Talk:Richard Dawkins' health

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Is it ever appropriate to have an article named "X's health"? JDano (talk) 20:03, 11 June 2017 (EDT)

My two responses to JDano's question

My 1st response

Questions:

1. Wikipedia, Conservapedia and CreationWiki have an article on the evolutionist Charles Darwin's health/illness. See: Charles Darwin's health - Wikipedia and Charles Darwin's illness and Charles Darwin's illness- CreationWiki.

Do you think these articles pertaining to Charles Darwin's health should be deleted at these 3 wikis? If so, why?

A psychogenic illness is one that originates in the mind or in a mental condition. Psychosomatic disorders and mental illness that is not caused by an underlying physical condition are examples of psychogenic illnesses.

Is there any indication that Charles Darwin suffered from psychogenic illness? Is there any evidence suggesting that the prominent new atheist and evolutionist Richard Dawkins has suffered from psychogenic illness? See: Richard Dawkins, Darwin and psychogenic illness

Is New Atheism a form of militant atheism? Do many people believe that militant atheists are angry people who hate God? If this is a popular belief, is it warranted? See: Militant atheism and Atheism and hatred of God and Atheism and mass murder and Atheism and anger

Does excess anger in a person's life often lead to health problems?

Does excess anger often lead to emotional and relationship problems? Has Richard Dawkins been divorced three times?

In recent times, is it common for secular leftists to have psychogenic illnesses? See: Secular leftists and psychogenic illness

2. Does the new atheist Richard Dawkins constantly claim that evangelicals/fundamentalists/conservatives are anti-science?

3. Does Richard Dawkins constantly appeal to the consensus of scientists?

4. Is medical science part of science?

5. Using Richard Dawkins' notion that the consensus of scientists with expertise in a manner is an extremely important criteria to determine the truth of a matter, who knows more about medical science: Richard Dawkins or his team of doctors who have extensive training in medicine?

6. Is Richard Dawkins repeatedly and unwisely ignoring his team of doctors' advice (see: Richard Dawkins and medical science)?

7. Is Richard Dawkins one of the principle founders of the New Atheism movement? Do the founders of the New Atheism movement have a track record of ignoring a large wealth of studies in the field of medical science (See: New Atheism leaders and unhealthy lifestyles).

8. Are you against pointing out people's deeds which are contrary to their words? If so, why?

9. Is science an important topic? Is medical science an important topic? If a prominent scientist is repeatedly acting in a manner contrary to science and it is very clear that he is, is it fair for a member of the public to point this out using a very clear example? If not, why not?

10. If Dawkins were to stop embroiling himself in controversies as a result of being encouraged to do so and instead engaged in some charitable works like the ex-atheist Bill Gates, would that be a good thing? If not, why not?

My second response to JDano's question

JDano, as you can see above, a popular search engine beginning with the letter G, lists "Richard Dawkins health" as a key inquiry related to Richard Dawkins. Certainly, there is public interest in Richard Dawkins' health. Is there not?
JDano, there is a popular search engine that begins with the letter G that uses a sophisticated algorithm in order to determine the quality and relevance of articles on the internet in relation to various subjects. As you can see above, a popular search engine beginning with the letter G, ranks Conservapedia #1 for an item which the public has an interest in.
Thank you for your response. In general, if there is well-documented, wide-spread discussion in the media, a famous person's health could be covered by a paragraph in a general biography article. I think that having a separate article will almost always give undue emphasis to the subject. Once we start detailed coverage of people's health, there is a high danger of devolving into gossip and/or discussion of a person's love life. For example, in the 2016 Republican primaries the candidates (and some TV commentators) debated the "hand size" of the candidates. Conservapedia does not need that type of thing. When I was a kid, my history books discussed the wives of King Henry VIII. This was a historic fact because it involved the Church of England. It is proper that none of the history books explained to the students why Henry VIII wanted those many wives. JDano (talk) 00:02, 12 June 2017 (EDT)
We are not taking in general. We are talking about a specific person, aren't we? Specifically, we are addressing the issue of whether or not Richard Dawkins should have an article on his health. Isn't that the case?
So I will repeat two very pertinent questions and ask a few more questions.
Wikipedia, Conservapedia and CreationWiki have an article on the evolutionist Charles Darwin's health/illness. See: Charles Darwin's health - Wikipedia and Charles Darwin's illness and Charles Darwin's illness- CreationWiki.
Do you think these articles pertaining to Charles Darwin's health should be deleted at these 3 wikis? If so, why?
If you do believe that the article on Charles Darwin's health should be deleted at all 3 wikis, are you going to go to the talk page of Wikipedia's article on Charles Darwin's health and ask for the article to be deleted? If you do ask for the article to be deleted, do you think it will be deleted? If not, why not?
Is Charles Darwin the most famous evolutionist and unbeliever (irreligious person) in the 19th century? Is Richard Dawkins the most famous evolutionist and unbeliever (irreligious person) in the 21st century? Have both these men suffered from psychogenic illnesses? Is there a wealth of studies showing that religious faith enhances a person's health? See: Atheism and health. Is it now common for secular leftists to suffer from psychogenic illnesses? See: Secular leftists and psychogenic illness. Do Richard Dawkins' political beliefs often fall in the camp of the secular left? Conservative (talk)
I will also point out that there is an entire book written by a psychiatrist on Charles Darwin's illness.[1] And the book was reviewed by the New York Review of Books which is a notable publication.[2]Conservative (talk) 10:17, 12 June 2017 (EDT)
JDano, you wrote: " Once we start detailed coverage of people's health, there is a high danger of devolving into gossip and/or discussion of a person's love life." Your contention about this matter is demonstrably false. Wikipedia, Conservapedia and CreationWiki all have articles on Charles Darkin's health. Yet these same wikis do not gossip about Charles Darwin nor do they engage in discussing his love life. Conservative (talk) 12:22, 15 June 2017 (EDT)