Difference between revisions of "Talk:Atheistic Style"

Revision as of 16:50, March 18, 2009

Where's the problem?

You certainly have a point, people do need to start making citations for what they write. But what is the problem with marking the entry being without citations, it is 100% true. I thought we didn't censor due to ideological reasons here. Therefore I am reverting it. Andy if you can give me a good reason for why marking an article as "uncited" when it has zero citations is wrong then I will leave it alone.

"Lynus", you have to make a contribution before you starting complaining. Got it?--Andy Schlafly 20:03, 5 January 2009 (EST)

Wait, so I can't mark an article as "unsourced" even though it is unsourced? Why even have the tag enabled? You even agree that it is unsourced so why can I not tag it with something truthful?--Lynus 20:08, 5 January 2009 (EST)

I have looked for citations. And have not been able to find any that support the claim that it is common for atheists to ascribe to #s 3,4,5,6,8,most of 9, and 11. I have also found that the others are worded poorly (9,10,7,8,and 3) A number of the posts (9) in particular is wrong on multiple levels. If you like I can re-work the entire article into a more encyclopedic entry, however I figured that I should ask first here and point out the flaws present in the article before changing things unilaterally since people seem to go missing if they do that around here. --ScottA 22:18, 5 January 2009 (EST)

No that wasn't against you. For some reason the page displayed a giant Hitler picture and yours was the last edit since Andys and thats why I reverted it. Apparently is was a template issue.--Lynus 22:45, 5 January 2009 (EST)

Ah my apologies. Ill remove the accusation. On another note, Andy. Blackholes can be detected. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7774287.stm , http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/07/080723142119.htm --ScottA 23:46, 5 January 2009 (EST)

Childish

Isn't this a bit childish? JosiahB 11:14, 30 November 2007 (EST)

In what ways? --~BCS^Talk2ME 11:16, 30 November 2007 (EST)

It's just a personal essay, based on solely personal opinion, and not really wholly true at that. I've proposed for deletion. TheEvilSpartan 23:25, 3 January 2008 (EST)

I agree, that this is wholly based on assumptions. How do you support an article deletion? VonShroom 17:33, 3 March 2008 (EST)

As this page was created by the site owner I wouldn't even consider suggesting that the article should be deleted. BrianCo 18:06, 3 March 2008 (EST)

Josiah and "TheEvilSpartan", let's improve the entry. Think positively, not negatively.--Aschlafly 18:11, 3 March 2008 (EST)

If you wish to nominate the page for deletion you need to insert the delete template at the top of the page. See here for template information. However, I should warn you that as this article was written by Andy Schlafly it does not need to contain any citations. That is one of the unwritten rules of Conservapedia. Further, the delete notice will likely be removed by one of the sysop/acolytes, probably Crocoite (see, for example, here). And it is quite likely that you will be blocked (see, for example here). --VincentMC 18:14, 3 March 2008 (EST)

That's false about me. This is a work-in-progress and much of it is indisputable. The demands that it be deleted are obviously ideological, and we do not allow liberal censorship here. That should be obvious. Thanks and Godspeed.--Aschlafly 18:30, 3 March 2008 (EST)

Really? Let's see shall we? --VincentMC 18:34, 3 March 2008 (EST)

Has anyone here ever talked to a real atheist? Sit down and have a chat with me and you'll soon see that there is a reason there is no citations on this page. Heck, I'll even null out a few of your points; Newton definitely was motivated by religion (I do believe that he was out to use the gift of intelligence), some of the most influential scientists have been religious. Me personally, I think that not believing something/someone created everything makes everything more beautiful (personally I love micro-biology, those little critters are so fascinating), as they just came together that way (in reference to a depressed world-view). Of course, I think there are problems out there now, but I know that we as people can fix them. As for arbitrary concepts such as love, I'm not sure how they came about (please do not tell me God) but they are great emotions and provide different degrees of functional guidance (morals and such). Pleas do not think I am being a smartaleck or sarcastic, as my personal beliefs are some of the few things I never joke around about.--Snotbowst 23:19, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

Smarter

I'd like to think that we are smarter then 100 years ago, but I'm bot an atheist.

On another note: This article is among a series that make Conservapedia a laughing stock, if we really want to be taken seriously, we should refrain from this. In what other Encyclopedia would you find something like this? DLerner 19:37, 3 March 2008 (EST)

DLerner, if you fear mockery, then you won't make much progress finding and spreading the truth. A little more concern about the truth and less concern about who among the less informed are laughing would be beneficial to you.--Aschlafly 19:51, 3 March 2008 (EST)

 : I don't fear mockery, but this is supposed to be an encyclopedia! Now, if their is research showing that atheists are prone to such styles then go right ahead, but for some reason I have a feeling this is someones personal feeling towards atheists - though he/she has every right to have such feelings, I really can't see a basis for publishing them in an encyclopedia. (As an essay this would be wonderful, but as an article?) DLerner 19:57, 3 March 2008 (EST)

It's not that we fear mockery, it's that this article invites - no, deserves - mockery. There are no references to back up what is said - it's just the author's thoughts. Some of it is just wrong based on personal experience (Conservapedia allows contributions based on personal experience, doesn't it?). Conservapedia would be better off without it. Daphnea 12:51, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

Incidentally I love the bit about how atheists have "a perception (often wrong) of what most people think". That describes the author of this article. Are we sure this isn't a parody introduced by someone trying to make us look bad?) Daphnea 12:55, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

My Fundamentalist Alterations

Yeesh, I edited this page about 4 months ago in an attempt to make the content so laughably fallacious, uninformed, assertive and double-standard laden that it shouldnt have lasted the day. Its both amusing and depressing to see it here some 16+ weeks later...

"overreliance and a dependance on often OUTDATED TEXTS."

Hmm

"a refusal to recognize how democracy relies on Christianity, and how no atheistic culture has ever managed to sustain a lasting democracy"

Aside from, erm, oh yeah, most of the countries in Europe...

"a generally pessimistic, worthless and depressing view of life"

Lol, well Im not surprised this one managed to stay up...

"an unshakeable faith...in life in outer space"

Hahahaha,

Oh very dear...

Think critically people, good day to you...

Merging

Conservative and I have been working on Atheist beliefs, and it seems like the content of this page might be incorporated into it, seeing as most of the listings are in fact beliefs. Thoughts? - Rod Weathers 16:55, 7 January 2009 (EST)

Black Holes

Have Black Holes been detected yet? There's a nascent discussion going on at that page. BHarlan 11:39, 8 January 2009 (EST)

If I'm not mistaken—and that does happen more often than I'd like—I don't believe that they've ever been directly observed. Just a lack of light and the gravity that it produces leads some scientists to believe in their existance, but I'm no scientist. Jeffrey W. Lauttamus_Discussion 11:41, 8 January 2009 (EST)

2008: The year in astronomy.--Ieuan 12:00, 8 January 2009 (EST)

I just don't trust Big Astronomy on this issue. It's really hard to find reliable sources in the area, since most claim things that are really just silly and bizarre. For this reason, I discount most "discoveries" from that area. I mean, these people "discovered" the Big Bang! BHarlan 12:46, 8 January 2009 (EST)

What is "Big Astronomy"'s motive in falsifying data about black holes? Their existence has little, if anything, to do with the theory of the Big Bang and presents no problem for Creationism. KevinS 13:36, 8 January 2009 (EST)

Outrageous claims about black holes sell lots of magazines to lots of naive people. And let's not forget that liberals get a thrill out of deceit for its own sake alone.--Andy Schlafly 21:51, 8 January 2009 (EST)

So it's your contention that black holes don't exist? Despite the fact that NASA have spotted them? Are you saying that NASA is lying? Given that your brother also believes NASA, are you saying your brother is naive?-Ieuan 15:47, 9 January 2009 (EST)

What a bizarre comment! NASA hasn't really "spotted" them, they inferred them. These scientists infer many other things which we know to be false. This reduces their credibility.

Do you never disagree with your brother? Has your brother never been wrong? Has your brother never been tricked by men seeking to do evil, or men who were fooled, themselves? BHarlan 16:18, 9 January 2009 (EST)

"What a bizarre comment! NASA hasn't really "spotted them, they "inferred " them." Only two problems with that statement: i) The staggering ignorance you have shown about the work carried out in the detection of singularity objects (are you even aware of how such objects are spotted? No, didn't think so); and ii) I assume that when you see a dog you only infer that it is a dog because you haven't carried out a full genetic check of the animal and the wealth of other evidence provided isn't good enough for you (oh, and if you are having trouble equating point ii with the discussion at hand - it's called a metaphor and is used as a teaching aid). As for the point about brothers is it your contention that RSchlafly is too dense, ignorant, dumb and stupid to study the evidence and come to his own conclusions? Are you saying that he blindly follows whatever somebody tells him to do or think? Is that how you have at the beliefs or knowledge you have? Are you saying that RSchlafly's knowledge of physics isn't good enough for him to independently study the evidence, despite the impressive depth of knowledge he has already shown about such matters on this site? Why do you equate the discovery of black holes with 'evil'? Do they threaten your beliefs in some way? If it does then why? No scientific discovery has ever threatened my belief and faith. Papal astronomers are perfectly happy with the fact that black holes exist and have been spotted, are you now claming to know more about science and faith than those who serve the church that is the foundation of your particular religion (assuming you are a christian)? Are you even aware that papal astronomers and the Holy See have stated that the possibility of alien life existing " does not clash with christian belief"?-Ieuan 13:08, 11 January 2009 (EST)

Given that they get their news from places like NASA…--Ieuan 12:52, 8 January 2009 (EST)

Well they didn't "discover" the big bang theory persay, though they have made many observations to support it. See here. Jeffrey W. Lauttamus_Discussion 12:55, 8 January 2009 (EST)

"persay" isn't a word, and nobody said they "'discovered' the big bang theory". I said they "'discovered' the Big Bang". Do you see the difference? If you open your eyes, you will see. You will see.

Also, may God bless you. BHarlan 16:21, 9 January 2009 (EST)

Yay, black holes in an argument. But back onto topic...BHarlan, if you mean by 'discovered' that they have actually seen a sigularity, or watched a mass become spaghettified as it reaches the hole, then no. Science has only inferred that they exist by pinpointing areas that are completely dark, surrounded by a 'ring' of light [The edge of the Event Horizon]. Thus, they have theorized that something, most likely a star collapsed upon itself, is producing enough gravity in the area to pull in even particles [or waves, depending on your slant] of light. That is how science works. A true scientist never says 'I know for certain that...', but 'I have observed and believe that...' in their hypotheses. Which means that even though the theory is sound, it could be wrong, and therefor corrected. CodyH 11:43 28 March 2009 (CST)

No, that isn't "how science works." Real science observes first, then derives math to explain the observations. Black holes are a magazine-type concept, an extension of mathematics, that were not observed first and in fact have not been observed in a meaningful way ever. It's amusing that some fall for this popularized concept, just as they fell for extraterrestrial life several decades ago.--Andy Schlafly 12:50, 18 March 2009 (EDT)