Talk:Definition of atheism

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search

There's a huge difference between saying that everything is made of matter, and materialism. Saying that everything is made of matter is a scientific concept, which actually has different definitions of matter (ie. some don't consider light to be matter because their definition of matter requires it to have mass. Whilst some do consider light to be matter because it is made up of particles).
Materialism is something different entirely. Materialism is a philosophical viewpoint, and is about wanting only physical things, such as a big house or a nice car, and not caring about emotional things such as love and friendship. Because they are different, it is improper to put 'materialism' in brackets after mentioning the idea that everything is made of matter, and is why I removed that implication. - JamesCA, July 31 2011

Maybe you should look at the definition of materialism again. ~ JonG ~ 21:30, 30 July 2011 (EDT)

Putting the issue into context, here's the line: "Some of the central dogmas of atheism include the non-existence of God, the non-existence of afterlife or an immortal soul, that all which exists is ultimately reducible to matter (materialism), and that faith is illegitimate". okay, fair point, but as the word 'materialism' is associated more often with the philosophical definition, rather than the science one, perhaps it would be better to put "(the scientific theory of materialism)" instead of just "materialism". - JamesCA, 31 July 2011

JamesCA, there is a distinction between the philosophical definition of materialism (all reality is reducible to matter), and the popular one (excessive focus on material wealth). It should be obvious from the context that the first definition is meant, not the second. Maratrean 00:12, 6 August 2011 (EDT)
It is only obvious to those who know of both. It was only after following the link above that I was aware of the philosophical definition. So I think that a bit of clarity is useful, and is not harmful to the article. JamesCA, August 6 2011
Well, the article reads now: Some of the central dogmas of atheism include... that all which exists is ultimately reducible to matter (materialism). I think it was clear enough already, given that we explciitly state what definition of materialism we are using "all which exists is ultimately reducible to matter". But now there is a link to the article which discusses the same definition, so if there is any doubt in the reader's mind, they should click on that link and enlighten themselves. :) Maratrean 22:44, 6 August 2011 (EDT)
Good idea. No further issues. - JamesCA, August 7 2011

The blog post is not listed as being by shockofgod

The blog post is not listed as being by shockofgod. Conservative 08:06, 13 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. Conservative, Aug 10, 2011
RonLar 08:18, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

If the blog post is not listed as being by shockofgod, then you are giving as the source of J. Calvert's quote: someone said something somewhere on the internet. Could you please explain your understanding of Conservapedia's First Commandment:

Everything you post must be true and verifiable.

Thanks, RonLar 12:09, 14 August 2011 (EDT)

Personal tools