There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff – we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity.
If everyone who saw this today donated $5, we would meet our goal for 2020.
| Fighting pseudoscience isn't free.|
We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $20 or whatever you can today with !
Email sent to Conservapedia's user Conservative
Good morning 'Conservative',
I was surprised to see that not only had you deleted my essay posted in direct response to your own challenge, but you also blocked my account (for five YEARS) before I could amend the essay. I was not aware that linking to other wikis was not permitted- but now I know. Thank you for educating me. Allow me to return the favour by posting my essay! :)
I would like to post a revised version of my essay if I could. If you desire, you can simply restore the page with the whole section dealing with the other wiki removed- I will re-add it immediately. Otherwise, you can unblock my account, and I will do all the legwork for you.
A five year ban for breaking one minor rule of your wiki seems entirely harsh. If one of your students broke a minor rule of your wiki, would you expell them for five years? This seems very harsh. Isn't Christianity supposed to espouse love and forgiveness?
Please either unblock my account, or restore the essay minus the link to another wiki. Either is fine by me.
As I mentioned several times in my essay, deleting the essay itself (wholely and completely) is censorship, which you accuse your Liberal foes of in spades. I had hoped that would dissuade you from deleting it, but it seems as though I was regretfully wise to add in this disclaimer. I hope you move beyond this and, as I've humbly asked, restore part of the essay, or unblock my account.
After all, Conservapedia teaches that "Censorship is the suppression of statements or information for ideological reasons and is a liberal tactic." Your article includes a picture of Hitler. Obviously censoring my essay is a very bad thing by your own standards- I ask you to reconsider the deletion, and remind you that censorship is the removal of information, even if you disagree with it. A case of "Defend to the death your right to say it".
If you do NOT want to either partially restore the essay, or restore my user account so I may do so myself, I ask that you amend the section of your website talking about the Question Evolution campaign to say that answers were provided, but they were deleted by the Conservapedia staff (this is factual). This is simply in the interests of avoiding the impression of censorship.
Posting correspondence with Karajou.
Good afternoon Karajou,
I am disappointed to find that the admins at CP have, again, chosen to remove my essay that was posted in direct response to your collective challenge to Penn regarding the existence of God.
The user "Conservative" removed the first copy of the essay for no other reason than it contained a single link to another wiki- and banned me for five years(!). This is extremely bizarre behaviour, as I was neither trolling, nor abusive, not crude, nor performing any form of vandalism- in fact I was extremely polite (for example, I caplitalized the name of God, something no Atheist is under any obligation to do). A simple request to remove the link would have been enough for me and I would have complied happily. As I stressed in my essay several times, I am not on a mission of disrespect.
The essay was, in fact, responding to a challenge your website has not only made, but featured prominently on your front page for several days now.
How do you expect Penn to respond to your challenge if you will treat him the way you treated me? Is this how you would like to be treated if, say, Richard Dawkins offered to debate you, but simply deleted your response and claimed that (as your page currently does regarding Atheists) "Conservatives are unwilling to step outside their intellectual bunny hole", and that they are "cowards", and that "nobody can withstand Atheist logic", and that they are "afraid"? What would you think of someone who acted this way?
You are obviously a Christian man, so my 15th question of the "15 Questions to Make Theists Think" is becoming ever more relevant. Why can Conservatives claim to be the ultimate in morality, but act so immorally- and requesting a debate, deleting any responses to that debate, then claiming your opponents *are too cowardly to reply* is deception. I am here, shouting my lungs out, while you simply slam the door in my face. This is not the behaviour of an honest man.
Does your God not condemn dishonesty?
You may say that I am a Liberal. I respond that an IP check will verify that I am Australian, and therefore do not fall into your American categories. I oppose Gun Control, for example, I encourage the power of the free market and I oppose government intervention in the lives of its citizens- yet I also support secular government, the arts and sciences, and public health care.
Even if I am 100% a Liberal (a charge I deny, as I explained above, such labels do not apply to me) does your God not say to love thy neighbor? Even love thy enemy? How can rudely silencing their honest reply to your own question be considered "love", except in some kind of twisted kind of passive-aggressive "it's for your own good" abuse?
