Difference between revisions of "Talk:Shockofgod"
Conservative (Talk | contribs) (→Converage out of proportion to importance) |
Conservative (Talk | contribs) (→Converage out of proportion to importance) |
||
| Line 27: | Line 27: | ||
::[[Creation Ministries International]] prominently features a [[Shockofgod]] video in the flagship atheism article.[http://creation.com/atheism]. To this day, Shockofgod's question stumps atheists and utterly humiliates the atheist community. And unlike Stephen Hawking, Shockofgod never embarrassed himself by positing that the universe poofed itself into existence from nothing (There is a reason the [[Shockofgod]] article is larger than the Stephen Hawking article - Hawking has never stumped the Christian community, but Shockofgod's question continues to stump atheists. See: [[Essay: The question atheists fear]]). [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:03, 13 January 2014 (EST) | ::[[Creation Ministries International]] prominently features a [[Shockofgod]] video in the flagship atheism article.[http://creation.com/atheism]. To this day, Shockofgod's question stumps atheists and utterly humiliates the atheist community. And unlike Stephen Hawking, Shockofgod never embarrassed himself by positing that the universe poofed itself into existence from nothing (There is a reason the [[Shockofgod]] article is larger than the Stephen Hawking article - Hawking has never stumped the Christian community, but Shockofgod's question continues to stump atheists. See: [[Essay: The question atheists fear]]). [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:03, 13 January 2014 (EST) | ||
:::Does it by any chance feature this video[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xUmKhEgeo54]--[[User:JerryCa|JerryCa]] 17:01, 13 January 2014 (EST) | :::Does it by any chance feature this video[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xUmKhEgeo54]--[[User:JerryCa|JerryCa]] 17:01, 13 January 2014 (EST) | ||
| − | That charge would never standup in court. | + | That charge would never standup in court. Shockofgod promoting a redirect to counter attempts to repeatedly shut down his YouTube channel was warranted. The redirect would direct people to his new YouTube channel after atheists attempted to censor him by repeatedly false flagging his channel. See: [http://creationwiki.org/YouTube_participant_advice#Using_a_URL_redirect_to_stop_false_reporting Using a redirect to thwart atheist censorship]. |
| + | |||
| + | After embarrassing yourself with this spurious charge, I think you need to redeem yourself at his point and answer Shockofgod's question. And unfortunately for you, this is something that you cannot do. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:19, 13 January 2014 (EST) | ||
Revision as of 22:19, January 13, 2014
Contents
Typos
I just wanted to point out a few typos in this page, because it is linked to on the front page. In the second sentence, "cummulatively," should be "cumulatively" if I'm not mistaken. Also, in the first section after the Table of Contents, "In June of 2011, Shockofgoddeclared" should have a space before "declared." That's all I can find at the moment; please let me know if there is anything else I can do. Thank you! Kevin Davis Talk 20:35, 30 November 2011 (EST)
- Hi everyone. Could someone please address the aforementioned copy-editing mistakes? Thank you! Kevin Davis Talk 10:49, 2 December 2011 (EST)
- These typos have been left uncorrected for over 6 months, as Kevin pointed out. Can an admin please fix them? :) CWest 14:55, 7 June 2012 (EDT)
Word to substance ratio
The definition of the word accurate includes the word "correct" in it. Therefore, the word-to-substance ratio of Shockofgod's request for "proof and evidence that atheism is accurate and correct" could be improved if the words "and correct" were omitted. CWest 14:55, 7 June 2012 (EDT)
- To be fair, my understanding is that it is a quote from SoG. You should take that up with SoG himself. GregG 17:39, 29 June 2012 (EDT)
A comma splice
"These false reports are not isolated incidents, many atheists will try this deceitful tactic to block out Christianity and creation science." A semicolon is appropriate instead of the comma. Thanks, GregG 22:48, 10 August 2013 (EDT)
Is he really significant?
This article kind of seems like an advertisement for a YouTube channel and a podcast... Don't anti-atheist argument articles do the job here well enough? Not sure it really helps the argument to be featuring a guy who's most "famous" quotation is barely even English.Editman 7:04, 21 December 2013 (EST)
- When atheists answer Shockofgod's question, then they will deserve to ask if he is significant. But not before then! See: Essay: The question atheists fear. Conservative 16:54, 13 January 2014 (EST)
Converage out of proportion to importance
I'm new to Conservapedia. I'm surprised how many articles link to this person. He doesn't seem to be a particularly prominent Conservative Christian.
Special:WhatLinksHere/Shockofgod&limit=500
I don't propose removing the article but perhaps we don't to link to this page from such a huge number of pages? Perhaps just keep the references where he is most relevant.
- Creation Ministries International prominently features a Shockofgod video in the flagship atheism article.[1]. To this day, Shockofgod's question stumps atheists and utterly humiliates the atheist community. And unlike Stephen Hawking, Shockofgod never embarrassed himself by positing that the universe poofed itself into existence from nothing (There is a reason the Shockofgod article is larger than the Stephen Hawking article - Hawking has never stumped the Christian community, but Shockofgod's question continues to stump atheists. See: Essay: The question atheists fear). Conservative 17:03, 13 January 2014 (EST)
That charge would never standup in court. Shockofgod promoting a redirect to counter attempts to repeatedly shut down his YouTube channel was warranted. The redirect would direct people to his new YouTube channel after atheists attempted to censor him by repeatedly false flagging his channel. See: Using a redirect to thwart atheist censorship.
After embarrassing yourself with this spurious charge, I think you need to redeem yourself at his point and answer Shockofgod's question. And unfortunately for you, this is something that you cannot do. Conservative 17:19, 13 January 2014 (EST)
