User talk:Modocc
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] I may or may not be here.
I may or may not watch this page, for it can sometimes be difficult for even my mom to get my attention. Thus, I shall go ahead and give my belated response... It's cool, thats a really really good cookie. :-) Modocc 01:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Regarding your comments made on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Atheism
Hi there. Exactly what opposing view(s) of recognition (of atheism) are you aware of that are not currently reflected in the article? johnpseudo 18:56, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
- I am only aware of protests. My ex for instance, ;(. In talk, some have expressed either protests or concerns too. Personally, it doesn't matter to me which def people like. But surely, there are notable people that are, historically, critical of the inclusion of an implicit def, don't you think? I'm not all that interested in the history, so others will have to fill it in. Modocc 19:56, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] What is controversial?
I've spelled it out I don't know how many times: The overwhelming majority of atheists define themselves as having a *lack* of belief. And yet, the atheism article leads with a claim that it is a belief. This is outrageously inappropriate. Yes, let us talk about the idea of "belief of lack" as compared to "lack of belief," but to make the very first sentence be in direct contradiction to the point of atheism is simply bad writing. I have expanded the section to include both concepts and put the most common definition first. Why is there a problem with leading with the definition of atheism that atheists understand for themselves? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rrhain (talk • contribs) 02:42, 6 May 2007 (UTC).
[edit] Thanks...
The full quotation is of course better, and it seems I should take a Wikibreak, actually I'm already trying to, because my tone is getting very impatient. But that quotations was being used without looking at context and the main argument of that section, so just quoting him as "I can't know for sure" without adding "I can't know for sure about the tooth-fairy either" gives the wrong impression, even with the salvaged quotation. In any case, I think your edits and comments on the talk page are extremely helpful, so I hope you weren't offended by my rant. (And I should probably not take every edit single edit summary personally, who cares if somebody thinks I (mis)-stated something...). Cheers, Merzul 01:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Just to make it clear, I think the current version is the best, so that we don't go into the details of Dawkins religious life, the section is about weak/strong, and his exact alignment isn't that relevant. --Merzul 01:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Hello again! :) NBeale was actually right about my edit being a bad one, but I still don't think we need more than saying Dawkins rejects the distinction. However, there might be need to discuss this, so the observations you made on my talk page might be useful in the discussion on Talk:Atheism. --Merzul 21:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! And it will be interesting to see what happens tomorrow when the main page thing happens. --Merzul 22:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Thanks for your comment at Agnosticism
Thanks for your comment at Talk:Agnosticism and I have gladly replied there to clarify your point. :) Marax (talk) 08:02, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- Hi Modocc, Sorry for my late reply. Thanks for your further clarification! I have re-checked the minimum requirements of NOR and I believe the Ratzinger quotes can stay. You can find a fuller discussion at Talk:Agnosticism. Best. :) Marax (talk) 03:10, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Discussion of you
You're probably unaware of this, but you were reported to AIV a few hours ago. See this. There's discussion continuing about this at User talk:Metros#ok?. Just thought you should be aware, Metros (talk) 17:35, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] "I corrected the misleading type defintion in the nontheism article."
The paragraph you edited still begins with "Non-theism has various types." And atheism is only one of the types. So why take "type of" out of the atheism article? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 12:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
- "...the nontheism article has not had enough attention, since it is not featured and few people identify with nontheism due to its limited use. Although not stated, every one of the nontheism types is atheism too when using the broadest definition of atheism. Check under the atheism#Definitions and distinctions section, as nontheism is also referred to there:
- A variety of categories have been proposed to try to distinguish the different forms of atheism, most of which treat atheism as "absence of belief in deities" in order to explore the varieties of this nontheism.
- If you compare the different types of nontheism in its article with those of the atheism article, you should find that they are essentially the same. Modocc (talk) 14:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC)"
Well then, shouldn't you remove "types" from the non-theism paragraph you edited? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:20, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
