Difference between revisions of "Talk:Strong atheism"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(Without dumbing it down, make it easier to understand) |
(Not confusing to me) |
||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
As for the rest, the article is not easily understandable. Please try again. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 23:24, 28 August 2007 (EDT) | As for the rest, the article is not easily understandable. Please try again. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 23:24, 28 August 2007 (EDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | :In general at least, I didn't find the article confusing at all. What parts don't you understand? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:00, 29 August 2007 (EDT) | ||
Revision as of 07:00, August 29, 2007
This is heady stuff, way above the usual level of our typical articles. Can you make a gentle introduction to this, for the benefit of those having a junior-high or high-school reading level? --Ed Poor Talk 21:02, 22 August 2007 (EDT)
- The relevant guideline is here. Philip J. Rayment 23:20, 22 August 2007 (EDT)
- Been a while since high school ... how'd I do? Ungtss 09:30, 23 August 2007 (EDT)
- Looks good to me, but then I'm not a good judge either (it's far longer since I've been to school!). Ed? Philip J. Rayment 10:48, 23 August 2007 (EDT)
- Been a while since high school ... how'd I do? Ungtss 09:30, 23 August 2007 (EDT)
Sorry, this article is simply confusing. It gives an example of strong atheism which fits the definition of weak atheism.
- "You don't know what you are talking about; therefore your statement carries no meaning; therefore you are not justified in believing it."
Isn't this the same thing as saying, "You didn't prove X, so I'm justifying in calling X false"?
As for the rest, the article is not easily understandable. Please try again. --Ed Poor Talk 23:24, 28 August 2007 (EDT)
- In general at least, I didn't find the article confusing at all. What parts don't you understand? Philip J. Rayment 03:00, 29 August 2007 (EDT)