Talk:Atheism/Archive 11

message: This is from the latest OED (complete edition).  I accept that the OED has worked tirelessly for over a century to deliver definitions of terms that are accepted both commonly and by academics.
I (as many people do) accept the OED definition of atheist. I also accept the OED definition for disbelief.
 I also accept that atheism is not always interpreted as being privative. I cannot accept that it is 'just factually wrong' when someone asserts that it can be used in a privative stance.  
I would like to point out that it appears FeloniousMonk and his supporters do not seem to find a distinction between the terms 'unbelief' and 'disbelief'. The OED could have defined atheist in terms of unbelief, but it does not. (20040302 09:54, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Common and academic views of Atheist and Disbelief

message: I obviously meant WorldNet dictionary.  Not webster's.  Get over yourself.  They are right next to eachother on the link that you yourself pointed to.  I'm sure that you noticed that, but I guess you would rather pretend that I was lying.
It is also obvious that discussions with Sam and 20040302 are pointless.  We need a mediator.  I'm new to wikipedia.  How do we go about doing that?  Or do we just keep discussing until we puke?  UVwarning 23:32, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, No. You cite Webster's, I read Webster's. I truthfully noticed only when you pointed it out now. You mis-cited. I had quoted from Webster's before, and was shocked to see the definition that you provided. It doesn't do you any good to mis-cite. That's all I was saying. As for WordNet- You rate that over the OED and Websters? Come on. (20040302 23:37, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: That doesn't explain or justify your pointed oblique insults like Who needs to worry about accusations of sophistry, when we are bing fed misdirected sources? and characterizing his position with a heading titled Look Ha! Fiction!. Your response to UVWarning reads more like a frothing, trollish rant that a dispassionate point about mis-citing references. I have no doubt as to your intent there.--FeloniousMonk 23:48, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: For that matter your characterization of my position and method at Where is this going?at the top this page is pretty insulting and trollish too.--FeloniousMonk 23:51, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I apologise to anyone who feels that I have insulted them. It is not my intention to insult whatsoever, and I am completely willing to continue this discussion with civility, restraint and manners. However, I also expect such behaviour from other discussants. Secondly, my intentions are to write a good article. It is understandable that we find it astounding that different people have such completely different views from our own, and indeed it can hurt when someone claims to have greater knowledge than ones-self, or to be told that they know something that the other doesn't, or read claims that one is foolish, sophistic, silly, misguided, uneducated, theistic/atheistic, etc.  So let us be civil, polite and restrained towards each other. (20040302 00:09, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree we all need to be respectful. Both sides.--FeloniousMonk 01:10, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fact. 

message: Due to complete lack of progress on coming to a consensus on this article, I have decided to take a different role. In doing so, I am creating a conflict of interest and must remove myself from any further attempts at impartial dispute resolution. Since I requested protection of the article page for the purpose of dispute resolution, I have now requested that it be unprotected. If anyone wishes to have it protected again, they may make a separate request. Best of luck in resolving your differences. Skyler1534 04:01, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)
:Skyler, in what capacity were you doing dispute resolution before, anyway? You're not a mediator or an arbitrator. Anyway, I think your request should by no means be granted - consensus still doesn't exist for this article. Andre (talk)  04:04, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)
::I had no official capacity (which I did state once or twice for the record). I am simply user concerned about the integrity of Wikipedia. Skyler1534 04:26, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)
::I agree with Andrevan. By the way, the existence of a dispute resolution is lacking for a war continues to rage between the wizards and the trolls. Should that shield of protection be disarmed, the battlefield would expand to a place of superior importance. Adraeus 04:49, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unprotection of article 

message: Article reprotected by request. Adraeus 21:37, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reprotection