User talk:Feredir28/God Doesn't Believe in Atheists: Proof That the Atheist Doesn't Exist

Then why do the vast majority of this site's users exist Ray? Oh wait "evidence" forgot we aren't allowed to use that when debating you. Nor can we use logic. Тиранес^{watch fritter, sacrifice snake?} 19:58, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

But can you proof that atheism is true? Weaseloid^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:34, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

No. But I can prove that atheists exist. Тиранес^{bang dishwasher, repair antibacterial?} 22:26, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Of course there is no proof and evidence that atheism is true. Atheism is a clown and it did not know it. Blue (is useful) 22:31, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

How do you know, were you there? --Idiot numbre 188 (talk) 23:39, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes. It was in the flying animal petting zoo. Blue (pester) 23:44, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

.... SO how are the new drugs? Тиранес^{suffocate truffle, subvocalise automobile?} 23:46, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I feel supra Blue (pester) 00:22, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Just don't turn into you-know-who and I'm sure all will be fine. Тиранес^{murder asterisk, discalceate philanthropist?} 00:24, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Ace McWicked is the single greatest inspiration in my life. Blue (pester) 00:39, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I said AM-M not AMW. Тиранес^{envision memo, acidify factoid?} 00:49, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Ah... I confess that I know not this "AM-M" Blue (is useful) 01:25, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

It's okay. I made it up on the fly to confuse you. Тиранес^{adhere centrifuge, break lollipop?} 01:28, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, there's little chance I turn into "you-know-who." For one, I am Muggle-born, and two, I am in Ravenclaw. Blue (is useful) 02:02, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

It's like talking to myself, if I were female and older. Тиранес^{bust arc welder, seize leek?} 02:15, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Why do you assume I'm older than you? Blue (is useful) 02:34, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Statistics. Most people in the world are older than me. Also your edit pattern suggests employment, or at least some regular activity which features a lunch break. High/middle schoolers usually do not have Internet access during lunch. So employed or in college. Тиранес^{rebel dwarf, exorcise governor?} 02:40, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

How astute. But if you are in college, I might still be younger than you. Blue (is useful) 03:31, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I am in college, but am only (age wise) ~ 1/2 done(5/8 semester wise) so still 50/50. Тиранес^{redeem zoot suit, exemplify Pac-Man?} 03:33, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

College completion is not necessarily indicative of age, but I can confirm that you are farther along than me. Blue (is useful) 03:46, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Music I presume? (this talk page has gotten quite off topic.) Тиранес^{explode Xbox One, overthrow cephalopod?} 03:47, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Undecided. And the more I edit this page, the more I prove that atheists do indeed exist (: Blue (pester) 03:57, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

True. I'm fighting a vandal at the moment, so response will be sluggish. Тиранес^{envision curry, ruminate poop scoop?} 03:58, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Does Comfort try to "prove" atheists don't exist beyond the "Atheist Test"? I mean, I read guys like D'Souza and Strobel back in my "Maybe one of these guys might have a decent argument, better make sure just in case" days. At least D'Souza is well-read (all the more quote mining material eh?) and pseudo-intellectual enough not to come off like a complete raving moron. Strobel not so much. I knew the bananaman was a low-tier apologist, but good lawd. How does he manage to shit out a book every year and still get published, even by the low standards of Christian apologetics/"intelligent" design? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 05:38, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

No, Comfort just repeats the old crap again. Apparently, if you publish a book every year and repeat the same lie, maybe someone will believe it. Even to this day he continues to quote Darwin on the eye, even though he has been corrected millions of times, but it just shows his level of mentality and dishonesty. Throughout the book, he keeps calling atheists "atheists" but if atheists don't exist why bother keep calling them that. He does not provide any argument that they don't exist, he is just selling an invisible product: faith in the Bible. Btw, D'Souza can suck my ass. Feredir28 (talk) 05:58, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Side-by-side

The side by side really works well for these. It also makes it easier to find things. GodotGet over it!. 22:18, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

thanks for the good news. I will find the time to rework some of my other reviews, and I know that they still have a lot of work to be done, but for now I will focus on making them much easier to read and find things. Feredir28 (talk) 22:24, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

The side by side definitely does not work here. There's no point in having commentary on Comfort's position on the left side, while purporting to refute or respond to it on the right side. Your writing is such a mess, Feredir. Beyond the rampant grammatical errors and typos and being needlessly prolix, I'm especially struck by the degree to which you simply ignore some of our high quality material on major subjects in anti-creationism and counter-apologetics and go off on your own in ways that are sometimes inconsistent or so informal as to be pointless. Not just referring to this article, I don't even know where to begin copyediting it for the shear volume of walls of text you've spread all over the wiki. Like I said elsewhere, we really need a wiki project to look at what you've done and decide what's salvageable. Some of these articles are on prominent people and come up high on Google. Their spotty quality is embarrassing and reflects really poorly on RationalWiki. I'm sorry for being hard on you, Feredir, but there's way too much here for one person to simply jump in and fix without complaining. 17:32, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Side-by-side is better when you have a transcript or a point-by-point summary. A general summary of ALL of his beliefs can't have that. ±KnightOfTL;DR^{more at 11} 17:56, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Feels like we're editorializing an editorial. Occasionaluse (talk) 18:01, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Preface: I don't mean to insult Feredir here. That said, I might be one of the most likely people to read this (because Ray Comfort is fun to make fun of), but there's no way in hell I'm going to read through any of these articles. They're simply way too long. I've considered going through and fixing all of the grammar and spelling mistakes, but just sifting through one of them is going to take hours.

It also doesn't help that Comfort repeats the same arguments over and over -- many times copy/pasting from his other books -- so just reading the main article on him is enough to get a sense of his arguments. If anything, these long side-by-side articles should be a subpage of the main article, with the main article having a brief summary of the main ideas in the book. I agree with Nutty that we should get a vote on what to do. Cow...Hammer^time! 19:14, 30 April 2012 (UTC)