Conservapedia proven right 

And I quote:
"Conservapedia statement: Atheistic Britain would embarrass itself in the World Cup

Liberal claptrap in response: Liberal denial shouts down any observation of the correlation between atheism and underachievement.

Result: England's performance at South Africa 2010 was officially their worst at a World Cup finals, according to Fifa."


That's right kiddies! Being an atheist makes you worse at soccer!! Well done, conservapedia, well done!

So, I wasn't aware that getting a few things right made all of your viewpoints reasonable. It is silly that a great deal of what's posted here is doing everything it can to misrepresent liberal responses, often utilizing only a piece of that response and leaving out some of the most essential bits. But hey, if you already know you're right, why should you have to prove it in the first place?

I think the very fact that Conservapedia needs to HAVE a grid pointing out times when people outside of conservatives have agreed with what they said is telling enough about its reliability.

Most times, news outlets have to point it out when they get things wrong.

And glancing at this list... "proven right" is a very loosely defined term. Like the "Jon Stewart Curse"? Jon Stewart has only had bit parts in films, and has confessed himself that it's because he's not a very good actor (he's a comedian). For the record, he's also confessed he's not a journalist.

One more: The homosexuality in animals thing? I don't know about the penguins, but trust me when I tell you that the best example of this is in bonobo apes, who have shown bisexual and homosexual mating habits. Not to mention the exhaustive list of numerous birds and mammals who also engage in the "lifestyle." The fact that one penguin found a female mate after mating with another male doesn't say squat, except (in my opinion) maybe he wasn't gay OR straight, but bisexual to begin with.

^^^I dont no why your being so sarcastic... In england God is not very prominent, and the people there don't have him to guide them! When they go up against a country like America, a country loved by God, they dont stand a chance.

Cinders I dont no where you get your sources but there obviously wrong, because homosexuality is purely invented by evil humans, or the Devil working through humankind.

^ I have not laughed so hard a comment here on Fanpop for such a long time. Pretty sure you're just a troll account looking for attention, but regardless of whether this comment is a parody or not, it is hilarious.

^^I'm not a troll, you can't just go around labeling people a troll if there views are a lot different to yours. If you think my beliefs are laughable fine, I think the same of yours.

It's true underperformance is linked to atheism. When you have something so great in your life like God, your living it to the fullest and this affects your academic, sporting, and emotional capacity.

It's true underperformance is linked to atheism

And you say you're not a troll.. Look, Karbon, if this is you being serious, then you've got serious problems. It'd be on thing if you didn't pretend you have the logical high ground without any real evidence to support your claims whatsoever. But your views on God are just as ridiculous. You're apparently under the impression that anyone who doesn't believe in the same religion as you is somehow lost or in need of help. As a Jew with a diversity of friends from a variety of religious backgrounds, I can't help but wonder at such a statement, which is basically telling me I've lived my life as a lie. If you want to play the Jehovah's witness, be my guest, but be ready to be called out for it, a lot.

"I'm not a troll, you can't just go around labeling people a troll if there views are a lot different to yours."
- Says the person who labels Obama a muslim because of an ignorant assumption about his middle name.

"If you think my beliefs are laughable fine, I think the same of yours."
- You don't know my beliefs. What if I agree with you? You laugh at your own beliefs?

"It's true underperformance is linked to atheism. When you have something so great in your life like God, your living it to the fullest and this affects your academic, sporting, and emotional capacity."
- I've represented my region in 3 sports, have completed a Master's degree in field of study considered to be pretty complex, philosophically dense and emotionally stressful and have been invited to present and publish my Master's thesis. Oh, and also, I'm an atheist.

Actually, atheism is linked to the advancement of society. link is a very simple article that talks about how more religious countries are poorer and have lower levels of education etc than more atheistic or secular countries. Most of this really comes down to economics: the more money you have, the more access you have to resources to increase intelligence, and those with higher IQs are less likely to believe in gods of any kind. So how is it "underperforming" if secularism is, in fact (and it is fact), advancing society in multiple and varied ways?

But like I said, I think you are troll, but there are actually people in the world who genuinely believe the junk you've posted so maybe this discussion will be useful somewhere along the line.

I stand by my point that the very fact that this page exists in the first place is a testament to how biased and ill-informed it is. Pointing to few things you've been proven right about - however loosely you define the term "proven" - is like a five year old pointing to his one fingerprint painting that kind of looks like a dog, instead of a mess of paint.

As for my source - I was *this close* to being a bioanthropology major. I took three classes over a combined thirty week period studying the behavior of primates, including chimpanzees and bonobos. My sources are my professors, my textbooks, and film documentaries which literally document the act of bonobo multi-sexuality. So I hope that appeases you as a source. As for the others listed, that was also from my textbooks, and Scientific American (I think - or some other such science magazine).

Now, I know for some baffling reason you hate science, so maybe you won't accept that, but I know to 99% of the population, university professors, textbooks, and eye-witness film documentation of a fact pretty much makes it reliable.

I have my own theory on religion and poverty.

I believe the poorer you are, the more you need religion to guide and comfort you and unify you as a culture and a community. Take it from one living in a highly interactive and highly religious community in Africa. Here, religion brings you together, bonds you as family, and allows you to shoulder burdens (like our current water shortage) that may otherwise be unbearable.

Missy, you know correlation is not causation (though I don't know if KarbonKopy is aware of this). And even if it was - does Atheism cause you to want to further your education and wealth base, or do wealth and education lead you to Atheism? There are plenty of wealthy, highly educated and successful people of all religions in America. My cousin just earned her masters at divinity school, studied theology and hinduism in India, and is still a completely devout Christian.

I think anyone who claims that Atheists are inferior to the religious is full of arrogance and ignorance. But Atheists who claim that the religious are made up of the poor and ignorant aren't much better, in my mind.

I'm just sayin'.

EDIT: Not to mention the fact that the IQ test was developed by eugenicists, and has been proven to be racist and prejudicial to the white middle and upper class specifically.

That was my whole point...

My mistake. Carry on.

I haven't got "problems", I'm just passionate about my religion and my beliefs. And personally yes I think non-Christians need help to be guided back to the light of God, and there's nothing wrong with that. I want to help them!

I do know you're beliefs misanthrope, I've seen your comments around here and there awfully left-wing. Almost communist, but then, just about everyone on this stupid site is :/

Atheists dont have the inner strong spirituality to guide them and this affects there everyday life, meaning they have a habit to underperform. They are also more likely to be obese- see this article link


"Actually, atheism is linked to the advancement of society. HERE is a very simple article that talks about how more religious countries are poorer and have lower levels of education etc than more atheistic or secular countries"
Well that's just based on Islam countries like Saudi Arabia where they don't let girls go to school and stuff. The USA is religious and we are the most prosperous nation in the world, with the best education rates and the most freedom.

I'm. Not. A. Troll. I don't care if you don't believe me, I'm still going to hold my beliefs and your never going to convince me otherwise.

Cinders, no, thats not a source, as textbooks are all biased in favor of the liberals, especially scientific ones. Many American textbooks are actually rabidly liberal and routinely distort history in order to advance a left leaning agenda. Richard Rahn once wrote:
“ Many student textbooks, particularly in Europe, and only to a lesser degree in the U.S., have a strong anti-capitalist, pro-government or socialist bias. "

I'm not poor yet I am highly religious, so your theory doesn't work.

Based on your responses, you know shit about my beliefs. You either don't know, or you are a troll.

Again, I point you back towards all the evidence that you are ignoring. Atheism is not connected with "underperformance."

The most obese country in the world is the link. That directly contradicts your argument. Also seems that link. Go figure. You also did not read your own propaganda. Read your own link properly. It actually doesn't say that atheists are more likely to be obese, as much as it wants to.

"Well that's just based on Islam countries like Saudi Arabia where they don't let girls go to school and stuff. The USA is religious and we are the most prosperous nation in the world, with the best education rates and the most freedom."
1) No it isn't. It is worldwide. As in, the whole world and multiple religions. Not everyone charges into research as biased as you clearly do.
2) According to Forbes, the richest country in the world is Qatar, an Islamic country. The USA is the 7th richest country in the world in 2012. Norway, with it's comparitively high rate of atheism, is ahead of the United States. According to link, the United States ranks 10th in "prosperity," behind Norway, Denmark, the Netherlands and Finland, all countries that report high levels of atheism. The United States even falls behind Sweden, the country that has found in multiple studies to be the most atheistic country in the world. New Zealand (my country! woot!) and Australia also have a lot of atheists and also rank higher than the USA in prosperity according to this data.
3) According to link, Canada, Israel, Japan are more highly educated than the USA. And again, little ol' NZ ranks just behind the USA.
4) Most freedom? Bullshit. Is abortion legal? Can homosexuals marry? Everyone got equal rights? I don't think so. More freedom than most, but not the most freedom. Not by a longshot.

"Cinders, no, thats not a source, as textbooks are all biased in favor of the liberals, especially scientific ones."
- Oh, I see, we are supposed to get our information from your biased sources. It all makes sense now. We are aiming for ignorance rather than enlightenment.

It's not my theory, so I'm glad it doesn't work. It was the application of your theory to the real world to show you it's ridiculousness, so I'm glad we can agree that your theory is wrong.

I don't need to convince you that you are troll. I just think you are based on various things. What you think on that matter is irrelevant.

And the conspiracy theories never end...

For the record, I don't think you're a troll. I've seen you around before and I know you fully believe everything you say, and are trying to spread what you believe to be the truth. But truth comes to exposing yourself to as many different sources as possible. Because - and yeah, make sure you're not drinking anything - I agree with you.

The fact of the matter is every single source you will ever find under the sun is biased to some degree. The key is finding the one that is trying to be the most balanced and present the facts instead of opinion. The problem is, every single source from the incredibly biased like Fox News or on the opposite spectrum, the New York Times, to the imperceptibly biased source claims to be presenting "the facts" and not spin or opinion. So the talent becomes learning to differentiate between bullshit and not bullshit yourself by the way it's presented, and the way it's discussed. If you're hearing a surprising amount of one side of the story, step outside yourself and ask yourself, what WOULD the other side say about this? If you can't answer that question - find out.

I watch Fox News all the time. Why? Well, my boyfriend thinks it's because I'm a fan of self-punishment. But really, it's to hear what they say, and compare it to what I hear from other sources. And trust me when I tell you, I have compared it to many other sources and it is far from "fair and balanced." That's not to say that any other news channel is any better, but I'm just trying to make you understand, you can't spend your life listening to one radio station, watching one news channel, and reading one news paper. You gotta look at them all to get the whole picture.

So - I assume you are aware of the concept of Occam's Razor? If not, it's the philosophy that when presented with the entire realm of possibilities, the least complicated explanation is most likely the correct one. To put this into an example, if you hear hoof beats on a farm in America, it could be a giraffe, a gazelle, a horse, a zebra, or a host of other hooved-animals, even a foley artist making hoof-sounds. Considering none but the horse (and the foley artist) are commonly found in America, the least complicated explanation would be to assume that you hear a horse (especially as foley artists don't take their work out of the studio often ;)). Not zebras or foley artists - horses. Follow?

So. Let me present to you the facts as they have been presented.

Your facts say that all or the vast majority of school textbooks - and I assume this is grade school through university level textbooks - have a decisively liberal bias. With the huge number of publishing agencies that have federal and state contracts to provide textbooks, this suggests a massive conspiracy among all of them to craft this liberal bias. How did all of the liberals take control of all the publishing agencies? And how can they convince their editors and writers to go along with it? Again, some form of massive, secret conspiracy, I suppose. Even the publishers in Texas, a red state, and one of the largest textbook-producing states in the nation, would have to be liberal for this plan to work.

Now, consider my facts: One wiki website on the internet that can be edited by anyone called Conservapedia (the bias is in the NAME), and one News network, owned by Rupert Murdoch, a man who has clear business as well as political ulterior motives, is biased.

Which one's the horse and which one is the zebra?

EDIT: typos and grammar