Atheism article at American Wiki

General discussions
Ygern
Atheist Ireland Member
Atheist Ireland Member
Posts: 3003
Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2008 1:02 pm
Location: Cork
Contact:

Post by Ygern » Tue Dec 16, 2008 11:53 pm

adamd164 wrote:... wum ...
Not a concern-troll?

But I'll repeat my offer, MarkG.

Linking to an utterly discredited website and asking for "any comments" is not an argument or a valid method of introducing a debate.

You come up with any real issue with / criticism of atheism that you want to debate and I'm here for you. I'd prefer if it was your argument rather than a copy and paste screed; but either way I'll do it. I even promise to do it without ridicule.
markg
Posts: 13
Joined: Mon Dec 15, 2008 3:52 am

Post by markg » Wed Dec 17, 2008 4:28 am

Ygern,

I am no fan of the Obama entry you mentioned. However, I believe you are committing the composition logical fallacy (see: http://www.logicalfallacies.info/fallac ... ition.html ). Just because one Conservapedia article is lacking certainly does not mean all of them are lacking. In addition, to make an inference from one single article (namely the Obama entry) certainly is not a strong inductive argument.

I do find it telling that you have not pointed out one factual error of the atheism article located here: http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism
markg
Posts: 13
Joined: Mon Dec 15, 2008 3:52 am

Post by markg » Wed Dec 17, 2008 4:31 am

Ygern,

I certainly did not introduce a debate in the opening post. However, I do believe I was entirely justified in pointing out the negative commentary on the article was entirely lacking in substance.
nozzferrahhtoo
Atheist Ireland Member
Atheist Ireland Member
Posts: 1140
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:17 am

Post by nozzferrahhtoo » Wed Dec 17, 2008 9:14 am

Markg,

An aggressive couple of posts for someone that has just joined. Be careful not to be labelled as a troll as it’s a hard label to shake.

The article is bad for a number of reasons, too long to write. However a main critique would be to point out that a lot of what they write only makes any sense if you automatically assume Theism to be correct.

For example the section “Attempts to Dilute the Definition of Atheism” is awful as the people writing the article are guilty of the same thing in terms of Thor, Santa, Fairies and unicorns. They would happily agree that the burden of proof is on people who believe in these things and that it would be ludicrous for us all to go through life attempting to prove these things are not so.

Yet when the same thing is said of a deity who no one has ever seen it _suddenly_ becomes an “Attempt to shift the burden of proof” or to “make no assertions so no facts are needed”. They then go on to say that this is against the encyclopedia definition of atheism.

Remember this one rule, you can start to disregard anyone who words from the standpoint that they have to follow one rule while everyone else has to follow another. As soon as you see this kind of operation on anyones side then you can happily start to disregard what they have to say.

1) So essentially they are taking something THEY do every day and saying that when WE do it we suddenly have some kind of dishonest agenda or pulling of bad tactics. It’s a pathetic approach

2) They then play with definitions in English. What they do is, find a group of people who think in way “X” they then apply the word “atheism” to them and then say “But “X” is different to the label *I* just applied to you therefore you must be wrong”. They don’t stop for one second any admit “Actually maybe the problem here is ME calling THEM atheists and then expecting them to conform to the label *I* just gave them…. Maybe the problem is with the label???”.

So as I said before, you can forget your aggressive posts and throwing around words like "composition fallacy" and "ridicule fallacy". I disregard this article on the grounds that it assumes to be true everything which it is trying to show is true. I disregard it on the grounds that it lumps many groups of people under one single label and then tries to show the whole thing is a fallacy because large groups of people do not conform to the label.

Its a dishonest biased article from start to finish and as you can see I was able to make a very long post out of just one paragraph of it. The main thing I notice over and over in it is, as I said, that they find things they THEY DO TOO and try and pen it as something only atheists are doing.

Another example? Down the end Chuck Norris writes that atheists are trying to use youtube to convert young minds to atheism. Bull. Total Bull. For every video on atheism there you might be able to show I can find you 10 more for theism. Not to mention that, incase they didnt notice, all the debates on the subject have an apologist for BOTH SIDES.

But no, the entire "wiki" article wants to say that when atheists do something its bad.... and their side never do the same things.You expect us to do anything BUT ridicule this article?
adamd164
Atheist Ireland Member
Atheist Ireland Member
Posts: 1004
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 11:58 am
Location: Cork
Contact:

Post by adamd164 » Wed Dec 17, 2008 10:04 am

markg wrote:Just because one Conservapedia article is lacking certainly does not mean all of them are lacking.
You're right, it doesn't: the reason they are all biased and inaccurate is that their guidelines for citation of sources - which are THE basis on which to judge any encyclopaedia - allow for partisan sources of information, "provided they have a record of telling the truth". Whose "truth", exactly? It's totally subjective. I can set up a website and tell people the sky is green, if someone wants to reference me on Conservapedia all they must do is claim to be taken in by my babble and it's considered a legit reference. :roll:

Contrast this with Wikipedia's verifiability guidelines, which stress that:
The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true.
... such as (and they go on to list them as you can see) peer-reviewed journals, government websites, textbooks and the mainstream media - i.e. NOT joe soap's ego-blog!

