No Way This Is For Real


Conservapedia is a much-needed alternative to Wikipedia, which is increasingly anti-Christian and anti-American. On Wikipedia, many of the dates are provided in the anti-Christian “C.E.” instead of “A.D.”, which Conservapedia uses. Christianity receives no credit for the great advances and discoveries it inspired, such as those of the Renaissance. Read a list of many Examples of Bias in Wikipedia.

Conservapedia is an online resource and meeting place where we favor Christianity and America. Conservapedia has easy-to-use indexes to facilitate review of topics. You will much prefer using Conservapedia compared to Wikipedia if you want concise answers free of “political correctness”.

What to say? Res ipsa loquitor, I guess. Here’s an example of what it has to offer:

In 1692, Salem Witch trials. There was a panic that some girls, just about your age, were practicing witchcraft. Girls were prosecuted for this. Some were convicted and then executed. The authorities thought that these criminal prosecutions would help expose the ways of the devil for the benefit of everyone. Then someone observed that killing all these people may itself the work of the devil. Finally one of the accused said that the wife of the governor was also a witch. Then they put a stop to the prosecutions and freed everyone who was still alive. The whole episode did not make the Puritans look very good.

Nor did that article make Conservapedia look very good. This has to be some kind of joke. It’s just too stupid to be real.

Explore posts in the same categories: Goobers

6 Comments on “No Way This Is For Real”

  1. Kathy Says:

    The example you cite sounds like a third-grade book report.

  2. quaoar Says:

    Sounds like there is a lot of potential for editing fun at that site.

  3. Beaudrillard Says:

    It’s real, friends. I’ve just spent a while search on it. I typed in “Islam” to see just how deep their conservative Christian bias runs. The first two paragraphs are accurrate, unbiased descriptions of Islam and its background. The final paragraph reads:

    “Although most Muslims profess belief in a single, almighty God, a substantial minority of accredited Western scholars believe that the Muslim belief system can be traced back to distinctly polytheistic antecedents. Some, for example, have attempted to to link Allah to a moon deity. [1] Others have pointed to the pagan roots of various Muslim prohibitions, such as the ban on pork originating in the 3rd-century AD Damascene cult of the pig-god Jamal. [2] There is some evidence that traditional Muslim scholars have been repressing this information as well as various recently-recovered scrolls that hint at early Muslim human sacrifice (e.g., at Uhud). [3]”

    This is the only part of the article with any cites. Just goes to show, they can pretend to be legitimate, but they just can’t help themselves in the end.

  4. LOL!

    The good news is that, if it’s like Wikipedia, it’s editable, and it can be fun for all! I want to look up articles for Bill O’Reilly and Pat Robertson… 🙂

  5. Dystopos Says:

    As Colbert might say, reality shows a strong liberal bias.

  6. Dan Says:

    Wow. In response to Beaudrillard’s quote, let me just say I can take those words, replace every “Muslim” with “Christian, every “Allah” with “Yahweh,” and “moon deity” to “various sky gods” and get the same idea. Maybe I should start an atheopedia.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: