Difference between revisions of "Talk:Atheism"

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(History of disbelief)
Line 39: Line 39:
  
 
[http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070625/aronson Interesting] piece here that includes a lot that should be integrated into this article. {{user:tmtoulouse/options}} 13:52, 3 September 2007 (CDT)
 
[http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070625/aronson Interesting] piece here that includes a lot that should be integrated into this article. {{user:tmtoulouse/options}} 13:52, 3 September 2007 (CDT)
 +
 +
== History of disbelief ==
 +
 +
I think I've mentioned this before, but if you can watch the History of Disbelief[http://www.abriefhistoryofdisbelief.org/] it is quite useful material.  One site for viewing it can be found at [http://www.veoh.com/videos/v290167nBNFCMmq veoh]. --[[User:Shagie|Shagie]] 14:36, 3 September 2007 (CDT)

Revision as of 19:36, 3 September 2007

Undergoing MAJOR revisions and additions. Thanks for your patience and (hopefully) assistance. --PalMD-yada yada 17:42, 2 June 2007 (CDT)

Jtl, I did a revision for you.--PalMD-yada yada 18:22, 2 June 2007 (CDT)
Thanks! I dunno why that phrase amuses me so, but it does. --jtltalk 19:07, 2 June 2007 (CDT)

Quotes

Didn't George W. Bush essentially repudiate his father on this subject? I mean, I can't stand the guy for many reasons, but fair's fair -- when he gets something right, we should note it. I can't find the quote now, though. --jtltalk 14:55, 3 June 2007 (CDT)

Knowing GHWBs history, I pretty much assume that it was a political remark rather than a comment of true belief. I don't know if GWB repudiated it, but it is something I see him believing.--PalMD-yada yada 14:57, 3 June 2007 (CDT)

Oh yeah, the GHWB quote, I don't understand why he wasn't impeached for this, it's on the same level as anti-semitism and if a blow-job qualifies as a valid reason for impeachment, then this certainly does too. MiddleMan 15:42, 3 June 2007 (CDT)

A wild guess: Because atheists are a small minority, and the Jesus Party hates them? --67.102.192.7 19:16, 27 August 2007 (CDT)

Justification

It would seem to many of us that there would be no need to have a real article on Atheism, as it should be the "default" belief state. That being said, we obviously need it, given the overwhelming influence of religion (at least on my side of the pond). I think it is in general useful to examine the structure of atheism, and "critique the critique". For instance, many of the theoretical arguments, such as the contradictory powers of God, are not all that relevant despite their popularity, as theists can simply dismiss them as rhetoric/sophistry. Anyway, talking to much now...got to see a friend about a goat.--PalMD-yada yada 12:53, 4 June 2007 (CDT)

Catch-22

There's a section of Catch-22 I'd like to include here, but I can't find my copy. Anyone have it handy? Yossarian and Major Major's wife are arguing about what kind of God they don't believe in -- the wife doesn't believe in a kind benevolent God, while Yossarian doesn't believe in a cruel damning God. --jtltalk 22:34, 7 July 2007 (CDT)

Is there an online edition? Mine is a few moves back.--PalMD-Goatspeed! 22:42, 7 July 2007 (CDT)
OK, I love the idea, to but to do it, I have to read the whole damn book again? Not that I'd mind, but really... Can I just watch the movie? How about both? Ah, good times... humanbe in 22:44, 7 July 2007 (CDT)
I think it's at Thanksgiving time, while Yossarian's in training to march properly. But with the non-linearality, knowing that doesn't help finding it much, I know. I haven't ever seen the movie (afraid it can't live up to the book), so don't know if it's there or not. --jtltalk 23:07, 7 July 2007 (CDT)

me me me

I want to add a link to atheist but see no obvious, subtle way to do so. Helpies pleez? humanbe in 21:30, 10 August 2007 (CDT)

My Hovercraft is Full of Eels!

I notice you did not use the definition of atheism that encyclopedias of philosophy use like conservapedia does. No surprising since RationalWiki is not known for its scholarship but more for its obscurity. Also, I think you should put some Dr. Paul Vitz material regarding the psychology of atheism like I put in Conservapedia today. Newton 19:07, 27 August 2007 (CDT)

I giggled at the way you used "control group". tmtoulouse annoy 19:08, 27 August 2007 (CDT)
Newton: a little hint, RW doesn't claim to be an encyclopedia. Nice troll try though. St. CЯacke® 19:25, 27 August 2007 (CDT)
I wasn't EVEN aware that ALL philosophy encyclopedias adhered to one standard definition of "Atheism". Is that an ANSI standard, or an ISO one? --67.102.192.7 19:29, 27 August 2007 (CDT)

Newton, grow up. And stop being so stupid as to attempt to compare CP to an actual encyclopedia. DogP 19:31, 27 August 2007 (CDT)

He thinks Creationism is science, TK is fair, and CP is an encyclopedia. By extrapolation, his next step will be to decide that up is down, and then to float off into the stratosphere, presumably, this is how The Rupture will start. --67.102.192.7 19:36, 27 August 2007 (CDT)
Have you also noticed that we don't care much what you think, based on reading your oeuvre? Anyway, we don't reed boox, we'z ritin' one! It's betta four lerning that way. humanbe in 19:48, 27 August 2007 (CDT)

Nation article

Interesting piece here that includes a lot that should be integrated into this article. tmtoulouse annoy 13:52, 3 September 2007 (CDT)

History of disbelief

I think I've mentioned this before, but if you can watch the History of Disbelief[1] it is quite useful material. One site for viewing it can be found at veoh. --Shagie 14:36, 3 September 2007 (CDT)