Talk:Atheism/archive20

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

statement by John Calvert

The Supreme Court of the United States held that corporates are persons and therefore they can marry. (see Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission)

This is of course as wrong as the statement:

The Seventh Judicial Circuit of the Court of Appeals of the United States held that atheism is a religion and therefore it cannot be promoted by a public school.

In the first case there was a verdict that a corporate has to be treated like a person under the First Amendment, while in the second case it was found that atheism has to be treated like a religion, again only under the First Amendment. (See KAUFMAN v. McCAUGHTRY 419 F.3d 678 (2005))

Conservative, you can't be blamed for the deceitful reasoning of John Calvert, but you should have learned over the time that you have to be careful with second-hand quotations - you should go to the original source!

To make it as clear as possible: The Seventh Judicial Circuit Of the Court of Appeals of the United States said nothing about the promotion of atheism by a public school, though this is implied by John Calvert.

Could someone remove John Calvert's deceptive statement, please?

Thanks, RonLar 15:21, 7 August 2011 (EDT)

Motion dismissed. I suggest you appeal your case to a Harvard Law School alumni. I don't think he will respond and he probably will refuse to hear your case. Conservative 17:38, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
An appeal to authority?
Could you please explain how the statement The Seventh Judicial Circuit of the Court of Appeals of the United States held that atheism is a religion and therefore it cannot be promoted by a public school. is not deceptive?
RonLar 17:53, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
I reread the quote. Calvert's website has an email address. It shouldn't be hard to get him to slightly alter the quote to provide some additional clarification although technically the sentence is not incorrect. I did provide some previous footnotes to Calvert in that section, which if memory serves, clarifies matters. Conservative 17:55, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
technically the sentence is not incorrect: that's not good enough for an encyclopedia. You have to ask yourself whether a typical reader (i.e., a high-school student) will interpret this sentence correctly. I dare to say that a significant number will get the impression that the court decided that atheism cannot be promoted by a public school.
Good luck with getting a less misleading quote from John Calvert. Until then, the least you should do is to add a clarification!
RonLar 01:56, 8 August 2011 (EDT)
Quote has been changed. Conservative 13:20, 9 August 2011 (EDT)
That is very strange: Which sentence was really written by John Calvert? The Seventh Judicial Circuit of the Court of Appeals of the United States held that atheism is a religion. Therefore, it cannot be promoted by a public school. Currently public schools are often unwittingly promoting atheism through a dogmatic and uncritical teaching of materialistic theories of origins. or The Seventh Judicial Circuit of the Court of Appeals of the United States held that atheism is a religion and therefore, it cannot be promoted by a public school. Currently public schools are promoting atheism through a dogmatic and uncritical teaching of materialistic theories of origins.
Or did he write both statement on different occasions?
You are citing a secondary source - that is something which should be avoided. But this secondary source is a blog'. And it doesn't state where the quote comes from, but seemingly feels free to alter it, as you linked it for both versions. That doesn't sound trustworthy to me.
So, either you find a reliable source for John Calvert's statement, or you shouldn't use it at all.
RonLar 15:11, 9 August 2011 (EDT)
Given that Shockofgod is such a big thorn in the side of internet atheist and has won over 50 debates with atheists, a quote from his blog certainly suffices. Why just recently an atheist dentist converted to Christianity after Shockofgod co-labored with God. VIDEO At the same time, I can certainly email Calvert to see if he will graciously decided put the quote on his website also. There is certainly no hurry though as the shockofgod blog citation is more than sufficient. Conservative 16:41, 9 August 2011 (EDT)
Given that his states the same quote in two versions without any explanation for the change, such a quote certainly doesn't suffice - notwithstanding all his other work.
RonLar 16:46, 9 August 2011 (EDT)
Two versions? Can you show me the other version on the internet? Conservative 16:51, 9 August 2011 (EDT)
In this revision you state Shockofgod as a source for the first version of the quote. So, did you misquote Shockofgod? Or did Shockofgod had the first version, too? Both possibilities are disturbing.
RonLar 17:09, 9 August 2011 (EDT)
I feel bad that this is so disturbing to you. I hope you don't work yourself into a frenzy and have sleepless nights over this matter. I can tell you that I am not going to lose any sleep over this matter. Conservative 17:20, 9 August 2011 (EDT)
You shouldn't feel bad for me. You should feel bad for the article. The above is proof that you are working sloppily and/or that you are using dubious sources.
Generally that isn't that problematic at a wiki, as such errors can be corrected by other editors. But this article is your chiefdom, and the usual mechanisms of quality control don't work.
RonLar 17:26, 9 August 2011 (EDT)

