User:XJDHDR
| This is a Wikipedia user page. This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia. The original page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:XJDHDR. |
About this user
 |
 | This user thinks that registration should be required to edit articles. |
| en | This user is a native speaker of the English language. |
| 500+ |
| Info box | This user believes that all articles should have an infobox. |
| <ref> | This user recognizes the importance of citing sources. |
| ~~~~ | XJDHDR signs his posts and thinks you should too! |
GNU/Linux |  |
 | This user prefers Mozilla Firefox. |
 | This user's primary email client is Mozilla Thunderbird. |
 | This user prefers to play games on a PC. |
|
This user's SteamID is XJDHDR.
|
| Src | This user enjoys playing games that use Valve's Folding@Home. |
modder . |
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 Methodis not about finding the truth but weeding out untruths (i.e. falsifiability).
- The
- The scientific consensus is always tentative at best.
- The scientific consensus has been wrong on a not insignificant number of occasions (major examples include Continental Drift as pseudoscience and Miasma theory).
- The scientific consensus has been wrong on a not insignificant number of occasions (major examples include
- 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?