User talk:Mome-Rath

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: &#126;&#126;&#126;. Four tildes (&#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! -- brian0918 &#153;  18:44, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style
 * If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also Topical index.

Re: God
I read your addition to the God article (subsequently reverted by Brian0918):


 * The Why bother? position argues that the existence of God is not important. It asks the question - Why would you want to believe in God?

It may have some merit, but you'll probably have to work on it to make it seem like something other than a sophmore's poke at the establishment. It would help if you had some philosophical jargon, if there were a philosopher you could cite... It's not really an argument against God's existence, rather a meta-questioning calling the entire enterprise into question. It might grow out of an agnostic position rather than an atheist's.

Brian0918 has left me a message explaining why 'e deleted your work. 'E has a point, but only half a point... 'E thinks what you added is your own, original thought. What 'e doesn't seem to know is that there are others out there who have expounded on what you are pointing out. The issue is formulating the information in a manner so that 'e can't delete it without being accused of POV. Brian0918 seems to be an upstanding wikipedian and will uphold our NPOV values if we do.

This would necessitate a revision of that portion of the organization of the God article. Under the heading "The Existence of God" there would need to be a new section devoted to the Agnostic position. Right now there are Theistic, Atheistic and Fideistic arguments. The Agnostic could/should be added. Then we'd need to figure how it should be arranged to avoid POV issues. If you are interested in working on this with me, leave me a message. Emyth 17:22, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

This morning I remembered the term for the "Why bother?" position - it's the "Apatheist" position ("apathy" + "theist") This neologism may still be a lay-person's term or in the realm of folk theology/philosophy, but it is being forwarded in a serious manner. I'll see if I can remember where I ran across it... (Google helps...) It was an Atlantic Monthly article from May 2003 by Jonathan Rauch. The article has been picked up by Beliefnet, and various dictionary style websites have entries for the term. (There is even already an entry in the Wiktionary... ) I don't know if this is the fons et origo of the term, but it just may be.

So, having laid Brian0918's criticism of your entry to rest (well, almost...) on with writing it up encyclopedically. Emyth 11:23, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

Hypothyroidism
Please do not insert unformatted external links in articles. In the text body, footnote format is used, and in "external links", a description is preferred like this. JFW | T@lk  22:26, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hello
I hope you'll join User:Jaberwocky6669 and myself as active contributors here! TheJ a  bb  e  rw  &#664;  ck 22:23, 13 May 2006 (UTC)