Conservative, you should really try to treat our little exchanges like a debate. Above you can see how you have lost just another argument: You made an error and you were found out. Which audience would judge favorably your reaction: I don't lose any sleep over this matter? RonLar 17:41, 9 August 2011 (EDT)

RonLar, instead of feeling sorry for article, I would feel sorry for the atheist community. For example, YouTube atheists have never produced a comprehensive video or series of videos on the current Conservapedia atheism article. Shane Killian's poorly done YouTube video on the Conservapedia atheism article was based on a much earlier version of the article and didn't discuss much of the article if memory serves. YouTube atheist and the Conservapedia atheism article: Click HERE Conservative 19:42, 9 August 2011 (EDT)
Why would a youtuber want to make a video on this atheism article when their medium is video. They debate/rebut other youtubers. There is no reason to come to Conservapedia. MaxFletcher 19:56, 9 August 2011 (EDT)
Max, for a non-atheist, you sure are interested in my activities relating to atheism at CP. Plus, I established you don't know your Bible and said something unbiblical. Are you sure you are not an atheist? Conservative 20:18, 9 August 2011 (EDT)
I find it extremely offensive that you'd question my Christianity. You, sir, are acting in a most unchristian manner with your taunts, jeers, name-calling and the added dishonest claims about no one answering your 15 questions. If I felt you were representative of the conservapedia community then I'd leave without regret however I find Andy, Karajou and RobSmith most pleasant to deal with. Also Iduan. NKeaton and others have been a pleasure to work with. Please do not question my faith in Christ again. MaxFletcher 21:36, 9 August 2011 (EDT)
He's started questioning my faith too. I have to say that it's quite clear why YouTube atheists aren't bothering to make a video on this article: because they find too laughable to waste their time on, just like the Question Evolution! campaign that User:Conservative is pushing so heavily on here. However as you pointed out, one of the MOST IMPORTANT articles on Conservapoedia is locked and nobody but User:Conservative seems to be allowed to edit it. Way to totally miss the point of a wiki... --SamCoulter 18:16, 17 September 2011 (EDT)

Max you wrote at this wiki: "Thanks for your kind words. I am not a catholic I am afraid and don't think I'll ever be one! I have however found Christ! Turns out he was in my heart all along." (emphasis added). Setting aside the Catholicism issue, this is not in accordance with biblical doctrine. Ephesians 2:11-12: "Therefore remember that formerly you, the Gentiles in the flesh, who are called "Uncircumcision " by the so-called "Circumcision," which is performed in the flesh by human hands-- remember that you were at that time separate from Christ, excluded from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world." Unless you were writing unclearly, something sounds amiss. Conservative 21:46, 9 August 2011 (EDT)

I don't understand what you are getting at but I have given my life to Christ. You sir, are insulting and rude. How dare you question my faith. MaxFletcher 22:12, 9 August 2011 (EDT)

If you don't understand the Ephesians verses Read this: http://www.free-online-bible-study.com/become-a-christian.html and this http://www.godssimpleplan.org/gsps-english.html Look at some commentaries on the Ephesians verses: http://www.blueletterbible.org/commentaries/ Conservative 22:25, 9 August 2011 (EDT)

I don't need your help to be a Christian. MaxFletcher 22:30, 9 August 2011 (EDT)
All statements must be true and verifiable. There is no record on the internet that Calvert ever made a deceptive statement. Show me it. Changed heading accordingly. Conservative 23:18, 9 August 2011 (EDT)
Then how about your statements that the 15 questions have not been answered? That is not true because they have been answered! Whether or not the answers are correct or not is another issue. MaxFletcher 23:42, 9 August 2011 (EDT)

