Hey dude,
Regarding your comment here, I think we've found a number of sources now which essentially say that a person who says "Believing in deities is pointless as there is no evidence" (or something similar) is an atheist. A person who says something like that is not saying "God does not exist", they are simply "rejecting belief" in God. I too at first rejected to this wording, but after some consideration I think it is correct.
P.S. Is this a new account? If so, welcome! NickCT ( talk) 16:24, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Hey NickCT
Thank you, I appreciate that. It's an account I've had for several years but haven't been around writing anything with it yet.
On the rejection of theism bit. If you I could, would like to see those sources. I've read this discussion two times now, but can't seem to find them.
But as I explained in the discussion. This is essentially an extension of the debate of burden of proof. Does Theism or Atheism have the burden of proof. To often scholarly works take the historical view and use the definition of opposition. I reject to that. I means that I as an atheist is defined by the position of another. And it is a logical misstep. How can one disproof a negative? Ie, we haven't explored the hole universe so God might still be out there. So a default position have to be the logical step. If you make the assertion there is a god. Then you have the burden of proof. I don't have to reject your position to be a non-believer.
Have I made a clear argument or was it still a bit fussy?
Muthsera ( talk) 17:07, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Muthsera, I want to be clear in my comments to you. I agree with your proposal to change the first segment of the lead from rejection to absence. In fact, I intend to make my own case for it in a few days when I have enough time to defend myself. However, the way you are going about this is counter-productive. It is only resulting in the alienation of other contributers, which makes both your efforts and mine less likely to succeed. In an effort to make yourself understood, you're drawing the argument out longer than necessary, and repeating yourself where your points have already been addressed. This leads to unwillingness for other editors to read through and respond to your comments, and is about to result in other editors ignoring you entirely.
Again, I agree with you, but the way you've been attacking this problem is making it harder for me to defend the position. If you want the lead to be changed, this is what you have to do:
I can't stress enough that you need to show that other editors comments are being read and understood. Jess talk cs 01:41, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Hey dude,
Regarding your comment here, I think we've found a number of sources now which essentially say that a person who says "Believing in deities is pointless as there is no evidence" (or something similar) is an atheist. A person who says something like that is not saying "God does not exist", they are simply "rejecting belief" in God. I too at first rejected to this wording, but after some consideration I think it is correct.
P.S. Is this a new account? If so, welcome! NickCT ( talk) 16:24, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Hey NickCT
Thank you, I appreciate that. It's an account I've had for several years but haven't been around writing anything with it yet.
On the rejection of theism bit. If you I could, would like to see those sources. I've read this discussion two times now, but can't seem to find them.
But as I explained in the discussion. This is essentially an extension of the debate of burden of proof. Does Theism or Atheism have the burden of proof. To often scholarly works take the historical view and use the definition of opposition. I reject to that. I means that I as an atheist is defined by the position of another. And it is a logical misstep. How can one disproof a negative? Ie, we haven't explored the hole universe so God might still be out there. So a default position have to be the logical step. If you make the assertion there is a god. Then you have the burden of proof. I don't have to reject your position to be a non-believer.
Have I made a clear argument or was it still a bit fussy?
Muthsera ( talk) 17:07, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Muthsera, I want to be clear in my comments to you. I agree with your proposal to change the first segment of the lead from rejection to absence. In fact, I intend to make my own case for it in a few days when I have enough time to defend myself. However, the way you are going about this is counter-productive. It is only resulting in the alienation of other contributers, which makes both your efforts and mine less likely to succeed. In an effort to make yourself understood, you're drawing the argument out longer than necessary, and repeating yourself where your points have already been addressed. This leads to unwillingness for other editors to read through and respond to your comments, and is about to result in other editors ignoring you entirely.
Again, I agree with you, but the way you've been attacking this problem is making it harder for me to defend the position. If you want the lead to be changed, this is what you have to do:
I can't stress enough that you need to show that other editors comments are being read and understood. Jess talk cs 01:41, 3 June 2010 (UTC)