Forum:Conservapedia votes to ban all atheists

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia.
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Index > BHOP > Conservapedia votes to ban all atheists
Note: This topic has been unedited for 3931 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.

Sometimes Conservapedia manages to parody itself better than I ever could. Maybe instead of banning atheists, they could make them, I dunno, wear a Star of David fish with legs stitched onto their coats? That way it would easy to identify them and revert all their edits without infringing on their rights. Maybe. --Pleb SYNDROME CUN medicate (butt poop!!!!) 13:50, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

That is hands down the funniest thing I've seen in ages. It reaffirms my belief in human nature to be utterly ludicrous without even noticing. --UU - natter UU Manhole.gif 14:13, Aug 29

“[Atheists] exist in a moral and intellectual void so enormous that all their mental and psychological energies are focused on the denial necessary to enable them to continue to function mentally in a rudimentary day-to-day fashion.”

~ Bugler on Atheists

“Atheists are a millstone around the neck of this project...They only hold the project back and their removal will constitute a great leap forward...It is time to act.”

~ DenningMR on cleansing Conservapedia

“And that leaves their toxic views standing unchallenged to poison the mind of our youth. We have to take them on, one way or the other. And what I propose is quicker, cleaner, and leaves more time for our proper work.”

~ Bugler on Atheists
True freedom and liberty is taking freedom and liberty away from someone else. Of course, Poe's Law being what it is, Bugler's probably one of those (*shudder*) atheists. I wouldn't put it past him. From what I hear, he can't even play the bugle. Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 15:04, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Psh, Conservapedia probably doesn't even have the guts to do what is truly necessary for the betterment of their wiki. You probably already know that I speak of a threat nearly as great as people who believe in no religion: The blacks and the mexicans. Look at how they score on standardized tests! It's always lower than white people's scores! They are holding back the wiki, dammit! We must act! Progress must be made at any cost! The scourge of the wiki must be expelled! SIEG HEIL! - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon Baloon.gif(Tick Tock) (Contribs) 16:57, Aug 29
How come we hadn't banned all belivers from uncyclopedia yet? Should we hold a vote?---Asteroid B612B612.jpg (aka Rataube) - Ñ 18:19, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
I should point out that Bugler has sysop privileges on Conservapedia. If he is an a*****t, he's doing a good job of blending in with all of the shotgun-wielding, Bible-eating (I hear it's a good source of fiber and glue) neocons there. --Pleb SYNDROME CUN medicate (butt poop!!!!) 22:02, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't care what your beliefs are, please come and edit Uncyc. However, I propose that we ban anyone who does not think that the above link is funny. MrN Icons-flag-gb.png 18:30, Aug 29
I'm a Pastafarian, like Jesus Christ was until he went all "experimental" — Sir Sycamore (talk) 21:24, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Alrighty! Time to ban religion outright, methinks. -- Hindleyite Converse?pedia 13:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Check the very bottom of the forum, now. I think Cajek's about to get sued for copyright infringement. --Mr. Monkey Sockmonkey.gif Pant-hoot here. 13:47, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Fair Use for purposes of parody or social commentary. Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 14:20, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, at least they haven't banned the Muslims, Pagans, Hindus, Jews, or Buddhists yet, or explicitly spelled out that one must actually be C-H-R-I-S-T-I-A-N. Then, if they do that, they'll be squabbling over whether prayer to the Virgin Mary (Catholicism) is permissible, and how much water to use for baptism and whether being baptized as an infant counts (Baptists vs Methodists)or if those who use other books besides the Bible (Jehovahs Witnesses/Mormons) count as nauseum. Yup, they opened up a nice can of worms. -- Simsilikesims(♀UN) Talk here. 05:59, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

They speak german

BAN THEM --LOLsupreme 18:21, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

or maybe not --LOLsupreme 18:21, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
but still --LOLsupreme 18:21, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
nobody does care --LOLsupreme 18:21, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
what a stupid joke --LOLsupreme 18:21, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
this forum is a clone --LOLsupreme 18:21, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
i saw E.T. --LOLsupreme 18:21, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
this joke is a clone --LOLsupreme 18:21, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
this clone is clone --LOLsupreme 18:21, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
did you ever thought about the meaning of life? --LOLsupreme 18:21, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
just on the toilet --LOLsupreme 18:21, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

They speak English

BAN THEM! - Rougethebat.gifAdmiral Enzo Aquarius-Dial the Gate SonicLivesPicture.png 21:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I was arguing for this years ago

I spent a couple weeks at Conservapedia, trying to troll to the maximum degree possible without anyone noticing I was a troll.

It was easier than I expected. I created an article called "South" and wrote "South is an area of the United States known for its exceptionally high moral standards," and it did not get deleted. Somebody just reminded me that the region was usually called "The South." O rly.

I also spent some time on "God" removing any references to there being any dispute over God's existence or will. Again, not a problem over there. At one point, somebody asked me to prove that God exists, and I said "It's in the Bible," and they told me to prove the Bible was right, and I said "God wrote it." I think that guy was banned. That's right: I pwned him right off the site.

I just might go fire up the old account, blame atheism for 9/11, and argue that banishing atheists would be the first step toward preventing future terrorist attacks. They'd probably give me some kind of award. talk 16:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Stop it. You're going to get us all killed. Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 20:32, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Banning Atheists is equal to saying that Athe does not exist, so either that supports Atheism or it does the opposite? Conservapedia cannot be quoted as saying it is an Encyclopedia that anyone can edit, now it should say "The Conservative Encyclopedia that anyone can edit, provided they aren't an Atheist or some other group that We at Conservapedia secretly hate and have banned because of that." I tried trolling there but they told me to keep adding to articles that I was doing a great job. I am not sure why they said that and it made me scared that they liked me so much that I left in a hurry. :) --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 04:19, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Their page on us still sucks

I'm just sayin'. It's sooo out of date. It doesn't even mention back in March we all started wearing sweaters, and nary a peep about that time that that thing happened. Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 06:09, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

You mean that thing that was funny? --Pleb SYNDROME CUN medicate (butt poop!!!!) 20:08, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
No. If it was, Uncyclopedia wouldn't be the worst. Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 22:44, 10 September 2008 (UTC)