Occasionally, I get someone emailing me telling me that I'm wrong. I may well be, but in order to reach that conclusion, I would have to take time out of a very busy day to check the facts. As I generally check the facts when I write it initially, it's doing double work, and I'm not at all convinced that I'm wrong. Of course, I could be.
My question to you?
a) Would you immediately change your hub?
b) Go spend two or three hours researching it to double check it and then change it or not.
c) Ignore it
I have...actually, it's great to receive constructive criticism, because, it helps us grow. All said though, if you're right then you should stick to your guns!....
b) - I would research again just in case I made a mistake. I had, in one hub, improper use of a phrase that someone corrected for me and I changed the hub when I realized they were correct...cheers
You need to be sure that facts are facts and your sources have to be credible of course. When you're not sure of something then don't show it to public. It's hard to redo one's work that's why make it right the first time.
It depends on the disagreement. I wrote a hub about Americans not speaking English, supposed to be funny but a few Brits took offense. I wrote that in the UK they call the bathroom the loo, a few said that was wrong. I left it because I have several books with that term in them. I've decided it must be certain areas that use that.
My point is, yes, sometimes I have changed a sentence or two making sure to put in my article the change and why so that the comments below don't appear strange. It's a case by case situation and depends on if I find I am in fact wrong or not.
Just because one or even a couple people disagree with you doesn't necessarily mean you are wrong.
With respect to the context of the original post, the Oxford English Dictionary defines an atheist as:
"a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods"
As for changing facts in a hub, I would only consider this if the person objecting could show me at least two authoritative sources, which contradicted what I had written and/or could prove him- or herself to be such an authority.
Well, I'm in the UK and often use the term "loo" and so do lots of people I know. Some people say "ladies" (or "gents" as appropriate to the situation), some, say "toilet", some say "lavatory", some say "bog", although that is considered somewhat coarse. I also use "ladies" or "toilet" instead of "loo" at times.
In the UK, a bathroom is a room with a washbasin and bath and/or shower. It might or might not have a toilet installed in it as well. Very, very few people use the word to refer to a loo.
Definitely not. We are all entitled to our opinion. I wouldn't argue with anyone. Just tell them that it's okay to disagree and thanks for sharing, much appreciated.
If I thought it was plausible that the fact was wrong, it would bug me until I checked it.
If someone has come to you with constructive criticism concerning factual matters it is probably a good idea to check up on it so as to be sure you're not misleading readers.
I may spend some time reviewing their comment and checking facts before answering them. if they are right I will admit ti and make the necessary changes.
If it truly is a blunder I do change it. happened to me once on one of my best hubs. A guest user pointed out a mistake.
If they purely disagreed then no, everyone is entitled to their opinion though and able to share their experiences. However if they were correct that there was an error I would be truly grateful and amend my hub.
I try to write both sides of a subject, but I let my opinion be known. When someone adds something from the other side, I'll add it, but I haven't changed my own opinion yet.
I think anyone has a right to their opinions! However, if I've done my research and I know the subject...such as science is my background-I would not change my view or hub. I would let them voice their opinion and maybe discuss the topic indepth with them but I wouldn't change my view or hub for someone you don't know who may be wrong!
Or they may be right.
Science is not about sticking to your view, it is about changing it if the weight of evidence shifts and not closing your mind to new evidence or more parsimonious explanation.
The essence of science is doubt. That is what separates it from faith.
Agreed! The wonderful thing about science is the fact that any fact can be challenged with new evidence!
The actual point of contention is this:
In my atheist article, I said that atheists believe that there is no God.
He said that I was doing atheists a grave disservice and that I should have written that atheists have a lack of belief in God.
I maintained that they were the same thing. He says that they are very different things.
Yes, there is a slight difference in meaning, and while I'm sure that there are atheists that have a lack of belief in God, I'm also pretty sure that for the most part when people say that they are atheists, they mean that they don't believe there is a God...
Put both definitions... say some atheists define themselves as A and some define themselves as B...
If the person you are talking to is an atheist and you are not assume that he or she being of the group has more knowledge than you as an outsider.
In addition... that "quibbling" is likely not quibbling... I would be pissed off if I thought you got my faith wrong on a point that you dismiss as little but which is of major importance to me.
Okay, thanks. I'll put both.
Thanks for the input.
It is my understanding that Atheists believe there is no God. Being indecisive is Agnostic so if you think there may be one but you simply refuse to believe in a higher being you are Agnostic.
I am no expert on religions or the lack there of but that is how my Atheist brother in law explained it to me.
I think sometimes people are looking for a fight too! You can just feel it in their responses...they want to twist you and get you to change something! Then you get someone who just wants to be nice and help you.
I can see his point, but he's explaining himself badly. What he's objecting to is the use of that word "belief".
