RationalWiki talk:What is going on at ASK?/Archive5

Pretender to the throne of Ed.
Didn't realise Ed had been here lately: Classification is a term referring to the act of classifying.. Oops! my mistake it was JY23, not Ed. 02:32, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Self-referential defs apparently are common to creationists. Sterile 02:34, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * "What does meaning mean? What do you mean?  I mean, it means meaning, of course." --Kels 02:39, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Certainty!
Oh, this is good. We know exactly when the creation happened, but we're not entirely certain what year Jebus was born. Creationism illustrated. (Not to mention the entirely fictitious year zero...) -- 09:32, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Better check the edit history, Jeeves (and the talk page). Right now, it's filled with a bit of POINT-ish editing, but I have to say that I agree with the point being made: The article is surprisingly lacking.
 * Actually, reading through Brad's talk page post, I find it deeply amusing that True Christians know 100% that all those events happened, but that they can't settle on dates. Really, I expected the "We know The Absolute Truth!" crowd to have settled on the One True Chronology by now. But I guess the "when" is low-priority to them (sort of like the "how") since all that matters is that it did happen. Which also explains nicely why Philip hasn't even touched the article so far. --Sid 11:20, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm glad my edits got them to add some meat to it finally, even if I made that "0 AD" booboo. 20:15, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well to turn one of their anti-evolution "argument"s against them, there is disagreement about the date of Jesus's birth, therefore he was never born. Totnesmartin 15:05, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

To be or not to be
I guess I'm probably now unblocked at aSoK, but I really can't work up any enthusiasm for continuing to argue with PJR. In one sense, it's incredibly easy since his arguments are about as deep as a petri dish, but on the other hand there's only so many times you can be told that PJR information is so obvious that he can't possibly define or explain it before it gets tedious. Is there actually any point to arguing with the guy? It seems unlikely he'll ever change his mind on more or less anything. -- 00:06, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It is fairly pointless really. I said I was leaving, and wish to stick by that, but I want shoot down his claim that Tuataras got to New Zealand by humans carrying them, or walking themselves or on floating vegetation mats. Tuataras are not only nocturnal and would not survive without a burrow but extremely habitat specific and would NEVER survive any those conditions. It is impossible. However Philip would no doubt come up with some bullshit theory. Ace McWickedDisco Jesus 00:17, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * "Floating vegetation mats" is my favorite all-time hand-wavy creationist "answer to everything". It is so woefully inadequate to the task put to it.  And, yeah, other than poking them with a stick to get biblical chronology or things like that written, discussing things with creationists gets old after a few hours.  It's really more fun arguing philosophy of science with Ungtss and each other here, at least there's a chance of learning something.  00:39, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, Ace, there is an explanation for everything. Re: tuataras, choose at your liking:
 * creationist scientists don't adhere to the ridiculously low rates of evolution claimed by darwinists. Surely tuataras have evolved into their specific habitats in these few thousands of years (they were vegetarian too). Evolution, but no new information! Tuataras came from different tuataras, not from one celled organisms.
 * tuataras are another proof that creation scientists are right. According to the Second Law of Thermodynamics (and to the Original Sin), they have actually lost information. They used to flourish everywhere, and swim in the oceans too; and now they are reduced to specific habitats. They are stupider too. That's a perfect analogy to the human race, who once was able to build arks and pyramids and today listens to Britney Spears. Editor at CPOh, Finland! Why? 10:36, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Superb answer. May use as model! 90/90. Aschlafly
 * Britney seems to have got chunky and somewhat worn, :(, we cant build pyramids or arks anymore cause God wont give us the plans and no gopherwood and Joseph (or someone) isnt available to oversee construction.  Pyramid is just a big pump anyway, it pumped the waters of the flood away from Egypt. 67.72.98.58 15:51, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * perhaps a floating mat of vegetation got a nice layer of sediment deposited on it, and the little beasts never noticed they were floating , with borrows and all, those floaty mats may have been really big , like the sargasso sea. are they perhaps of the marsupial baramin ? cause those all developed from the kangaroo , before New Zealand broke off from Australia and floated East. Hamster 22:18, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Bumper sticker: "My ancestors rode out the flood on a floating mat of vegetation - what's your excuse?" I liiiike it!  23:24, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * God sent angels to kick the sinners off. --Gulik 02:40, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No She didn't! 02:47, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

