Wiktionary - Recent changes [en]: Wiktionary:Requests for verification

Wiktionary - Recent changes [en] Track the most recent changes to the wiki in this feed.

Wiktionary:Requests for verification Dec 5th 2011, 01:16 atheist: move comment to better place and respond ← Older revision Revision as of 01:16, 5 December 2011 Line 3,454: Line 3,454: :::::::I am not quite sure which is the most appropriate place to hold the discussion, but this seems like it - I previously commented on the thread in the tearoom, I'll crosspost here for transparency: :::::::I am not quite sure which is the most appropriate place to hold the discussion, but this seems like it - I previously commented on the thread in the tearoom, I'll crosspost here for transparency: Let me just say that I have found few 'serious' sources that entertain the notion that atheism and agnosticism are not distinct and mutually exclusive, indeed many sources explicitly contrast them. Let me just say that I have found few 'serious' sources that entertain the notion that atheism and agnosticism are not distinct and mutually exclusive, indeed many sources explicitly contrast them. − ::◄ Let me just interrupt here to say that in 10 seconds I found [http://www.google.com/search?q=%22I+am+an+agnostic+atheist%22 hundreds of thousands of 'unserious' sources] entertaining that notion. ~ [[User:Robin Lionheart|Robin]] 23:12, 4 December 2011 (UTC)   I think that a source of unnecessary confusion has arisen regarding the meaning of "reject", "belief", "disbelief" and "denial" - my understanding is that they are all used to signify knowledge claims. Some sources spell that out when they develop the subject further, such as ( emphasis mine ): I think that a source of unnecessary confusion has arisen regarding the meaning of "reject", "belief", "disbelief" and "denial" - my understanding is that they are all used to signify knowledge claims. Some sources spell that out when they develop the subject further, such as ( emphasis mine ): *[http://books.google.com/books?id=-bWxJ9IVsAcC&pg=PA62 Concise Routledge encyclopedia of philosophy 2000] *[http://books.google.com/books?id=-bWxJ9IVsAcC&pg=PA62 Concise Routledge encyclopedia of philosophy 2000] Line 3,463: Line 3,462: I think that this misunderstanding regarding what rejection and denial means in this context stems from failing to factor in noncognitivism - which states simply that "God exists" does not express any proposition at all, which I think we should agree does not yield "with or without a belief that no deities exist". I think that this misunderstanding regarding what rejection and denial means in this context stems from failing to factor in noncognitivism - which states simply that "God exists" does not express any proposition at all, which I think we should agree does not yield "with or without a belief that no deities exist". This is my first foray into wiktionary, so I am not quite sure on how this works, do we build established sources such as dictionaries, encyclopedias and scholarly work ( with discussion of course ) or do we build from more or less random citations in primary sources? <i style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">[[User: Unomi|<b style="color:#616">u</b>]][[Special:Contributions/Unomi|<b style="color:#515">n</b><b style="color:#415">☯</b>]][[User talk:Unomi |<b style="color:#315">m</b><b style="color:#215">i</b>]]</i> 22:46, 4 December 2011 (UTC) This is my first foray into wiktionary, so I am not quite sure on how this works, do we build established sources such as dictionaries, encyclopedias and scholarly work ( with discussion of course ) or do we build from more or less random citations in primary sources? <i style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">[[User: Unomi|<b style="color:#616">u</b>]][[Special:Contributions/Unomi|<b style="color:#515">n</b><b style="color:#415">☯</b>]][[User talk:Unomi |<b style="color:#315">m</b><b style="color:#215">i</b>]]</i> 22:46, 4 December 2011 (UTC)   + ::◄ Let me just interrupt here to say that in 10 seconds I found [http://www.google.com/search?q=%22I+am+an+agnostic+atheist%22 hundreds of thousands of 'unserious' sources] entertaining that notion. ~ [[User:Robin Lionheart|Robin]] 23:12, 4 December 2011 (UTC)   + :::No, please don't edit my posts. Yes, you can find 'unserious' sources for a range of things, we don't go putting <i>them</i> into dictionaries without qualification either. <i style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">[[User: Unomi|<b style="color:#703">u</b>]][[Special:Contributions/Unomi|<b style="color:#602">n</b><b style="color:#502">☯</b>]][[User talk:Unomi |<b style="color:#402">m</b><b style="color:#302">i</b>]]</i> 01:16, 5 December 2011 (UTC) == [[mulligan]] == == [[mulligan]] ==

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com. If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions