As Stephen Colbert remarked during a speech at the 2006 White House Correspondents Dinner at which a visibly uncomfortable ‘President’ Junior Bush was on the dais, “Reality has a well-known liberal bias.”
To counter that perceived ‘bias’ at Wikipedia, Eagle Forum nutcase Phyllis Schafly’s kid, Andrew, mounted a dimwitted Christopublican-Free Market-Literal Bible site in 2006 to spread the neoconservative message with bile-laced faith-based delusion, the same delusion that’s damn near destroyed the country, and may succeed in tearing it apart yet. But, hilariously enough, even the Bible as it’s written is not conservative enough for raggedy Andy he actually launched a ‘Conservative Bible Project’ to rewrite those portions he considers too ‘liberal.’ (One would guess that would be any passage expressing kindness for the homeless and poor, berating the rich and telling them to give their possessions away, or asking the reader to forgive one’s enemies and renounce the judging of others.)
Here, Bob Carroll of the Skeptic’s Dictionary drags the little Liar-For-Jesus and his buncombe-packed ‘encyclopedia’ over the glowing hot coals of rationality:
By Bob Carroll
The Skeptic’s Dictionary Newsletter (Skepdic)
Vol. 9 No. 9
September 3, 2010
The group of Christian conservatives (led by Andrew Schafly) who run Conservapedia call their confabulations and rewriting of history, biology, and everything else under the sun, an alternative to “liberal” Wikipedia. Worse, they call their own set of fairy tales “the trustworthy encyclopedia.” They swear to it on a stack of Bibles so it must be true. Their delusions are matched only by the paranormal evangelicals at Skeptical Investigations.
The Conservapedia folks have an entry for “Skepdic,” where they chide me for not listing global warming and evolution as “junk science.” To these puerile jabberwocks, vorpal swords in hand, theology is the queen of the sciences. Under the “contents” heading for their Skepdic entry, they note: “The website also contains articles attacking Biblical history such as Noah’s Ark.” The story of Noah is literal history to these choir boys.
I’m referred to as a “militant” atheist, whatever that is. If you click on “atheist” you find these neo-con confabulators writing: “Unlike Christianity, which is supported by a large body of sound evidence, atheism has no proof and evidence supporting its ideology.” A man could crack a few ribs with falling-down laughter at the claims these clowns make. By proof and evidence I suppose they mean faith. They get very nasty–nasty as only an idiotologist can get. The nicest thing they say about atheism is that it is an ideology. It isn’t an ideology, by any definition, but correct usage of terms is as irrelevant as getting the facts straight to these theocrats. The rest of their diatribe against atheism qualifies them for the Phil Plait certifiable-dick-of-the-year-award.
Dumbest Website Ever
It would be impossible to identify the dumbest website ever, but in addition to Conservapedia I would put Saberpoint in the top ten. Saberpoint’s motto is “riding roughshod over the asinine and idiotic” while “supporting the conservative cause and the tea party movement.”
2010 Bob Carroll.
While I’m not necessarily an atheist deeply cynical agnostic is more like it — and tend to agree with J.B.S. Haldane’s quote: “Now, my suspicion is that the universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose. I suspect that there are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamed of, in any philosophy,” I admire Bob Carroll and his Skeptic’s Dictionary for attempting to bring some needed rational and scientific enlightenment to a country that’s drowning in revisionist history, goofball religious gullibility, and pure idiotic tripe.
They’re partially right. While I contest “ideology” to a certain extent… one cannot prove something does not exist: some place, somehow, somewhere. That’s a philosophical truism. Though you can come close, as in “there are no humans born and living on the moon.” Of course then we get into alternate universes, alternate realities, things we cannot perceive… by the time you add all the caveats you have one big mess.
But as far as “large body of solid evidence” for Christianity?
Ah, unless he’s referring to anecdotal, pure fantasy.
The only ‘large body of sound evidence’ for Christianity, or even the existence of Jesus, is the New Testament of the Bible itself, and one paragraph from Jewish historian Flavius Josephus, which many scholars doubt is authentic since it is not written in the style of his other histories. (BTW, Josephus was born in 37 AD, so he could not have personally met or seen Jesus.) There are no Roman or other records of that era proving that Jesus — Yeshua bar Joseph — was born, preached or was crucified. (Roman records do reflect, though, the crucifixion in that time frame of the Essenes ‘Teacher of Righteousness’ who taught an ideology very similar to Jesus’.) All of these centuries of trouble and misery over a religious icon who may have been invented in 67 CE by an imaginative writer named Matthew.
I’ve always suspected that Jesus did exist, but he may have been someone like you mentioned. So many throughout time have had an obvious interest in turning him into what they want… not who he was. Bart Ehrman in Lost Christianities talks about all the various factions that struggled to control the image and message of Jesus. My guess is we got the meanest, nastiest: most likely to do anything to control all that.
Kind of like why American Indians live on reservations, there was slavery… etc. He with the biggest club and the willingness; and the cunning, to use it.
Add to that the fact that the Holy Roman Church dropped the Gnostic Gospels from the ‘official’ New Testament. Most likely this is because parts didn’t agree with the political aims of the Holy Roman Empire. I’m surprised the Sermon on the Mount was left in, but I imagine the papal ‘Power Elite’ at the time thought it would help keep the sheeple passive and under their thumb. Any altruistic ideal of Christianity pretty much went to hell, so to speak, when it was embraced by Emperor Constantine in 313 CE. Conveniently, special dispensation was made to the Emperor so that he could continue making war, killing his enemies, and running his bloody empire as before. So it was then; so it is now. There has never been a truly Christian nation on this earth.
More like “ejected”/”rejected”/”didn’t even consider” at Nicea. Reminds me of the “investigation” of 9/11 only… far worse.
I would agree about never a true Christian nation. I’d mention Switzerland, but they willing feed the money changers and enable evil with nutless neutrality.