RonLar, instead of feeling sorry for article, I would feel sorry for the atheist community. You may do so all day long. But - alas - this is not the place: on this talk page, the state of the article Atheism is discussed. And it is recorded that you don't take action when confronted with valid critique of your article. RonLar 07:12, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

Organisation

This page is very long, and has been added to at many different times, with the result that it is somewhat disorganised. I suggest making the information easier to access by grouping related topics together using the following headings:

  • About atheist beliefs
  • History of atheism
  • Atheism today
  • Other beliefs associated with atheism
  • Atheism in the media
  • Notable atheists
  • Additional resources and further reading.

Could the page be unlocked so that I can carry out this reorganisation, or could an administrator perhaps undertake it on my behalf? I am happy to discuss the exact subdivisions, but it's clear that the current structure could be improved. For example, section 35, on the proportion of people who are atheists, should come before and near to related material such as section 18, on people leaving atheism.--CPalmer 08:57, 9 August 2011 (EDT)

Feel free to create User: CPalmer/Atheism. Please be aware that due to other priorities, I unfortunately will not be looking at it until 2012. However, I am going to make a change in the article in a few minutes based on your recommendation. Conservative 13:27, 9 August 2011 (EDT)
Conservative, if you are too busy to work on incorporating other people's suggestions for five months, perhaps you should consider unlocking the article so it can be improved, regarding the flow and the occasionally spotty writing quality. This could be a masterpiece if you let those who admire you directly contribute to the article. Human 23:59, 9 August 2011 (EDT)
I can certainly consider that. Conservative 04:48, 10 August 2011 (EDT)

Excellent suggestion. I will see if I can get round to doing that.--CPalmer 07:04, 10 August 2011 (EDT)

I have now created the page - User:CPalmer/Atheism - although there isn't much there yet apart from my proposed headings. Don't worry if you are busy. I understand that we all have other commitments and I'm sure I can get another administrator to help out when the time comes, if necessary.--CPalmer 07:42, 10 August 2011 (EDT)

Archiving

In Conservapedia:Editing article and talk pages#Talk pages and Archiving we read:

Archiving talk pages is a regular maintenence[sic] chore editors are invited to help with. However, a discussion should not be Archived[sic] until at least seven days have elapsed since the last, or most recent posting in a discussion thread, allowing others to read and comment.

So, how can you find out whether there was an edit to a thread during the last seven days? Well, you just look at the signatures in the thread - if you find a date which is less than a week old, you don't archive the section. Or you remember that you yourself have commented to the particular thread on the same day. It isn't rocket science, you know...

But instead of moving (Deceptive) statement by John Calvert back from the archives, I decided to create the following section anew. You're welcome.

RonLar 07:28, 10 August 2011 (EDT)

Dubious quote by John Calvert

In earlier revisions of this article we find the following version of a quote by John Calvert:

The Seventh Judicial Circuit of the Court of Appeals of the United States held that atheism is a religion and therefore it cannot be promoted by a public school. Currently public schools are promoting atheism through a dogmatic and uncritical teaching of materialistic theories of origins.

As a source for this quote, http://www.ohiointelligentdesign.com/Newsviews.html was given - at least from Apr 22, 2008 until Aug 7, 2011. The site is not longer available, so it was correct to give a new source for this quote: http://shockawenow.blogspot.com/2011/08/intelligent-design-leader-john-calvert.html This is used for two days.

After I criticized the quotation (see here), the quote was altered on Aug 9, 2011. Now it reads

The Seventh Judicial Circuit of the Court of Appeals of the United States held that atheism is a religion. Therefore, it cannot be promoted by a public school. Currently, public schools are often unwittingly promoting atheism through a dogmatic and uncritical teaching of materialistic theories of origins.

Surprisingly, the source of the quotation stayed the same. User:Conservative should answer the following questions:

  • In earlier versions, you state: John Calvert ... wrote, now we read John Calvert .. declared. If he wrote it somewhere, you should find the original source. Why don't you do so?
  • Did shockawenow change the quotation over time?
  • Did you misquote shockawenow?
  • shockawenow gives no clue where and when John Calvert made this comment, so we have an anonymous blogger claiming that someone said (!) something sometimes. Do you think that this kind of sources befit a trustworthy encyclopedia?

