Evidence for God from Science

Weasel words are words or phrases that seemingly support statements without attributing opinions to verifiable sources, lending them the force of authority without letting the reader decide whether the source of the opinion is reliable. If a statement can't stand on its own without weasel words, it lacks neutral point of view, and the lack of given sources also implies a verifiability issue. Either a source for the statement should be found, or the statement should be removed.

The emergence of weasel-worded statements often has its roots in biased or normative statements, e.g. "Montreal is the best city in the world". Often, people who are convinced that some statement or other is true naturally want to see it mentioned in the articles where it is relevant; however, statements such as these tend to jump out at the reader as obvious opinion-stated-as-fact and quickly get rooted out. The problem of the weasel words starts when an editor realises this and attempts to remedy the situation by modifying the statement to at least admit that it is not necessarily factual, e.g. "Some people say Montreal is the best city in the world."

At first glance, this rephrasing appears to have solved the problem - clearly "some people say" does not equate "it is a fact that". Yet it remains uninformative in a very fundamental sense, as the context of this statement is crucial to comprehending its significance, and none is provided. A few simple questions you could ask this editor strongly illustrate what the problem with that is:

Who says that? You?
When did they say it? Now?
How many people think that?
How many is some?
What kind of people think that? Where are they?
What kind of bias might they have?
Why is this of any significance?

The answers to these questions might very well strongly imply that in essence the statement contains no semblance of neutrality, verifiability, significance or any encyclopedic quality whatsoever - that "some people" stands for, e.g., three enthusiastic travel agents encountered by this single editor in 1998. The inclusion of unsourced statements in any text that aspires to be authoritative implicitly vouches for the unknown sources of these statements, and this can easily be exploited to spread hearsay, personal opinion and even propaganda under the guise of legitimate encyclopedic content. As the spirit of Wikipedia draws very strongly from the neutrality and verifiability policies, both of which are acutely compromised by this practice, editors are encouraged to Avoid Weasel Words.

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:Guy keeps on saying it's not a fallacy. And a new one: Say thing over and over again, no matter what the cost. Another atheist keeps on saying there's no justification for God's laws because He doesn't explain why something is right/wrong. No matter how many times I say that because the Bible doesn't say X, X doesn't by necessity not exist...

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:Can someone enlighten me as to why some atheists think appealing to majority opinion a way of determining truth? I never thought I'd see the day...but I have...

charlottecowell wrote:I think atheists are probably a minority group aren't they? They are also a necessary group, because without the counter arguments they supply we would never have the motivation to strive for the truth, there would be no discourse, just a bunch of people content in their uniform beliefs; this would eventually lead to a state of no-consciousness. If we did not all see things differently we would have no questions left, no desire to evolve, nothing to seek because everything would be known and accepted.

there are also a lot of people who call themselves 'atheists' for lack of a better term, or out of rebellion towards organized religion, which let's face it, is not always 'kosher', if I can make a joke along those lines. What I mean is, in any faith you care to mention, there will be rightful and wrongful practitioners, and I think a lot of atheists appear to struggle intensely - for understandable reasons - with the apparent dichotomy in some areas between what is practiced and what is preached.

People also misunderstand what religion is and blame religion for bringing about wars, without fully comprehending that it is politicians who manipulate religion for political ends who cause wars, and it has always been the same throughout history. Just look at the fights that occurred over control of the Delphic oracle, or the conversion of Constantine at a critical moment during battle, Bush & Blair in the Middle East... controversial, perhaps, but food for atheists, definitely. It is right that we don't ignore issues like this, there is a very good reason why we should respect these alternative points of view, because without them we would be blind to our own shortcomings.

charlottecowell wrote:Peace, man, I didn't mean to cause offence!

I am a Christian too, don't forget, and maybe some days I feel a bit persecuted as well, who doesn't? I'm well aware of the sacrifices involved and the level of misunderstanding from non-Christians, but I'm not going to feel bitter about that as I know that I have something worth more than anything else, which is knowledge of God's love.

All I am saying is diversity of belief is important because whatever the future holds, we have reached the promised land yet - not fully, not on a global scale, whatever is happening in our hearts - so it's still a question of seeking a way forward.

And it is definitely true that politicians of all religions use 'God' to fulfill their personal ambitions, and even within Christianity there are great differences of opinion, between, say Catholics and Puritans....being humble in one's belief appears to be the only balanced option in such a situation, including tolerance of atheists, though not necessarily satanists!

charlottecowell wrote:I think atheists are probably a minority group aren't they? They are also a necessary group, because without the counter arguments they supply we would never have the motivation to strive for the truth, there would be no discourse, just a bunch of people content in their uniform beliefs; this would eventually lead to a state of no-consciousness. If we did not all see things differently we would have no questions left, no desire to evolve, nothing to seek because everything would be known and accepted.

there are also a lot of people who call themselves 'atheists' for lack of a better term, or out of rebellion towards organised religion, which let's face it, is not always 'kosher', if I can make a joke along those lines. What I mean is, in any faith you care to mention, there will be rightful and wrongful practitioners, and I think a lot of atheists appear to struggle intensely - for understandable reasons - with the apparent dichotomy in some areas between what is practised and what is preached.

People also misunderstand what religion is and blame religion for bringing about wars, without fully commprehending that it is politicians who manipulate religion for political ends who cause wars, and it has always been the same throughout history. Just look at the fights that occurred over control of the Delphic oracle, or the conversion of Constantine at a critical moment during battle, Bush & Blair in the Middle East... controversial, perhaps, but food for atheists, definitely. It is right that we don't ignore issues like this, there is a very good reason why we should respect these alternative points of view, becasue without them we would be blind to our own shortcomings.