Talk:Atheistic Style - Revision history

JohnS001: /* False Information */

2010-05-22T23:18:53Z

False Information

JohnS001 at 22:51, May 22, 2010

2010-05-22T22:51:47Z

ClaireB at 03:58, July 1, 2009

2009-07-01T03:58:54Z

TK: /* Black Holes */

2009-07-01T03:56:36Z

Black Holes

ClaireB at 03:49, July 1, 2009

2009-07-01T03:49:55Z

BlueMoon: My personal experience would indicate this article is wrong in some places and does not give an acurrate view of how to tell if an article is written by an atheist.

2009-06-26T15:35:18Z

My personal experience would indicate this article is wrong in some places and does not give an acurrate view of how to tell if an article is written by an atheist.

BHarlan: /* Black Holes */ I won't add to Aschlafly's comments except to say that the Black Hole page needs a serious rewrite to remove both honest mistakes and DinsdaleP-style confusion. ~~~~

2009-03-18T17:10:41Z

Black Holes: I won't add to Aschlafly's comments except to say that the Black Hole page needs a serious rewrite to remove both honest mistakes and DinsdaleP-style confusion. ~~~~

Aschlafly: reply re: black holes

2009-03-18T16:50:16Z

reply re: black holes

CodyH: /* Black Holes */

2009-03-18T16:43:32Z

Black Holes

Ieuan: /* Black Holes */

2009-01-11T18:08:55Z

Black Holes

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:18, May 22, 2010
Line 143:		Line 143:
	==False Information==		==False Information==
	Speaking as someone who has many atheist friends, I find much of this page to be absolutely false. For example: #1 is a classic Straw Man logical fallacy (first, there never has been an atheistic society in history and second, democracy demonstrably does not rely on Christianity - see India for one clear counter-example). Numbers 3, 5, 6, 8, and 11 are utterly false. Case in point: 100% of atheists I know believe in love, intrinsic beauty, and fidelity (disproving #3); every atheist I've ever met notes that there are things that have yet to be explained by science (disproving #6); pretty much every atheist I've ever met has been optimistic and happy (disproving #8); #11 is actually based on education level, knowledge of basic research methods, and similar non-religious elements. Thus, if the point of both the article and site is to provide "truth", this article clearly fails and thus should be fixed. (I'm willing to fix it, but have not done so due to a desire not to be banned for merely trying to help the site live up to its intended purpose.) --[[User:JohnS001\|JohnS001]] 18:51, 22 May 2010 (EDT)		Speaking as someone who has many atheist friends, I find much of this page to be absolutely false. For example: #1 is a classic Straw Man logical fallacy (first, there never has been an atheistic society in history and second, democracy demonstrably does not rely on Christianity - see India for one clear counter-example). Numbers 3, 5, 6, 8, and 11 are utterly false. Case in point: 100% of atheists I know believe in love, intrinsic beauty, and fidelity (disproving #3); every atheist I've ever met notes that there are things that have yet to be explained by science (disproving #6); pretty much every atheist I've ever met has been optimistic and happy (disproving #8); #11 is actually based on education level, knowledge of basic research methods, and similar non-religious elements. Thus, if the point of both the article and site is to provide "truth", this article clearly fails and thus should be fixed. (I'm willing to fix it, but have not done so due to a desire not to be banned for merely trying to help the site live up to its intended purpose.) --[[User:JohnS001\|JohnS001]] 18:51, 22 May 2010 (EDT)
		+
		+	Addendum: black holes have been proven to exist, this has been the case for a couple decades now. --[[User:JohnS001\|JohnS001]] 19:18, 22 May 2010 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:51, May 22, 2010
Line 140:		Line 140:

	I would have thought if that if they did want to contribute constructively they would have edited the article themselves. Instead they have just sort to degrade it in the talk section. I do wish them a hearty Godspeed with you TK!--[[User:ClaireB\|ClaireB]] 23:58, 30 June 2009 (EDT)		I would have thought if that if they did want to contribute constructively they would have edited the article themselves. Instead they have just sort to degrade it in the talk section. I do wish them a hearty Godspeed with you TK!--[[User:ClaireB\|ClaireB]] 23:58, 30 June 2009 (EDT)
		+
		+	==False Information==
		+	Speaking as someone who has many atheist friends, I find much of this page to be absolutely false. For example: #1 is a classic Straw Man logical fallacy (first, there never has been an atheistic society in history and second, democracy demonstrably does not rely on Christianity - see India for one clear counter-example). Numbers 3, 5, 6, 8, and 11 are utterly false. Case in point: 100% of atheists I know believe in love, intrinsic beauty, and fidelity (disproving #3); every atheist I've ever met notes that there are things that have yet to be explained by science (disproving #6); pretty much every atheist I've ever met has been optimistic and happy (disproving #8); #11 is actually based on education level, knowledge of basic research methods, and similar non-religious elements. Thus, if the point of both the article and site is to provide "truth", this article clearly fails and thus should be fixed. (I'm willing to fix it, but have not done so due to a desire not to be banned for merely trying to help the site live up to its intended purpose.) --[[User:JohnS001\|JohnS001]] 18:51, 22 May 2010 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:58, July 1, 2009
Line 138:		Line 138:

