User talk:MacTavish

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Useful links


Hello, MacTavish, and welcome to Conservapedia!

We're glad you are here to edit. We ask that you read our Editor's Guide before you edit.

At the right are some useful links for you. You can include these links on your user page by putting "{{Useful links}}" on the page. Any questions--ask!

Thanks for reading, MacTavish!

May I ask, just here to play with the Worst Liberal Shows list or to contribute to more encyclopedic pieces?--Nathan (talk) 17:53, 1 June 2017 (EDT)

Oh, hey! Didn't expect you here. I'll get to encyclopedic pieces soon enough. Right now, I wanted to start with the best and worst lists as a "warmup," for lack of a better term.

Makes sense. By the way, on talk pages, if you type four tildes (~) it will sign the comment.--Nathan (talk) 17:57, 1 June 2017 (EDT)
Welcome! The third button from the right in the top toolbar also inserts your signature, in case you prefer that. Anyway, if you have any questions or need anything, feel free to ask! --David B (TALK) 19:28, 23 June 2017 (EDT)

Spelling and Grammar

I don't want to sound too much like I'm complaining, but Conservapedia has some of the most frequent spelling and grammar mistakes of any free online encyclopedia I've ever seen. I know you guys are usually in a rush to get things written down, but all I'm asking is that you please revise your work once in a while and try forming coherent sentences.

Seriously. Try rereading the paragraph your wrote for Iron Man 2 in "Greatest Conservative Movies" and see if it makes any cohesive sense.

Also, there are also other successive words also besides "also" also.

This is why I'm on a mission to improve the overall quality of writing on Conservapedia and make this Wikipedia alternative great again. Who's with me?

Re: Liberal Denial revert?

I was going to say something about that, but after checking the article's edit history and noticing that you added a revised wording about Fidel Castro, I'll leave it at that. No worries. :D Northwest (talk) 17:50, 29 January 2018 (EST)

Thanks. I can see how the issue remains a mystery. MacTavish (talk) 23:39, 29 January 2018 (EST)

Definition of atheism

I want the atheism articles to stick with the definition of atheism that the most authoritative encyclopedias of philosophy use.

I put in the bulk of the work as far as the atheism article and atheism articles in general.

You also cannot categorically say that all atheists/agnostics deny anything that is spiritual. For example, "A survey compiled in 2014 by The Austin Institute for the Study of Family and Culture (AISFC) reveals that 32 percent of Americans who identified themselves as agnostics and atheists believe in an afterlife of some kind. In addition, 6 percent of the same non-theistic group expressed a belief in a “bodily resurrection”. These numbers were taken from a sample of 15,738 Americans, all of which were between the ages of 18 and 60. According to the data, 13.2 percent of Americans identify themselves as atheist, agnostic, or some other variation of non-believing." See: Atheism and life after death.Conservative (talk) 06:11, 11 April 2018 (EDT)

Excuse me, sir, but your definition of atheism fails to account for those who believe in other gods besides our own. If you say that atheism itself is denial of God's existence, you're saying that all Hindus, Atenists, Sabians, Tengrists, Bábists, Tenriists, Rastafarians, Sikhists, and even the Bahá'í faith, all of whom worship a non-Biblical God or gods, are all atheists, which we know is simply not true. Not to mention that you have an article explicitly stating that Atheism is a religion, so telling me that my making edits based on the exact principles you teach is wrong does not make any sense to me.

Actually, yes, I can say that atheists and agnostics (which aren't the same) deny the existence of anything spiritual. Buddhists say they do not believe in any God or gods, but they do believe that nature itself has a spiritual aspect where most atheists and agnostics disagree. Likewise, the Jain religion teaches the existence of souls, but not believing in God does not automatically make them atheists.

I would also like to file a formal complaint against you and other editors reverting my edits to the article on Islam to say that it is also a system of beliefs besides a political system. That's what the article that you cite, "Why Islam is Not a Religion" says about Islam: it is BOTH a system of beliefs and an ideology, but just because it incorporates a system of beliefs does not make it a religion.

I studied comparative religion for a time in college, so I know that the concept of religion is not as black-and-white as this Website would have one believe. What baffles me most of all is why this site has resources for leaving atheism and becoming a Christian but no resources for leaving any other religion and becoming a Christian. It's as if this site exists in its own universe where Christianity and atheism are one's only two choices for religion. MacTavish (talk) 13:01, 11 April 2018 (EDT)

You are mistaken on a point. See: Resources on becoming a Christian. Conservative (talk) 13:15, 11 April 2018 (EDT)
I understand. However, that's a general page. I was saying that there's a lack of more specific pages for leaving other religions. MacTavish (talk) 13:16, 11 April 2018 (EDT)
There is nothing stopping you from creating all those pages if you strongly feel they are in need of creation. And I assume if you are complaining about it that you feel strongly about it.Conservative (talk) 13:19, 11 April 2018 (EDT)
Something tells me you're right. I was expressing my frustration that no one else has brought up the issue of lack of variety of "Resources for leaving [X-religion]" pages until now. MacTavish (talk) 13:24, 11 April 2018 (EDT)

Atheism is a religion

Conservapedia does have an article indicating that atheism is a religion. Moreover, please see:

Please do not keep inserting atheism is a religion in all the various atheism articles. I will revert it. Conservative (talk) 02:49, 27 May 2018 (EDT)

Wow...just, wow...

It’s as if my critique of your narrow definition completely blew right over your head. To reiterate my thesis from the last time we had this debate: by saying the definition is “denial of the existence of God”, you’re saying that everyone who believes in other gods, thereby refusing to accept the existence of ours, is an “atheist”. We do not exist in a vacuum where Christianity and atheism are one’s only choices for religion. If your only choices for religion in this world are believing in God or denying Him, then how do you explain other religions?

Finally, saying that you have an article explaining why atheism is a religion is the reason why I shouldn’t add that fact makes no sense. If anything, it’s supporting my argument for why I should add it! MacTavish (talk) 14:00, 28 May 2018 (EDT)