[003]
SkidTroper
Current Version
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
I wasn't comparing Dawkins to North Korea, I mentioned him because the New Atheist movement has contributed to the current media portrayal of atheism; thus it is relevant to mention on the page. The existing text in the atheist section has a whiff of pro-atheist apologetics about it (since it merely states the origin of the New Atheist movement while omitting the controversies they have played a role in (or their selective, tarring, even myopic statements about religion and the religious). I cited Dawkins because he is one of the founders and has made many of said remarks (and he is still alive and a factor today while Madalyn is dead though her organization still exists). On a site note, the Dawkins-Cowell comparison is not apt; Dawkins is known for, and has made a career out of, promoting atheism and attacking religion. Cowell is known for, and has made a career out of, being an entertainer and a caustic critic.
to:
I wasn\'t comparing Dawkins to North Korea, I mentioned him because the New Atheist movement has contributed to the current media portrayal of atheism; thus it is relevant to mention on the page. The existing text in the atheist section has a whiff of pro-atheist apologetics about it (since it merely states the origin of the New Atheist movement while omitting the controversies they have played a role in (or their selective, tarring, even myopic statements about religion and the religious). I cited Dawkins because he is one of the founders and has made many of said remarks (and he is still alive and a factor today while Madalyn is dead though her organization still exists). On a site note, the Dawkins-Cowell comparison is not apt; Dawkins is known for, and has made a career out of, promoting atheism and attacking religion. Cowell is known for, and has made a career out of, being an entertainer and a CausticCritic.
Changed line(s) 3 from:
n
In addition, it mentions Madalyn o'hair as having an abrasive personality, and not banned on the grounds of criticizing a real person, so by that logic the issues with the the new atheist founders should also be mentioned). If the numerous grievances leveled at Christianity and Islam mentioned in the respective sections are acceptable to mention the same can be done for atheism (You claim it would only stigmatize atheists; don't you think the
to:
In addition, it mentions Madalyn o\'hair as having an abrasive personality, and not banned on the grounds of criticizing a real person, so by that logic the issues with the the new atheist founders should also be mentioned). If the numerous grievances leveled at Christianity and Islam mentioned in the respective sections are acceptable to mention the same can be done for atheism (You claim it would only stigmatize atheists; don\'t you think the \"Treatment of Galileo and Darwin\" criticism leveled at Christianity stigmatizes Christians? Or the terrorist stereotype stigmatizes Muslims? Yet both are mentioned in their sections - and [[NeverLiveItDown some of the complaints mentioned are historical but still leaving a mark today]]). To do otherwise and omit such facts would be a double standard.
The fact that you tried to deflect when I shared my suspicion of your motives and didn\'t confirm or deny it is telling. So Christians and Muslims can be stigmatized but atheists can\'t be? (on that note, I was not launching an Ad hominem attack on you. Ad homimen is when someone attacks your argument based on your character rather than the argument itself. I have addressed the content of your argument and merely shared my suspicion of your motive, which again you did not deny... just as earlier it looked like you were insinuating I was antisemitic, but I answered that and explained that I am not). I\'m not calling for the stigmatization of atheists, merely seeking to list WHY it\'s happened and present facts, even if it means exposing the figurative skeletons in a few closets. Speculation about a person\'s motives isn\'t Ad homimen - the fact that you won\'t add facts because of the possibility it could stigmatize atheism (and deflected when I asked about your motives) looks like you\'re trying to do pro-atheist agenda editing (also, insinuation means implied, where I was openly stating my suspicions).
I merely wish to add a few facts about the New Atheist movement, mention Dawkins and tweak the section on Islam (since the Judaism section seems to be a pretty sensitive one and we can\'t reach consensus).
On a site note: regarding the research about Jesus, there are non-Scripture historical sources that talk about Him (two examples include https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus, https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/people-cultures-in-the-bible/jesus-historical-jesus/did-jesus-exist/ But I encourage you to do your own research if you\'re worried that I\'m spoon-feeding you biased sources).
The fact that you tried to deflect when I shared my suspicion of your motives and didn\'t confirm or deny it is telling. So Christians and Muslims can be stigmatized but atheists can\'t be? (on that note, I was not launching an Ad hominem attack on you. Ad homimen is when someone attacks your argument based on your character rather than the argument itself. I have addressed the content of your argument and merely shared my suspicion of your motive, which again you did not deny... just as earlier it looked like you were insinuating I was antisemitic, but I answered that and explained that I am not). I\'m not calling for the stigmatization of atheists, merely seeking to list WHY it\'s happened and present facts, even if it means exposing the figurative skeletons in a few closets. Speculation about a person\'s motives isn\'t Ad homimen - the fact that you won\'t add facts because of the possibility it could stigmatize atheism (and deflected when I asked about your motives) looks like you\'re trying to do pro-atheist agenda editing (also, insinuation means implied, where I was openly stating my suspicions).
I merely wish to add a few facts about the New Atheist movement, mention Dawkins and tweak the section on Islam (since the Judaism section seems to be a pretty sensitive one and we can\'t reach consensus).
On a site note: regarding the research about Jesus, there are non-Scripture historical sources that talk about Him (two examples include https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus, https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/people-cultures-in-the-bible/jesus-historical-jesus/did-jesus-exist/ But I encourage you to do your own research if you\'re worried that I\'m spoon-feeding you biased sources).
