Tweet
Friends, it is clear to all of us that Wikipedia, the popular website that millions turn to for knowledge, is a tool of Satan! It is extremely biased to support an anti-Christian view of the world. If you want a pure, unbiased, fair look at the world, the best alternative in Conservapedia (www.conservapedia.com) These people do not try to push their own agendas, but simply present the truth. For example, look at Wikipedia's biased and unfair page on conservativism:
Such disgusting hate speech! Yet, conservapedia, despite being run by es conservatives, maintains an honest view on liberals, instead of spreading lies like wikipedia does about conservatives:
A liberal (also leftist) is someone who rejects logical and biblical standards, often for self-centered reasons. There are no coherent liberal standards; often a liberal is merely someone who craves attention, and who uses many words to say nothing. Liberalism began as a movement for individual liberties, but today is increasingly statist, and in Europe even socialistic.
A liberal generally supports many of the following political positions and practices:
Further proof of liberal biases in wikipedia. Look at the table of content for their page on Barack Obama:
See how blatantly pro-Obama they are? It makes me want to vomit. Conservapedia, however, does not write an article that is all about worshiping this man. They write an honest article about him:
It gets worse than this. Look at what Wikipedia writes on its page on heterosexuality:
Contrast this hatred to the loving truth of Conservapedia:
Just look at how wikipedia defends atheism so blatantly:
A chart showing the relationship between the definitions of weak/strong and implicit/explicit atheism. An implicit atheist has not thought about belief in gods, and would be described as being implicitly without a belief in gods. An explicit atheist has made an assertion regarding belief in gods. An explicit atheist may eschew belief in gods (weak atheism), or further conclude that gods do not exist (strong atheism). (Relative sizes on diagram are not meant to indicate actual sizes in populations.)
But conservapedia again is unbiased:
Wikipedia mocks creationism, just look at what it links to in its "see also" section:
The people at conservapedia may disagree with the theory of evolution, but they are at least respectful towards it.
Look how Wikipedia post so many pro-Dawkins links on their Richard Dawkins page:
Video
Selected writings
Compared to the objective reading material conservapedia provides:
From a Frog to a Prince video
There's literally billions of more examples I can show of how evil wikipedia is, but here's the ultimate measure. Let's see how they compare each other. Compare wikipedia's article on Conservapedia (hostile, angry, full of lies and distortions) to Conservapedia's article on wikipedia:
http://www.conservapedia.com/Wikipedia
Conservatism (from Latin: conservare = "save" or "preserve"[1]) refers to various political and social philosophies that support tradition and the status quo, or that call for a return to the values and society of an earlier age, the status quo ante.[2] However, the term has been used by politicians and political commentators with a variety of meanings. The modern political term conservative was used by French politician Chateaubriand in 1819.[3]
In Western politics, the term conservatism often refers to the school of thought started by Edmund Burke and similar thinkers.[4] Scholar R. J. White wrote: "To put conservatism in a bottle with a label is like trying to liquify the atmosphere ... The difficulty arises from the nature of the thing. For conservatism is less a political doctrine than a habit of mind, a mode of feeling, a way of living."[5] Russell Kirk considered conservatism "the negation of ideology".[6]
Conservative political parties have diverse views; the Liberal Democratic Party in Japan, the Republican Party in the United States, the Conservative Party in Britain, the Conservative Party in Canada, the Liberal Party of Australia, and the Bharatiya Janata Party in India are all considered major conservative parties with varying positions.
In Western politics, the term conservatism often refers to the school of thought started by Edmund Burke and similar thinkers.[4] Scholar R. J. White wrote: "To put conservatism in a bottle with a label is like trying to liquify the atmosphere ... The difficulty arises from the nature of the thing. For conservatism is less a political doctrine than a habit of mind, a mode of feeling, a way of living."[5] Russell Kirk considered conservatism "the negation of ideology".[6]
Conservative political parties have diverse views; the Liberal Democratic Party in Japan, the Republican Party in the United States, the Conservative Party in Britain, the Conservative Party in Canada, the Liberal Party of Australia, and the Bharatiya Janata Party in India are all considered major conservative parties with varying positions.
Such disgusting hate speech! Yet, conservapedia, despite being run by es conservatives, maintains an honest view on liberals, instead of spreading lies like wikipedia does about conservatives:
A liberal (also leftist) is someone who rejects logical and biblical standards, often for self-centered reasons. There are no coherent liberal standards; often a liberal is merely someone who craves attention, and who uses many words to say nothing. Liberalism began as a movement for individual liberties, but today is increasingly statist, and in Europe even socialistic.
- The long romance of Western leftists with some of the bloodiest regimes and political movements in history is a story not told often enough ...[1]
A liberal generally supports many of the following political positions and practices:
- Taxpayer-funded and/or legalized abortion
- Censorship of teacher-lead prayer in classrooms and school sponsored events
- Support for gun control
- Support of obscenity and pornography as a First Amendment right[2]
- Income redistribution, usually through progressive taxation
- Government-rationed medical care, such as Universal Health Care
- Taxpayer-funded and government-controlled public education
- The denial of inherent gender differences
- Insisting that men and women have the same access to jobs in the military
- Legalized same-sex marriage
- Implementation of affirmative action
- Political correctness
- Support of labor unions
- Teaching acceptance of promiscuity through sexual "education" rather than teaching abstinence from sex.[3]
- A "living Constitution" that is reinterpreted as liberals prefer, rather than how it was intended
- Government programs to rehabilitate criminals
- Abolition of the death penalty
- Environmentalism[4]
- Disarmament treaties
- Globalism
- Opposition to an interventionalist American foreign policy [5]
- Opposition to full private property rights[6]
- Reinstating the Fairness Doctrine
- In 2005, it was reported by CBS News that liberals were the most likely supporters of the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution is a key component of atheistic ideologies in the Western World.
- Opposition to domestic wire-tapping as authorized in the Patriot Act
- Calling anyone they agree with a "professor" regardless of whether he earned that distinction based on a real peer review of his work (see, e.g., Richard Dawkins and Barack Obama).
Further proof of liberal biases in wikipedia. Look at the table of content for their page on Barack Obama:
See how blatantly pro-Obama they are? It makes me want to vomit. Conservapedia, however, does not write an article that is all about worshiping this man. They write an honest article about him:
- 1 ACORN
- 2 Declining popularity
- 3 Obamunism
- 4 Obama Administration Health Care Plan and Its Advocacy Methods
- 5 Barack Obama and Liberal Elitism
- 5.1 Obama's Charitable Giving
- 5.2 Liberal politicians and uncharitableness
- 5.3 Liberals and uncharitableness
- 5.4 Barack Obama's Brother George Obama and Poverty
- 5.5 Barack Obama's Treatment of George Obama and Barack Obama's Inaugural Speech
- 5.6 Barack Obama's Uncharitableness/Liberal Elitism and Social Darwinism
- 6 Michelle Obama and Liberal Elitism
- 7 Radical activism
- 8 Presidential Election (2008)
- 9 Presidency (2009-Present)
- 10 Early life
- 11 Illinois State Senate (1995-2005)
- 12 U.S. Senate (2004-2008)
- 13 Books
- 14 Quotes
- 15 See also
- 16 Further reading
- 17 Sources
- 18 References
- 19 External Links
It gets worse than this. Look at what Wikipedia writes on its page on heterosexuality:
Heterosexuality refers to sexual behavior and attraction to people of the opposite sex, or to a heterosexual orientation. As a sexual orientation, heterosexuality refers to "an enduring pattern of or disposition to experience sexual, affectional, physical or romantic attractions primarily to "persons of the opposite sex"; it also refers to "an individual’s sense of personal and social identity based on those attractions, behaviors expressing them, and membership in a community of others who share them."[1][2] The term is usually applied to human beings, but it is also observed in all mammals.
Contrast this hatred to the loving truth of Conservapedia:
The occultist Aleister Crowley was a bisexual and was dubbed in his lifetime "the most wicked man on earth". Aleister Crowley stated: "I was not content to believe in a personal devil and serve him, in the ordinary sense of the word. I wanted to get hold of him personally and become his chief of staff."[36]
A chart showing the relationship between the definitions of weak/strong and implicit/explicit atheism. An implicit atheist has not thought about belief in gods, and would be described as being implicitly without a belief in gods. An explicit atheist has made an assertion regarding belief in gods. An explicit atheist may eschew belief in gods (weak atheism), or further conclude that gods do not exist (strong atheism). (Relative sizes on diagram are not meant to indicate actual sizes in populations.)
- Suppression of alternatives to evolution
- Origin of life
- Creation vs evolution essays
- Atheism and deception
- Young Earth Creationism
- Human evolution
- Arguments for a recent creation
- Atheism and Evolution
- Christianity and Science
- Counterexamples to Evolution
- Creation Science
- Creation vs. evolution debate
- Evolutionism
The people at conservapedia may disagree with the theory of evolution, but they are at least respectful towards it.
- Suppression of alternatives to evolution
- Origin of life
- Creation vs evolution essays
- Atheism and deception
- Young Earth Creationism
- Human evolution
- Arguments for a recent creation
- Atheism and Evolution
- Christianity and Science
- Counterexamples to Evolution
- Creation Science
- Creation vs. evolution debate
- Evolutionism
Look how Wikipedia post so many pro-Dawkins links on their Richard Dawkins page:
General
- Official website
- Richard Dawkins' page on Academia.edu
- The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science
- Richard Dawkins at the Internet Movie Database
- Works by or about Richard Dawkins in libraries (WorldCat catalog)
Video
- National Geographic Interviews – A series of video interviews with National Geographic Channel with Richard Dawkins on Darwin, Evolution and God.
- TED speaker profile talks in 2002 and 2005
- Official channel at YouTube
Selected writings
- Viruses of the Mind (1993) – Religion as a mental virus.
- The Real Romance in the Stars (1995) – A critical view of astrology.
- The Emptiness of Theology (1998) – A critical view of theology.
- Snake Oil and Holy Water (1999) – Suggests that there is no convergence occurring between science and theism.
- What Use is Religion? (2004) – Suggests that religion may have no survival value other than to itself.
- Race and Creation (2004) – On race, its usage and a theory of how it evolved.
- The giant tortoise's tale, The turtle's tale and The lava lizard's tale (2005) – A series of three articles written after a visit to the Galápagos Islands.
- Dawkins' Huffington Post articles
Compared to the objective reading material conservapedia provides:
- Former Atheist Alister McGrath discusses Dawkins (video) part 1 part 2
- A Review of Climbing Mount Improbable by Richard Dawkins by Dr. Jonathan Sarfati
- Atheist delusion: Answering "The God Delusion" and other works of atheist Richard Dawkins
- Reflections on Dawkins' The Blind Watchmaker by Christian philosopher Dallas Willard
- A Review of Unweaving the Rainbow by Richard Dawkins
- Deconstructing a deluded Dawkins by Paul Taylor
- Richard Dawkins Foundation plan to supply atheist literature to schools
- A critique of The God Delusion by P M Doyle
- Atheists dodge their history of atrocities (Video)
- Professor Dawkins, Rabbi Boteach, and Adolf Hitler
- A review of A Devil’s Chaplain: Reflections on Hope, Lies, Science, and Love by Richard Dawkins
- Richard Dawkins' Official Websites
- The World of Richard Dawkins
From a Frog to a Prince video
- Was Dawkins Stumped?
- YouTube - Video of Richard Dawkins being stumped by a creationist's question
- Gillian Brown answers Barry Williams (Gillian Brown is the film's producer. Barry Williams is a Skeptic who criticised the film. The page includes an apology from another skeptic, and an admission that the film accurately presents Dawkins' answer.)
- CreationWiki's response to TalkOrigins Archive's criticism of interview.
http://www.conservapedia.com/Wikipedia