Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:The God Delusion

2008-10-02T03:04:22Z

Diagoras:

== Disprove God? ==

I don't think the headline is correct. He does not try to "disprove" God, he discusses why a supernatural creator almost certainly does not exist. He never contends that he is disproving God. --[[User:AtheistJohn|AtheistJohn]] 09:33, 23 April 2008 (EDT)
: Isn't that essentially trying to "disprove" God? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:32, 23 April 2008 (EDT)
::No, not the same thing. Good point, AtheistJohn. Dawkins is very careful to say that he offers no proof that god does not exist. He only says that the existence of a god or gods is extremely unlikely. I hesitate to change the opening sentence of the article (I suspect it would be instantly reverted!), but I propose "The God Delusion is a book by the atheist Richard Dawkins, in which he attempts to prove that the existence of God is extremely unlikely." [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 13:05, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

:::In "[[Expelled]]" he hedges his bets, estimated the likelihood of no God between 50% and around 98%. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:09, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

::::That is still not the same thing as "disproving" God. The point is, Christians, apologists, and conservatives (the main group of readers for this website) read the headline for this book and say, "But you can't disprove God! Dawkins is wrong!" Dawkins knows better to say this, because of the old argument about the celestial teapot orbiting Mars (one that is there, but because of our inferior technology, we can't see it). Since Dawkins never claims to disprove God, putting that as the headline of this article is deceiving. But as Humblpi said, any attempt to change this will instantly be reverted; it's probably pointless to even have a debate over this. --[[User:AtheistJohn|AtheistJohn]] 17:08, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

Debate is pointless here, but what wording do you suggest? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:11, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

:"The God Delusion is a book by the atheist Richard Dawkins, in which he attempts to prove that the existence of God is extremely unlikely." As Humblpi suggested up above; you must have overlooked it.--[[User:AtheistJohn|AtheistJohn]] 17:17, 23 April 2008 (EDT)
:: No, debate is not pointless. I don't think AtheistJohn and Humblepi have ''proved'' that Dawkins is not ''trying'' to disprove God: he might be trying and failing, or he might be trying to ''informally'' disprove whilst at the same time acknowledging that he can't ''formally'' disprove God's existence.
:: However, if he explicitly states that he offers no proof, then (a) the onus is on his critics to show that he ''is'' trying to disprove, and (b) the wording could at the very least be improved.
:: I'm out of time now, but if I don't forget, I'll come back in a couple of hours and either put Humblpi's wording in or think of something better myself. Unless of course someone has beaten me to it.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:08, 24 April 2008 (EDT)

==Bias?==

There appears to be some bias present in this article, as well as a preponderance of criticisms. Some more balance might be achieved by removing the biased language in the chapter analysis, and adding some positive reviews to balance out the criticisms. --[[User:Diagoras|Diagoras]] 23:04, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Godless liberal

2008-10-02T02:55:46Z

Diagoras:

Please don't delete this, is intended to diffuse tensions between left and right on this board. if there is a genuine reason why this cannot be accepted please let me know!

:1. Please sign your comments
:2. Why in the world should this ''not'' be deleted? What substance does this add to this encyclopedia? Shoud I add an article entitled <s>'porch monkey'</s> to diffuse tensions between african americans and caucasians on this wiki?
:I '''strongly''' advise a sysop to delete this article and protect this page so it won't be created again. The term "godless liberal" is a slur meant to demean good people whose only differences is in religious belief and political ideology. [[User:Stryker|Stryker]] 11:13, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

Sorry, if you feel this should be deleted then please do so. ([[User:Denzo|Denzo]] 11:18, 17 July 2007 (EDT))

:Denzo, I'm just trying to voice my concern. I'll leave it for a Sysop to decide; I'm already on thin ice as is for continually voicing dissent and debate here. [[User:Stryker|Stryker]] 11:37, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

*Sysops have decided. It will stay, and we invite improvement! --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 13:29, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

==Pejorative?==

Why was my version reverted? Godless Liberal strikes me as a pejorative phrase, and is it used for individuals who wish to purge religon?
--[[User:Diagoras|Diagoras]] 10:38, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

It is not pejorative it is straight to the point -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 10:41, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

:I've never heard it used in a non-insulting sense, except when being used as a joke. Godless isn't exactly a neutral term. {{unsigned|Diagoras}}

==Jokes==

[[George Clooney]] often jokingly describes himself as a 'Godless Liberal', trying to marginalize the true nature of the term.