The trouble is, "believe" has two meanings, "having faith" or "having an opinion". You use the word in the "opinion" sense in your Hub, but because it's a Hub about religion, people will tend to read it in the "faith" sense.
Atheists have a lack of belief in a God of any kind (personal or otherwise). That's the meaning of the word. So they're very sensitive about being accused of "believing" (having faith) in no God, because that sounds like they came to that decision intuitively. Whereas atheists arrive at that decision through logic.
Reading through your Hub, I can see how difficult it would be to avoid that word "believe", because there isn't another good shorthand word for "hold the opinion that". But it would be good to try.
Okay, I asked him to rewrite it the way he would have rewritten it, and quite honestly, apart from the fact that he puts what I put elsewhere in my hub in the first paragraph, I can't see much difference...
Also, he criticized one sentence, and gave me about a dozen lines..
Honestly, I think he's quibbling about a minor point...
I read a Hub yesterday that was about a plant, and how beautiful it was. I agree, it is a beautiful plant; however, the author did not mention it is highly toxic to livestock, including dogs. I certainly wouldn't expect the author to change the Hub, but maybe add that information.
Generally, I have no issue with correcting something. And you're right about the plant. Information like that should be passed on. I guess I was just amazed that someone could pick on something so small. He acknowledges that I wasn't wrong in what I said, and that it was one of the definitions of atheism. He just thought that I was doing atheism a disservice because it gave Christians a bad impression of atheism...
For me, it would depend on the situation and the hub. I had someone mention something I was suggesting could be a bad idea. In regards to using a dryer. I thought about it, and realized I should add in that overusing a dryer could be a safety hazard. I changed it right away to reflect this.
I suppose, in most cases I would want to research it and see how valid the complaint is.
What about when it's a grey area and there is no danger to anyone? I think this was very much a grey area.
I think that was a wise thing to do. The Hubber I commented to was very gracious to me, thanked me, and now we follow each other! I really think she appreciated my bringing that to her attention.
Like you, Sophia. I'm pretty meticulous with research, but I have had the occasional criticism regarding incorrect or outdated information. Usually after, checking it out for myself, I'll change the hub if I'm proven wrong.
If it was factual, yes, I would check and change it if I was wrong.
If it's opinion stated as fact, (and they're here on HP), I would check my sentence structure and make sure it is clear that it is an expressed belief/opinion.
I've changed two hubs when I received courteous comments pointing out a mistake. One was factual and the other needed an undated research fact. I appreciated their comments!
I've read hubs here that make me cringe with the information given regarding labor and birth. There is no disclaimer, no research cited. I think disclaimers should be required on medical related hubs.
In your situation, I would probably give a dictionary definition stating Merriam-Webster (or whatever you use) defines an atheist as "..."
If someone came to me via e-mail and told me they disagreed (It's happened) and upon my review all of my research was thorough, I would kindly ignore it. There isn't any reason to change your work because someone disagrees with your article.
What a mess the news media would be, if they changed articles when others disagreed.
Ignore it. I did not hire this person as my personal editor. In fact, I don't care to have anyone email me and tell me I should have done this and that to my Hub.I If I'm going to be writer, editor and publisher of my Hub in the first place, that Hub is on me. I am responsible for the research and everything else. Everyone is a critic. As long as I put my name on my work, I back my writing--errors and all. I'm not changing my writing to please someone just because they decided to call me on it.
If you are writing a hub that is supposed to be factual and you end up being wrong, you should at least be willing to give the other person credit for correcting you and also fix the issue within your hub.
If your hub is an opinion piece, nobody has the right to tell you that your opinion is wrong, even if it's different from theirs and it doesn't stray from what is known as fact. In this case you shouldn't change it.
You would save yourself any heartache by doing it right in the first place. I'm old school journalism. If you screwed up after your piece is published, you are forced to print a retraction. I'm not doing that with my Hubs, and I'm not answering to strangers who try to pass themselves off as experts.
Arlene... Um. I was first published in a newspaper in 1963... Old school enough? It was a grey area, and the guy admitted I was right in what I said. He was concerned that I was giving Atheism a bad name to christians because I said that Atheists did not believe in God. He preferred me to say that atheism is a lack of belief in God - not a statement that atheism don't believe in God...
It is a grey area, and it's odd that he was concerned that it gave a bad name to Christians. I would imagine atheism already has a bad 'name' to religious people.
But any group of people are going to share different variations of what they do or don't believe. So there is that grey area when defining a belief system.
RebekahELLE, my personal opinion, from the phraseology he used, like saying that it was the height of arrogance to say that there was no God as it couldn't be proved was that he was a Christian posing as an atheist. I also googled him and while he had two videos on youtube regarding atheism, neither of them actually made an argument for atheism. Generally when an atheist speaks about atheism, they make an argument for it, which is what we all do regardless of what we believe in.
He was adamant that 'a lack of belief in God' meant something completely different to the belief that there was no God. And it is only because there is some substance in that argument that I went back and added that to my definition of atheism.
However, he didn't like what I wrote either, probably because it still didn't concede to whatever he wanted conceded to.
At that point I told him I thought he was a Christian masquerading as an atheist and that his choice of words through about 8 or 9 emails indicated that. I deleted his return email without reading it.
I can see where you mention the "lack of belief in" version, but in the rest of the Hub, you continue using the same "believe there is no God" phraseology.
It's a pity some of our atheists like Mark Knowles hasn't noticed this thread and given his feedback. I've seen several lively(!) debates on these forums where bigoted fundamentalists are going on about atheists' "beliefs" and the atheists are trying to get it through their knuckleheads that they don't believe in anything, that I can see why this particular person felt strongly about the word. I'm wondering how some of our other prominent atheists would feel.
Marisa, that is a very good point... Where are they!!!!
Interesting the guy said it was only the first paragraph that he had an issue with. He also said that he could see that I knew the topic thoroughly and that I did get the various distinctions. He was just concerned that by omitting 'lack of belief in God' that I was giving Atheists a bad name to Christians, and he felt that it was the height of arrogance to believe that there was no God. I pointed out that no atheist has ever said that they could prove that there was no God, and that I used the word 'believe' not 'know.'
He then came back to me and said that everybody knew that 'believe' meant the same as 'know."
At which point, I told him that I thought he was a Christian posing as an Atheist and I didn't respond to him afterwards...
Still, where are all the atheists????
I notice very few of them hang out in the Hubber's Hangout so they probably haven't noticed this thread, especially as it doesn't mention religion or atheism in the title.
Hmmm, I think you may be right in your conclusions about him. It doesn't sound like something an atheist would say.
Where it is a gray area I would go with a recognized source of definitions, such as a specialist or general dictionary that has been updated in the last 10 years.
No. I would not change it unless it was a factual piece I had posted and someone found flaws in ti or new evidence on the topic from a reliable and trusted source. In that case I would add it as an addendum.
But if I write my opinion, that is what it is, my opinion. So if someone disagrees and that has happened, that is fine. That's what keeps us interesting...our similarities and our differences.
If it is a factual hub and there is a mistake somewhere, I will check and of course correct my hub.
But if it is a topic where there is no right or wrong answer, I will just listen to the opinion and see if I agree with the points. If not I would not bother because everyone is entitled to have their own views on different matters..
Haven't read all the other replies, but quite simply, after reading the question all I had to do was reply, 'No.'
I would not change my hub.
Hmmm, don't know why that first quote appeared in my message above. I carefully imported it, trimmed it and placed it where I wanted, further down the text!
Unless Ive made a genuine mistake and a comment or paragraph alludes to something different to an intent of that line, then I would make a change.
If it is about a dispute of facts, yes I would change if I find what I have written is (grossly incorrect) based on the newest or the latest information.
If it's about semantics in terms of how a phrase or sentence or an opinion is read and interpreted, then no, as most readers will understand what I am trying to impart information wise through an opinion or statement.
Its difficult and each situation is unique in terms of reviewing until a situation presents that (may) require a change Sophia.
If it is in relation to faith, at the end of the day, almost all folk know and comprehend what atheism is or faith in a singular God.
In closing, as I have mentioned before, depending on the *dispute* some folk can take a long walk off a short wooden plank
by Mary Hyatt4 years ago
http://mary615.hubpages.com/hub/Our-Gue … tic-CancerI'm not getting many views or comments on this one. Thought I'd get a better response.
by The Reluctant Revivalist5 weeks ago
Do you think there is life after death? Or do you think that once you die, that is the end of your existance?
by paarsurrey5 years ago
Science is secular / equitable in nature; it has nothing to do with the AtheistsIf some atheistic scientists support atheism that is their own extra-curricular activity; science has never made them their spokesperson.
by Susan May Gudge8 months ago
Hi Hubbers,I'd like some help with passing the Quality Assessment Process. Will you please give feedback on my Hub Does Spaying or Neutering Cats and Dogs Make Them Fat?. What can I do to improve? Thanks!I see no reason...
by Brittany Williams2 years ago
Atheism only means the lack of a belief in God. Why is it so hard for Christians to realize that we dismiss their religion for the same reasons that they dismiss all other religions? It doesn't make us horrible people,...
by jacobkuttyta6 years ago
I appreciate Atheists for their work in bringing out the emptiness of religion and the lies behind the rituals and miracles. They proved that many forces and miracles in animals and holy places are...
Copyright © 2016 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.