User talk:ZackMartin

From RationalWiki
(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(All your creationist bullshit....: new section)
(All your creationist bullshit....)
Line 94: Line 94:
 
:''Rather than only one past, it is possible the universe has multiple simultaneous pasts, if our universe is the product of the merger of multiple universes with convergent histories. In which case, the question of how old the universe is might not have one single answer.''
 
:''Rather than only one past, it is possible the universe has multiple simultaneous pasts, if our universe is the product of the merger of multiple universes with convergent histories. In which case, the question of how old the universe is might not have one single answer.''
 
Never considered that and if, as Quantum mechanics and Feynmans "Sum over histories" suggests, there are multiple futures the universe could choose from (and possibly diverge from) then multiple histories isn't a stretch. I don't actually think so but it is food for thought. [[User:Ace McWicked|Ace]][[User Talk:Ace McWicked| <sup>of Spades</sup>]] 09:46, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 
Never considered that and if, as Quantum mechanics and Feynmans "Sum over histories" suggests, there are multiple futures the universe could choose from (and possibly diverge from) then multiple histories isn't a stretch. I don't actually think so but it is food for thought. [[User:Ace McWicked|Ace]][[User Talk:Ace McWicked| <sup>of Spades</sup>]] 09:46, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 +
:I suppose my point is, once you admit the possibility of multiple pasts, then questions about history (whether human history or natural history) no longer necessarily have a single correct answer. They may have multiple, conflicting/contradictory, yet equally true answers. For example, evolution and creationism could both be true at the same time, and the universe might be simultaneously 6000 years old and 13.5 billion. {{:User:Maratrean/sig}} 19:11, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Revision as of 19:11, 12 May 2011

New logo large.png Welcome to RationalWiki, ZackMartin!

Please see our guide for newcomers and our community standards.

If you are interested in contributing, please read what our articles are intended to be.

Tell us how you found RationalWiki here!

How about giving us an article on your religion? --PsyGremlinKhuluma! 13:00, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

(S)he also has a blog. Must admit that I hadn't seen Essay:In defence of belief in the existence of the soul before finding the blog but am no wiser now I have. 20:46, 26 February 2011 (UTC) SusanG Toast
I lol'd at your userpage. (Sorry, but folks around here tend to have that kind of knee-jerk reaction to stuff like "I am Zarnacy, the Maratrean protoprophet." No disrespect. Picon small.pngAcer Blue 22:19, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Contents

Article

You can create an article about your religion here. Just expect us to pore over it, edit it, make comments, etc. ТyTalk. 04:44, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Religion

There's honestly some interesting stuff here. But it tends to range from the "oh, that's surprisingly astute" to the classic "WHAT THE FUCK!?". Picon small.pngLiquid Blue 05:17, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

And from a preliminary reading, it seems that if you removed the gods and goddesses from Maratreanism, it would basically be a philosophical school, not a religion. Picon small.pngAcer Blue 05:18, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I think, if you wanted to, you could successfully extract a lot of the religious elements and be left with some sort of philosophy. I have thought of doing it before. I don't disagree with religion -- I disagree with some of its manifestations, but I don't disagree with it in principle. But I recognize that many people don't like it, and maybe if I presented it more as a philosophy than a religion it might attract some of those people better. But what I really want is people to take what they want from my teachings. If they see something they agree with, they should feel free to adopt it as their own view. If something else they don't agree with, fine, don't accept it. Maybe, if I find some elements of it are more popular than others, I might rejig the presentation to emphasise those elements and de-emphasise the less popular elements. --Maratrean (talk) 05:24, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I have read your essay and I am critiquing it piece-by-piece on the talk page. Very interesting stuff. Tetronian you're clueless 17:28, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Souls essay discussion

You wrote: "It is good to have someone to talk to that understands what I am talking about and is interested to discuss it. And I told myself I would finish off all this work from my job tonight, instead I am responding to you!" I couldn't agree more! (I'm in the process of slowly working my way through your replies.) I must say, we've had some excellent discussion thus far. :) Tetronian you're clueless 17:05, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Because you haven't broken anything

You are now a RationalWiki:Sysop guide. Have fun! ТyTalk. 12:47, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Why thankyou! --Maratrean (talk) 20:03, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

"Last Thursdayism is a form of holocaust denial"

Sorry I'm sure you meant well, but I had to undo your edit because really it was a ridiculous statement. You may as well say it's a form of evolution denial, colonialism denial, Elvis denial or omnitheism denial. The whole purpose of Last Thursdayism is to hold up a parodic mirror to unprovable statements about our origins, Rather than to edit history to suit one's prejudices. Totnesmartin (talk) 21:25, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

New discussion

Not sure if you noticed, but I'm ready to continue the discussion here. Tetronian you're clueless 14:31, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Wiki

This Wiki Could Suit you. Proxima Centauri (talk) 11:41, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't like that place. Its full of people who make up their own silly trivial religions as a joke. I am doing something far more serious than that. --Zack Martin HolyMaratreanSigil.png 01:24, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Burden of proof