[[Paul Zachary Myers]] also describes himself as such in the subtitle of his Pharyngula blog, "Evolution, development, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal."<ref>[http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/ Pharyngula blog]</ref>

----

We should not mention the actor and the blogger, unless as illustrations of the term.

On the other hand, the joking or satirical acknowledgment of a label (or any point for that matter) is a phenomenon which is interesting in itself. It deserves an article of its own. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:19, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

==Article==

Do all liberal atheists really believe in purging all references of god from public life? I know a few who might take offense at that suggestion. --[[User:Diagoras|Diagoras]] 22:55, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

Wall of Separation

2008-10-02T02:55:16Z

Diagoras: Undo revision 527460 by PCarson (Talk)

The '''"Wall of Separation"''' between church and state does not appear anywhere in the [[U.S. Constitution]]. However, many feel that the Establishment Clause provides for such a separation.

The phrase originally came from [[Roger Williams]] and was later quoted by [[Thomas Jefferson]] in a letter to the colony founded by Roger Williams, [[Rhode Island]]. However, Rhode Island did not even send a representative to the [[Constitutional Convention]] and refused for economic reasons for years even to ratify the [[U.S. Constitution]].

Roger Williams had been found guilty of preaching religious liberty in England, and he fled to Boston on Feb. 5, 1631. He was banished from that region by Puritan John Cotton.

Roger Williams next befriended the Narragansett Indians, who gave him
land for Providence Plantation, Rhode Island. This became the first place in America where state government did not control church government.

In 1639, Williams established the first Baptist Church in America. In response to his nemesis Mr. Cotton, Williams published "Mr. Cotton's Letter Lately Printed, Examined and Answered" (1644). In this Roger Williams wrote:

:The church of the Jews under the Old Testament in the type, and the church of the Christians under the New Testament in the anti-type, were both separate from the world; and when they opened a gap in the hedge or wall of separation between the garden of the church and the wilderness of the world, God hath ever broken down the wall ... therefore if He will ever please to restore His garden and paradise again, it must of necessity be walled in peculiarly unto Himself from the world.

This was the "wall of separation" to which Jefferson referred in his letter to the Danbury [[Baptist]]s in 1802.

[[category:politics]]

Talk:Godless liberal

2008-10-02T02:51:26Z

Diagoras:

Talk:Godless liberal

2008-05-06T01:46:22Z

Diagoras:

Cthulhu

2008-04-23T14:39:35Z

Diagoras:

[[Image:Cthulu.png|thumb|right]]
'''Cthulhu''' (pronounced "K'Thoo Loo") (Other spellings: Kutulu, Ktulu, Cthulu, Kthulhut, Thu Thu, Tulu) is a fictional entity (One of the so-called Great Old Ones) variously described as a "sleeping" or "dreaming" in the works of [[H. P. Lovecraft]]. Cthulhu sleeps in the sunken city of R'lyeh and when the stars are right, will reawaken ushering in the destruction of humanity. It is featured in the eponymous short story [[The Call of Cthulhu]], as well as many other works by both Lovecraft and his contemporaries.

Some have suggested a connection between Cthulhu and Judeo-Christian figures such as [[Satan]], though this comparison is shaky at best. In every Lovecraft story, the universe is full of strange and terrible entities that humans mistakenly call Gods, Cthulhu being a powerful but not unique creature with Godlike powers. Lovecraft himself was an Athiest, and his stories reflected his views of humanity's role in the universe as insignificant and at the mercy of greater, unknown powers.{{fact}}

[[Category:Fantasy]]

Cthulhu

2008-04-23T14:39:22Z

Diagoras:

Cthulhu

2008-04-23T14:39:09Z

Diagoras:

Talk:Godless liberal

2008-04-23T14:38:35Z

Diagoras:

Transhumanist

2007-10-28T18:28:54Z

Diagoras: Redirecting to Transhumanism

#REDIRECT[[Transhumanism]]

Bioconservative

2007-10-28T18:27:25Z

Diagoras: New page: '''Bioconservatives''' are individuals whom oppose human augmentation, whether cybernetic, genetic, or nanotechnological, as opposed to transhumanist whom advocate self-modification. ...