If it helps any, I have been an ardent reader of the byzantine arguments you guys have gone back and forth with on ASK. Very well done, and very entertaining. The problem of how to settle on definitions seem to be the central one, with both sides favoring definitions that lead prima facie to their own conclusions. ASK arguments are textbook examples of the soul of the conflict; only ardent faith and a threatened worldview can spawn such determination and creativity from the creationists.--Tom Moore fiat justitia ruat coelum 03:00, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Borked?
Anybody else finding that Asok appears to have run off with Tina? --PsyGremlinWhut? 14:48, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Ja. 14:49, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


 * (Merged my post into this section - it took me so long to write that post that others slipped in before me. Yes, all while aSK was loading.) It takes me EONS to load aSK right now. I just posted something there (re: "WND is too Christian for some"), and it's STILL loading. I hit the "Save page" button, watched it load... checked all my webcomics for updates (though only a few did update today), went here, logged in, started writing this post, checked my ton of RSS feeds (just ten new articles), pondered what to do while it's still loading, swallowed sadness (LIKE A BOSS), and finally decided to wrap it up. While aSK is STILL loading. --Sid 14:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I get a simple DNS failure :( thats really broken. Maybe PJR decided to quit .. Hamster 15:38, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I fixed what looked like a broken indent. Revert if it was intentional. Same here now, apparently: "Address Not Found - Firefox can't find the server at www.astorehouseofknowledge.info." --Sid 16:34, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * thanks Sid, I am clumsy with the keyboard so I appreciate people cleaning up after me :) DNS can take a long time to propogate, anyone know the ip address ? Hamster 17:15, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Problem is, if PJR's running it from home, then it's about 4am Down Under and he's unlikely to be up and about. It'll probably come up once he's awake - another 3 or 4 hours or so. Wallaby probably peed on the tower or something. --PsyGremlinWhut? 17:42, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * According to Domaintools, 69.73.186.33. It's a shared host though. It responds to ping and you can telnet to it on port 80, but attempting to access / for Host: www.astorehouseofknowledge.info just hangs indefinitely. --Just passing by 17:49, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * somebody named Bohdan is listed as his admin and technical contact. Its a bit odd that the DNS name is down Hamster 18:07, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * BOHDAN?!?!?!! OH SHI--   20:30, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that is Bogdan, not Bohdan. Anyway, my theory is that PJR got his wiki hosted by someone he knows who is building a web hosting operation, but is perhaps a bit new to it, and screws up once in a while.  But, yeah, even a busted server should return a different error, right?  What happens if the server the ASK IP points to is off-line?  19:41, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It's back. (and I used to know a Bogdan... would be a small world and one helluva coincidence if it's the same one.) --PsyGremlinWhut? 19:48, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Nice, we can even pinpoint the exact minute everything went to Hell: 14:49 (Server time over there) - my talk page edit got through, but the "take you back to the page you just edited" step then completely failed. --Sid 19:59, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * how many Bogdan Bednarczyk could there be in Roxburgh Park, Victoria could there be Hamster 20:26, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Gone again? 10:15, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It's up for me. Oh... you mean Asok. That's back too. --PsyGremlinWhut? 10:39, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Still ..... Loading ...... here. 10:43, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Soul
Someone better equiped with the language of belief than I, could go and stick the atheist's POV in aSoK's soul article. I'd do it but all I'd be able to write would be so derogatory as to seem insulting. 01:02, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * From an atheist/cynic point of view, a soul is that which rests as the fear of ceasing to exist, and the hope that "identity" somehow lives on. -- 20:06, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

aSK Drinking Game
Have a look here and leave comments/critiques on the talk page. See if we can get this bad boy drinking game up and running. Ace McWickedDisco Jesus 21:14, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Science hater
Moved to Debate:Falsifiability