	*Evidently they are here only to troll, ClaireB. Especially since they accuse the site owner of parody. If it is parody, they are very poor at it, because I don't find much that is funny. Join me in wishing a hearty "Godspeed!" to Blue, will you? --[[User:TK\|'''ṬK''']]<sub><small><small>/Admin</small></small></sub><sup>[[User_Talk:TK\|/Talk]]</sup> 23:56, 30 June 2009 (EDT)		*Evidently they are here only to troll, ClaireB. Especially since they accuse the site owner of parody. If it is parody, they are very poor at it, because I don't find much that is funny. Join me in wishing a hearty "Godspeed!" to Blue, will you? --[[User:TK\|'''ṬK''']]<sub><small><small>/Admin</small></small></sub><sup>[[User_Talk:TK\|/Talk]]</sup> 23:56, 30 June 2009 (EDT)
		+
		+	I would have thought if that if they did want to contribute constructively they would have edited the article themselves. Instead they have just sort to degrade it in the talk section. I do wish them a hearty Godspeed with you TK!--[[User:ClaireB\|ClaireB]] 23:58, 30 June 2009 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:56, July 1, 2009
Line 136:		Line 136:

	BlueMoon do you really want to contribute or are you just here to cause trouble?--[[User:ClaireB\|ClaireB]] 23:49, 30 June 2009 (EDT)		BlueMoon do you really want to contribute or are you just here to cause trouble?--[[User:ClaireB\|ClaireB]] 23:49, 30 June 2009 (EDT)
		+
		+	*Evidently they are here only to troll, ClaireB. Especially since they accuse the site owner of parody. If it is parody, they are very poor at it, because I don't find much that is funny. Join me in wishing a hearty "Godspeed!" to Blue, will you? --[[User:TK\|'''ṬK''']]<sub><small><small>/Admin</small></small></sub><sup>[[User_Talk:TK\|/Talk]]</sup> 23:56, 30 June 2009 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:49, July 1, 2009
Line 134:		Line 134:

	:::: If nobody else objects, I would like to rewrite this article for clarity, accuracy, and non-offensiveness. As this article was apparently written by a parodist, and he wants it down too, I doubt anyone will mind, but I don't want to be overhasty. [[User:BlueMoon\|BlueMoon]] 11:35, 26 June 2009 (EDT)		:::: If nobody else objects, I would like to rewrite this article for clarity, accuracy, and non-offensiveness. As this article was apparently written by a parodist, and he wants it down too, I doubt anyone will mind, but I don't want to be overhasty. [[User:BlueMoon\|BlueMoon]] 11:35, 26 June 2009 (EDT)
		+
		+	BlueMoon do you really want to contribute or are you just here to cause trouble?--[[User:ClaireB\|ClaireB]] 23:49, 30 June 2009 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:35, June 26, 2009
Line 104:		Line 104:
	:::Regarding "[[User:CodyH\|CodyH]] 11:43 28 March 2009 (CST)": Cody, are you "editing from the future" as a comment on your belief in black holes? It won't convince people here.		:::Regarding "[[User:CodyH\|CodyH]] 11:43 28 March 2009 (CST)": Cody, are you "editing from the future" as a comment on your belief in black holes? It won't convince people here.
	:::I won't add to Aschlafly's comments except to say that the [[Black Hole]] page needs a serious rewrite to remove both honest mistakes and DinsdaleP-style confusion. Unfortunately, I don't have time for that right now. [[User:BHarlan\|BHarlan]] 13:10, 18 March 2009 (EDT)		:::I won't add to Aschlafly's comments except to say that the [[Black Hole]] page needs a serious rewrite to remove both honest mistakes and DinsdaleP-style confusion. Unfortunately, I don't have time for that right now. [[User:BHarlan\|BHarlan]] 13:10, 18 March 2009 (EDT)
		+
		+	:::: The existence of black holes has been shown mathematically possible (and necessary under certain conditions) and matter has been observed falling into them. As for the way science works, if future observations disprove the existence of black holes (which is considered to be unlikely) then the idea of black holes will be thrown out as erroneous and new ideas will be generated to explain the data. That is the beauty of science: it is not afraid to find its own errors and fix them. And by the way, NASA gets its money from the government. If it was allowed to make money and sell magazines, we'd have had manned missions to Mars by now. However, the potential conflict of interest you pointed out is exactly why that's not allowed.
		+
		+	:::: As for the actual article "Atheistic Styles," allow me to make my statements on the issue as an agnostic and friend of several atheists: 1: If democracy was first practiced in pre-Christian Greece, how does democracy rely on Christianity? Also, Israel is a Jewish state with a functioning democratic system.
		+
		+	::::2: Many atheists credit the faith of Newton, Galileo, etc. for inspiring them to devote their lives to studying the beauty of the universe.
		+
		+	::::3: I do not know of any atheists who disbelieve in the concepts of love, honor, and beauty. Indeed, many substitute faith in the universe's beauty for faith in a church.
		+
		+	::::4: Whether a person chooses atheism or faith is considered a matter of upbrining at least as much as intelligence. There are stupid atheists and devout geniuses, and this is fine (it is true, however, that many atheists consider intelligence and reason to be the best things about being human).
		+
		+	::::5: Atheists don't think humans have been getting smarter, per se, rather than having more time to study and accumulate data. More data leads to better conclusions, and thus to a more accurate picture of the world.
		+
		+	::::6: Regardless of how much is out there to learn, we sure know a lot more than Isaac Newton. Both eras may well be right. Also, "most" is relative. There are enough mysteries out there to last us all a long time.
		+
		+	::::7: Relativism, yes. Materialism, no.
		+
		+	::::8: Goodness no! All the atheists I know regard life as fun, interesting, and generally a good thing. Atheists who happen to be scientists are characterized by the scientist's typical love of discovery and fascination with the world. When one is paid to probe the mysteries of the universe, this isn't surprising.
		+
		+	::::9: Scientists don't have "unshakable faith" in any of these concepts. If evidence comes along that disproves the existence of any of them, that concept will be thrown out and replaced by one that is consistent with all observable data. So far, however, all the evidence we have supports these things as existing.
		+
		+	::::10: This isn't true. Atheists, like everyone else, respect the accomplishments of the best and brightest and give them awards and praise.
		+
		+	::::11: There is no known correlation between atheism and any of these traits.
		+
		+	::::12: Being forced to pray to a god that isn't yours is offensive. A Christian being told by his teacher to pray to Vishnu would offend Christians, and a Muslim being told to pray to Jesus would offend Muslims. Ditto for an atheist being forced to pray to anybody. As for censorship, any student can pray any time s/he likes as long as it doesn't distract his/her classmates.
		+
		+	::::13: I do hope that humanity is moving towards a utopia. I also hope that science's contributions (medicine, renewable energy, spaceflight, etc.) and the contributions of other religions will be recognized for their usefulness in this effort. Also, what are Christianity's contributions to human progress, other than inspiring scientists to work for the benefit of mankind? Please don't say discrimination against homosexuals; I like my utopias egalitarian with a side of tolerance.
		+
		+	:::: If nobody else objects, I would like to rewrite this article for clarity, accuracy, and non-offensiveness. As this article was apparently written by a parodist, and he wants it down too, I doubt anyone will mind, but I don't want to be overhasty. [[User:BlueMoon\|BlueMoon]] 11:35, 26 June 2009 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:10, March 18, 2009
Line 101:		Line 101:

	:: No, that isn't "how science works." Real science observes first, then derives math to explain the observations. Black holes are a magazine-type concept, an extension of mathematics, that were not observed first and in fact have not been observed in a meaningful way ever. It's amusing that some fall for this popularized concept, just as they fell for extraterrestrial life several decades ago.--[[User:Aschlafly\|Andy Schlafly]] 12:50, 18 March 2009 (EDT)		:: No, that isn't "how science works." Real science observes first, then derives math to explain the observations. Black holes are a magazine-type concept, an extension of mathematics, that were not observed first and in fact have not been observed in a meaningful way ever. It's amusing that some fall for this popularized concept, just as they fell for extraterrestrial life several decades ago.--[[User:Aschlafly\|Andy Schlafly]] 12:50, 18 March 2009 (EDT)
		+
		+	:::Regarding "[[User:CodyH\|CodyH]] 11:43 28 March 2009 (CST)": Cody, are you "editing from the future" as a comment on your belief in black holes? It won't convince people here.
		+	:::I won't add to Aschlafly's comments except to say that the [[Black Hole]] page needs a serious rewrite to remove both honest mistakes and DinsdaleP-style confusion. Unfortunately, I don't have time for that right now. [[User:BHarlan\|BHarlan]] 13:10, 18 March 2009 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:50, March 18, 2009
Line 99:		Line 99:

	:Yay, black holes in an argument. But back onto topic...BHarlan, if you mean by 'discovered' that they have actually seen a sigularity, or watched a mass become spaghettified as it reaches the hole, then no. Science has only inferred that they exist by pinpointing areas that are completely dark, surrounded by a 'ring' of light [The edge of the Event Horizon]. Thus, they have theorized that something, most likely a star collapsed upon itself, is producing enough gravity in the area to pull in even particles [or waves, depending on your slant] of light. That is how science works. A true scientist never says 'I know for certain that...', but 'I have observed and believe that...' in their hypotheses. Which means that even though the theory is sound, it could be wrong, and therefor corrected. [[User:CodyH\|CodyH]] 11:43 28 March 2009 (CST)		:Yay, black holes in an argument. But back onto topic...BHarlan, if you mean by 'discovered' that they have actually seen a sigularity, or watched a mass become spaghettified as it reaches the hole, then no. Science has only inferred that they exist by pinpointing areas that are completely dark, surrounded by a 'ring' of light [The edge of the Event Horizon]. Thus, they have theorized that something, most likely a star collapsed upon itself, is producing enough gravity in the area to pull in even particles [or waves, depending on your slant] of light. That is how science works. A true scientist never says 'I know for certain that...', but 'I have observed and believe that...' in their hypotheses. Which means that even though the theory is sound, it could be wrong, and therefor corrected. [[User:CodyH\|CodyH]] 11:43 28 March 2009 (CST)
		+
		+	:: No, that isn't "how science works." Real science observes first, then derives math to explain the observations. Black holes are a magazine-type concept, an extension of mathematics, that were not observed first and in fact have not been observed in a meaningful way ever. It's amusing that some fall for this popularized concept, just as they fell for extraterrestrial life several decades ago.--[[User:Aschlafly\|Andy Schlafly]] 12:50, 18 March 2009 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:43, March 18, 2009
Line 97:		Line 97:
	:: "persay" isn't a word, and nobody said they "'discovered' the big bang theory". I said they "'discovered' the Big Bang". Do you see the difference? If you open your eyes, you will see. You will see.		:: "persay" isn't a word, and nobody said they "'discovered' the big bang theory". I said they "'discovered' the Big Bang". Do you see the difference? If you open your eyes, you will see. You will see.
	:: Also, may God bless you. [[User:BHarlan\|BHarlan]] 16:21, 9 January 2009 (EST)		:: Also, may God bless you. [[User:BHarlan\|BHarlan]] 16:21, 9 January 2009 (EST)
		+
		+	:Yay, black holes in an argument. But back onto topic...BHarlan, if you mean by 'discovered' that they have actually seen a sigularity, or watched a mass become spaghettified as it reaches the hole, then no. Science has only inferred that they exist by pinpointing areas that are completely dark, surrounded by a 'ring' of light [The edge of the Event Horizon]. Thus, they have theorized that something, most likely a star collapsed upon itself, is producing enough gravity in the area to pull in even particles [or waves, depending on your slant] of light. That is how science works. A true scientist never says 'I know for certain that...', but 'I have observed and believe that...' in their hypotheses. Which means that even though the theory is sound, it could be wrong, and therefor corrected. [[User:CodyH\|CodyH]] 11:43 28 March 2009 (CST)

@@ Line 89: / Line 89: @@
 ::::: What a bizarre comment! NASA hasn't really "spotted" them, they '''inferred''' them. These scientists infer many other things which we know to be false. This reduces their credibility.
 ::::: Do you never disagree with your brother? Has your brother never been wrong? Has your brother never been tricked by men seeking to do evil, or men who were fooled, themselves? [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 16:18, 9 January 2009 (EST)
 Given that they get their news from places like [http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/chandra/news/07-112.html NASA]&hellip;--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 12:52, 8 January 2009 (EST)