Iron Chariots Wiki - User contributions [en]

Talk:The Chronicles of Narnia

2006-10-27T07:06:08Z

MadOtaku:

Need to add specific Christian parallels and objections to those themes and message.[[User:Sans Deity|Sans Deity]]
:The death/resurrection would be a good place to start ~ [[User:MadOtaku|MadOtaku]]

Talk:Omnipotence and omniscience paradox

2006-10-27T07:02:03Z

MadOtaku:

Don't bother expanding this article yet. I will be finishing it off in the next day or so. I just didn't have time to finish it now. also, how do you start a new line on a wiki? like the html <*br /*> ~9:20, 26 October 2006 [[User:MadOtaku|MadOtaku]]

: Is this a real term used in theological debates? I've never heard of anything described as the "Omnipotence and omniscience paradox", and I'm not sure it warrants inventing a new term. Maybe you should add it as a subsection to the [[omnipotence paradox]]
: Regarding adding new lines: what are you trying to accomplish? Generally just adding two carriage returns is good enough, or indenting things with consecutive lines preceded by colons. Can you tell me what text effect you're aiming to write? --[[User:Kazim|Kazim]] 20:45, 26 October 2006 (CDT)

::I've heard the term used before, but not often. I thought about adding it as a subsection, but it really doesn't fit. As it's not a problem with omnipotence, but rather a problem with both existing in the same universe. As to where I'm going with the article. I'll discuss other aspects of this paradox (e.x., that the two can't exist in the same universe) as well as retorts to it.
::Let me write it, and if you don't think it warrants a whole article, I'll merge it. But I guaranty it will be thought provoking. ~ 23:58, 26 October 2006 [[User:MadOtaku|MadOtaku]]

Teller

2006-10-26T16:42:35Z

MadOtaku:

'''Teller''' (born Raymond Joseph Teller on February 14, 1948) is an American magician, best known as the smaller, silent half of the comedy magic duo known as [[Penn & Teller]]. He has legally changed his name to Teller.

Teller, like his partner [[Penn Jillette]], has been an "out-of-the-closet" atheist for thirty years, and supports various freethinker causes such as the [[James Randi Educational Foundation]]. He is the co-host and co-producer, along with his partner Penn Jillette, of the Showtime program ''[[Bullshit!]]'', which debunks myths with glee.

[[Category: Famous atheists]]

Argumentum ad verecundiam

2006-10-26T16:37:40Z

MadOtaku:

An '''argument from authority''' is one in which a proposition is claimed to be true because an esteemed person says it is true. It is a fallacy in that it relies on the person's fame, rather than expertise, or empirical evidence.

==Examples==
* "[[Albert Einstein]] believed in [[God]]. Are you saying that Einstein was wrong?"
* "Robert Gentry, a world-famous astronomer, calculated that the odds of life appearing by chance are astronomically low."

==Discussion==
It is not always a fallacy to say that "So-and-so says that X is true, therefore X is true." For this discussion, it is necessary to distinguish between an ''expert'' and an ''authority''.

If a famous astronomer says that the universe is expanding, then it is very likely that the universe really is expanding. If a qualified doctor says that a patient is suffering from Parkinson's disease, that's most likely the case. In these examples, the astronomer and the doctor are '''experts''' in a field, and are addressing topics within their area of expertise. As experts, they have studied their respective fields, are familiar with the state of the art, have studied how to recognize certain events, features or conditions, know how to recognize many problems that might lead a layman astray and how to work around them, and so forth. When we take an expert's word for something, we are saying, in effect, that if we had the time to learn as much about the field as the expert does, we would examine the evidence and reach the same conclusion.

Naturally, this applies only to experts speaking within their own field: there is no ''a priori'' reason to take an astronomer more seriously than anyone else on the subject of foreign policy or theology.

On the other hand, if [[the Pope]] says, ''[[ex cathedra]]'', that [[contraception]] is a [[sin]], then that's true as well. In this case, the Pope is an '''authority''' in matters of sin: it is his job to determine what is and isn't a sin in the Catholic church. In a very real sense, contraception is a sin not because it contradicts the Bible in some way, but merely because the Pope has said so.

Note that in [[science]], there are experts, but no authorities.

[[Category:Arguments]]
[[Category:Logical fallacies]]

Talk:The Chronicles of Narnia

2006-10-26T16:35:44Z

MadOtaku:

Need to add specific Christian parallels and objections to those themes and message.[[User:Sans Deity|Sans Deity]]
----
The death/resurrection would be a good place to start ~ [[User:madotaku|MadOtaku]]
----

Talk:Omnipotence and omniscience paradox

2006-10-26T16:27:04Z

MadOtaku:

Omnipotence and omniscience paradox

2006-10-26T16:19:29Z

MadOtaku:

The Omnipotence and omniscience paradox can be summed up as "Does God know what he's going to do tomorrow? If so, could he do something else?" If God knows what will happen, and does something else, he's not omniscient. If he knows and can't change it, he's not omnipotent.

Atheism

2006-10-26T16:02:59Z

MadOtaku: expanded "strong atheism" a lot, weak a little, and made a "see also"

==General concepts==
An '''atheist''' is a person who does not believe in any [[gods]]. '''Atheism''' is the corresponding philosophical position.

Notice that the definition given above does not require an atheist to claim god's nonexistence.
==Types of atheism:==

===Strong atheism===

A "strong" atheist is one who positively asserts that "there is no god". Strong atheism is the form of atheism that most theists reference in debates, since most don't know the distinction between strong and weak atheism, however strong atheists are rarer than most people think.

As a general concept, god is very vague, with specific incarnations being very well defined. Well defined gods are easy to disbelieve, it's the claim that god as a concept is false that separates strong atheists from most weak atheists.

For the above reason, strong atheism is sometimes criticized for "requiring faith." But this is not necessarily true. One could argue that it depends on how you define god. If by god you mean an infinite being, then you have certain logical contradictions. The [[omnipotence paradox]] for example. If you mean a finite being, the strong atheist may deny it's status as a god, as it could be surpassed, and may only be very advanced extra terrestrial life.

===Weak atheism===

A "weak" atheist is one who doesn't claim that there is no god, but instead simply lacks belief in a god. This form of atheism is the most common, and is sometimes called "[[agnostic]] atheism" (see our discussion of [[atheist vs. agnostic]]).

Weak atheists often argue that theirs is the only rational position, as both theism, and strong atheism make positive claims.

==Discussion==
Apart from not believing in any gods, there is no official atheist [[doctrine]]. There is no atheist [[pope]], no atheist [[church]], and no atheist rules to live by. This does not mean that atheists do not also follow societal and [[legal]] rules, but it does mean that there is nothing specific about atheism that tells you how you should live. However, there ''are'' comprehensive philosophical positions that include atheism as a part of the overall philosophy, [[secular humanism]] being the most well-known example.

==See also==
*[[Atheist Vs. agnostic]]
*[[Agnostic]]
*[[Secular humanism]]
[[Category:Atheism]]

Arguments from authority

2006-10-25T03:39:50Z

MadOtaku:

#REDIRECT [[Argumentum ad verecundiam]]
[[Category:Logical fallacies]]

First Amendment

2006-10-24T22:09:35Z

MadOtaku: /* Free Press */ changed particularly to particular

The [[First Amendment]] to the [[United States Constitution]] reads:

:''"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."''

The following summaries rely on [[Supreme Court]] decisions which have clarified and defined the meaning and scope of this amendment.

==Religious Protections==
While the phrase "[[separation of church and state]]" does not appear in the First Amendment, the concept (originally mentioned by [[Thomas Jefferson]]) is a logical extension of the establishment and free exercise clauses. True freedom of religion depends on government neutrality with regard to religion.

===Establishment Clause===
:''"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"''
This clause may appear to simply prevent Congress from declaring a national religion. However, the [[Fourteenth Amendment]] extends these protections to all citizen, effectively prohibiting individual states from circumventing rights guaranteed by the Constitution. Additionally, the Supreme Court has determined that the scope of this clause implies that ''"Government should not prefer one religion to another, or religion to irreligion."'' (Justice David Souter, for the majority in Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet)

Note: The word "respecting", in this clause, means "regarding" and not "showing respect for".

===Exercise Clause===
:''"...or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"''
Essentially, the rights of each individual to exercise their religious beliefs cannot be infringed. The government can intervene and prohibit certain religious practices if they conflict with other laws and such interference has a secular, religiously-neutral purpose. Generally, one individual's rights end where another's begin - ensuring that "free exercise" cannot be used as an excuse for violating the rights of others.

==Speech, Press, Assembly and Petition==
===Free Speech===
:''"or abridging the freedom of speech"''
This clause may best be described as "freedom of expression" as various Supreme Court opinions have concluded that the spirit of the law cannot be limited to simple speech. As the law has also been expanded to cover acts of protest (like flag burning), art and pornography, it has also been subject to limitations.

The various limitations on free speech usually relate to other protections like copyright, truth in advertisement (protection from fraud), campaign finance, protection of innocents, slander, calls to violence and speech which endangers others (shouting "fire" in a crowded theater.
===Free Press===
:''" or of the press"''
This clause extends free speech to the press and has also been used to protect the press from special legislation which would unfairly inhibit (or promote) particular content.

