₦airaland Forum

Ihedinobi: Well, between your quite silly abuses and false accusations and ridiculously poor comprehension of my posts, I think we agree now that you have no defence for your assertion. And, you're the second atheist who has failed to substantiate the claim that omniscience is mutually exclusive with free will. Cool.

Thank you for your time, wiegraf.

You're welcome for the last bit, anytime I can indulge .

For the rest, I understand stoopidity isn't cured with a few posts. At least try to stay out of discussions you don't understand

davidylan: another senseless, thoughtless knee-jerk comment.

God ALREADY knows your decision NOT because He made it for you but because He is not bound by time and space.

I know the way a movie ended... the director also knows but also knows several alternate endings that could have occurred had the actors made different choices.

Your claim omniscience transcends time is baseless. What do you mean?

Your analogy is even exactly the best, but you know how the movie must end..

That is exactly the point.

If you could magically show up in the movie and tell them how the movie would end, they'd still be unable to change the ending. Actually, you wouldn't be able to show up in the movie if you didn't know beforehand you were going to be in the movie, else you wouldn't be omniscient. In fact, if you had no knowledge beforehand that you'd show up in the movie to tell them the end, there's no way you can show up in the movie regardless of your magical ability, else you'd be doing something you did not know about. How very omniscient...

Ihedinobi: I claimed you were wrong and didn't show you how?



Well, the above was what I said. I don't think it said that you were wrong. I told you that your answer did not satisfy me. Oh, and I did say why it didn't. You need to pay more attention to what your fellow discussant is saying. This just shows that the person being wilfully blind and unwilling to have his opinions and beliefs critiqued is you, not me. Pay attention, wiegraf, especially to the colored print.




Again, wiegraf, for the n^th time, I hear you: omniscience is mutually exclusive with free will! Ok, now, HOW?

Uh huh, I hear that the universe must be determined/predestinated for omniscience to operate - another way of saying that omniscience is mutually exclusive with free will. The question here is why - another form of the question how in the other arrangement of the assertion.

Wiegraf, if you cannot produce an argument to justify the assertion that

- omniscience voids free will, which is also restated

- free will voids omniscience (or, in other words, omniscience can only function in a deterministic universe)

then, either say so and, if you like, state why you can't, or, leave well enough alone.

My good willfully blind, you've just stated I'm wrong again, with this very post. You've stated I've not shown you how when I have, several f*****g times. Can you, or can you not, answer the questions I've put up several times now?? Yes or no? The answers to those questions VERY CLEARLY points at a determined universe.

Again, I have shown you very clearly. Anyone with half a brain can recognize the problem, indeed many on this thread already have. The issue is resolving the problem, not its presence. That you are too stoopid or blinded to see it is not really my issue, but;

your claim that I haven't shown you the issue
your claim that I am asserting this just because 'I say so' (this shows fantastically stoopid reasoning, btw)
Your claim that you are not asserting a determined universe when you claim omniscience exists

All very wrong. That is my peev, see. You can say you personally don't accept it for whatever reasons, no problems. But to claim the above (there is no issue, you haven't been shown, etc) is good and proper retar.dation, and I will bother you about it till something else finds my fancy. Deal with it you eediot, you asked for it. Not my fault you're foo.lish.

musKeeto: Lmao, real butthurt

Who? Me?? Nevah!?!
No deliberate tactics here!!!

What's the answer to numbah 4 sef?

greatgenius: An omniscient creator predicting surely that tottenham wins tomorow automatically and outrightly violates the freewill of not only Liverpool but totenham as well ..

It does, because ultimately no one has any say in the matter. Regardless of what every single agent does or wills, tottenham will win.

I thought it was today sef.

Ihedinobi: Perhaps I can indeed show one, perhaps I can't. But don't dump responsibility on me when I have not claimed it in some way.



Don't take your frustration out on me, wiegraf. I asked you a clear question and have given a clear reason why your answer has been unsatisfactory to me. If you think my reason is unreasonable, you could simply say that you think so and explain why without resorting to this kind of talk. You are under no obligation to answer me, you know. I don't have the power to subpoena you.

Shut up. I've explained how many times? You remain foo.lishly blind then claim I am wrong without showing how? You're the source of the irritation, so it's right I take it out on you. Who else? Enjoy the full course.

Ihedinobi: And I still don't see how an omniscient's knowing the future strips me of choice. I don't disagree that the omniscient has an invariable knowledge of the future. I just don't see how that makes me choose vanilla instead of chocolate. I don't disagree that only one future results. I question the assertion that only one possibility can result simply because an omniscient is in the equation.



Wiegraf, I have made no claims in this discussion, I've only ever asked you questions. Of you say that the univeese must be determined such that only one kind of future is possible because an omniscient is in the picture, I can ask how and I do. Who/what determined or fixed the universe? I agree that thwre aren't multiple futures actualized, I just don't get how there aren't multiple futures realizable.

Now now, I've not read the full thread. It's become a long another lengthy tangent in this (now legendary mess of a) thread, but you still insist on this folly. I've said it how many times now? Wtf is wrong with you? The omniscient need not go out and determine the universe himself. Fuuuckkk wtf is wrong with you. Slowly..

For omniscience to be possible the universe has to be determined...

That's it. Who or what, was it created determined on purpose, irrelevant. But it MUST be determined before omniscience is possible. Else

How was the predestined path by the omniscient predicted?

If there isn't one and only one possible future that will take place, then how can the omniscient be infallible?

Now, slowly, if you can answer these questions then you'll show how omniscience could exist with freewill, else shut up. Or, err, else, as you would see were it not for silly indoctrination, it is impossible for freewill to exist with omniscience. It's that simple. Your god's wishing you possess free will is irrelevant as he can do nothing about it, unless you claim he's capable of logical absurdities like divisions by zero and making 1 = 0. Infallible omniscience requires determinism to work. Very.gawd.damned.simple. So YOU assert the world is determined when you claim an infallible omniscient exists, unless you can show how it's possible for omniscience to exist alongside free will. Do you get it?

wiegraf: Or perhaps you can show how one can determine the future in a universe that isn't....determined

If you can't, we're fast approaching the point where I tell you to shut up.

I accepted the challenge, true, but you asked, so allow me to serve the full course. You're being fairly stoopid here, it's hard to accept this isn't another case of slavish, willful blindness. If indeed you note a flaw with your concept of god and you resort to nonsense, it makes your 'faith' appear rather weak. I'd recommend looking for a valid solution rather than lalalala-ing it away, but that's just me.

If I told you I accelerated to 100km an hour from rest, then I must have passed 50km/h at some point, yes? There's no way I could have gotten to 100km/h without passing fifty. If I told you I had a thought that automatically means I have consciousness, yes? As only conscious beings can have thoughts. If you say an infallible omniscient exists you are also saying the universe is determined, yes? There is no way an omniscient can exist if the universe isn't determined, else how does it know what is going to happen? How can it know something that isn't determined? How can the omniscient be infallible yet be wrong about what is going to happen? I'll be here all day...

This isn't nuclear physics. A determined universe is a prerequisite for (or consequence of, depending on how you look at it) omniscience, so you sate that the universe is determined when you claim omniscience exists, not me. If you don't know the implications of your claims then perhaps you shouldn't be making them.

Dan_de_Numeruno: Q: How many atheists does it take to change a light bulb?
A: Two. One to actually change the bulb, and the other to videotape the job so
fundamentalists won’t claim that god did it.

I can see myself doing this just to shut someone up

Ihedinobi: Is it safe then to say that you've got no arguments for your assertion that God's omniscience voids free will?

Heheh, no, the opposite. It's safe to say you have no arguments for your assertion that omniscience does not void freewill. Look around, it's a simple contradiction that you perhaps cannot see but is glaringly obvious. That's why generally discussions on this issue aren't based around the existence of the problem (unlike what we're doing now), they're based around how it can be resolved (eg the molinist position presented earlier, which is fairly good, at least a decent attempt but ultimately full of holes as well imo). The only possible way is to redefine terms. Using the terms in their default form the assertion simply does not hold, it's egregiously illogical. It's like saying 1 = 2.

If you assert god is omniscient and infallible, you have just asserted that this universe is determined as well, not me. I wouldn't be the one making that claim here, you would be. Omniscience cannot exist without determinism. The universe has to be determined else there's no way the omniscient could know the future, simple. Or perhaps you can show how one can determine the future in a universe that isn't....determined

There would be only one possible path in such a universe and you wouldn't have a say on proceedings. No one will actually, even god, thus we'd all lack free will.

You cannot have both existing in the same universe, they are mutually exclusive. Omniscience or freewill, it must be one or the other.

Ihedinobi: No question about the fact that the future must take place but what makes only one future possible and not others?

Also, you still haven't shown me how the omniscient's knowledge fixes the future. Are you insisting that I believe with blind faith that an omniscient's knowledge of the future fixes it?



How is there only one possible outcome? Why must events play out as predicted? Or, do you want me to believe by blind faith that there is and they do?

For the bolded, no. It's simple logic. This is a 1 + 1 = 2.

Infallible omniscient cannot be wrong, therefore the future it predicts must come to pass. If it doesn't, then it was wrong, therefore it was not an infallible omniscient. Simple.

And the omniscient's knowledge doesn't fix the future, the future simply has to be fixed regardless of its desires. If the future isn't fixed then there's no way it can be omniscient. Or do you want the omniscient to make guesses?

Ihedinobi: How?

Never mind.

Ihedinobi: I believe you're just having a laugh, wiegraf. Why do you think there is only one possible future?

For the obvious reason. If there's only one possible outcome that can take place, one predicted by an infallible omniscient, then there's only one possible future.

If you believe in hypothetical other futures that's maybe cool, but they will not take place, no matter whatever anyone (including the omniscient) wills. Thus there's only one possible future, ultimately no real choice. You and the omniscient have no say in the matter, that future must take place.

Ihedinobi: Who/what determined it? And how?

Doesn't matter who determined. Doesn't matter how even (in this case). All that matters is that there's only one possible outcome. Events MUST play out as predicted.

Ihedinobi: What does my view have to do with your explanation of your assertion, wiegraf? Will my telling it help you explain your assertion any better?

Yes

Ihedinobi: And if you answer again that I can't because God would then cease to be omniscient, you'll still have to tell me what the relationship is between my power of choice and God's omniscience and whether or not my choice is among ice cream flavors or between God's knowledge and His ignorance.

Your power of choice would not be genuine as it has already been determined.

Some of you for instance claim you cannot defy your god, all is his will. Is that the view you hold?

If there is only one possible future then how does one have a choice?

alaric saltzman: @wiegraf, num 3(u mean) is logical and the answer is language...the GRY is just a way of manipulatin u...

I know that. It is rather good actually, but -

The phrase "the english language" should have been in quotes. That of course gives away the puzzle easily.

We don't all use language daily, you'd have to be conscious first. You in a coma, brain damage, toddler, etc? Then you need not necessarily use language daily. I have a similar problem with your number 4 (it is too vague as is, thoughts, life etc are possibly valid answer for instance)

So, a pedant like me could point out you have to make certain assumptions that are barely justifiable to solve this. The first being that 'the english language' is a separate phrase despite the lack of quotes, and you mean conscious humans, not all humans. But I'm just a pedant.

There's slave $hit, and there's SLAVE $hit.

@op
You're still alive? As expected you first need a brain, at least a normal one, before you can be afflicted with brain cancer. No trouble, eventually what little is left of your brain that's not already infected with indoctrination will get cancer, I pray to your god that will be enough.

I can't read your post fully abeg, no vex. Call it ADD. A note though, did you notice how in that thread the xtian heretic @striktly was using this 'brain' organ to argue for positions somewhat similar to yours? If you tried really, really hard, you'll also notice he managed to convince me that one of his positions is indeed justifiable. Just a thoug...

Agh, what am I doing? A total waste of time...

Ihedinobi: Lol. Empty barrel.

Oooh, though he might have caught it. Once an omniscient exists in a universe, a completely infallible one, that universe is determined.

Ihedinobi: Free will cannot exist where every outcome is predetermined. Whether I believe that or no, it is true. However, I believe it.



When you said 'determine with certainty', you meant 'know perfectly by accurate calculations', didn't you?



Perhaps when you answer my question above, I'll understand better, but right now, I confess that I still don't see how an omniscient's comprehension and perfect knowledge of its creation results in the loss of the creature's free will.



You speak of the laws of physics as though they were commandments written on a tablet somewhere or a bundle of rules bound in a constitution. Do you think that that is what they are? Do you think that water would be water if it splashed like mercury? Do you think this earth would be an earth if we walked on clouds and rain fell from overhanging rocks? Or the sun would be a sun if it blew refreshing breezes scented with flowers instead of blazing like a furnace?

As for the AI, I'm still asking how the fact that the programmer has perfect knowledge of what its choice will be prevents it from making another choice. You appear to be saying that somehow the AI is obliged to maintain the programmer's omniscience, why is this? What obligates the AI to maintian the programmer's omniscience? And who could the programmer be trying to impress with his omniscience by rigging his AI to follow a path he has predicted? Or how does his perfect knowledge of the AI result in the AI choosing as he knows it will?

The ai cannot but oblige the programmer, wittingly or no matters not, whether the programmer wants it to or not. If he doesn't the programmer is wrong. You can't have a wrong omniscient being, can you? The programmer is not trying to impress anyone in this case (I hope), he does not even have to manipulate the program/ai in any way at all, in fact he need not have the ability to influence the programmers actions at all. If he's omniscient, it means he knows everything. Simple. If he's wrong about what the AI will actually do, then he obviously isn't omniscient.

AI may be sitting around now, thinking he might as well speak some sense into those damned atheists. Should he, or should he not? Using his freewill he decides why the hell not? Then proceeds to get his a$$ handed to him. Well, assuming the programmer was omniscient, the AI had no choice but to make the decisions exactly as foretold by the programmer, regardless of either of their wishes. Else, again, the programmer isn't omniscient. He must go through with the charade.

Your definition of omniscience/freewill probably aren't the default.

And the water example is meant to highlight that in a determined universe you are more or else a machine, regardless of how it may seem to you. You have no freewill, you are just going through the motions, like water splashing.

musKeeto: Finally made some to figure this out.. here goes..


Cow


Heroine..


I'll follow tinkbabe on this. The first two sentences are dummies. I think the answer's Language.


Life?


from weigraf : Message

4 is too vague, and apparently there are no other -gry words other than dead archaic ones. I hate riddles, much prefer puzzles.
/semi-but.thurt

Glad to see you consider more than just homosexuality op. Have you considered things like bestiality? I personally have argued for government indifference to sins over here

https://www.nairaland.com/1180380/victimless-crimes-yay-nay

Please read it, hopefully the 'blasphemy' involved will make one of the blood vessels in your head explode or at least give you brain cancer. Any of these outcomes or something similar would justify the amount of time I put into that thread. Thank you.

musKeeto: In simpler words.

God knows all the possible outcomes/paths a chess game will take?

Does HE know exactly how the game will turn out? If he does, then he's omniscient.

The moment he knows exactly what path a game will take, it's no longer a probability, but now a fixed path.

In essence, once the game starts, you start moving according to what God has already known.

FREEWILL, then becomes an illusion to the player.

Brah wiegraf, hope I transcribed right

Ehn, it's not as pompous and conceited as it could be. In fact, it's downright lucid. Is that how it was supposed to be?

Ihedinobi: @wiegraf, are you perhaps better equipped to explain how omniscience negates free will? I'm still failing to see it. I've heard that assertion so much that it's giving me headaches. Do you have some kind of clear, coherent argument to back it up?

Probably no, as my post above is about arguably as simply as I can put it I think. I'll still try though, just to please my ego

Do you believe freewill can exist in a determined universe? One where the laws of physics are exact, with no possibility of probabilities at all? Everything (and absolutely everything, including say your actions) being mechanical, calculated, following exact laws, being predictable?

Perhaps try something else, like the often used (and I'm sure you're tired of seeing it) computer programmer and his program. Patience, just think about it carefully and you'll probably see what we're trying to say.

Assuming the programmer could write ai into his program that has genuine freewill (which is in theory unpredictable, it implies something from nothing, but let's sort of ignore that for now), depending on how he writes the program he may still be capable of calculating all the possible choices his ai will take, true. However, if he can determine the exact sequence of events with 100% certainty for any given point in time in the future, this of course includes choices the ai will take, its thoughts etc, then the ai ultimately has no choice in the matter. It might seem to the ai that it has a choice, but it doesn't, as no matter what it tries to do it cannot affect the sequence of events the programmer has predicted will take place. If it deviates from said path using its freewill, then the programmer didn't know the choice it was going to take. He only knew the possible choices, not the what the actual choice would be, thereby voiding his omniscience.

Whether the ai consciously made the choice with its 'freewill' or not is irrelevant, whether the programmer directly manipulates conditions is more or else irrelevant as well. The fact that the ai cannot make any choice other then the predicted one when the time comes is all that is needed to void its freewill.

Water splashing for instance may look unpredictable, but in actuality every single movement it makes is determined. The water cannot splash in any other way then the way the laws of physics predict (here we ignore quantum mechanics abeg). The water example may not be appropriate you might say, as water doesn't have freewill, but that's more or else the point. Even allowing for freewill it must splash the way the laws of physics dictate, else the laws are wrong (or at least not 100% accurate). In the case of our omniscient programmer, the ai must act according to the programmers predictions else the programmer is wrong, voiding his omniscience. To maintain his omniscience the ai must mechanically go through the predicted motions, its path already determined.

There's the issue of the omniscient's freewill as well, and how it will effect the universe it creates, but that's another story in a sense.

musKeeto: ^^^^^
lol...

you wan spoil this record breaking thread, abi?

edit: really, what is common sense doing here? Kill it with fire!!

musKeeto: Bro, wadup? Where u hyd since?


@InesQor: do you hold that love, in particular, the Christian God's love isn't obligatory?

Ooohh, brah, the real world's attempting to b1tch slap me for disrespecting her. She suddenly became more interesting though, lemme go satisfy her I suppose.

InesQor: The text in Green is one reason I respect you and a handful others that can agree to disagree. No be fight.

Abi oh oga. No be by force. Perhaps even more so than usual in cases like this where the distinctions between it being scientific or philosophical may be blurred, the presence of 'ifs' not backed by any sort of physical (and sometimes logical) evidence, inability to test predictions, etc etc. But really, even asides from all that, it's should never be by force (unless someone's rights are being abused imo)...

My shenanigans are uncalled for sometimes though

kudos

InesQor: Yes I hold that Omniscience can exist alongside Freewill. And no, I do not redefine any terms.

My position on this topic is very well known in Philosophy,but I perfectly understand if you do not accept it. It is called Molinism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molinism


Molinists believe that God does not only have knowledge of necessary truths and contingent truths but that God's middle knowledge contains, but is not limited to, His knowledge of counterfactuals. A counterfactual is a statement of the form "if it were the case that P, it would be the case that Q". An example would be, "If Bob were in Tahiti he would freely choose to go swimming instead of sunbathing." The Molinist claims that even if Bob is never in Tahiti, God can still know whether Bob would go swimming or sunbathing. The Molinist believes that God, using his middle knowledge and foreknowledge, surveyed all possible worlds and then actualized a particular one. God's middle knowledge of counterfactuals would play an integral part in this "choosing" of a particular world.

Even on that page there are valid objections, even if not in plain 'english'.

For me it boils down more simply to this, does god know with absolute certainty what is going to happen? That suggests a determined universe. A determined universe cannot exist with freewill, it's that uncomplicated. So with your analogy here for instance, so long as god knows what choice Bob is going to make, Bob has no say in what happens, he cannot deviate from the planned path. If he does he contradicts god thereby nullifying god's omniscience. At best he can know the probability of what Bob would do, but once he knows with absolute certainty then Bob has no freewill. If god knows probabilities, not 100% cetainties, again his omniscience is nullified.