You even, plainly and clearly, label what you are doing as "censorship"- claiming you should "Get the most out of it". Your own site, Conservapedia, lists censorship as a "Liberal Tactic" and frowns upon it as deceitful.
My request is very humble. Please restore the essay, or provide a justification for why it cannot be posted. Your deletion log called me a "Troll/Troublemaker/Liar"- these are very serious charges and I deny all of them. I used my real name, I posted the essay in good faith in direct response to *your own challenge*, and so I feel that request to restore the essay is entirely valid.
If you did not want any material questioning the existence of God on your website at all, then why did you issue a debate on the very subject? Again I ask the question, how do you expect Penn to respond to your debate if you will delete any material on the subject?
I await your polite reply. The e-mail address listed in my profile is my real and true e-mail address- you can correspond with me there.
I am prepare to make a video identifying myself, with my real face and voice, if that is what it will take for you to take me seriously.
Firstname Lastname (Sasayaki).
Excuse me, but there are two things you refuse to learn here.
The first is the fact that this challenge was for Penn Jillette only, not you. The second thing here is that you don't ever post anything you want on our website, demand answers to your questions from any of us when those questions were answered previously on our website, then have the nerve to call it censorship when those repeated questions get removed. It is you who are engaged in dishonesty here, not me, and not any one else.
You want to play your little games, then find another playground.
Good evening Karajou,
I'm very thankful (and grateful) for the time you've spent answering my e-mail. :) It was very kind of you.
I was not aware that my 15 questions to make Theists think had been answered elsewhere on Conservapedia- can you please provide a link? Alternatively, can you amend the Question Evolution! campaign page to provide a link to this page? I ask because it's remarkably unfair to ask for specific answers to the 15 questions Shockofgod posits for atheists while, when atheists propose 15 of their own, simply say "We've already answered those". The link I posted in my original essay contained a point-by-point rebuttal of the 15 points, while I'm fairly sure such a thing for my own questions doesn't exist on Conservapedia (Feel free to prove me wrong!).
This is only fair, that both sides of any argument are respected. After all, proponents of teaching Creationist theories in schools advocate "teaching the controversy". As educators, wouldn't it be in your best interests to "show the foolishness of atheists"?
More specifically, I was pleasantly surprised to learn that the answer to my question "What level of proof would you require to stop believing in God?" has been answered, as well as question #1 (The Epicurean Paradox), question #1 (why do sinless babies die?) question #5 (pedophile priests), question #14 (why is the default position Christianity?) and question #15 (Andy's untruth regarding the FBI) have been answered on Conservapedia. Again, may I have a link?
As for your accurate notation that the challenge was for Penn Jillette, I'd like to quote some of the actual challenge for your own edification.
"Surely, a very outspoken atheist with a good case against the existence of God would have publicly debated such a Christian by now about this matter." - I feel this applies to me. "Show the world that you believe atheism is a intellectually respectable position by debating a Bible believer. Do you truly believe that atheism can do well under cross examination?" - I believe that it can, and I am willing to prove it. "Surely, if you had a good case for atheism, you would be eager to debate and would want your case be publicly cross examined. Is that the problem? You don't believe you have a good case for atheism?" - I believe I do, and I am willing to prove it.
Is there a substantive difference between myself and Penn Jillette? What would you say to Richard Dawkins if he responded to debate requests with, "Sorry, I only debate the Pope himself, none others. Look at how cowardly he is, to not debate me! Christians are cowards hiding in their intellectual bunny holes and not a single Christian would dare oppose atheist logic!"
What would you say of such a man?
Further, as I wrote in my essay, I am taking a "Best of the Public" approach to this debate, a position your own wiki advocates as being far superior to any expert. Accordingly, I am calling on you to adhere to your own philosophy and allow me to debate your userbase. After all, if my logic is easily defeated, wouldn't it be prudent to... easily defeat me? To discourage others, if nothing else, and to (I suppose you hope) convince other atheists to embrace Christianity?
Thank you for your kind consideration in this matter, and thank you for your time.
As an addendum, I noticed User:Conservative has ammended the challenge to Penn to read,
"The toughest debater who will agree to debate you."
As Penn has not agreed to debate you, wouldn't the toughest debater who has agreed to debate you be... me?
Why would you shun away from your own challenge?