===Free Assembly and Petition===
"''"or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."''
The final clause of the First Amendment guarantees the rights to petition the government and peaceably assemble. While the two rights have been considered in tandem, they Supreme Court has also considered them independently. Hague v. CIO, for example, protects the right of the people to assemble for the "communication of views on national questions" and for "disseminating information."

[[Category:Separation_of_church_and_state]]

Talk:Atheism

2006-10-24T20:03:50Z

MadOtaku:

The "strong atheists" link is supposed to be redirecting to strong atheism (even that entry shows this) - but it's redirecting to weak atheism. Any idea why?

[[User:Sans Deity|Sans Deity]] 09:17, 20 June 2006 (MST)

I felt the atheism, strong atheism, and weak atheism articles were stubs. So I merged them into one article (keeping as much of the original writing as I could). hope nobody's upset! - [[User:MadOtaku|MadOtaku]] 13:02, October 24 2006 (PST)

Weak atheism

2006-10-24T19:58:40Z

MadOtaku: merged into "atheism"

#REDIRECT [[atheism]]

[[Category: Atheism]]

Strong atheism

2006-10-24T19:57:53Z

MadOtaku: merged into "atheism"

#REDIRECT [[atheism]]

[[Category: Atheism]]

Atheism

2006-10-24T19:53:45Z

MadOtaku: merged weak & strong atheism into this page

Missionary

2006-10-24T19:32:20Z

MadOtaku:

Missionaries are people that travel to an area where their (the missionaries') religion is unknown, and try to spread the religion.

User:MadOtaku

2006-10-24T19:27:37Z

MadOtaku:

I've taught myself how to edit a wiki, and now I am editing like mad. I will fill out stubs, make many new articles, and correct bad grammar/spelling wherever I can.

If you are editing something, and want a proofreader/opinion, just ask me. I would also help you write/edit a very large article, if it's too big for one person to handle.

Pope

2006-10-24T19:22:19Z

MadOtaku: Pope moved to The Pope: article was only named "pope". horrid name. now "pope" redirects to "the pope"

{{Stub}}
The Pope is the leader of the Catholic church, and is thought to be [[infallible]] by his followers.

Pope

2006-10-24T19:20:45Z

MadOtaku: Made pitifully small article

{{Stub}}
The Pope is the leader of the Catholic church, and is thought to be [[infallible]] by his followers.

Shrinking god

2006-10-24T19:15:08Z

MadOtaku:

#REDIRECT [[God of the gaps]]

Argumentum ad populum

2006-10-24T19:11:01Z

MadOtaku: added "see also"

'''Argumentum ad populum''' (popular appeal, appeal to the majority) is a logical fallacy whereby a proposition is claimed to be true because it is believed by large numbers of people.

==Examples==
* "Fifty million Elvis fans can't be wrong."
* "All US presidents have been Christians. Maybe such a prestigious group of people is onto something."
* "90% of the people in the world believe in God. Are you saying that all of them are wrong?"

==Discussion==
Argumentum ad populum comes in two varieties: the first is to argue from sheer numbers: "everyone knows X, so X must be true". This argument is appealing because in many cases, what "everyone knows" ''is'' true: the sun rises in the east, not the south; grass is green; and George Washington was the first president of the United States.

This is effective because it pressures people to be "normal". People have a desire to be like their peers. Thus tactics involving alienation are often used to bully people into submission, this is often a sign of a bad argument.

The second variety is "snob appeal": a proposition is claimed to be true because it is believed by an elite or distinguished group of people. This argument often appears in advertising, e.g., "XYZ Cola: the official soft drink of the National Football League".

==Counter-Apologetics==
Argumentum ad populum is a fallacy because the fact that many people believe something does not make it true. For many years, most people believed that the Earth was the center and most important feature of the universe. Millions of people believe that astrology works. Neither is true.

One special case is that in which a statement is said to be true because it is believed by most of the experts in the field. For example, if most astronomers say that the Earth revolves around the sun instead of the other way around, then that is very likely to be true. In this case, however, we are trusting the judgment of people who have studied the matter. In effect, we are trusting that the experts have reached their conclusions through valid arguments, so there is no need for us to research the matter ourselves.

==See also==
[[Argument from authority]]

[[Appeal to emotion]]

[[Category:Logical fallacies]]

Argumentum ad populum

2006-10-24T19:07:22Z

MadOtaku: /* Discussion */ added 2nd paragraph

Talk:Therefore God exists

2006-10-24T15:55:09Z

MadOtaku:

Oct. 24, 2006 - Could someone tell me about Oprah's arguments on the linked page? Did she ever make any such claims? ~ William

Non sequitur

2006-10-24T09:22:03Z

MadOtaku: /* Construction of a Non-Sequitur */

A non-sequitur (lit. "doesn't follow") is a logical fallacy in which the premises don't support the conclusion in any way. Thus, the conclusion doesn't follow from the premises.

==Construction of a Non-Sequitur==

Non sequiturs typically take the following forms:

# If A is true, B is true.
# B is stated to be true.
# Therefore, A is true.

Even if the both premises and the conclusion ''are'' true, the argument is still logically bad since the premises don't support the conclusion. For example:

# If I am human, then I'm a mammal.
# I am a mammal.
# Therefore, I'm human.

Even though both the premises and the conclusion are true, the argument is still a fallacy since the premises don't support the conclusion.

Another common non sequitur is this:

# If A is true, then B is true.
# A is not true.
# Therefore, B is not true.

Here's an example:

# If I am in my bedroom, then I'm at home.
# I'm not in my bedroom.
# Therefore, I'm not at home.

Again, the premises don't support the conclusion.

It's worth noting that if either of the above examples had said "If and only if A is true, then B is true" as their first premise, they would've been valid and non-fallacious but still unsound.

The above examples are the two main types of non sequitur, however there are many other less common types. An everyday example would be "If I wear my new shirt, all the girls will think I'm sexy." However, not all girls will think that the same shirt looks sexy so there really isn't a connection between the two. This type of non sequitur is commonly seen in advertising.

The two main premises above are good representations of the difference between [[validity vs. soundness|validity and soundness]].

Faith

2006-10-24T09:11:00Z

MadOtaku: Changed "Atheists believe" to "Many atheists believe"

There are various concepts of '''faith''' which have different connotations. In [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/faith the dictionary], the first two definitions are:

# Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
# Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.

Both are legitimate definitions in a discussion, but the confusion between the two definitions often leads to the use of the [[equivocation]] fallacy among those who wish to assert that [[atheism is based on faith]].

The [[Bible]] clearly adopts the second definition in [[Hebrews]] 11:1, which says: "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."

[[Mark Twain]] also created a classic definition in his book, ''Pudd'nhead Wilson'': "Faith is believing what you know ain't so."

Many [[atheists]] regard faith as the act of coming to a conclusion first, and then filtering the facts to match your expectations. In a sense, this is the opposite of [[science]].

==Faith in the Bible==

In one classic Bible story, [[Doubting Thomas]] does not believe in the [[resurrection]] of [[Jesus]]. Jesus appears to Thomas and gives him the opportunity to touch his wounds, after which Thomas becomes a believer. However, Jesus admonishes Thomas' skepticism, saying: "Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed." ([[John]] 20:29).

[[Category: Philosophical issues]]
[[Category: Epistemology]]

Avoidance of hell

2006-10-24T08:56:57Z

MadOtaku: Expanded the article, and reformatted it.

{{stub}}

===Explanation of argument===

"If you don't believe in God, you'll go to [[hell]] after you die."

The threat of eternal damnation and torment is an ever-popular argument of [[fundamentalists]] and [[presuppositionalists]]. It is simply an [[argumentum ad baculum]], even though the person making the argument does not claim to be the one to carry it out.

It is most effective against those that already believe in heaven and hell, such as theists that are angry with [[god]].
It's common use against nonbelievers is puzzling - because to threaten someone with something that they don't believe in, is utterly ineffective.

===Counter apologetics===
An effective counter apologetic would be to ask for proof of hell, or to threaten them with another religion's hell, and point out the similarity.
The threat of hell differs from [[Pascal's wager]] in several key respects:
* Pascal's wager is an intellectual argument. The threat of hell is purely [[Appeal to emotion|emotional]].
* With the threat of hell, hell is assumed to exist. Pascal's wager treats this as an unknown.

[[Category:Arguments for the existence of God]]

User:MadOtaku

2006-10-24T08:22:19Z

MadOtaku:

I know a fair amount about counter-apologetics, but lack the skills to make large edits to a wiki. If someone would post a link to a tutorial, I would be grateful. Until then, I will edit the grammar/form to make things sound more professional.

User:MadOtaku

2006-10-24T08:22:03Z

MadOtaku:

I know a fair amount about conter-apologetics, but lack the skills to make large edits to a wiki. If someone would post a link to a tutorial, I would be grateful. Until then, I will edit the grammar/form to make things sound more professional.