Even the issue of god's own freewill comes into question, he can choose and manipulate choices as they take place? So, can he change his own mind, do something unexpected, unplanned, unforseen? If he can then he's obviously not omniscient.

As you state the bold though, there's no need for much debate.

I'm confused here @inesqor, do you hold that omniscience can exist alongside freewill? If so, unless you redefine the terms (like some are very, very fond of doing when it suits them, without stating they've redefined them no less) that cannot hold.

Logicboy03:

I bow in your sheer excellence sir!

You are a paragon of excellent trolling.

That op is as ridiculous as they come

I thought he came up with it himself. After attempting another read, seems it comes from conservapedia. That's a bit like quoting boko haram. Here's wiki's take on it

wiki: Conservapedia is an English-language wiki encyclopedia project written from a self-described American conservative and Christian point of view. The website was started in 2006 by homeschool teacher and attorney Andrew Schlafly, son of conservative activist Phyllis Schlafly,[3][4] to counter what he called the liberal bias of Wikipedia.[5][6] It uses editorials and a wiki-based system to generate content.

Examples of the ideology of Conservapedia in its articles include accusations against and strong criticism of US President Barack Obama, strong criticism of the Democratic Party, criticism of evolution, criticism of a wide array of alleged liberal ideologies, criticism of Wikipedia's supposed liberal bias, criticism of the theory of relativity as promoting moral relativism,[7] claiming a proven link between abortion and breast cancer, praise of a number of Republican politicians, praise of celebrities and artistic works that it views as "conservative" and/or promoting moral standards in line with Christian family values, and asserting that the goals of a so-called homosexual agenda include indoctrination. Conservapedia's "Conservative Bible Project" is a crowd-sourced translation of the Bible which Conservapedia claims will be "free of corruption by liberal untruths".[8]

The site has received negative reactions from the mainstream media, as well as from notable political figures, including commentators and journalists,[9][10] and has been criticized for bias and inaccuracies.

moar

wiki: The Conservapedia project has come under significant criticism for numerous factual inaccuracies[12][13] and factual relativism.[12] Wired magazine noted that Conservapedia was "attracting lots of derisive comments on blogs and a growing number of phony articles written by mischief makers".[10] Iain Thomson in Information World Review wrote that "leftist subversives" may have been creating deliberate parody entries.[29] Conservapedia has been compared to CreationWiki, a wiki written from a creationist perspective,[3][10] and Theopedia, a wiki with a Reformed theology focus.[31] Fox News obliquely compared it with other new conservative websites competing with mainstream ones, such as MyChurch, a Christian version of social networking site MySpace, and GodTube, a Christian version of video site YouTube.[65]

Tom Flanagan, a conservative professor of political science at the University of Calgary, has argued that Conservapedia is more about religion, specifically Christianity, than conservatism and that it "is far more guilty of the crime they're attributing to Wikipedia" than Wikipedia itself.[11] Matt Millham of the military-oriented newspaper Stars and Stripes called Conservapedia "a Web site that caters mostly to evangelical Christians".[66] Its scope as an encyclopedia, according to its founders, "offers a historical record from a Christian and conservative perspective".[67] APC magazine perceives this to be representative of Conservapedia's own problem with bias.[40] Conservative Christian commentator Rod Dreher has been highly critical of the website's "Conservative Bible Project", an ongoing retranslation of the Bible which Dreher attributes to "insane hubris" on the part of "right-wing ideologues".[68]

The project has also been criticized for promoting a false dichotomy between conservatism and liberalism and for promoting relativism with the implicit idea that there "often are two equally valid interpretations of the facts".[12] Matthew Sheffield, columnist for the conservative daily newspaper The Washington Times and contributor to the conservative Media Research Center blog NewsBusters, argued that conservatives concerned about bias should contribute more often to Wikipedia rather than use Conservapedia as an alternative since he felt that alternative websites like Conservapedia are often "incomplete".[69] Author Damian Thompson asserts that the purpose of Conservapedia is to "dress up nonsense as science".[70]

Bryan Ochalla, writing for the LGBT magazine The Advocate, referred to the project as "Wikipedia for the bigoted".[71] On the satirical news program The Daily Show, comedian Lewis Black lampooned its article on homosexuality.[72] Writing in The Australian, columnist Emma Jane described Conservapedia as "a disturbing parallel universe where the ice age is a theoretical period, intelligent design is empirically testable, and relativity and geology are junk sciences."[23]

Opinions criticizing the site rapidly spread throughout the blogosphere around early 2007.[10][19] Schlafly appeared on radio programs Today on BBC Radio 4[34] and All Things Considered on NPR[5] to discuss the site around that time. In May 2008, Schlafly and one of his homeschooled students appeared on the CBC program The Hour for the same purpose.[73]

Stephanie Simon of the Los Angeles Times quoted two Conservapedia editors who commented favorably about Conservapedia.[14] Matt Barber, policy director for the conservative Christian political action group Concerned Women for America, praised Conservapedia as a more family-friendly and accurate alternative to Wikipedia.[74]

Wired magazine, in an article entitled "Ten Impressive, Weird And Amazing Facts About Wikipedia", highlighted several of Conservapedia's articles, including those on "Atheism and obesity" and "Hollywood values", amongst others. It also highlighted Conservapedia's "Examples of bias in Wikipedia" article, which encourages readers to contact Jimmy Wales and tell him to "sort it out."[75]

Conservapedia's use of Wikipedia's format to create a conservative Christian alternative encyclopedia has been mirrored by other sites, such as Tangle.com (formerly GodTube), QubeTV and MyChurch, which adopted the format of the more prominent Facebook, YouTube and MySpace, respectively.[3][65][76]

Wikipedia's co-creator Jimmy Wales said about Conservapedia that "free culture knows no bounds" and "the reuse of our work to build variants [is] directly in line with our mission".[77] Wales denied Schlafly's claims of liberal bias in Wikipedia.[11]

All this is well sourced, of course.

Have you ever used WOT or any of those tools that warn you when entering 419 sites? These sites are regulated by users, not some authority, users being frequently xtians themselves. Of course, it's blessed with the very lowest score possible there. Here's WOT community's take on conservapedia

http://www.mywot.com/en/scorecard/conservapedia.com?utm_source=addon&utm_content=warn-viewsc

To be fair, the only remotely decent thing to come about from there is

wiki: "Examples of bias in Wikipedia" article, which encourages readers to contact Jimmy Wales and tell him to "sort it out."

Then again, anyone with sense can spot faulty wiki articles, and would rely on sources primarily. Seems very few people with sense around though. There are also lots of much better ways to get that point across rather than literally demonstrating it with the farce that is conservapedia, like the wired article. Heck, again, just common sense reasoning should do.


If only I paid attention (it's hard to considering the quality of the dross any of our distinguished head house slaves usually put up) I'd have noticed the troll. Least I hope it's a troll....

Ah yes, I'm sure this is some sort of fallacy, hmmm?

plaetton: The other day, I was watching a BBC interview of gay catholic preist, and something he said caught my attention and has remained in my mind ever since.
Although What he said was not a new revelation, what made it so poignant was the passion with which he had said it.

The issue was the catholic churches attitude towards celibacy,gay priests and gay marriage.
When the BBC interviewer suggested that the two contending African cardinals, Arinze and the other Ghananian cardinal, were very conservative and that if either was elected pope, he might not be open to the type of liberal ideals that the church desperately needed in the modern century,
This catholic priests, whose name I cannot recall, quickly remarked, and I quote:

"Do not forget that we were the ones that indoctrinated the Africans in their current negative mindsets". " They are not in a position to define doctrine for us". "We indoctrinated them into their current mindsets".

It was a shock and a vindication at the same time.
The big question is : When will religious Africans admit to themselves that they had been negatively indoctrinated?

Che! U no try... abeg, what show? Give me something googleable. Our head house slaves need to see their masters have evolved. Just for giggles though, as it will have no effect on them.... non at all...

Y'all still attempting reason. Una dey try, I no go lie...

Reyginus: Yawns again.

Ok

SNCOQ3: All I see here is anger and forced LOL.

It's not forced, you're a little slow.

Stoopid posts get stoopid replies, complain not.