User talk:66.213.107.194

Got blocked for trying to fix an article that was worded incorrectly. Apparently on RationalWiki, the opinion of the administrator is more important than what the factually correct definition is.

Then again, it's pretty rational to assume that wiki admins think they're always right. 66.213.107.194 (talk) 21:33, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

For 5 minutes. For repetitive wheel warring. My heart bleeds for you. ^{d hominem} 21:34, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Here's a handy link for the talk page if you want to argue about it. Hint: you don't get to define for us what we believe/don't believe, and neither do dictionaries (which aren't exactly great for nuance anyway) (ʞlɐʇ) ɹǝɯɯɐHʍoƆ 21:36, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

So what you're saying is that your wiki is based on the dictations and opinions of the people that run it, rather than what is commonly accepted as being scientific fact?66.213.107.194 (talk) 21:37, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

There is a difference between a dictionary and RationalWiki, and, more generally, between a dictionary and an encyclopedia. Even Wikipedia acknowledges that there are many different ways to define atheism, and recognizes that, "Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist." Blue (pester) 21:38, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Also, "the dictionary definition of atheism according to Merriam-Webster" is not "commonly accepted as being scientific fact." That's not even wrong. Blue (pester) 21:40, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

You're avoiding the question. And citing Wikipedia, too. Very bad habits for rational and logical thinkers, if you ask me. 66.213.107.194 (talk) 21:41, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

What Blue said, there. But this is also why you don't cite single line entries from bog-standard dictionaries to define something that takes an encyclopaedia entry to describe. Would you base an encylopeida entry on Brazil on MW's definition of "country E S. America; a federal republic". Not to mention the fact that MW actually has, as it's first definition, disbelief as a definition of atheism. ^pathetic 21:44, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

And you are citing a dictionary. how is that better? Dictionaries are limited in their scope; they have no room for the complexity of an idea. try looking up "religion" or "cult" or even something as easy as "love" and see what you get. Secondly, you tried to edit one of the articles we consider important as your FIRST edit. not exactly a move that is going to go unnoticed or unquestioned.GodotGet over it!. 21:46, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

(ECx2)If you can provide evidence other than a rote dictionary definition for your own claims, we will consider changing the atheism entry. There are cases in which a dictionary is not an appropriate source, and this is one of those cases. Blue (pester) 21:46, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

So what makes you think that the dictionary definition "disbelief in a deity" is better than the dictionary definition "belief in no deity"? I tried to compromise by putting both definitions in (because both are correct and most pertinent to the topic,) but I got blocked for my efforts. You know, because trying to end an edit war is somehow against the nature of a wiki dedicated to rational logic. 66.213.107.194 (talk) 21:49, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

How is continuing to edit war "trying to end an edit war"? I looked in the dictionary and the definitions don't seem to line up. (ʞlɐʇ) ɹǝɯɯɐHʍoƆ 21:55, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

BoN, you're being dishonest. You replaced the current conception with your own, not "putting both definitions in." Blue (pester) 21:57, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Really? Look at the changes. 66.213.107.194 (talk) 21:58, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

First of all, the majority of that page has been written by atheists, which you clearly aren't or you'd not be insisting on such a simplistic and incomplete answer. Secondly, dictionaries are by and large, really not good sources for anything other than the quote "the dictionary claims...". GodotGet over it!. 21:56, 3 November 2011 (UTC)(ec)

I hold no opinion on the existence of God or any other deity. 66.213.107.194 (talk) 21:58, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I've never heard of anyone not having an opinion on the existance of god or gods. sorry, but at this point, unless you can explain why your definition is "better", i'm calling TROLL.GodotGet over it!. 22:00, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

So in your world, everything is black and white. Either someone is theist or atheist. Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way. There are some people who just don't care about whether God exists or not. I happen to be one of them.66.213.107.194 (talk) 22:03, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

If you are honest with yourself, even if you "don't care", you have a view. it's human to have a view. You've seen something from someone (a book, someone's story, a church service on tv) and said to yourself "what bunk" or "oh, interesting" or "I don't get it". we all have opinions. but again, i remain dubious only because you care so much about how the word is phrased in the opening para of an article on a single webpage. sounds like you have an issue....GodotGet over it!. 22:10, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

No, BoN is just a self-superior agnostic. Blue (pester) 22:01, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Even agnostics hold opinions. they say "I do not know if god exists, but i think it is (likely, unlikely, possible, not possible, etc). oh well.GodotGet over it!. 22:04, 3 November 2011 (UTC) (ec)

oh, is that what I said? I thought i said i'd never ever met anyone who didn't have an opinion about gods. It's something we all think about. we all have opinion. unless we are 3, i suppose. GodotGet over it!. 22:06, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

As BoN has just said they "don't care," we can safely know em for an apatheist. Blue (pester) 22:06, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

For someone who "doesn't care" he seems to be very opinionated and indeed, dogmatic, on the issue.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 06:47, 4 November 2011 (UTC)