Conservapedia challenges Secular Talk youtube channel
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
15-09-2015, 12:51 PM (This post was last modified: 15-09-2015 01:13 PM by Ace.)
Conservapedia challenges Secular Talk youtube channel
with their sources

also isn't child pornography the Vatican's shtick ?





poor right wing dodo brains, they love to make themselves look like fools and are proud of it

prequel




off topic:
also did anyone else notice that Catholicism sounds a lot of like Cthulhu-ism
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Ace's post
15-09-2015, 03:30 PM
RE: Conservapedia challenges Secular Talk youtube channel
While I like a lot of Kyle's attitudes and positions, in his enthusiasm he often fails in the realm of parsing fine technicalities and details. I replied to this video in the you-tube comments section (like anyone's going to read it there), and I'll quote my reply here as well.

Quote:The Conservapedia challenge was very narrowly worded, and while most of what Kyle says constitutes reasonable, necessary, and accurate criticism of Conservapedia and its editors' views cough*hatred*cough of atheists, none of it actually meets the narrow and specific nature of the challenge.

The challenge was to find one factual error on the atheism page -- not in its sources, not on the other pages it links to, but on the page itself, and to do so within a particular definition of atheism in the sense of denying the existence of God. Most of the blatant "facts" (lies) are either delegated to other pages (linked from the atheism page) or presented as "so and so says" or "many claim" or "studies show" or such weaselly attribution, followed by absurd lies that were factually (if vaguely) referenced on the Conservapedia page. In short, Conservapedia's factual claim in these cases is that so-and-so said it... with the extremely strong implication that this is a reliable source making a solidly true statement. The factual claim that so-and-so said such-and-such is correct, and the lie is in the implication... and so pointing out that the referenced material is false doesn't actually constitute a factual error ON THE ATHEISM PAGE ITSELF.

Weaselly weasels are weaselly.

For an example of a factual error that is actually on the atheism page (rather than simply outsourced), in the section "Atheism and evolutionary racism", Charles Darwin is identified as an atheist. Under the very definition insisted upon by Conservapedia's editors for the word "atheism" and provided at the top of their Atheism page, atheism is the denial of the existence of God, and describing Darwin with this term is factually false. From a letter that Darwin wrote in 1879 (3 years before his death, 20 years after publishing Origin of Species): "In my most extreme fluctuations, I HAVE NEVER BEEN AN ATHEIST IN THE SENSE OF DENYING THE EXISTENCE OF A GOD. - I think that generally (& more and more so as I grow older) but not always, that an agnostic would be the most correct description of my state of mind." (All-caps formatting mine for emphasis.) Now granted, the word atheist could be applied to his position in other senses of the word atheist... but the Conservapedia challenge insisted on the one, particular definition of atheism in the sense of denying the existence of God. Under their required definition, this identification of Darwin as an atheist constitutes a factual error on the page. It also highlights their extremely flexible editorial "standards", where they will adopt whatever definition they find convenient for their propaganda, even if it directly contradicts the definition they fixed at the start of the page on the subject.

So this suggests a counter-challenge to Conservapedia: Either expand your particular definition of atheism to one in common usage by people who identify as atheists, or correct this and other sections of your site to stop calling Darwin an atheist. Or, you know, just completely ignore the facts and pretend they don't exist. (I'm betting they'll take the last option.)

"If I ignore the alternatives, the only option is God; I ignore them; therefore God." -- The Syllogism of Fail
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Reltzik's post
16-09-2015, 06:06 AM
RE: Conservapedia challenges Secular Talk youtube channel
I haven't been spending much time at RationalWiki lately. Consequently, I actually forgot Conservapedia was a thing!

Oh, Assfly, how you love to make facts to suit your view of the world. He should start up his conservative Bible project, again.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-09-2015, 10:22 AM
RE: Conservapedia challenges Secular Talk youtube channel
(16-09-2015 06:06 AM)RobbyPants Wrote:  I haven't been spending much time at RationalWiki lately. Consequently, I actually forgot Conservapedia was a thing!

Oh, Assfly, how you love to make facts to suit your view of the world. He should start up his conservative Bible project, again.

I think Kyle would lose too much precious brain cells if he spent too much time debunking conservapedia
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-09-2015, 12:22 PM
RE: Conservapedia challenges Secular Talk youtube channel
Saw this on that same video, and wondered if it holds up at all (or at least as well as things like the KCA):

Uzumaki Tak Wrote:1) Argument for the non-existence of a uncaused cause type of being.
P1.- If something is an uncaused cause, then it does not have prior or causal events.
P2.- A mind do have prior and causal events.
C1.- Therefore, a mind cannot be an uncaused cause.
P3.- If a being has a mind, then (followed by C1) it cannot be an uncaused cause.
P4.- God is a being with a mind.
C2.- Therefore, God is not an uncaused cause (which is a contradiction, because if is not and uncaused creator, then is not a God and a contradiction cannot exist so, God does not exist).

2)The entropic argument against an conscious eternal being:
P1.- If something is a non-reversal process, then it does need entropy.
P2.- Mind and consciousness are non-reversal processes.
C1.- Therefore a mind or a consciousness need entropy.
P3.- If something is eternal, then it cannot have entropy or be affected by entropy.
P4.- God is eternal.
C2.- Therefore God cannot have or be affected by entropy.
P5.- If God has a mind, then is affected by entropy.
P6.- God has a mind.
C3.- Therefore God is affected by entropy (As concluded in C2, God cannot be affected by entropy. God is a contradiction, so God cannot exist)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: