Doesn't the last passage in the book of Revelation eternally condemn anyone who alters any part of the Bible? So now it's ok for those psychos to alter their own rules? I don't get it. Maybe they'll delete so much they destroy it completely! :D Maybe they'll make such changes that will blatantly be more of a contradiction to reality that people (all around the world) will give up on this insipidly dead religion.
You touched on an important point. The stuff is now out in the open. The internet gives us power to communicate, learn and exchange ideas and religion just can't deal with that stuff.
Conservapedia, from what I've seen, seems to be largely a trolling effort to tick off both conservatives and reactionary liberals. I hope nobody 2 years after this video was made is still taking Conservapedia seriously. The mixtures of crazy psychiatric ward escapees and nerds going LOL TROLLED YOU makes it impossible to know what was meant to be genuine.
... I don't even know what to say. I just don't. My words for how stupid this whole "Conservapedia" thing can't even fit in the entire comment box. Curse you youtube, why did you have to put a character limit?
2. If God were to reveal himself and tell you homosexuals are not born gay, and that he created the universe and that Christians are right and you are wrong, etc.
@devourerofbabies If He did, (mind you, I believe in every Saint story that says He did) I would bet a lot of money people would still troll God.
Oh, and I appreaciate you admitting you cant. Most people are under the impression that because there is no proof of a God, it means that atheism is 100% accurate. Those people are driven by the same faith and blind believing that drive creationalists, and me.
@RecBookHero Saying atheism is accurate or not accurate is a little weird because it doesn't really say anything, It can't be "accurate" because it's not making a point.
It is impossible to disprove God not only in practice but in principle. Religious people usually see that as a strength of their religion, but it is actually a weakness. Invisible pink unicorns are equally impossible to disprove. Things that have no attachment to reality usually are.
@devourerofbabies There is a large difference between unicorns and God. We know that there are very little odds of unicorns existing for several reasons, for instance, it doesnt make evolutional sense. A horse likes to run away from predators, it has no use for a horn, and if it did have use for a horn, it would probably look a lot like a carabu or a moose. (Because a horse is taller then most of its predators, and one single horn is only good for stabbing upwards at things above you)......
Okay, MY point is that with unicorns, you can think of reasons why we know they dont exist. I was listing them. With God, you cant. There is nothing suggesting a God does not exist. There are things suggesting that unicorns, dragons, and padrlzam's do no exist. It is why you cant compare the two, a Padrlzam makes absolutely no logical sense, but a God makes just as much sense as the next scientific creational theory.
@RecBookHero I understand your point but you seem to be missing mine. Here it is:
The inability to disprove something is not an indicator of its truth. That means that my inability to disprove God doesn't mean that He exists.
I insist that unicorns exist. Does pointing out that you cannot disprove them strengthen my assertion? The more unlikely or sillier you make unicorns seem, the more you're making my point for me.
@devourerofbabies I think I need to clarify certain things. While I myself have complete FAITH there is a God, and have chosen through my free will to trust with no proof whatsever in His existance, and trust that everything in the Bible (to an extent that I would need a lot of time to explain) and Catechism is true, I dont expect everyone else to fallow the same path. I know you have every right to believe there isnt a God, but Im trying to stress that I have every right to believe there is.
@devourerofbabies (cont) But let me be REALLY clear, there is a big difference in having faith (believing with no proof) that there is a God, and having faith in unicorns. My religion is a long held tradition and belief, that goes back to historic events that we believe happened. The unicorn..... (lets change this crap) Padrlzam is pure imagination that someone just put on paper one day for everyones enjoyment.
@RecBookHero I am talking only about provability. For some reason you've chosen to focus on the examples. I am not equating belief in God to belief in unicorns. The ONLY point I care to make is that just because I can't disprove something does not mean it's true. Let me repeat that a few times. Just because I can't disprove something does not mean it's true. Just because I can't disprove something does not mean it's true. Just because I can't disprove something does not mean it's true.
@RecBookHero Good. Now we're back to the first and only point I was ever trying to make. You asked whether an atheist can prove there is no God. I said No. I then went on to demonstrate why inability to disprove something does not mean it's true. Are we on the same page again?
@devourerofbabies No, we are not. The maker of this video banally presumes that there is no God, and claims everyone who thinks the opposite is automatically wrong. The inability to disprove something does not mean its true, just because I cant provide evidence of a God and disprove atheism, does not mean Im wrong in upholding the customs that have been passed down in my family for generations.
@RecBookHero But I wasn't responding to the maker of the video. I was responding specifically to you. You just said "the inability to disprove something does not mean it's true." Good, we agree. I also agree that the inability to disprove you doesn't make you wrong. However, you seem to think that it gives your position SOME weight. The argument I am making is that the inability to disprove ANY conjecture (not just God) is not any evidence in its favor whatsoever.
@devourerofbabies (cont) And as you might imagine, I could go on like this all day, and think of thousands of reasons why there are probably no unicorns. You cant do the same for God. There is no evidence that suggests there isnt one.
And you are wrong about the first statement, atheists are making a point. They are saying all who fallow religion are wrong, for the absence of a God to them is truth. An atheist has as much faith in his/her religion (it may as well be called on) as a theist.
@RecBookHero Yes, we could go on all day, and that is precisely the point. Untestable conjectures are extremely easy to invent. That's why the inability to disprove a statement is not an indicator of its truth.
As far as the unicorns go, you're missing the point. I'm not trying to argue that unicorns are plausible; I chose them BECAUSE they're silly. I was strictly talking about provability.
I think what's really funny is that a person who rewrites the bible to conform to their own wishes is doing exactly what the Bible specifically tells a person NOT to do. Personally, I am a Christian, in that I do believe in a God...I believe that a higher being created us. But NO WHERE in the Bible does it EVER even mention parties or certain beliefs...it informs us of what God said, and wants us ot abide by it.
the liberals tell me that the earth rotates on sumthin called an axis. and liberals can never prove that to me and then call me intolerant to their intURlectual theories. i been done trying to read them science books but them liberals with their liberal ideas makes everything liberal. liberal lib liberal liberal liberal lib liberal liberal lib liberal liberal liberal lib-(conservative meltdown)
By the way the bible says to stone anyone who enslaves other people. Oh and it also says to give yourself to the person you are going to marry. Not to be rude, are you a male transvestite? If you are unfortunately gay and don't repent your sins you will go to hell.
@outofcake I've heard that. People say that the Holocaust could be justified for people who accept evolution because they can say that this means that people can always say that they are a higher order, i.e. racism is okay. Sadly, some of these same people are huge racists and completely unaware.
Conservapedia is the biggest joke on the internet. I don't usually encourage vandalism but they deserve everything they get because their deceit and immaturity.
Revelations; 22:18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
22:19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
So these Christians are consciously deciding to go to hell?
I mean I'm an atheist, but this is from the bible and these people who are on this ridiculous project (though I gathered it crashed and burned) DO claim to be christians.
You can't use genetic similarities between humans and apes to 'prove' evolution. Even pigs are 95% genetically similar. Given the thousands of species examined, the chances are extremely high that we can find a species with a 99% match. Just because H20 molecules look the same in the whole universe, are we to assume that water in adromeda galaxy came from earth?? Absolutely not. Water is h20 in andromeda as it is on earth, not because of a "link", but because the is basically what it must be!
while there is nothing wrong with the theory of evolution, I'm afraid its not as much FACT as you are affirming it is.
Given a large enough sample size, enough research, and a statistically significant threshold of 5%, one can data mine all sorts of "links" between data and hypotheses. Given enough looking at fossils, one can begin to see "patterns". These patterns can be nothing more than coincidental.
so you hate conservatives because they tend to be anti-gay,. really complex conclusion you guys come to......
everyone has their "flaws" but at the same time everyone has a lot to offer. people are going to think youre crazy..............................get over it
@bl4h1 Tell me what you have to offer, and I'll think about it. However in the past 30 years the Conservatives offered nothing that the liberals cannot just as easily offer without the same down side.
In order to have something to offer, you have to learn something first, which Conservapedia is the anti-thesis of.
@hiboyjc Don't quote me on this since I don't know for sure, but I think ZJ was born biologically male but self-identifies as female. So yes, she's a girl.
The Holy Bible gives a warning. If you alter any word or remove any word your name will be removed from the Book of Life. I think some preachers managed to get their names removed even though they don't know it. Remember God is not a man who can be deceived.
The bible is a joke just look at how bastardized versions such as the NIV are, completely chopped and screwed to fit so called "western social dogma" it's ridiculous! It is no wonder so many Christians today preach about the LOVING God of the Holy Bible. AHHH!!
To be honest, this isn't anything new. If you actually read the bible, specifically the words of Christ himself, you'll see that he was closer to a Communist than anything the right wing stands for.
The cognitive dissonance of the religious right has already mentally edited out all the "unpleasant" parts of the bible, where Jesus talks about class struggle. Then there's the especially "bad" passage wherein Jesus implies that Christians have an obligation to provide healthcare for the poor.
@wharghoul RIGHT-ON! If people knew any thing about the tenants of Communism, they, too, would agree. However, I've told people about this, before, and been HATED by them, ever since. Religious people will disagree because they can only think of Russia or China as defined by the 'Cold War'.
Maybe "THEY" are 'dumbing us down' so more people will accept religion. We are 27th out of thirty industrialized nations, in MATH SCORES! Does anyone think this is just an unfortunate coincidence?
@wharghoul Yes but the bible does not say the government must provide healthcare for the poor, it doesnt say there should be laws that enforce charity, it says we should be eager to provide "healthcare" out of the goodness of our hearts. Jesus does not say, "Elect politicians that will monopolize an uber complex and inneffective healthcare system that will take money out of everyones pockets by force, and give it too the poor."
@wharghoul the bible also says, and i quote from leviticus 18:22, "Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable" now, what you choose to do with that is your business, but since you seem to be very into knit-picking the bible, id like you to knit-pick that passage
@chadunn13 You want me to nitpick? The New International Version of the Bible is a joke. It's a remix of a remix of a remix of a supposedly "flawless" holy text.
Now, you want me to make a more religious argument? According to the bible, you're not fit to judge, Only god can do that. If you see yourself fit to judge, then you put yourself in the position of god, and are therefore a heretic. This is Abrahamic Religion 101.
@wharghoul i mean, the original bible translation was "thou shalt not lay with a man as thou lay with a woman", but it means essentially the same thing. and i wasnt judging anybody, i was simply putting forth a bible passage. but, assuming the bible is god's word, i think he's making a pretty clear judgment right there
@chadunn13 Yes, god condemns homosexuals in the bible. God also tells you to treat everyone as equals and don't cast stones. So, gays creep ol Yaweh out, but you should leave them alone. A lot of christians seemed to miss the whole "leave them alone" part, unfortunately. Just like they missed the part where Jesus said it's impossible for a rich man to reach the kingdom of god.
@wharghoul he didnt say it was impossible. he said a CORRUPT person wouldnt, but of course, if someone is corrupt, they are most likely rich due to their corruption. but the story of the tax collector zacchaeus shows how while jesus was compassionate to the poor, he was supportive of the rich, even though tax collectors were hated by everyone. so no, its not sinful to be rich. i mean, bill gates is an honest man and donates a lot of money to charity. even if he is agnostic, i respect him greatly
Lets play the "connect the dots to find a liberal bias connection" game. So the folks at conservapedia are trying to revise history by editing things to suit their agenda...wait isn't that something that Stalin did! Oh my god they must be communist's and therefore part of the liberal agenda!
What's funny is that it requires more faith to believe in Evolution, then in religion, for evolution has many flaws, and believing in something that can be proven sure, so why not? Because religion (Christianity) cannot be disproved, and people assume in what they believe, which is why Secularism is taught everywhere we go.
Does believing evolution require faith? It's testable, disprovable and simulation software exists with which everyone can see that the mechanism works. The only faith you need is that the whole scientific community isn't in a huge conspiracy and you'd need faith to believe the opposite too. I'd like to hear one of those flaws you mention too.
This conservapedia shit reminds me of a guy who butchered his own sister for being a liberal, pled guilty to premeditated murder, and then proceeded to explain to the jury that he was totally justified in doing so because, well, she was a liberal ...
Did that actually happen? If so we have actual evidence to suggest that conservatism is a mental disorder. Conservapedia simply asserts that liberalism is. Not that it'd really be enough to be convincing but we most certainly would have an infinitely greater amount of evidence for this claim.
@SeanXanatos - in and of itself, conserv is unimportant, but it has impact. it affects what certain people think, and it supports fundies in arguments. it's because of sites like that that words are being redefined, and that changes how people have to present arguments. can't even say you're an atheist with someone who tells you 'then you believe in god, because you have to believe in him in order to deny he exists' because of crap like cons
@GodsArePeopleToo - You make a fair few good points. I just mostly think Conservapedia is contained by RationalWiki, at least in terms of memetic spread.
Now, just because I think it is unimportant doesn't mean I am not going to fight it as much as the next person.
@yuo252 What is it u are claiming is being "cherry picked"?There are unfortunately more than enough "Christians" that do not know what is going on in the Bible.Please keep in mind that there are more than enough ppl that use the Bible to accomplish their will NOT the will of God. But they pretend 2 speak in the "name of God". They absolutely do not come with God's backing of them."They're known by their fruits(productions)." It's what Jesus said. Satan's a liar and deceiver. Even in Jesus' name.
@100CommonCents proof that even some atheists are mildly idiotic and find making a discriminatory mark against another person who chooses to live his life a certain way an "ok" thing to do. And on top of this compare someones own personal lifestyle choice to an internet web site. Props to you for showing your immoral distasteful unnecessary discrimination against other people on the internet. Now kindly F- off =)
@100CommonCents Congratulations, then. You just made every other atheist look like a bigoted asshole. We atheists have enough bullshit to combat without hateful children like you adding more to the pile.
@chef007c then perhaps you should stop putting atheists into a group
'we atheists' assumes that they have something in common. and a lack of belief is not a commonality.
also, i stand by my stance that if you're confused about your gender, this is a bigger personal problem than being a deist, and even a bible worshipper.
Any so called Christian that is doing what you claim are not true Christians. This 'conservapedia', of which you speak, should be avoided. I'm a Christian and I do believe the earth is over 6000 yrs old. Much older.No liberal pov in the Bible is wrong.
PS Satan is behind a lot of false Christian garbage too.Anyone telling you that Jesus' words/thoughts were/are wrong are not of God or Jesus.
Sometimes I think that Conservapedia might be a project started by a pack of brilliant Poes to serve as a trap for religious conservatives to show their true colors and be on full display. Has anyone else had this thought?
I despise / spit on a man who tries to pretend he's a woman. Guy, you can wear a wig, put on lipstick and tape your penis to your bumhole, but you will NEVER be a woman, even if you take hormones. I hate guys like you, I wouldn't cross the street to pee on you. Grow the F up and be the MAN God created you to be.
You are the reason why Christianity is falling greatly in numbers day after day. Keep doing what your doing. Christianity will die like every pathetic cult.
@TanteWaileka Were you also planning on having a useful input, or are you just exposing yourself for the shallow christian (lower case c, bitch) whore you apparently are, for us all to see?
Well in any case, thank you, you've made my day. Rot in hell :)
@TanteWaileka hey asshole, watch yourself. This transvestite is very intelligent and quite beautiful as well. I think it's a beautiful thing for a man/woman to transcend their gender roles. If your god can't handle it, tell him to fuck off.
you need to brush up on the new testament read more about the woman at the well, that whole junk thing your talking about how women are not equal yes it is in the bible to show how human society was but by far was it how Jesus treaed women as well He was showing all His followers NOT to be like that....oh and don't forget how well He thought of Mary Magdaline
you need to brush up on the new testament read more about the woman at the well, that whole junk thing your talking about how women are not equal yes it is in the bible to show how human society was but by far was it how Jesus treaed women as well He was showing all His followers NOT to be like that....
If I remember correctly the Pharisees were trying to trap Jesus by giving him a choise.
Either obey god's law and kill the woman or break the law and let the woman live.
The quote was Jesus's way out of the dilemma... but doesn't it read somewhere in the bible that Jesus was without sin? So he should have thrown the first stone?
@BlizBob Alright then, put it this way: He could have cast the first stone if he'd really wanted, but it would have defeated the purpose, as he didn't want to show that he was sinless; he wanted to prove that before the pharisees went around pointing out other people's blemishes, they should first erase their own.
So basically Jesus said to the pharisees that no human is able to follow and execute god's law because of their own sins?
Never heard any chirstian ever say that there is a way to rid one self of sin.
In other words Jesus just pointed out that god's law in practise means nothing?
Also Jesus didn't follow the law (being the only one who could have) because he didn't want people to find out that he could? That really doesn't change the fact that he should have still followed the law.
@BlizBob What Jesus meant was, the Pharisees were religious leaders who were supposed to be setting an example. You can't punish someone else for sinning if your own behaviour is not impeccable - as most pharisees' behaviour in those days wasn't.
Jesus could have punished the woman, but what would that have achieved? The rest of the men would have then joined in with the punishing and learned nothing. Jesus wanted to teach, not to punish.
top ten searches on conservapedia: Main Page [1,906,729] Homosexuality [1,572,713] Homosexuality and Hepatitis [517,086] Homosexuality and Promiscuity [420,687] Gay Bowel Syndrome [389,052] Homosexuality and Parasites [388,123] Homosexuality and Domestic Violence [365,888] Homosexuality and Gonorrhea [331,553] Homosexuality and Mental Health [291,179] Homosexuality and Syphilis [265,322
It is correct, the story of the woman taken in adultery to Jesus, as well as the last 12 verses of Mark were not part of the earliest manuscripts, they were added much later by scribes attempting to influence the theology.
@addderphor ~ I would suggest NephilimFree, ShockofGod, or GoodScience ForYou for mental disease. Or see posts by Maximus Aururealius and his multiple sock puppet travelling circus of the deranged...Zinnia Jones is far too well-spoken and coherent.
Last time I went they had a ridiculously long(and I mean lllooonnngggg) page devoted entirely to subject of homsexuality but not one article on cheese.
Don't bother saying that I wasn't being sarcastic and calling me ignorant because of your lack of ability to detect said sarcasm, as it only makes you look ignorant yourself and thus hypocritical.
Hahaha, you really believe JZ is not a man? Don't even get me started on the sheer stupidity of that statement. Wow, holy fuck, I feel so sorry for your tiny, indocrinated Christian mind. Now, I would give you the url to the video where he confirmed this, but your worthless, religious hide is not even worth the effort it would take in order to seach for it. So take your bullshit bible and shove it up your fat ass, you nonsensical Jewish-zombie-eating Justin Bieber lover!
Well, I have no idea, and frankly, why not see co as the person co is, instead of blatantly say that "it's a MAN" or whatever XD
With "outdated definitions" I mean MAN and WOMAN. We (me included :p) have to realise that gender is a giant field of different variables - just because you are born with a penis doesn't mean that you fit into the stereotypical MAN category :p
Um... I'm rather confused about it myself actually, but I hope you kinda can understand what I mean ^^'
I just can't tell. ZJ's atheism and her somewhat autistic mannerisms set my Randian alarms off. I only clicked this the see if what she said about conservatives. Is she a Randroid or not?
These people, these conservative extrememists, are undermining democracy and furthering the cause of making America stupid. Now, I'm not sure if even Americans are stupid enough to buy into this rape of the term encyclopedia; it sure wouldn't pass over here in Europe. But, as Maher says: "I wouldn't pass anything before this stupid country."
One must ask oneself if there are anyone in the entire Western civilization would could honestly believe in this. Just... wow.
These ppl make me sick! When was the last time wikipedia or even an Athiest scource accused Christians of being morally depraved(in spite of the crusades etc)? These ppl want to systematically attack and insult others under the guise of academia. Apart from proving they are petty, disrespectful, arrogant and underhanded this also prove coservapedia isnt objective, because accusing a group of 'moral depravity' is not an objective observation
Conservapedia is a pretty good example of how taking absurd yet commonly held notions to their logical conclusions leads to utter hilarity. I actually heard a sermon years ago in which the pastor argued that the "s" sound in the word sin was evil, thus explaining why snakes are evil. I guess he forgot about sanctity. Unfortunately, logic has little to do with commonly held beliefs, so they will not suffer from this self-immolating tendency.
I thought the Bible was God's final word, not something you can just rewrite whenever you feel like. I suppose that's what people have always been doing anyways though.
As you say, people have been rewriting the Bible to serve their own political ends for years. For example, the King James Bible features a number of alterations specifically ordered by King James, so he could justify his actions/legislation with the Bible.
Since we can't possibly know how often the Bible has been changed since it was written, it follows that no single version of the Bible logically has any authority over any other. (continues)
(continued) If you want to find the God-inspired Bible, do not look for it in the literal words, but in their meaning, in the spirit of the text. This requires exegesis per definition, and therefore Biblical literalism is silly and illogical.
@YukiNekoPrincess So, you're saying that we should read between the lines of something you've just admitted is made up and rewritten over many generations? How can you interpret the "spirit" of something that has been completely changed? Any Biblical interpretation beyond "story book" is silly and illogical.
@Bardlettt I disagree. I find lots of meaning in the Bible. The point is, because it has been translated and edited so many times, it's nearly impossible to tell what the original authors were saying. Therefore, different people can put different meanings into it, which I think is good on one hand, but on the other hand, it is bad, because it can lead to abuse, terrorism, etc.
@YukiNekoPrincess So, you don't know what god was saying. At least you're honest in that regard, but doesn't that make the POINT of the Bible (that it is the Word of God) null and void? I mean, I can find meaning in any book, but I don't have to delude myself into thinking Alice in Wonderland is real in order to have that meaning. Considering the kind of insane, evil morality the Bible portrays, I'd do better using Lolita as my moral guide. o.O
@Bardlettt It means what I said, that no particular translation of interpretation of the Bible can be taken to be the Word of God (and certainly not literally). However, asserting that it can is to mistake the words themselves for the MEANING of the Bible, which is beyond the word. I think the point that the true meaning of the Bible is the Word of God isn't null or void at all, but very valid.
By the way, I have no problem with you using Lolita as your moral guide... *cough, cough* XD
@YukiNekoPrincess "I like candy." Originally that sentence said, "I hate niggers." But you know, the MEANING is still there. That is how retarded what you just said sounds to me. At least Humbert Humbert was ashamed of himself, god gives no excuse. :p
@Bardlettt Obviously if the Bible says "I like candy", and King James changes it to say "I hate niggers", and then Christians go and discriminate against black people and justify it because see, it's in the Bible, then obviously they are missing the point of the original meaning, looking only at the words. But that's kind of not what I meant, actually. I meant a lot of words are pretty vague and open to interpretation.
That comment about them subjugating reality to ideology struck me in a way. Would it be considered irony that the conservative christian base whom frequent sites like Conservapedia and watch Glenn Beck are, essentially, more closely aligned with the postmodern liberal sophist douches themselves - than those whom they most often criticize.
Doesn't the last passage in the book of Revelation eternally condemn anyone who alters any part of the Bible? So now it's ok for those psychos to alter their own rules? I don't get it. Maybe they'll delete so much they destroy it completely! :D Maybe they'll make such changes that will blatantly be more of a contradiction to reality that people (all around the world) will give up on this insipidly dead religion.
AzazelZaphorOmega 6 hours ago
You touched on an important point. The stuff is now out in the open. The internet gives us power to communicate, learn and exchange ideas and religion just can't deal with that stuff.
PktMma 5 days ago
Even Bible has a liberal bias... it's... MIND SCREW.
MenwithHill 6 days ago
What the Heck? Are you man or a woman?
Why the heck are all of you atheists so screwed up psychologically?
Aphoresis 1 month ago
Conservapedia, from what I've seen, seems to be largely a trolling effort to tick off both conservatives and reactionary liberals. I hope nobody 2 years after this video was made is still taking Conservapedia seriously. The mixtures of crazy psychiatric ward escapees and nerds going LOL TROLLED YOU makes it impossible to know what was meant to be genuine.
TheSamuraiGoomba 2 months ago
commy
mcbann99 2 months ago
Can't tell if guy or trolling...
SuburbiaSurvivor 2 months ago
Rewrite the bible? Isn't that prohibited by that document?
ApatheticOmniscience 2 months ago
... I don't even know what to say. I just don't. My words for how stupid this whole "Conservapedia" thing can't even fit in the entire comment box. Curse you youtube, why did you have to put a character limit?
star3catcherSEQUEL 3 months ago
Two questions:
1. Can you prove there is no God?
2. If God were to reveal himself and tell you homosexuals are not born gay, and that he created the universe and that Christians are right and you are wrong, etc.
Would you call him a creationalist lunatic?
RecBookHero 4 months ago
@RecBookHero 1. No. 2. No, I would trust God's word on the matter then. But that hasn't happened, has it?
devourerofbabies 3 months ago
@devourerofbabies If He did, (mind you, I believe in every Saint story that says He did) I would bet a lot of money people would still troll God.
Oh, and I appreaciate you admitting you cant. Most people are under the impression that because there is no proof of a God, it means that atheism is 100% accurate. Those people are driven by the same faith and blind believing that drive creationalists, and me.
RecBookHero 3 months ago
@RecBookHero Saying atheism is accurate or not accurate is a little weird because it doesn't really say anything, It can't be "accurate" because it's not making a point.
It is impossible to disprove God not only in practice but in principle. Religious people usually see that as a strength of their religion, but it is actually a weakness. Invisible pink unicorns are equally impossible to disprove. Things that have no attachment to reality usually are.
devourerofbabies 3 months ago
@devourerofbabies There is a large difference between unicorns and God. We know that there are very little odds of unicorns existing for several reasons, for instance, it doesnt make evolutional sense. A horse likes to run away from predators, it has no use for a horn, and if it did have use for a horn, it would probably look a lot like a carabu or a moose. (Because a horse is taller then most of its predators, and one single horn is only good for stabbing upwards at things above you)......
RecBookHero 3 months ago
@RecBookHero Good point. I should have used dragons as an example instead. Dragons are totally badass.
devourerofbabies 3 months ago
@devourerofbabies Or padrlzam's.
Okay, MY point is that with unicorns, you can think of reasons why we know they dont exist. I was listing them. With God, you cant. There is nothing suggesting a God does not exist. There are things suggesting that unicorns, dragons, and padrlzam's do no exist. It is why you cant compare the two, a Padrlzam makes absolutely no logical sense, but a God makes just as much sense as the next scientific creational theory.
RecBookHero 3 months ago
@RecBookHero I understand your point but you seem to be missing mine. Here it is:
The inability to disprove something is not an indicator of its truth. That means that my inability to disprove God doesn't mean that He exists.
I insist that unicorns exist. Does pointing out that you cannot disprove them strengthen my assertion? The more unlikely or sillier you make unicorns seem, the more you're making my point for me.
devourerofbabies 3 months ago
@devourerofbabies I think I need to clarify certain things. While I myself have complete FAITH there is a God, and have chosen through my free will to trust with no proof whatsever in His existance, and trust that everything in the Bible (to an extent that I would need a lot of time to explain) and Catechism is true, I dont expect everyone else to fallow the same path. I know you have every right to believe there isnt a God, but Im trying to stress that I have every right to believe there is.
RecBookHero 3 months ago
@devourerofbabies (cont) But let me be REALLY clear, there is a big difference in having faith (believing with no proof) that there is a God, and having faith in unicorns. My religion is a long held tradition and belief, that goes back to historic events that we believe happened. The unicorn..... (lets change this crap) Padrlzam is pure imagination that someone just put on paper one day for everyones enjoyment.
RecBookHero 3 months ago
@RecBookHero I am talking only about provability. For some reason you've chosen to focus on the examples. I am not equating belief in God to belief in unicorns. The ONLY point I care to make is that just because I can't disprove something does not mean it's true. Let me repeat that a few times. Just because I can't disprove something does not mean it's true. Just because I can't disprove something does not mean it's true. Just because I can't disprove something does not mean it's true.
devourerofbabies 3 months ago
@devourerofbabies I never claimed otherwise.
RecBookHero 3 months ago
@RecBookHero Good. Now we're back to the first and only point I was ever trying to make. You asked whether an atheist can prove there is no God. I said No. I then went on to demonstrate why inability to disprove something does not mean it's true. Are we on the same page again?
devourerofbabies 3 months ago
@devourerofbabies No, we are not. The maker of this video banally presumes that there is no God, and claims everyone who thinks the opposite is automatically wrong. The inability to disprove something does not mean its true, just because I cant provide evidence of a God and disprove atheism, does not mean Im wrong in upholding the customs that have been passed down in my family for generations.
RecBookHero 3 months ago
@RecBookHero But I wasn't responding to the maker of the video. I was responding specifically to you. You just said "the inability to disprove something does not mean it's true." Good, we agree. I also agree that the inability to disprove you doesn't make you wrong. However, you seem to think that it gives your position SOME weight. The argument I am making is that the inability to disprove ANY conjecture (not just God) is not any evidence in its favor whatsoever.
devourerofbabies 3 months ago
@devourerofbabies (cont) And as you might imagine, I could go on like this all day, and think of thousands of reasons why there are probably no unicorns. You cant do the same for God. There is no evidence that suggests there isnt one.
And you are wrong about the first statement, atheists are making a point. They are saying all who fallow religion are wrong, for the absence of a God to them is truth. An atheist has as much faith in his/her religion (it may as well be called on) as a theist.
RecBookHero 3 months ago
@RecBookHero Yes, we could go on all day, and that is precisely the point. Untestable conjectures are extremely easy to invent. That's why the inability to disprove a statement is not an indicator of its truth.
As far as the unicorns go, you're missing the point. I'm not trying to argue that unicorns are plausible; I chose them BECAUSE they're silly. I was strictly talking about provability.
devourerofbabies 3 months ago
I think what's really funny is that a person who rewrites the bible to conform to their own wishes is doing exactly what the Bible specifically tells a person NOT to do. Personally, I am a Christian, in that I do believe in a God...I believe that a higher being created us. But NO WHERE in the Bible does it EVER even mention parties or certain beliefs...it informs us of what God said, and wants us ot abide by it.
MrKasey361 4 months ago
Wikipedia is "liberal" because it doesn't hold Darwin responsible for the Holocaust? What the hell?
ChristopherChemist 4 months ago
So.... like are you, like a dude... or a chick?
Trevion3D 5 months ago
FUCK THE BIBLE
trey4439 5 months ago
the liberals tell me that the earth rotates on sumthin called an axis. and liberals can never prove that to me and then call me intolerant to their intURlectual theories. i been done trying to read them science books but them liberals with their liberal ideas makes everything liberal. liberal lib liberal liberal liberal lib liberal liberal lib liberal liberal liberal lib-(conservative meltdown)
Killerjosh89 6 months ago
By the way the bible says to stone anyone who enslaves other people. Oh and it also says to give yourself to the person you are going to marry. Not to be rude, are you a male transvestite? If you are unfortunately gay and don't repent your sins you will go to hell.
101crazys 6 months ago
Sorry guys. It's not us. Reality is just liberal.
Mechsrule1 7 months ago
Whoa, wait, hold up. People don't seriously blame Darwin for the all the atrocities of the Holocaust, do they?
outofcake 7 months ago
@outofcake I've heard that. People say that the Holocaust could be justified for people who accept evolution because they can say that this means that people can always say that they are a higher order, i.e. racism is okay. Sadly, some of these same people are huge racists and completely unaware.
wvu05 6 months ago
Conservapedia is the biggest joke on the internet. I don't usually encourage vandalism but they deserve everything they get because their deceit and immaturity.
unyobro 7 months ago
Bible thumpers are so yesterday! The tea party and stupid conservatives need to move away from America!
OrganNLou 7 months ago
Revelations; 22:18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
22:19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
So these Christians are consciously deciding to go to hell?
TheSkunkCat 7 months ago
@TheSkunkCat
I mean I'm an atheist, but this is from the bible and these people who are on this ridiculous project (though I gathered it crashed and burned) DO claim to be christians.
TheSkunkCat 7 months ago
You can't use genetic similarities between humans and apes to 'prove' evolution. Even pigs are 95% genetically similar. Given the thousands of species examined, the chances are extremely high that we can find a species with a 99% match. Just because H20 molecules look the same in the whole universe, are we to assume that water in adromeda galaxy came from earth?? Absolutely not. Water is h20 in andromeda as it is on earth, not because of a "link", but because the is basically what it must be!
standardissuemale877 7 months ago
@standardissuemale877 you clearly dont understand evolution at all. maybe you should sign up for a biology class
oneadamtwelve86 5 months ago
while there is nothing wrong with the theory of evolution, I'm afraid its not as much FACT as you are affirming it is.
Given a large enough sample size, enough research, and a statistically significant threshold of 5%, one can data mine all sorts of "links" between data and hypotheses. Given enough looking at fossils, one can begin to see "patterns". These patterns can be nothing more than coincidental.
The theory suffers from this handicap.
standardissuemale877 7 months ago
This just proves that Christians are insane.
Ulfvaldr2012 7 months ago
Just when I thought conservatives couldn't get anymore desperate....
LOCUSTHATER666 7 months ago
Your voice is creeping me out, sorry
bdrasin 7 months ago
so you hate conservatives because they tend to be anti-gay,. really complex conclusion you guys come to......
everyone has their "flaws" but at the same time everyone has a lot to offer. people are going to think youre crazy..............................get over it
bl4h1 7 months ago
@bl4h1 Tell me what you have to offer, and I'll think about it. However in the past 30 years the Conservatives offered nothing that the liberals cannot just as easily offer without the same down side.
In order to have something to offer, you have to learn something first, which Conservapedia is the anti-thesis of.
Neosaigo 7 months ago
is this a guy or girl? please tell me its a girl
hiboyjc 7 months ago
@hiboyjc Don't quote me on this since I don't know for sure, but I think ZJ was born biologically male but self-identifies as female. So yes, she's a girl.
FrostdPoptart 7 months ago
@FrostdPoptart
I believe the right term is "faggot".
hurrrdurr112 7 months ago
@hurrrdurr112 Aww how cute. It's baby's first troll!
FrostdPoptart 7 months ago
The Holy Bible gives a warning. If you alter any word or remove any word your name will be removed from the Book of Life. I think some preachers managed to get their names removed even though they don't know it. Remember God is not a man who can be deceived.
joseagosto1 8 months ago
Conservapedia? please, for the sake of humanity, tell me they're trolling.
chandlerblancaflor 8 months ago 10
check out the book 'is god a moral monster?' by paul copan
hulugal 8 months ago
The bible is a joke just look at how bastardized versions such as the NIV are, completely chopped and screwed to fit so called "western social dogma" it's ridiculous! It is no wonder so many Christians today preach about the LOVING God of the Holy Bible. AHHH!!
miasmablk 8 months ago
To be honest, this isn't anything new. If you actually read the bible, specifically the words of Christ himself, you'll see that he was closer to a Communist than anything the right wing stands for.
The cognitive dissonance of the religious right has already mentally edited out all the "unpleasant" parts of the bible, where Jesus talks about class struggle. Then there's the especially "bad" passage wherein Jesus implies that Christians have an obligation to provide healthcare for the poor.
wharghoul 8 months ago 19
@wharghoul RIGHT-ON! If people knew any thing about the tenants of Communism, they, too, would agree. However, I've told people about this, before, and been HATED by them, ever since. Religious people will disagree because they can only think of Russia or China as defined by the 'Cold War'.
Maybe "THEY" are 'dumbing us down' so more people will accept religion. We are 27th out of thirty industrialized nations, in MATH SCORES! Does anyone think this is just an unfortunate coincidence?
251omega 8 months ago
@wharghoul Yes but the bible does not say the government must provide healthcare for the poor, it doesnt say there should be laws that enforce charity, it says we should be eager to provide "healthcare" out of the goodness of our hearts. Jesus does not say, "Elect politicians that will monopolize an uber complex and inneffective healthcare system that will take money out of everyones pockets by force, and give it too the poor."
RecBookHero 3 months ago
@wharghoul im curious, give me a few passages where jesus sounds communist (an ideolgy started thousands of years later)
potsocket1 3 months ago
@wharghoul the bible also says, and i quote from leviticus 18:22, "Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable" now, what you choose to do with that is your business, but since you seem to be very into knit-picking the bible, id like you to knit-pick that passage
chadunn13 2 months ago
@chadunn13 You want me to nitpick? The New International Version of the Bible is a joke. It's a remix of a remix of a remix of a supposedly "flawless" holy text.
Now, you want me to make a more religious argument? According to the bible, you're not fit to judge, Only god can do that. If you see yourself fit to judge, then you put yourself in the position of god, and are therefore a heretic. This is Abrahamic Religion 101.
wharghoul 2 months ago
@wharghoul i mean, the original bible translation was "thou shalt not lay with a man as thou lay with a woman", but it means essentially the same thing. and i wasnt judging anybody, i was simply putting forth a bible passage. but, assuming the bible is god's word, i think he's making a pretty clear judgment right there
chadunn13 2 months ago
@chadunn13 Yes, god condemns homosexuals in the bible. God also tells you to treat everyone as equals and don't cast stones. So, gays creep ol Yaweh out, but you should leave them alone. A lot of christians seemed to miss the whole "leave them alone" part, unfortunately. Just like they missed the part where Jesus said it's impossible for a rich man to reach the kingdom of god.
wharghoul 2 months ago
@wharghoul he didnt say it was impossible. he said a CORRUPT person wouldnt, but of course, if someone is corrupt, they are most likely rich due to their corruption. but the story of the tax collector zacchaeus shows how while jesus was compassionate to the poor, he was supportive of the rich, even though tax collectors were hated by everyone. so no, its not sinful to be rich. i mean, bill gates is an honest man and donates a lot of money to charity. even if he is agnostic, i respect him greatly
chadunn13 2 months ago
You go, Rosie Jones
azzy314159 8 months ago
@azzy314159 Rosie Jones <3
Larvemannenz001 8 months ago
Lets play the "connect the dots to find a liberal bias connection" game. So the folks at conservapedia are trying to revise history by editing things to suit their agenda...wait isn't that something that Stalin did! Oh my god they must be communist's and therefore part of the liberal agenda!
xhaze8 9 months ago 2
What's funny is that it requires more faith to believe in Evolution, then in religion, for evolution has many flaws, and believing in something that can be proven sure, so why not? Because religion (Christianity) cannot be disproved, and people assume in what they believe, which is why Secularism is taught everywhere we go.
dinomite161 9 months ago
@dinomite161
Does believing evolution require faith? It's testable, disprovable and simulation software exists with which everyone can see that the mechanism works. The only faith you need is that the whole scientific community isn't in a huge conspiracy and you'd need faith to believe the opposite too. I'd like to hear one of those flaws you mention too.
Quintinohthree 9 months ago
This conservapedia shit reminds me of a guy who butchered his own sister for being a liberal, pled guilty to premeditated murder, and then proceeded to explain to the jury that he was totally justified in doing so because, well, she was a liberal ...
g1981c 9 months ago
@g1981c
Did that actually happen? If so we have actual evidence to suggest that conservatism is a mental disorder. Conservapedia simply asserts that liberalism is. Not that it'd really be enough to be convincing but we most certainly would have an infinitely greater amount of evidence for this claim.
Quintinohthree 9 months ago
@Quintinohthree yep it's not a joke. google his name Edward Wycoff and there are a bunch of articles in SFGate
g1981c 9 months ago
I'm a guy, but I find you incredibly attractive.
JRC3034 9 months ago
It's pretty funny. The fact that Conservapedia wants to edit the bible is like a tacit admission by creationists that the bible isn't infallible.
JRC3034 9 months ago
I just discovered you're video blog. Fantastic!
phroney 9 months ago
I feel like a terrible person for getting distracted from the main point by how cute our presenter is.
Of course, on backhand, Conservapedia is fairly unimportant.
SeanXanatos 9 months ago
@SeanXanatos - in and of itself, conserv is unimportant, but it has impact. it affects what certain people think, and it supports fundies in arguments. it's because of sites like that that words are being redefined, and that changes how people have to present arguments. can't even say you're an atheist with someone who tells you 'then you believe in god, because you have to believe in him in order to deny he exists' because of crap like cons
GodsArePeopleToo 9 months ago
@GodsArePeopleToo - You make a fair few good points. I just mostly think Conservapedia is contained by RationalWiki, at least in terms of memetic spread.
Now, just because I think it is unimportant doesn't mean I am not going to fight it as much as the next person.
SeanXanatos 9 months ago
@SeanXanatos
most excellent :-D
GodsArePeopleToo 9 months ago
I'd love to read that new book :D
fablan6 9 months ago
@yuo252 What is it u are claiming is being "cherry picked"?There are unfortunately more than enough "Christians" that do not know what is going on in the Bible.Please keep in mind that there are more than enough ppl that use the Bible to accomplish their will NOT the will of God. But they pretend 2 speak in the "name of God". They absolutely do not come with God's backing of them."They're known by their fruits(productions)." It's what Jesus said. Satan's a liar and deceiver. Even in Jesus' name.
MALACHAI39 9 months ago
so basically i'm listening to a living transsexual joke, making fun of a bullshit religious site.
i'm going to have to say this transsexual is more of a joke that what (he?) wishes to make fun of.
BTW, i'm an atheist
100CommonCents 9 months ago
@100CommonCents proof that even some atheists are mildly idiotic and find making a discriminatory mark against another person who chooses to live his life a certain way an "ok" thing to do. And on top of this compare someones own personal lifestyle choice to an internet web site. Props to you for showing your immoral distasteful unnecessary discrimination against other people on the internet. Now kindly F- off =)
dmack829 9 months ago
@dmack829 haha fuck you. i 'go' where i want
100CommonCents 9 months ago
@100CommonCents Congratulations, then. You just made every other atheist look like a bigoted asshole. We atheists have enough bullshit to combat without hateful children like you adding more to the pile.
chef007c 9 months ago
@chef007c then perhaps you should stop putting atheists into a group
'we atheists' assumes that they have something in common. and a lack of belief is not a commonality.
also, i stand by my stance that if you're confused about your gender, this is a bigger personal problem than being a deist, and even a bible worshipper.
100CommonCents 9 months ago
Comment removed
100CommonCents 9 months ago
Any so called Christian that is doing what you claim are not true Christians. This 'conservapedia', of which you speak, should be avoided. I'm a Christian and I do believe the earth is over 6000 yrs old. Much older.No liberal pov in the Bible is wrong.
PS Satan is behind a lot of false Christian garbage too.Anyone telling you that Jesus' words/thoughts were/are wrong are not of God or Jesus.
MALACHAI39 9 months ago
@MALACHAI39 Yeah get rid of the nutjobs and only allow the good ones. Advanced cherry picking you Christians seem to have a PHD in cherry picking.
yuo252 9 months ago
Maybe their next project will be to fire God for being to liberal and arrest Jesus himself for not meeting their murderous standards.
lizichell2 10 months ago 2
Sometimes I think that Conservapedia might be a project started by a pack of brilliant Poes to serve as a trap for religious conservatives to show their true colors and be on full display. Has anyone else had this thought?
Anon11674 10 months ago
Bible: Word of the almighty God (Revised & Edited)
Words escape me.