This is the reason conservapedia is a sham. This is why precisely NOTHING that appears on that website is encyclopaedic. And by the way, you might ask why - for example - pro-evolutionists ("normals", as I call them) don't just go on and register on Conservapedia (yeah, they require registration btw, they know they'd have too much covering up to do otherwise) and start inserting evidence in support of evolution, and the answer is that people do and have done this; what happens is that the material is deleted and their account removed within hours. If you like, I can set one up and keep all records to demonstrate?
Ygern
Atheist Ireland Member
Atheist Ireland Member
Posts: 3003
Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2008 1:02 pm
Location: Cork
Contact:

Post by Ygern » Wed Dec 17, 2008 11:34 am

markg wrote:Ygern,

...I do believe I was entirely justified in pointing out the negative commentary on the article was entirely lacking in substance.
Do you really?

That's a dishonest sentence. Reread my posts. I absolutely agree that I have nothing but contempt for Conservapedia and will do nothing to disguise that. But my posts actually went some way to show why that entire site is not trustworthy. I did not
"make an inference from one single article"
like you claim. I referred to their articles on evolution, Obama and kangaroos. That's three, not one.


Continuing to link to a website like that and insisting that we take it seriously isn't doing your credibility any good.

For the third time I'll repeat my genuine offer to you:

You come up with any real issue with / criticism of atheism that you want to debate and I'm here for you. I'd prefer if it was your argument rather than a copy and paste screed; but either way I'll do it. I even promise to do it without ridicule.
If all you can do is continue to post links and cast slurs at members here then, I'm afraid I won't be able to take you seriously.
bipedalhumanoid
Posts: 2675
Joined: Fri Feb 09, 2007 1:55 pm

Post by bipedalhumanoid » Wed Dec 17, 2008 11:41 am

markg wrote:I noticed there was not a cogent rebuttal offered for any of the criticisms of atheism in the article. I would remind forum posters that appeal to ridicule is a logic fallacy.
Appeal to ridicule is a logical fallacy. Ridicule however, is not. To commit a logical fallacy you have to be rhetorting an argument. Pointing and laughing is not an argument.
bipedalhumanoid
Posts: 2675
Joined: Fri Feb 09, 2007 1:55 pm

Post by bipedalhumanoid » Wed Dec 17, 2008 12:06 pm

markg wrote: I believe you are committing the composition logical fallacy (see: http://www.logicalfallacies.info/fallac ... ition.html ). Just because one Conservapedia article is lacking certainly does not mean all of them are lacking.
Do you actively seek science information from spiderman comics? Just because they get some of the science wrong doesn't mean it's all wrong.

To be guilty of abusing this logical fallacy you would have to be rhetorting an argument with a premise pointing out some inaccuracies and concluding that ALL of the information provided by the source must be wrong. That isn't the same as suggesting the web site is a bad (or discredited) source, especially if better sources exist.
markg
Posts: 13
Joined: Mon Dec 15, 2008 3:52 am

Post by markg » Wed Dec 17, 2008 1:30 pm

Dear Nozzferrahhtoo,

Abraham Lincoln was certainly an advocate of addressing the main issue. I think such an approach is quite sensible. With that in mind, I will address a key part of your post.

You wrote:
The article is bad for a number of reasons, too long to write. However a main critique would be to point out that a lot of what they write only makes any sense if you automatically assume Theism to be correct.

For example the section “Attempts to Dilute the Definition of Atheism” is awful as the people writing the article are guilty of the same thing in terms of Thor, Santa, Fairies and unicorns. They would happily agree that the burden of proof is on people who believe in these things and that it would be ludicrous for us all to go through life attempting to prove these things are not so.
Now since the resurrection of Christ is a very central issue in terms of the evidence of Christianity I will ask you a simple question:

What notable person from the atheist legal community was willing to stretch out his neck and tackle Christian legal apologetics?


I ask this question for several reasons:

1. The atheism article in that American Wiki cites Christian legal apologetics as one of the disciplines related to showing the existence of God. (see: Christian legal apologetics http://www.conservapedia.com/Christian_ ... pologetics and http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism#Co ... For_Theism).

2. Western law over hundreds of years has developed a rigorous methodology of weighing evidence.

3. Modern secularist are quite fond of the law and often use it to bring cases against theists (for example, the founder of the organization American Atheists was a lawyer).

So here are some of the exceptions to the hearsay rule that Christian legal apologists often bring up: http://lawreligionculturereview.blogspo ... truth.html

Now given that quite distinguished members of the Christian legal community have engaged in Christianity and/or praised it (see: http://www.conservapedia.com/Christian_ ... rnal_Links ), what notable atheist member of the legal community has taken on Christian legal apologetics and addressed the many exceptions to the hearsay rule that these Christian legal apologists say exist as far as arguing that the resurrection of Christian did occur? I am betting that you can not cite one notable or even non notable atheist member of the legal community who did this!
markg
Posts: 13
Joined: Mon Dec 15, 2008 3:52 am

Post by markg » Wed Dec 17, 2008 1:38 pm

nozzferrahhtoo,

By the way, if you could please find me a notable legal scholar, jurist, or lawyer who has argued for the existence of Thor, Santa, Fairies, or unicorns, using rigorous standards of weighing evidence I would be indebted to you. :D At this time, however, I found your post to be lacking in substance and persuasiveness.
Last edited by markg on Wed Dec 17, 2008 1:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Post Reply