Kind of reminds me of being at ASK
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0A4_bwCaX0&feature=channel_page &mdash; Unsigned, by: Neveruse513 / talk / contribs

Phil's tactical failure - comment
The standard method of creationists debating reasonable people is to whip out legions of points without giving them notice or time to research, and then claim victory when the answers aren't forthcoming. Phil's made it open house to read, research and reply! Not the creationist way to win an argument! Wonder if he cries himself to sleep at night: "that always worked when X, Y or Z did it. why are they bringing up nasty facts?" It must be rather strange for him to be constantly over-researched and out-informed by others. Other creationist sites have learned not to let teh evil evilutionists have a free rein. I suspect, however, that he'll eventually win because we'll all get tired of his non-sequiturs and his flopping around with definitions, not to mention his bloody stupid biblical inerrancy. 18:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Re: the "standard method", see my recent essay:debating creationists 21:18, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That's what gave me the idea, but I couldn't find it again. 15:05, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * He can still "win" every argument there--All he has to do is go over to the Andy Side of the Force. He'll either do that, or shut the site down altogether. --Gulik 19:30, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Problem with the first one is that that would be like admitting that Andy being a total jerkass was the right thing in some way. Shutting down the site would be a possible option, but maybe he will first kiss Ken's feet in order to have People Who Are Totally Not Ken to spam dozens of forums and blogs with aSK links and to arrange special deals with Christian sites. --Sid 19:35, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a rather tricky situation for Philip. Sure, he got his "This site reflects my POV The Biblical Worldview Which Happens To Match Exactly My Own, so I'm right by default - oh, and I also write the rules." to fall back to in the mainspace, but in the talk areas, he is surprisingly outnumbered. And I say "surprisingly" because there is practically nobody there to actually support him with substance. His best bet is Brad, who (although he tries) isn't enough by a wide margin. Where are all the Creationists? Philip opens a Young Earth Creationism The Biblical Worldview Which Happens To Include Young Earth Creationism encyclopedia... and apparently no vocal YECist joins in? --Sid 19:35, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Philip needs to do recruiting, but where is he going to get newbies from? Sterile 19:40, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * He needs to do recruiting, but what good does it do when Toast's main point is that he's *trying* bless his little heart, to be a "good debater", to "give time and credit" to other arguments, and not just say "no" for the sake of being a republican being illusionarily(tm) correct. He's trying to play both worlds, but even a *semi* scientific approach cannot win in the face of facts.-- 19:52, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes re:recruiting. He needs at least a half-dozen dedicated "founders" if not more, and a way to slowly draw in new people.  Right now all he's got is LowKey, maybe TimS, and, well, a bunch of us.  21:18, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * phil is sorta being tag teamed on some of these discussions, he does have a couple of desciples helping him though. Perhaps sciency people are better or more used to research ? I just widh he didnt reqard WND and AIG or that ID Institute thing as great sources. It gives me a headache. 216.93.81.186 21:54, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * He's being true to his word waaaay beyond the call of duty; Sterile gets to be a member. Fifth column or what? 15:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

PJR - wiping articles and protecting pages - lol
check out Virgin Birth article at ask. http://www.astorehouseofknowledge.info/Virgin_birth Hamster 15:55, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Not sure what you're getting at, considering the article was never wiped (well, by fake-Grawp) or protected. Not really surprising Philip took out the skeptical stuff in a rather core article like that, though.  --Kels 17:30, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Vanished ...
... from the face of the interweb (my interweb at least!) again. 15:20, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Up for me - though I would've preferred it to be down since now I actually read Brad's justification for that highly suggestive "Dawkins is an atheist, so we can't be certain he's not lying! But, uh, we're not condemning anything or anybody. And we're not saying that he IS a liar... " phrase. Guh. Reminds me why I de-bookmarked the place. --Sid 16:49, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, back up. Think it might just have been running s l o w 50 minutes to edit!.  16:54, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * aSoK seems to die and come back to life more often than Jebus. Is PJR using special Christian hosting rather than evil secular services with actual SLAs? -- 16:58, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I suspect its truck has to drive through a very small innertube to get to the rest of them. 20:57, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Suppose I was asking for it
‎ (Inserting nonsense/gibberish into pages: Insulting another editor and inappropriate editing.) but it was fun & makes my avoidance easier. Phil & co are as bad as CP IMHO. (Bradley (LowKey) should be taken out and sacrificed to the goat.) 10:41, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I love to see how authoritarianism collides with a collaborative method. Sterile 12:47, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You remind me of ConservapediaUndergroundResistor, bless his little heart:
 * Go to a site you don't like and cause minor disruption that only you care about.
 * Sit there for ten minutes refreshing RW's recent changes.
 * When nobody WIGOs you, give up and write about it yourself.
 * Everyone else continues to ignore you.


