Discussion Main / ConservaPedia

That's just No True Scotsman, where no real Christian would do something like that, just like No True Conservative would to deceipt As for citiations, I can't find one, but this site is known to burn evidence it discovers is really embarrassing, including deletion of page histories to make it hard to search archives. See http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Conservapedia:Burning_the_Evidence

A typical response is visible now on http://conservapedia.com/Talk:Adolf_Hitler

Also, a valid counterargument is already listed elsewhere. It's technically a valid reason to use No True Scotsman, since you cannot both follow Christ and perform mass atrocities at the same time.

Here are some of those quotes I was talking about. "Christianity is a product of sick minds." December 13, 1941 "So it's not opportune to hurl ourselves now into a struggle with the Churches. The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death." October 14, 1941 I could find more, but I do not think he was "almost certainly" (quote from the page)a Christian. Hitler probably was baptized and taken to church as a child, but later he grew away from the Church and the Nazi Party, in general, either had no religion or believed in "authentically German" pagan practices. It is true he had the state support a church, but that church was a outlet for propaganda, like the legal churches of China and the former USSR. I don't pretend that there is proof that Hitler wasn't a Christian, but I think the language in the Conservapedia main page needs to be changed. If it means that he was almost certainly a Christian at some point in his life, (when he was very young)than I think it should be edited to make that more clear. Mein Kampf is a long book, and I don't think a few quotes can justify the tone that the article takes. If you cannot come up with evidence to support the assertion on the main page, I will edit it.

a list of quotes from hitler affirming his deep-seated christianity can be found in this pharyngula blog post

Maybe I'm a bit late in replying to this, but what the hell. Chimaera, I suggest you check where those quotes come from. I rather suspect they come from 'Hitler's Table Talk' (I know the first one definitely does). In case you're not aware, that book is a bad translation of a French translation of notes taken by Henry Picker (which, of course, were in German). In addition to the inaccuracies that could have crept in sue to not being a direct translation from German, the French translation has also been accused of simply making some of the content up. As I recall, there was a book by Alfred Rosenberg called 'Myth of the Twentieth Century' that pretty clearly set out that, as far as Hitler and the Nazi Party were concerned, modern Christianity was a corrupted and 'Judaized' version of 'true' Christianity. As such, from Hitler's point of view, he was a Christian - it's everyone outside the Nazi Party that was 'No True Christian', which is why there are some genuine comments that show hostility to the Christian churches of the time, and such-like.

It seems that it's politically correct to attack Christians for their wrongdoings while letting other groups off (Athiests, Islamic Followers) for doing similiar, if not worse things. However, I still seriously question that Hitler thought of himself as a Christian. If anything, Hitler was a Social Darwinist who was simply using the images of Christianity to dupe the German people. He, also, used themes from Norse mythology but does anyone really think he worshipped the gods from Norse Mythology.

Meh. I think quibbling over Hitler's personal religion is irrelevant anyways. Both the "He was an atheist!" and the "He was Christian!" side have their own cherry picked quotes that "prove" their side and convenient reasons why the other side's quotes aren't "true", for lack of a better word.

Personally, the question I always have to ask these people is this: "How many people did Hitler kill?" The answer? One. Himself. The Holocaust? The millions dead in the camps and the ghettos? That required a massive force of other people willing and often eager to bring about his "final solution", and even more to just shut up and shuffle on.

There's a reason Hitler needed to appeal to Christianity. There's a reason he used its symbols and its ideas to promote his own. That reason is that the vast majority of the German people at the time were in fact Christian, and all but a handful of resisters either actively took part in the final solution or were perfectly willing to stand by and do nothing.

Essentially, whether or not Hitler was a Christian himself, the Holocaust was a stunning demonstration of the various churches' unwillingness to actually act on their supposed moral high-ground.

Well, let me phrase it another way. Many Muslims were sympathetic to the NAZI's (among them Anwar Sadat), are you saying that that's typical thinking of the the Islamic religion. If you're going to hold Christians to a "higher moral standard" why not other religions?

Sweet zombie JESUS on a stick, just look at their entries on Tiktaalik, Archaeopterix and "Mosaic Evolution". As a biologist-in-training, it makes me tremble with omnicidal rage the likes of which only an EVILUTIONARY BIOLOGIST can know! Arrgh! They're infuriating! What with their LEFTISTNEWORLDORDERSPYBLIMP-gasp-ILLUMINATICONSPIRACYFREEMASON-gasp-UNITEDNATIONSJEWISH 9/11COVERUP!! ARGBABGBLE! It's all NONSENSICAL! *BAMF*(head explodes)

I had a similar reaction to their articles on relativity. I was simultaneously flabbergasted, appalled, and brought to tears of laughter. The "science" and "research" was so awfully terrible that I couldn't help but laugh.

Because some crazy moderator must've decided OMGPOLITICSMUSTBETOOCONTROVERSIAL or some shit of that type.

The official reason is "excessive negativity" which was certainly true, and there were a lot of misused tropes and natter as well as you can see from Fast Eddie's final edit. Still I don't agree with, or even understand why this warranted a full lockdown, unless there were recent waves of vandalism or edit wars going on.

I reported the page in Ask The Tropers, because it was very negative in tone and I wasn't sure if that was OK. Fast Eddie swooped in, zapped some stuff and locked the page.I added the reason in Locked Pages, because Fast Eddie often locks or even cuts pages that are swamped with negativity, so it was the most likely reason. Whether it is a reason to lock it is not in my purview, I just said that as it wasn't the first case.

There is, it's the sardonic "Uncyclopedia" which this wiki treats with affection. If you don't think that does not count as part of the far left in the West than you must be a part of it, having to look abroad for a "real" example. Until I found this article, tv tropes was my favourite website, treating all topics with the same positive parody. My only complaint was some of the "who cares?" tropes. This is why I can not believe they are allowing this page to not just exist, but expand. Hackjobs on Conservapedia are a dime a dozen on the internet, so why should tropes break it's nearly flawless, neutral record for another redundant attack. True liberals would rejoice in the adding of another flavour to the stew of free speech. Conservapedia, I find, does have it's uses. Although it is no doubt about 50% propaganda, the explanation and descriptions it gives for topics and phrases I find are often more concise, helpful and pedagogic than Wikipedia. If you guys do not mention these aspects on this Wiki, than it is not just your loss, but that of the majority of people who read this page.

There's a "Liberalpedia", but last time I checked, it was a deliberate parody of extreme leftwingism, rather than the accidental self-parody Conservapedia is.

Rationalwiki can get kind of intolerant of Christians and sometimes falls into this, but all in all it's too tongue-in-cheek to qualify as a Conservapedia distaff counterpart.

yessss :D

Yes... Everyone is just as distraught as you, it seems...