Talk:Glossary

comment
I removed the link to http://www.knowyourpension.org/glossary.aspx because I don't think this is the place for a specific glossaries. Maybe it should go on pensions? I added a link to the [Glossarist], as a general resource for finding glossaries. Youins let me know if I'm learning how to be a good Wikipedian :) LinguistAtLarge 06:49, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm gonna say you've done a good deed for the world today. :)
 * Or 12 months ago, as the case may be. >_>
 * --Aaedien 04:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Google
The google section was deleted because it does not work as indicated - instead of searching glossaries, google glossary uses knowledge of the web to find related items. This note from 2008 states that to invoke google glossary, precede the search with define: and you get a definition and search results. Apteva (talk) 01:19, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Atheism
The definition of atheist given here is tendentious. It takes side in the debate between atheists and theists by adopting the atheists preferred definition of the terms: atheism, agnosticism, and theism. This has been a relatively new way of defining the terms. Historically, atheist where those who disbelieved in God or gods. Socrates was accused of atheism simply for denying the existence of the Greek gods, not necessarily for lack belief in any god. This shows that "atheist" was understood as a term for a God-denier.

Why does the definition matter? How is it bias and favor one side in the debate over another? The atheist argues that the burden of proof in the debate is on the person making a claim or the assertion. The theist claims that God exists, so he bears the burden of proof. Traditionally, the atheist also makes a claim. He claims that God does not exist. If the burden of proof is on the person making a claim or an assertion, then both the theist and the atheist have a burden of proof to meet. However, if atheist is defined as a simple lack of belief, not a belief that God does not exist but simple the absence of the belief that God does exist, then the atheist does not bear a burden to prove any claim because he is not necessarily making the claim that God exists. The theist bears the burden of proof because he is making a claim--that God exists. So, the atheist has the tactical debate advantage by redefining and re-framing the debate in a way that they don't have to prove reason to think that God does not exist. The theist has to proof that God exists and the atheist can sit back and critique the theists argument. It is always easier to provide evidence for a position than it is to offer criticism of someone else's position. So, what atheists have, more or less since Antony Flew, called "atheism" has been traditionally called "agnosticism." The shift in terms is an intentional effort to re-frame the debate in a way that give the tactical advantage to atheists, who don't need to prove anything but just sit back and take pot shots at the theists arguments. I propose we either define the terms as they have been traditionally define, i.e. theist believe God exists, agnostic's lack belief in God either way (they don't know either way), and atheist disbelieve in the existence of God. I did not change the article yet on purpose, so we can work together on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.55.107.112 (talk) 14:51, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Biology
Learning can be more easily by watching videos for free. Ka.mwiya (talk) 07:17, 25 September 2016 (UTC)