RonLar 07:28, 10 August 2011 (EDT)

Calvert's website has an email address. Calvert was asked to change/clarify the quote and he did. The clarified quote is at Shockofgod's blog and at Conservapedia. Next, via email Calvert said he is experiencing some webmaster challenges and plans on posting the clarified quote (or a clarified equivalent quote) after September 1, 2011 at his website. At the very least, I expect an equivalent quote. The present and past quote is in accordance with Calvert's views which are cited in the previous footnotes of the article so there is nothing unusual/surprising about the quote (In short, this is a tempest in a teapot - especially since, if memory serves, I said I emailed Calvert and he provided a clarified quote).Conservative 23:57, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
  • Calvert's website has an email address. That's indeed something you said earlier.
  • Calvert was asked to change/clarify the quote and he did. That's news! Who asked him?
  • The clarified quote is at Shockofgod's blog and at Conservapedia. Nothing at Shockofgod's blog or at Conservapedia indicates that this quote was the result of a personal communication. You should state so.
  • Next, via email Calvert said he is experiencing some webmaster challenges and plans on posting the clarified quote (or a clarified equivalent quote) after September 1, 2011 at his website. That's news, too. Idea: why not do without the quote for a couple of days and wait till September 1, 2011? Then you could post a well-sourced quote! That shouldn't stress your patience, as you routinely asks your interlocutors to wait up to three years for tiny results...
  • At the very least, I expect an equivalent quote. The quotes aren't equivalent, but vary in their degree of being misleading.
  • The present and past quote is in accordance with Calvert's views which are cited in the previous footnotes of the article so there is nothing unusual/surprising about the quote That a quote is in character doesn't mean that it isn't necessary to avoid the impression that it was made up!
  • In short, this is a tempest in a teapot. It's a minor item, high-lightening your understanding of what it means to be a trustworthy encyclopedia.
  • especially since, if memory serves, I said I emailed Calvert and he provided a clarified quote from the records it seems that your memory doesn't serve you well: I can't find such an announcement here at Conservapedia. Perhaps you said so in another personal communication with shockofgod?
  • Did you really have to oversight two revisions of this talk-page just to hide the fact that you weren't sure whether you should use parentheses in your short paragraph?
RonLar 02:19, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
Correction. I implied I would email Calvert. Conservative 02:34, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
Correction: you said I can certainly email Calvert to see if he will graciously decided put the quote on his website. Any other comment to the points above? RonLar 03:01, 11 August 2011 (EDT)

Premature archiving

It seems some of these discussions are being archived before other internet readers and members of the Conservapedia editing community can keep up, review, or participate. Please allow a discussion thread to remain dormant for 7 days before archiving. Now, this quote,

  • I can certainly email Calvert to see if he will graciously decided put the quote on his website

I hope the author can clarify what the thought or intent was. Thank you. Rob Smith 12:29, 10 August 2011 (EDT)

News?

why in the news it's stated the soviet union and china are atheist nations, when the articles clearly says the majority population of these countries are religious? Thelight 09:18, 14 August 2011 (EDT)

The Soviet Union no longer exists. And China is an atheist nation.--JamesWilson 09:19, 14 August 2011 (EDT)
indeed the soviet union no longer exists but the news and the article refer to it in the present time.
and how can an entire nation be atheist? in china there are believers of some faith and non-believers, the nation itself isn't "atheist". it's like saying the USA is atheist because there is one atheist Thelight 10:10, 14 August 2011 (EDT)

CNN - Less educated losing religion

Less educated losing religion: http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/08/24/less-educated-americans-are-losing-religion-study-finds/comment-page-23/ Conservative 04:43, 26 August 2011 (EDT)

Dan Barker

Create Dan Barker article. Conservative 03:59, 4 September 2011 (EDT)

Some stats about atheists in the world

Here is a document about atheists in the world that show that there is only 7% atheist and 70% true believers in the US :

That may be a nice contribution to the article. Plus I'd like to help conservapedia being more 'international' ! --ARamis 16:48, 5 September 2011 (EDT)

Looks good so far as they are a research/survey company. Will definitely look into using it. Will probably be in within 15 - 60 days. Thanks. Conservative 08:13, 9 September 2011 (EDT)
I inserted it into the main atheism article plus the Atheist Population article. I don't there there is 7% atheists in usa and you are mixing in agnostics with atheists. I think it is how you ask the question or perhaps you read it wrong. On the other hand, I will look at report more closely and perhaps things changed recently. They are a leading survey company like Gallup, Harris, Roper, Pew, etc. so I included it as it appears to be a credible source. I expedited it faster than I promised as a gesture of good faith. If I disagree with it upon further inspection for legitimate reasons, I will remove it. Conservative 17:04, 17 September 2011 (EDT)
Actually the report says that 7% of Americans are atheists and another 9% are agnostics. --SamCoulter 18:24, 17 September 2011 (EDT)
I spent more time looking at the report. Rather than call the document a report on atheism from a global perspective providing survey results, I merely said it was a worldwide report on religious belief/skepticism giving survey results. I already covered the definition of atheism previously in the article and I didn't want to rehash things and bog down the reader. 17:20, 17 September 2011 (EDT)
Sam, maybe you will find someone to argue with you about the definition of atheism and what the report actually said. It is not going to be me though based on our previous interactions. Given your propensity to not adequately respond to communication directed your way, I have decided that if I want to discuss things with a brick wall, I don't need you and can do so readily without you. Conservative 18:36, 17 September 2011 (EDT)
The definition of atheism is a lack of belief in gods. Feel free to cherry-pick 50 year old sources that contradict that, but as I've explained to you, words change their meaning. No matter how much smoke you blow about having to define which gods an atheist is denying, the fact is that NO atheist believes in ANY gods. If you want to insist on arguing against a definition of atheism that atheists themselves reject that's fine. However back here in the real world I live in a country where atheists already outnumber committed believers, and I'm really quite keen on making sensible arguments to try to reverse that trend. As it stands the CP atheism article is NOT making those arguments and you don't seem interested in anyone's opinion but your own. --SamCoulter 18:44, 17 September 2011 (EDT)

Sam, I would not be too concerned about this matter. Soon the religion of atheism will be CUT in half in terms of its adherents.VIDE0  :) Conservative 05:51, 21 September 2011 (EDT)

Link addition

Could somebody add a link to [[Definitions of Atheist and Agnostic]] to the "See also:" at the beginning of the Attempts to dilute the definition of atheism section? I can't edit the page myself; I can only "view its source." --Ty 17:36, 7 September 2011 (EDT)

Done Conservative 08:16, 9 September 2011 (EDT)

Definition

Just as an a quick aside should the main definition read "denial of the existence of a God and/or Gods?" MaxFletcher 18:08, 14 November 2011 (EST)

I would have made the change but it appears I can't. Anyone? MaxFletcher 16:00, 15 November 2011 (EST)
Most of our audience is in the Anglosphere or in the Western World or at least been influenced by the Western World (such as India) plus the Encyclopedias of Philosophy cited are Western World philosophy reference works which are monotheistic in perspective so it is fine the way it is. In addition, you don't see Richard Dawkins and company often ranting about Shiva, etc. Conservative 16:15, 15 November 2011 (EST)
What Dawkins says is irrelevant - is atheism not the denial of all and any god(s)? MaxFletcher 16:40, 15 November 2011 (EST)
Max, you didn't respond adequately to my response to you and instead chose to merely focus on the last sentence of my response. This often seems to be your modus operandi and as a result, I am not interested in discussing the matter further with you. I have better things to do with my time than attempt to discuss things with a brick wall. Conservative 17:27, 15 November 2011 (EST)
Unjustifiable rudeness. Figures. You never addressed my point that atheism denies all gods but whatever. Nor do you adequately address anything anyone ever point out to you. MaxFletcher 17:30, 15 November 2011 (EST)
Personal tools