 * There, some attention. Happy?--ConservapediaRoolz 13:09, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * (EC) Thing is, Bradley is a tit. So is Philip, come to that.  Although both are quite happy to play the "everyone but Christians are brain damaged and can't be trusted" card without thinking it's an insult to, I dunno, everybody but Christians. --Kels 13:16, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * heh...I briefly considered banning you for a day or two for that because I knew you were going to get a longer one from someone else. &mdash; Unsigned, by: Neveruse513 / talk / contribs 13:21, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * @ CR:
 * I think you'll find that the subject of my "disruption" (although admittedly not the effect) was quite generally cared about. (admittedly it was pathetic to the point of making GRAWP & Fall down look like geniuses - I'm just not that good at it I'm afraid - but I was angry)[[image:Shifty.gif]]
 * Wrong, I wouldn't expect anyone to note such a trivial occurrence.
 * Where's the WIGO? Oh, you mean this entry? Well, a little self promotion: it's almost on a par with creating a numbered list of failings in someone's trivial edit. Oh, sorry!
 * 3 comments & yours - dunno?
 * Boils down to Is it true? - the comment inserted many times; many, many times, that is.
 * {and they've gone away again} 17:22, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Being blocked from a website that spends more time down than up seems like kind of an empty gesture. I doubt wikipedia would be where it is today if its early years were characterised by this sort of epic failure. -- 19:05, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Has it really spent that much time down? Does anyone have a chart of when it was down and when it was up? 19:14, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It's hard to say "It's not really down so much" with a straight face right now since trying to load the Block Log link resulted in "Firefox can't find the server at www.astorehouseofknowledge.info". XD --Sid 19:20, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