I find it very, very interesting that you reject burden of proof - I did the exact same thing after I was first exposed to Bayesian statistics. However, as you can see on the talk page, my view now is that burden of proof is a rule for social situations (such as debates), not a rule of individual rationality. As such, it doesn't really interest me and is not wrong but rather irrelevant. Tetronian you're clueless 15:33, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Meh

I assume you are the same user at ASK. Just thought I would say hi and that I am rather intrigued by your religion.--Colonel Sanders (talk) 21:54, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh yes, RW Maratrean = aSK Maratrean. If you have any questions, let me know, I will endeavour to answer them. --Zack Martin HolyMaratreanSigil.png 22:12, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Apologies for the delay

I haven't gotten a chance to respond yet, I've been really busy these past few days. Hopefully I'll get a chance to do so within the next day or so. Tetronian you're clueless 20:29, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

No worries mate, take your time. --Zack Martin HolyMaratreanSigil.png 10:46, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Too few typos...

...to be Trent stalking his wiki. Otherwise, I would suspect such. ħumanUser talk:Human 07:54, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I used to be Trent and Trent used to be me; I will be Trent once more and Trent will once more be.
I used to be you and you used to be me; I will be you once more and you will once more be.
I used to be everyone and everyone used to be me; I will be everyone once more, and everyone will once more be me.
Once more which is the same as once only, in circular time. --Zack Martin HolyMaratreanSigil.png 07:44, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Also too stupid and silly. Oh well. It was a great theory for twelve minutes.

Dionysios

He's a pretty decent god certainly but my favourite god would probably be Caligula. He declared war on Neptune, had the sea whipped for its disobedience and made a horse a senator. How can you deny his awesomeness? --Let Them Eat Cake (talk) 15:34, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh, Caligula... well, wasn't he a bit of a sadistic bastard too? --Zack Martin HolyMaratreanSigil.png 06:53, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Yeah but nobody's perfect. --Let Them Eat Cake (talk) 16:59, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Christ but you're a piece of shit

Someone says they don't want to talk to you any more but you still can't resist poking them with a stick. Take the hint. Everybody hates you and wants you to piss off. Do it. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 12:58, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Not everybody. Maratrean may be a bit nutty, but at least he isn't an asshole. --UHM"rambling incoherently" for 20+ years! 13:16, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Really, I was here during the active TK days and the Heart of Gold days. You are not that interesting, and I know what you are trying to do. steriletalk 20:21, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
I think SuspectedReplicant has demonstrated here the point that Maratrean was trying to make. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 20:26, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Heh, indeed. Remember, DBAD Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 15:18, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

SR, I'm not going anywhere. You are a very foul person. You should piss off. --Zack Martin HolyMaratreanSigil.png 23:34, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

You should use that language with Philip. You'd be very welcome. steriletalk 15:07, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
In the words of Rodney King, can't we all just get along? SJ Debaser 15:17, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Total newb here, but from what I've seen around here everyone is either A)friends, B) enemies, or C)Apathetic. Z-Rex (talk) 15:21, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Not saying I'm an enemy; just really find the contradictions fascinating. steriletalk 15:40, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Sterile, you know why I don't use that language with Philip? Because he doesn't use that language with me. You reap what you sow. --Zack Martin HolyMaratreanSigil.png 21:21, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Ooo.... Eye for an eye. Kinda fun. I don't use that language with Phil because it gets me blocked. Anyway, this was a fun conversation. steriletalk 15:34, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
I was thinking more of, When in Rome... --Zack Martin HolyMaratreanSigil.png 06:29, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Do as many Romans as you can? --Let Them Eat Cake (talk) 15:53, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Smiley.gif Zack Martin HolyMaratreanSigil.png 19:10, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Beer

You haven't lived until you're had Pickled Pig Porter --PsyGremlinSermā! 11:23, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Do you have to go all the way to South Africa to get it? Ah, I should have visited my brother when he lived there, I never did, and now he's back here.... Zack Martin HolyMaratreanSigil.png 11:28, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

All your creationist bullshit....

..is bullshit. However, I found this interesting:

Rather than only one past, it is possible the universe has multiple simultaneous pasts, if our universe is the product of the merger of multiple universes with convergent histories. In which case, the question of how old the universe is might not have one single answer.

Never considered that and if, as Quantum mechanics and Feynmans "Sum over histories" suggests, there are multiple futures the universe could choose from (and possibly diverge from) then multiple histories isn't a stretch. I don't actually think so but it is food for thought. Ace of Spades 09:46, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I suppose my point is, once you admit the possibility of multiple pasts, then questions about history (whether human history or natural history) no longer necessarily have a single correct answer. They may have multiple, conflicting/contradictory, yet equally true answers. For example, evolution and creationism could both be true at the same time, and the universe might be simultaneously 6000 years old and 13.5 billion. Zack Martin HolyMaratreanSigil.png 19:11, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Community
Tools
support