world. Suddenly would atheists be allowed a say or would all the same arguments as presented by Bugler and endorsed by some others still apply? I suspect that they would. Carptrash 16:26, 30 August 2008 (EDT)


I thought this had been put to bed already, but I would like to add a final point from my side. Yes, it is unfortunate that there are people out there who find it necessary (or funny, or whatever reason) to attack Conservapedia. However, that is why there are sysops and admins in place, to police against that sort of behaviour. I am sure it is a dirty job, but they accepted the responsibility. Maybe more are required to lighten the burden? However, to blatantly discriminate against people based on their beliefs is patently wrong. End of story. Surely, there must be people who are, say, both secular and conservative? The minute the line between "us" and "them" is drawn in the sand, it opens a Pandora's Box and soon people who thought they were part of "us" are now the new "them".

If anybody here is still even remotely considering this to be a viable proposition, I want to end off with a quotation from Pastor Martin Niemoller. Please consider his words very carefully and let us please put this debate to an end for once and for all:

First they came for the Communists, and I didn’t speak up,

because I wasn’t a Communist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I didn’t speak up,
because I wasn’t a Jew.

Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn’t speak up,
because I was a Protestant.

Then they came for me, and by that time there was no one left

to speak up for me.

--KotomiTHajimemashite! 17:25, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

Other wikis[edit]

Other wikis, such as Uncyclopedia (which I think is a serious wiki) are following our lead. I just thought y'all should know. CJK 20:54, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

Er, you are aware that Uncylcopedia prides itself on being a "content-free encyclopedia", everything their including that "debate" is satire and parody. (I daresay that the debate you quote is a parody of the debate here.) DLerner 21:18, 31 August 2008 (EDT)
They look pretty serious to me. Also, maybe they aren't Christians, but the idea is the same as the one cp:user:Bugler started here. CJK 21:26, 31 August 2008 (EDT)
It is remarkably similar. Perhaps Bugler on Conservapedia and Cajek on Uncyclopedia are actually the same person.  ;-) Sideways 08:48, 1 September 2008 (EDT)
Certainly not. I shall be instructing my copyright lawyer. Bugler 09:05, 1 September 2008 (EDT)
Uncyclopedia is serious business. Seriously. --Dexter111344 17:47, 1 September 2008 (EDT)


i'm just glad you're being exclusive to atheists in this pursuit. i have never been prouder to be able to continue my tradition of fine edits in the name of the one true deity: the flying spaghetti monster. GerryC 21:37, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

You know what you guys should do? You should probably LET YOUR GUARD DOWN and continue praying to human gods. Yeah, that Cthulhu stuff was just a happy joke! hahahahaha- O_____O CJK 20:12, 6 September 2008 (EDT)

A Trained Conservative Secular Jew Speaks[edit]

That's me. I'm a secular Jew, and I'd like to throw my two gelt into this debate. Personally, I can't stand full-time Atheists. I mean, I only go to temple on the high holy days, but to not believe in God at all... that's just meshuggah! That's why I'd like to say that I, and by association the proud semi-state of Long Island, am completely for banning Atheists from the wiki.

I'd like to use an analogy to get my point across: Conservapedia is kind of like a Synagogue, you see. I go here every day to read up on God and what's going on, but only recently I registered my account. Anyway, you wouldn't let an atheist into your Synagogue, would you? Of course not, what would it be doing there except to rouse some rabble about God? It isn't practical to keep an atheist in a temple. When an atheist IS in a temple, it becomes the five hundred pound elephant in a community of mostly Christians. Catch my drift, goyim? --FrankincenseMonster 22:19, 2 September 2008 (EDT)


HMMM. Aren't you gleefully walking down the primrose path to totalitarianism here? have fun with that, when you eventually stagnate and have nothing left to discuss because of an absence of outside influence I feel that you'll realize it's not all that entertaining to be a militant conservative when there's no one allowed in that you want to fight. Your insularity is hilarious to me. THIS is the kind of thing that is making America rot from within. the deliberate suppression of opposing viewpoints can only lead to intellectual stagnation I'm an atheist and will gladly hear anything you have to say, try to convince me, I'm willing to be convinced but you'll need to bring to bear some truly compelling reasons to make me into a God fearing conservative Einherjar

Yes athiests , and Apostate Christians[edit]

If this site is truly conservative , pro-christian world view then ALL articles should reflect that view and any viewpoint that conflicts with that should be purged, after all Christians are meant to witness for their faith, a neutral viewpoint denies that faith. By Apostate I mean a christian who does not observe the tenets of their faith. That means if you edit on Sunday rather than attend services you are breaking the instruction to observe the sabbath and keep it for God. (I will allow saturday - thats a point of debate) Markr 16:39, 13 October 2008 (EDT)


Atheists should be booted from conservapedia. And I'm not just talking regular atheists, I mean every single flavor of atheist. Whether they be agnostic, secular, or simply non-practicing Christians. Even the atheists who say they're Christian churchgoers should be expelled. To go against God is to go against America. Land of the Free, Home of the brave; Christian since 1954. Toggiba