Conservapedia Explains What Atheists Do…

If the idiot flames represent the Christian religion and the fireman, the atheist, I can see the resemblance. Just, I’m sure they’re really trying to say, “Oh look, heathens burn churches”.

No, nobody really takes Conservapedia seriously.

Even the Tea Party crazies draw the line somewhere.

Would you object if they showed a (photoshopped) picture of somebody eating babies?

Wow. I have seriously been slacking in my atheistic duties. I have not set fire to anything since I lost power last month and lit a candle. Even that seems to pale in comparison. Is there a schedule for massive events like that in the picture or do we just do these things anarchically on our own time?

Had another thought regarding whether anyone takes Conservapædia seriously.

My employers are Ukrainian Orthodox and voice conservative notions all the time, and on occasion turn on FOX News during work hours. They are also guilty of nepotism. Which isn’t itself a bad thing, but many of the shop floor (but mostly those in charge) are either family or members of their church. This one time I had to work on the business laptop belonging to the engineer, a son of another employee and church member, and I discovered he had bookmarked a wiki for orthodox Christianity. I didn’t look deeply into it, but it gave me the impression that if he or anyone else at my job knew of Conservapædia they would surely be visiting it daily.

The things I hear at work cause much head-desking. And drinking. And it’s worse during the winter months.

like yet another atheist up there kinda pointed at,i see it as this group of Christians calling them selves destructive and harmful and atheists as heroes risking our lives to save others,least that’s the image in my head when using firemen and fire as a analogy for Christians and atheists.

It seems pretty clear from the nature of the links posted alongside the image – Christianity is growing rapidly, has “exploded” – that the fire is Christianity and the atheist is the hapless fireman, not the absent arsonist. So it’s dumb, but not malicious per se. Unlike much of the rest of Conservapaedia, which frequently manages to be both.

That’s an awesome image. I don’t actually think of myself as heroic, but if they insist…

I’m pretty familiar with Conservapaedia. The user who uploaded/posted this is a long-term sysop and has a history of this kind of wacky nonsense on many different sites. He’s not a poe. This whole thing may be taken down tomorrow (they seem to memory hole things a lot), but it’s not the work of a random parodist.

Also, the “essays” by this user are very commonly half-sensical analogies. Christianity is actually the raging fire that cannot be stopped, which I’m sure was meant to be a good thing, and the atheist is the helpless firefighter (and not an arsonist, just to be clear).

I guarantee that no thought was given to the implications of this metaphor beyond “firefighter who can’t stop the fire:fire :: atheist:Christianity.”

If I try to access Conservapedia, I get an “Internal Server Error”. Looks like the server has finally imploded under the Sheer Weight of the Stupid … 8)

So…that would be a life saving hero trying to stop a dangerous, powerful force? I thought that Christians liked to play themselves up as persecuted victims?

Makes sense, Christianity is looking forward to the apocalypse. Fire=bad. Firemen=good. I like it. Plus, firefighters are hot. That’s why they sell so many calendars. 😉

Conservapedia must not have seen the Answers in Genesis billboard with the kid with the gun. Atheists obviously prefer to shoot other people over burning down buildings, duh.

When will Conservapedia publish our closely guarded recipes for roasting babies?

On one hand this is funny in a way. On the other hand, since they’re serious it is decidedly unfunny.

Isn’t conservapedia like Wikipedia? Can’t we take some of Hemant’s funny images of baby food and also post them as things atheists do?

And here I thought it was supposed to be the burning image of Touchdown Jesus which got torched by act of God. That must mean atheists are Gods.

billy joel says it best: “we didn’t start the fire; it was always burning since the world’s been turning.”

God is the emperor’s new clothes. Religion is everybody going along with the crowd in saying how nice the emperor’s new clothes look. Atheists are the little boy who says that the emperor has no clothes on.

They should have used that as the picture. But of course Conservapedia is not interested in accuracy. They prefer to post an ambiguous picture that can be interpreted with “conservative glasses”.

Not related but we could bust this poll 🙂

http://online.wsj.com/community/groups/question-day-229/topics/should-medicaid-cover-morning-after-pill

Before reading these comments I was confused. I just thought it was a guy standing next to a fire. I guess if that is a Church, I see what they are implying.

However, their picture and word choice combination is not well thought out if the point is to make atheists look bad. To me, the words “rapid rise” imply that the fire is christianity. “stop” implies that atheists are firemen. Firemen are good, right? Fire is bad, right?

An inferno of unstoppable destruction staring a solitary fireman in the face sounds perfectly accurate when describing christianity vs. atheists.

Of course when conservative Christians look at that that picture, they think an evil atheist (not pictured) burned down a church and the firefighter in foreground is a concerned Christian. That was the intended interpretation for the intended audience (conservative Christians). The mods at Conservapedia don’t care if a handful of atheists interpret it differently. The whole point of Conservapedia is to present the world through the conservative Christian perspective for conservative Christians.

They are just trying to hold the flock in line… and keep the herd from straying. Facts and truth are secondary. They put God first.

They almost always shut up when I mention Jonestown, and how Jim Jones was pinker than a rare steak. They usually shut up or whip out the tired “not Christianity” excuse. So no, Communism and Christianity are not mutually exclusive.

It’s funny that people claim they are mutually exclusive considering that there is a form of Communism that is exclusively Christian. Christian Communists interpret parts of the Bible as meaning that Communism is the ideal social system as taught by Jesus and lived by the Apostles.

Key passages that they use to support this include:

Acts 2:44-45 “All the believers were together and had everything in common. Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need.”

Acts 2:32-35 “No one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they shared everything they had. With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and much grace was upon them all. There were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned lands or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone as he had need…”

One could make the case that the early Christians were the original pinkos, and that it wasn’t until 1700+ years later that anyone thought of making Communism secular or atheistic.

I’m not at all surprised. They’re a bunch of liars with an agenda. There’s no depth to which they wouldn’t stoop.

Wait… so Christianity is a raging, destructive fire, an the atheist is a firefighter trying to figure out how to stop it? The Conservapedia editor who put the caption on this picture epic fails at analogies.

I must say I like it. Atheist – fireofficer trying to stop the destructive cataclysm – Christianity. Good.

This addition was added by User:Conservative on Conservapedia. Conservative is a bit off even by the standard of Conservapedia editors and is responsible for most of the stranger anti-gay and anti-atheist material on Conservapedia. One can be confident that almost any article with a title of the form “Atheism and _” or “Homosexuality and _” is due to him. I wouldn’t make a generalization from his actions to all of Conservapedia aside from the fact that the rest of that project (including the founder Andrew Schlafly) puts up with and apparently condones him putting this junk all over including the main page. (Note that before his time on Conservapedia the user was banned from Wikipedia. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Kdbuffalo_2 for most of the problems with him on that project.)

As long as we’re mocking Conservapedia, I’m going to more or less gratuitously point out my latest blog entry as relevant, where I discuss Andrew Schafly’s decision that mathematicss has been infected by liberalism: http://religionsetspolitics.blogspot.com/2010/08/conservapedia-pnp-and-fields-medal.html .

ButchKitties: Even better is Acts: Chapter 5, where a husband & wife die for withholding some of their property:
1 But a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession, 2 And kept back part of the price, his wife also being privy to it, and brought a certain part, and laid it at the apostles’ feet. 3 But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land? 4 Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God. 5 And Ananias hearing these words fell down, and gave up the ghost: and great fear came on all them that heard these things.6 And the young men arose, wound him up, and carried him out, and buried him. 7 And it was about the space of three hours after, when his wife, not knowing what was done, came in. 8 And Peter answered unto her, Tell me whether ye sold the land for so much? And she said, Yea, for so much. 9 Then Peter said unto her, How is it that ye have agreed together to tempt the Spirit of the Lord? behold, the feet of them which have buried thy husband are at the door, and shall carry thee out. 10 Then fell she down straightway at his feet, and yielded up the ghost: and the young men came in, and found her dead, and, carrying her forth, buried her by her husband.

Examples, well there is the Spanish Inquisition (bet you didn’t expect that), the repression of Jews throughout history, the Crusades, the destruction of Muslim science by the Catholic church, Catholic priests raping children and covering it up, the “troubles” in Northern Ireland, 9/11 in New York, 7/7 in London, 3/11 in Madrid, plenty of suicide murderers, the limits placed on education by fanatics who want to change science to fit their myths, all those idiot parents who chose to pray rather than take their children to see a doctor, all the wasted money conned out of gullible people by churches, the numerous attacks on gay people and the limiting of their rights, the repression of women throughout history and even today on religious grounds and, the deaths of millions in Africa who were told that condoms help to spread AIDS.

Perhaps “raging fire” is a little flowery as a metaphor but there are examples of how Christianity and religion in general are forces of destruction. That isn’t to say that they cannot also do good of course but I’d give up that little benefit if we could get rid of the negative things with it.