User:XJDHDR

Food for Thought

 * Why does Wikipedia allow the beliefs of Atheistic religions to be promoted as irrefutable fact and declare the historical claims of Theistic religions pseudo-science?


 * Why does Wikipedia's policies say that the scientific consensus must be stated as true when:


 * This is an Appeal to Authority fallacy


 * This is also an Appeal to Majority fallacy


 * The Scientific Method is not about finding the truth but weeding out untruths (i.e. falsifiability).


 * The scientific consensus is always tentative at best.


 * The scientific consensus has been wrong on a not insignificant number of occasions (major examples include Phlogiston theory, Continental Drift as pseudoscience and Miasma theory).


 * Why do secularists regard their beliefs are "the truth" when their religion defines all thought (and hence, their thoughts on truth, evidence and reality) as nothing more than blind, undirected and accidental chemical reactions in their head? Their opinions formed by said chemical reactions are no more special or meaningful than the equally blind, undirected and accidental chemical reactions that cause iron to rust.


 * Why do secularists regard their beliefs are "rational" when their religion defines all thought (and hence, their thoughts on logic and reason) as nothing more than blind, undirected and accidental chemical reactions in their head? Also, why do they routinely kick Logic and Reason to the curb if they are supposed to be defending rationality?


 * Why are atheistic beliefs said to be the the starting point for science when modern science was founded by Bible-believing Christians (for example, Louis Pasteur's research was instrumental in dismantling Miasma theory and Francis Bacon formulated the Scientific Method that all science relies on)?
 * Why does Wikipedia not distinguish between the aspects of science that comply with the Scientific Method and those aspects which don't but instead, require assuming said atheistic beliefs?