User talk:Mx000f

August 2011
Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to Cigarette appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe this important core policy. Thank you. Pstanton (talk) 06:38, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Richard Dawkins
You had questions about his views on morality. You were asking good questions. Mr. Dawkins poses the same questions and gives his responses in "The God Delusion". Please see The_God_Delusion. "The God Delusion" has a large section on the subject. Here are your questions from the talk page. I've indented my understanding of Dawkins' responses, which are not necessarily mine. Okay, so Dawkins is an outspoken atheist. I want to clarify, Does he accept that after death he wouldn't continue exist at all?
 * Yes. The world existed for billions of years before his birth and will continue for billions of years afterwords. Life is not a dress rehearsal.

If yes, what are his views on morality? I think this should be mentioned in the article. Logically he or any other such atheist should not have anything to do with morality. Does he hold the view that "An atheist can be moral"? If yes he is being completely illogical. Mx000f (talk) 07:32, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * From The_God_Delusion: He then turns to the subject of morality, maintaining that we do not need religion to be good. Instead, our morality has a Darwinian explanation: altruistic genes, selected through the process of evolution, give people natural empathy. He asks, "would you commit murder, rape or robbery if you knew that no God existed?" He argues that very few people would answer "yes", undermining the claim that religion is needed to make us behave morally. In support of this view, he surveys the history of morality, arguing that there is a moral Zeitgeist that continually evolves in society, generally progressing toward liberalism. As it progresses, this moral consensus influences how religious leaders interpret their holy writings. Thus, Dawkins states, morality does not originate from the Bible, rather our moral progress informs what part of the Bible Christians accept and what they now dismiss.

So Dawkins or any other atheist, wouldn't mind murdering his mother, or raping a child, cheating people or carrying out such "criminal" activities once he is sure he can do it secretly and if he is sure that his activities will go undetected until the day he dies. Because (according to him) after death you just become zero! You don't continue to exist at all!
 * One needs to give your life meaning beyond your short existence. The human race continues and the only way to have any form of immortality is to build a better world that outlives your mortal coil.

He would not be held responsible for any of his acts: "good" or "bad" because he wouldn't exist at all. Words such as good, bad, trust and faith should have no meaning to him. If everything originated by chance (without any purpose) it means everything that is happening today is just without any purpose, then why does he want to put forward his opinions, which may be considered to be product of chance (Blind watchmaker)? If he believes his brain, and his body are a products of chance, why should they be given any importance.....Mx000f (talk) 07:32, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * First, mutations are only the raw material for evolution and they are the only part of evolution that is pure chance. The selection process is definitely not pure chance. Most of the changes are deleterious and selected against by kicking the animal out of the gene pool. Good ones lead to more reproducing offspring. It is similar to the breeding farmers did with crops and animals.
 * Humans are social animals. It helped us survive. We also build social orders that have extended the tendency for altruism and cooperation towards your blood kin to people giving their lives to protect their countrymen or dedicating their lives to social service.

He says "There is almost certainly no God." Why is he not 100% sure? How can one claim to be an outspoken atheist then?Mx000f (talk) 07:32, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Because he is a scientist and is open to changing his theory of how the world works if new evidence emerges.

--Javaweb (talk) 14:32, 3 August 2011 (UTC)Javaweb
 * There is sufficient evidence that God exists. We have to be very broad-minded to see that evidence. First a systematic definition of "God" is needed. Anyway this is a talk page, I would not want to discuss more. Why doesn't the article mention his viewpoints?Mx000f (talk) 10:39, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

August 2011
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, but at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to M. Karunanidhi, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted (undone) by ClueBot NG.
 * Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Note that human editors do monitor recent changes to Wikipedia articles, and administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism.
 * ClueBot NG produces very few false positives, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made should not have been detected as unconstructive, please read about it, [ report it here], remove this warning from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
 * The following is the log entry regarding this warning: M. Karunanidhi was changed by Mx000f (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.883281 on 2011-08-18T04:56:19+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 04:56, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. OhNo itsJamie Talk 15:34, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
Smoking is not healthy, no, but even more so your rant the tobacco industry and your rambles about God on my talk page are decidedly NOT neutral and don't belong in an article. Pstanton (talk) 15:41, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, I think I am going to get blocked today by Talk. I AM NO LONGER INTERESTED IN CONTRIBUTING TO WIKIPEDIA, AND I AM NOT IN THE LEAST INTERESTED IN VANDALIZING IT. If you want cigarette companies to go to hell, all good wishes to you. Do whatever you fools please. I was warning people for their own benefit. GOODBYE. NO POINT IN ARGUING WITH FOOLS.Mx000f (talk) 15:50, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Blocked
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for vandalism; your edits and talk page comments demonstrate "a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia". If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. —C.Fred (talk) 16:18, 19 August 2011 (UTC)