Icerama108 10 months ago 37
Love the vid. Plus, not to be pig headed or mysoginistic ....but you do like FINE!
lewa3910 10 months ago
Hahahaha. You are right. Conservapedia is a joke. Thanks for the video.
longname25 10 months ago
I despise / spit on a man who tries to pretend he's a woman. Guy, you can wear a wig, put on lipstick and tape your penis to your bumhole, but you will NEVER be a woman, even if you take hormones. I hate guys like you, I wouldn't cross the street to pee on you. Grow the F up and be the MAN God created you to be.
TanteWaileka 10 months ago
@TanteWaileka
You are the reason why Christianity is falling greatly in numbers day after day. Keep doing what your doing. Christianity will die like every pathetic cult.
Nasahasish 10 months ago 2
@TanteWaileka Were you also planning on having a useful input, or are you just exposing yourself for the shallow christian (lower case c, bitch) whore you apparently are, for us all to see?
Well in any case, thank you, you've made my day. Rot in hell :)
Good video ZJ, you're awesome, be who you are.
robbegx 10 months ago
@TanteWaileka
Spoken like a true Christian. Keep up the great work.
Anon11674 10 months ago
@TanteWaileka Why don't you grow up and be the MAN god created you to be and stop insulting people who are different?
yuo252 9 months ago
@TanteWaileka hey asshole, watch yourself. This transvestite is very intelligent and quite beautiful as well. I think it's a beautiful thing for a man/woman to transcend their gender roles. If your god can't handle it, tell him to fuck off.
JRC3034 9 months ago
Why am I listening to a she man?
Nashhinton 10 months ago
you need to brush up on the new testament read more about the woman at the well, that whole junk thing your talking about how women are not equal yes it is in the bible to show how human society was but by far was it how Jesus treaed women as well He was showing all His followers NOT to be like that....oh and don't forget how well He thought of Mary Magdaline
pokerrob20 11 months ago
you need to brush up on the new testament read more about the woman at the well, that whole junk thing your talking about how women are not equal yes it is in the bible to show how human society was but by far was it how Jesus treaed women as well He was showing all His followers NOT to be like that....
pokerrob20 11 months ago
its hard to take this gu-girl? Its hard to take this thing seriously..
JerFish12 11 months ago
"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone"
I was thinking about this verse not too long ago.
If I remember correctly the Pharisees were trying to trap Jesus by giving him a choise.
Either obey god's law and kill the woman or break the law and let the woman live.
The quote was Jesus's way out of the dilemma... but doesn't it read somewhere in the bible that Jesus was without sin? So he should have thrown the first stone?
BlizBob 11 months ago
@BlizBob He was without sin... But if he had cast the first stone, he would have lost his purity.
GDOBSSOR 11 months ago
@GDOBSSOR
But it was god's law.
Following god's law makes one impure?
BlizBob 11 months ago
@BlizBob Alright then, put it this way: He could have cast the first stone if he'd really wanted, but it would have defeated the purpose, as he didn't want to show that he was sinless; he wanted to prove that before the pharisees went around pointing out other people's blemishes, they should first erase their own.
GDOBSSOR 11 months ago
@GDOBSSOR
So basically Jesus said to the pharisees that no human is able to follow and execute god's law because of their own sins?
Never heard any chirstian ever say that there is a way to rid one self of sin.
In other words Jesus just pointed out that god's law in practise means nothing?
Also Jesus didn't follow the law (being the only one who could have) because he didn't want people to find out that he could? That really doesn't change the fact that he should have still followed the law.
BlizBob 11 months ago
@BlizBob What Jesus meant was, the Pharisees were religious leaders who were supposed to be setting an example. You can't punish someone else for sinning if your own behaviour is not impeccable - as most pharisees' behaviour in those days wasn't.
Jesus could have punished the woman, but what would that have achieved? The rest of the men would have then joined in with the punishing and learned nothing. Jesus wanted to teach, not to punish.
GDOBSSOR 11 months ago
Are you a hot dude, or an ugly chick?
kellerbier2 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
FlyinSpaghettiMnstr7 11 months ago
I still think Conservapedia might be a joke.
jimbrown257 1 year ago
@jimbrown257 it is its for fun they r not serious how can they be serious about it lol its stupid beyond belief
woo216 11 months ago
why are you dressed up as a woman?
suparpowers 1 year ago
It is correct, the story of the woman taken in adultery to Jesus, as well as the last 12 verses of Mark were not part of the earliest manuscripts, they were added much later by scribes attempting to influence the theology.
burkerow 1 year ago
If you want to study mental disease,watching this freak is perfect!
addderphor 1 year ago
@addderphor ~ I would suggest NephilimFree, ShockofGod, or GoodScience ForYou for mental disease. Or see posts by Maximus Aururealius and his multiple sock puppet travelling circus of the deranged...Zinnia Jones is far too well-spoken and coherent.
pontecanis 11 months ago
One of the hotest women on YouTube...
No, seriously...
smthssarmour 1 year ago
I hope you detected it.
dutchbb1979 1 year ago
@dutchbb1979
I have to admit, I was a bit skeptical of that.
MrOpenGamer 1 year ago
Last time I went they had a ridiculously long(and I mean lllooonnngggg) page devoted entirely to subject of homsexuality but not one article on cheese.
1982mockingbird1982 1 year ago
Conservapedia is possibly the funniest site ive ever been on, its always good for a quick chuckle.
iamnothere9 1 year ago
you sound like a guy
obianicantkillm 1 year ago
@obianicantkillm That's because he is a guy.
MMA 1 year ago
Absolutely nutters! I cant believe some people.
LostManSays 1 year ago
At last the ultimate proof that Darwin´s right: The Bible evolves!! We see natural selection at work before our very eyes! Great!
subbussubbu 1 year ago 56
"Hahaha! This joke site is hilarious! Oh no wait, they're actually being serious, aren't they!?"
Me on Conservapedia
MrOpenGamer 1 year ago
Never could tell the difference between Conservapedia and Uncylcopedia!
PS Zinnia, cool name dude!
TheGodlessGuitarist 1 year ago
Why does this man have lipstick on?
BioBoostGuyver 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@BioBoostGuyver
"Why does this man have lipstick on?"
Who cares?
TheGodlessGuitarist 1 year ago
@BioBoostGuyver
Because she's not a man. Jesus Christ, are you blind or just arrogant?
MrOpenGamer 1 year ago
@MrOpenGamer Actually ZJ IS a man.
dutchbb1979 1 year ago
@dutchbb1979
Good. glad to see you're not ignorant and can detect sarcasm.
MrOpenGamer 1 year ago
@MrOpenGamer It doesn't seem there was anything sarcastic about your comment, so it looks like you are the one who is ignorant here.
dutchbb1979 1 year ago
@dutchbb1979
Don't bother saying that I wasn't being sarcastic and calling me ignorant because of your lack of ability to detect said sarcasm, as it only makes you look ignorant yourself and thus hypocritical.
MrOpenGamer 1 year ago
@MrOpenGamer You're such a friendly and pleasant person. The way you express yourself and respect other people in discussions is an example for YT.
dutchbb1979 1 year ago
@MrOpenGamer
Could be stupid.
Or just don't know what this so called "not man" is, due to being raised in an environment only populated by males.
I'd go with stupid though...
fossfass 1 year ago
@fossfass
Hahaha, you really believe JZ is not a man? Don't even get me started on the sheer stupidity of that statement. Wow, holy fuck, I feel so sorry for your tiny, indocrinated Christian mind. Now, I would give you the url to the video where he confirmed this, but your worthless, religious hide is not even worth the effort it would take in order to seach for it. So take your bullshit bible and shove it up your fat ass, you nonsensical Jewish-zombie-eating Justin Bieber lover!
MrOpenGamer 1 year ago
@MrOpenGamer
What? O.o'
First of all, I'm an atheist, second (and I only got myself to blame for this one) I wrote the comment before watching the video :p
But yeah, I admit I'm stuck (like most people unfortunately :( ) in outdated definitions of what's what when it comes to genders, sorry about that :(
Notice though, I never stated that ZJ is a woman. Haven't seen any videos where ZJ says what co considers coself to be, so I'm not necessary wrong :p
Anyway, have fun :D
fossfass 1 year ago
@fossfass
LOL, forget about the religion bit, it was just a joke. So what gender would you call ZJ? What do you mean by outdated definitions?
MrOpenGamer 1 year ago
@MrOpenGamer
Okay :p
Well, I have no idea, and frankly, why not see co as the person co is, instead of blatantly say that "it's a MAN" or whatever XD
With "outdated definitions" I mean MAN and WOMAN. We (me included :p) have to realise that gender is a giant field of different variables - just because you are born with a penis doesn't mean that you fit into the stereotypical MAN category :p
Um... I'm rather confused about it myself actually, but I hope you kinda can understand what I mean ^^'
fossfass 1 year ago
@fossfass
Well, i see where you're coming from. But ZJ is BIOLOGICALLY a man, right?
MrOpenGamer 1 year ago
@MrOpenGamer
I suppose so.
fossfass 1 year ago
@BioBoostGuyver why does marilyn manson have lipstick on? Because they like how it looks maybe?
dutchbb1979 1 year ago
I think this calls for a Bill Hicks quote:
"They believe the bible is the exact word of God - Then they change the bible! Pretty presumptuous, huh?"
AntiYourFacePhD 1 year ago
Wait, they aren't kidding?
The human race is doomed.
Kadiezi 1 year ago
I just can't tell. ZJ's atheism and her somewhat autistic mannerisms set my Randian alarms off. I only clicked this the see if what she said about conservatives. Is she a Randroid or not?
AdNeeb 1 year ago
I'd like to show an excerpt from the Conservapedia article "Conspiracy theories":
QUOTE "... [the] most destructive conspiracy theories believe the same things:
-The world is divided into 'us' and 'them'. We are "good," and they are "evil."
-Our opponents are evil and subversive... possibly not even human.
-"They" are responsible for our troubles – We are blameless and without fault.
-Time is running out, and we must act immediately to avoid disaster."/QUOTE
Now... who does this sound like?
NeverMind9132 1 year ago
These people, these conservative extrememists, are undermining democracy and furthering the cause of making America stupid. Now, I'm not sure if even Americans are stupid enough to buy into this rape of the term encyclopedia; it sure wouldn't pass over here in Europe. But, as Maher says: "I wouldn't pass anything before this stupid country."
One must ask oneself if there are anyone in the entire Western civilization would could honestly believe in this. Just... wow.
Pomme843 1 year ago
These ppl make me sick! When was the last time wikipedia or even an Athiest scource accused Christians of being morally depraved(in spite of the crusades etc)? These ppl want to systematically attack and insult others under the guise of academia. Apart from proving they are petty, disrespectful, arrogant and underhanded this also prove coservapedia isnt objective, because accusing a group of 'moral depravity' is not an objective observation
1982mockingbird1982 1 year ago
Conservapedia is a pretty good example of how taking absurd yet commonly held notions to their logical conclusions leads to utter hilarity. I actually heard a sermon years ago in which the pastor argued that the "s" sound in the word sin was evil, thus explaining why snakes are evil. I guess he forgot about sanctity. Unfortunately, logic has little to do with commonly held beliefs, so they will not suffer from this self-immolating tendency.
maplebayou1 1 year ago
Perhaps Bristol Palin immaculately conceived. Think about it.
hymnofashes 1 year ago
YOU SOUND AND LOOK LIKE A GUY!!! THAT'S A MUCH BETTER STORY THAN WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT!!!
TheMethadoneParty 1 year ago
Wow... I just want to cry for the human race...
SaruCharmed 1 year ago
I thought the Bible was God's final word, not something you can just rewrite whenever you feel like. I suppose that's what people have always been doing anyways though.
SaruCharmed 1 year ago 2
As you say, people have been rewriting the Bible to serve their own political ends for years. For example, the King James Bible features a number of alterations specifically ordered by King James, so he could justify his actions/legislation with the Bible.
Since we can't possibly know how often the Bible has been changed since it was written, it follows that no single version of the Bible logically has any authority over any other. (continues)
YukiNekoPrincess 1 year ago
(continued) If you want to find the God-inspired Bible, do not look for it in the literal words, but in their meaning, in the spirit of the text. This requires exegesis per definition, and therefore Biblical literalism is silly and illogical.
YukiNekoPrincess 1 year ago
@YukiNekoPrincess So, you're saying that we should read between the lines of something you've just admitted is made up and rewritten over many generations? How can you interpret the "spirit" of something that has been completely changed? Any Biblical interpretation beyond "story book" is silly and illogical.
Bardlettt 1 year ago
@Bardlettt I disagree. I find lots of meaning in the Bible. The point is, because it has been translated and edited so many times, it's nearly impossible to tell what the original authors were saying. Therefore, different people can put different meanings into it, which I think is good on one hand, but on the other hand, it is bad, because it can lead to abuse, terrorism, etc.
YukiNekoPrincess 1 year ago
@YukiNekoPrincess So, you don't know what god was saying. At least you're honest in that regard, but doesn't that make the POINT of the Bible (that it is the Word of God) null and void? I mean, I can find meaning in any book, but I don't have to delude myself into thinking Alice in Wonderland is real in order to have that meaning. Considering the kind of insane, evil morality the Bible portrays, I'd do better using Lolita as my moral guide. o.O
Bardlettt 1 year ago
@Bardlettt It means what I said, that no particular translation of interpretation of the Bible can be taken to be the Word of God (and certainly not literally). However, asserting that it can is to mistake the words themselves for the MEANING of the Bible, which is beyond the word. I think the point that the true meaning of the Bible is the Word of God isn't null or void at all, but very valid.
By the way, I have no problem with you using Lolita as your moral guide... *cough, cough* XD
YukiNekoPrincess 1 year ago
@YukiNekoPrincess "I like candy." Originally that sentence said, "I hate niggers." But you know, the MEANING is still there. That is how retarded what you just said sounds to me. At least Humbert Humbert was ashamed of himself, god gives no excuse. :p
Bardlettt 1 year ago
@Bardlettt Obviously if the Bible says "I like candy", and King James changes it to say "I hate niggers", and then Christians go and discriminate against black people and justify it because see, it's in the Bible, then obviously they are missing the point of the original meaning, looking only at the words. But that's kind of not what I meant, actually. I meant a lot of words are pretty vague and open to interpretation.
YukiNekoPrincess 1 year ago
That comment about them subjugating reality to ideology struck me in a way. Would it be considered irony that the conservative christian base whom frequent sites like Conservapedia and watch Glenn Beck are, essentially, more closely aligned with the postmodern liberal sophist douches themselves - than those whom they most often criticize.
Sinuev1 1 year ago
Fellow atheist, support conservapedia! the best kind of non-intentional satire there is!
CorpsmanUP87 1 year ago