Forum:EvoWiki ports
From RationalWiki
(Difference between revisions)
(Useless info) |
|||
| Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
::::::Wait, we ''aren't'' explicitly atheistic? [[User:Nebuchadnezzar|Nebuchadnezzar]] ([[User talk:Nebuchadnezzar|talk]]) 20:40, 14 November 2011 (UTC) | ::::::Wait, we ''aren't'' explicitly atheistic? [[User:Nebuchadnezzar|Nebuchadnezzar]] ([[User talk:Nebuchadnezzar|talk]]) 20:40, 14 November 2011 (UTC) | ||
::::::::Sorta-kinda. There are a few Christian, Pagan, Jewish, and Muslim editors. [[user:Ty|<span style="color:green">Тy</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Ty|<span style="color:green">talk</span>]]</sup> 20:42, 14 November 2011 (UTC) | ::::::::Sorta-kinda. There are a few Christian, Pagan, Jewish, and Muslim editors. [[user:Ty|<span style="color:green">Тy</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Ty|<span style="color:green">talk</span>]]</sup> 20:42, 14 November 2011 (UTC) | ||
| − | :::::::They could all go into a [[creationist claims]] article or [[creationist arguments]]. {{User:Blue/sig}} 20:41, 14 November 2011 (UTC) | + | :::::::They could all go into a [[creationist claims]] article or [[creationist arguments]]. Or should I say [[fundamentalist claims]]. {{User:Blue/sig}} 20:41, 14 November 2011 (UTC) |
Revision as of 20:42, 14 November 2011
The following pages are not, in their current state, proper RationalWiki articles. What do we propose to do with them?
- If man comes from random causes, life has no purpose or meaning
- Without a literal Fall, there is no need for Jesus and redemption
- Animals are not moral, esthetic, idealistic, or religious
- Death and suffering before humanity implies an unmerciful God
- John Paul II's statement about evolution was mistranslated
- Do you want to be descended from a monkey?
- It is not true that the Church used to teach that the Earth is flat.
For my part I think we should incorporate them all into a set of broader articles, or into existing articles. For instance, the one about the Pope's statement should be incorporated into the article on John Paul II.
Acer Blue 20:15, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
- Bob suggested an article cataloging dumb questions apologists and/or creationists think are clever.
theist 20:18, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
- Maybe some of them could go into one of those side-by-side or essay thingamajigs. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 20:20, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
- Perhaps one big counter-apologetics article? But it also raises the question of whether the wiki is openly and specifically atheistic. In my personal opinion that would be a Good Thing but in the past there have been objections to such a position. We are now pretty close to that situation but engaging in explicit counter-apologetics would put us clearly in the atheist camp.--BobSpring is sprung! 20:23, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
- Destroy them all! Aceace 20:34, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
- When you look at them carefully, they actually have lots of useful stuff. Many, like the one on the pope's statment, should stand on their own. Others can be integrated. But it seems to me, given how much stuff we have around here that we want to improve on, the best answer is just leave them copper articles, and try to get people to work with each one individually, rather than looking at them as some kind of collective. And, don't make any decision right now, just cause 'gosh, they appeared on my recent changes - fix and fix now.- Heh. Just my two cents, having worked a bit on the pope's statement.
GodotI smell roasted chestnuts. droollllllll. 20:40, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
- Wait, we aren't explicitly atheistic? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 20:40, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
- They could all go into a creationist claims article or creationist arguments. Or should I say fundamentalist claims.
Acer Blue 20:41, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
- Wait, we aren't explicitly atheistic? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 20:40, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
- When you look at them carefully, they actually have lots of useful stuff. Many, like the one on the pope's statment, should stand on their own. Others can be integrated. But it seems to me, given how much stuff we have around here that we want to improve on, the best answer is just leave them copper articles, and try to get people to work with each one individually, rather than looking at them as some kind of collective. And, don't make any decision right now, just cause 'gosh, they appeared on my recent changes - fix and fix now.- Heh. Just my two cents, having worked a bit on the pope's statement.
- Destroy them all! Aceace 20:34, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
- Perhaps one big counter-apologetics article? But it also raises the question of whether the wiki is openly and specifically atheistic. In my personal opinion that would be a Good Thing but in the past there have been objections to such a position. We are now pretty close to that situation but engaging in explicit counter-apologetics would put us clearly in the atheist camp.--BobSpring is sprung! 20:23, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
- Maybe some of them could go into one of those side-by-side or essay thingamajigs. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 20:20, 14 November 2011 (UTC)