'''Bioconservatives''' are individuals whom oppose human augmentation, whether cybernetic, genetic, or nanotechnological, as opposed to [[transhumanist]] whom advocate self-modification.

{{stub}}

Biopolitics

2007-10-24T01:42:17Z

Diagoras:

'''Biopolitics''' is a term used for the unique political scale generated by [[transhumanism]]. Rather than conservative to liberal, the axis of biopolitics runs from [[bioconservative]] to [[technoprogressive]] or [[transhumanist.]]

{{stub}}

Biopolitics

2007-10-24T01:41:53Z

Diagoras: Undo revision 321399 by Special:Contributions/Diagoras (User talk:Diagoras)

Biopolitics

2007-10-24T01:40:45Z

Diagoras:

Biopolitics

2007-10-24T01:38:36Z

Diagoras: Made the article.

Talk:Disarmament treaties

2007-10-22T14:22:33Z

Diagoras:

Someone can feel free to delete this text:

<blockquote>
, although one might consider a barroom armed standoff to be an instance where one would be a good idea - "you put down your gun while I put mine down - slowly, now - and we'll let cooler heads prevail". Such a situation might reduce injuries to bystanders (we can safely assume the people who pulled the guns don't mind getting shot)
</blockquote>

Leaving the sentence that precedes it. I was on a roll and it seemed kinda cool. I think I watched a Western the other night... [[User:Human|Human]] 22:14, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

== End all life? ==

Isn't this an overstatement? I thought that modern calculations show only a 40-60% population loss, tops.
--[[User:Diagoras|Diagoras]] 10:22, 22 October 2007 (EDT)

Godless liberal

2007-10-22T14:18:45Z

Diagoras: Removed illogical suppositions, reaffirmed pejorative nature of term.

"'''Godless Liberal'''" is a pejorative term describing [[Liberal]]s who are [[Atheists]], or whom their opponents claim believe in purging spirituality and all references to [[God]] from public life.

[[George Clooney]] regularly describes himself as a 'Godless Liberal' in a joking manner.
[[category:politics]]

Wall of Separation

2007-10-16T14:11:57Z

Diagoras:

The "Wall of Separation" between church and state does not appear anywhere in the [[U.S. Constitution]]. However, many feel that the Establishment Clause provides for such a separation.

The phrase originally came from Roger Williams and was later quoted by Thomas Jefferson in a letter to the colony founded by Roger Williams, Rhode Island. However, Rhode Island did not even send a representative to the [[Constitutional Conventio]]n and refused for economic reasons for years even to ratify the [[U.S. Constitution]].

Roger Williams had been found guilty of preaching religious liberty in England, and he fled to Boston on Feb. 5, 1631. He was banished from that region by Puritan John Cotton.

Roger Williams next befriended the Narragansett Indians, who gave him
land for Providence Plantation, Rhode Island. This became the first place in America where state government did not control church government.

In 1639, Williams established the first Baptist Church in America. In response to his nemesis Mr. Cotton, Williams published "Mr. Cotton's Letter Lately Printed, Examined and Answered" (1644). In this Roger Williams wrote:

:The church of the Jews under the Old Testament in the type, and the church of the Christians under the New Testament in the anti-type, were both separate from the world; and when they opened a gap in the hedge or '''wall of separation''' between the garden of the church and the wilderness of the world, God hath ever broken down the wall ... therefore if He will ever please to restore His garden and paradise again, it must of necessity be walled in peculiarly unto Himself from the world.

This was the "wall of separation" to which Jefferson referred in his letter to the Danbury Baptists in 1802.

[[category:politics]]