As lovely as the slightly passive-aggressive WiGO is, did Toast actually break the agreement? She inserted material into a couple of articles, but I think most of us would agree it's a pretty accurate description aside from the snarky tone. She wasn't altering existing content at all or anything. And do the talk pages count for something like this in the first place? --Kels 21:02, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Inserting the same text indiscriminately into several mainspace articles is vandalism. If a creationist had come over here and started inserting their take on morals into our articles on those topics, we would have treated it as vandalism as well. 21:10, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Dawkins' morality
Am I alone in thinking this is one of the most reprehensible things Bradley has said so far? And he doesn't even realize what's wrong with it, he's trying to defend the stupid thing. Yes, it's the logical conclusion of a lot of the messed-up thinking that goes on over there, but somebody by the boy some couth! --Kels 03:27, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Check the facts, and give me a third option (i.e. not lax research or eception), then. Alternatively actually point out the logical flaw.  Tricksy 03:48, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The facts are that you're running with this "no absolute morality" bullshit and applying it so as to deliberately cast doubt on an ideological adversary, and by so doing you smear every other atheist out there. Or do you include non-Christians in general in the "can't be trusted, their brains are too simple to tell right from wrong" category? --Kels 04:04, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Demonstrate an absolute basis for morality from an atheist standpoint, then. Preferably one that addresses deception. Regardless, that is not what casts doubt on Dawkins, it is his own actions/statements.  Check those facts.  Even if you scrap the whole issue of his ethics/morality, what is the reason for his factual errors?  Is he lax, deceptive or something else? You still haven't provided a third option, or pointed out any logical flaw. Also, if defending the suggestion that Dawkins could be deceptive is reprehensible, then I guess everyone here that has stated that PJR is dishonest must also be guilty.  When should we expect the retractions? Tricksy 04:28, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The flaw in your argument, you fucking nit-wit, is that regardless of moral basis anyone is capable of lying, thieving, murdering and raping small children. Ace McWickedDisco Jesus 04:30, 22 May 2009 (UTC)P.S Please respond to me with pointless word salad/decrease in information! Ace McWickedDisco Jesus 04:31, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well at least you admit that he is either a lax researcher or deceptive (as the flaw that you claim comes after that conclusion). The step you attack is the one that simply says that it is difficult to determine which. Tricksy 04:41, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I admit fucking nothing, if you going to say that Dawkins is possibly deceptive due to no moral basis you should add the same to every page. Ted Haggard obviously has little basis for morals either so lets add that to his page too! Ace McWickedDisco Jesus 04:52, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Why does there have to be an "absolute basis for morality", other than to lead those who cannot think for themselves? 04:54, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * (EC) No, I said Dawkins is possibly deceptive because what he said doesn't match what happened, and I have said so more than once. Tricksy 04:59, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey Bradley, you know there is a party in the other room, right? It might be affecting some of our perspectives over the next day or two.  I invited Phil, he, um, "politely" declined to attend, but all are welcome.  Some rooms are, hopefully, not offensive.  Just don't walk anywhere Ace has been is a good rule to follow.  05:05, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but pass (sadly, all the pithy remarks that I thought of are Simpsons quotes). Tricksy 05:26, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I have such distaste for you creationists, you make my tounge feel unctuous. Ace McWickedDisco Jesus 05:06, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Said it before & lapsed: done with 'em for good. 07:09, 22 May 2009 (UTC)-
 * Out of curiosity, does our friend Tricksy think A) that Christians have an absolute basis of morality which has remained unchanged over the centuries (if so what is it?)B) Does he think that all Christians share the same absolute morality and C) do all Christians act as though they had an absolute basis of morality?--Bobbing up 07:12, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * D) Have you resolved Euthyphro's dilemma to your satisfaction? It's a problem for people who believe there is such a thing as "absolute" morality. --seventhrib 12:22, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, and no it isn't (merely claiming it is a problem doesn't make it a problem). WP claims this is a "problem for theists" but doesn't actually support the assertion.  What is moral is so because God decrees it; He does not decree arbitrarily but as an outflowing of His unchanging attributes. I struggled with that for all of (looks at clock, but realises it has no second hand) less than a minute.  Tricksy 01:15, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That's no answer at all. What attributes would those be? What is it that makes decrees flowing from those attributes good?TallMan 17:19, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I answered the question asked. If you ask new questions, don't complain that I didn't already answer them. Attributes: start with sovereignty, justice, mercy, goodness.  As to you second question, read seventhrib's link and my answer.  You are asking the same question again. Tricksy 23:15, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You didn't adequately answer the question, and your expanded response here is obviously unsatisfactory. The Euthyphro dilemma works like this: we're trying to find some way of grounding morality that explains why it is binding. We might try to do so by appealing to God. The claim, then, is that whatever God commands is good. But this claim has a de re and a de dicto reading. The first reading presupposes an independent standard for goodness, which means God isn't doing any explanatory work and we're back where we started. The second reading seems to make morality arbitrary and fails to explain why God's commands are binding. Your response is to claim that God's commands are non-arbitrary and binding because God is intrinsically good and sovereign. But the dilemma arises again. Horn 1: your claim is vacuous, if we take "good" to mean "what God commands," in which case the claim "God is good" is uninformative and leaves open the arbitrariness worry. Horn 2: your claim presupposes an independent standard for goodness, in which case God isn't doing any explanatory work, and we're back where we started. Similar worries arise with sovereignty, justice, and mercy. You haven't solved the Euthyphro dilemma; in fact, you've only restated it.TallMan 12:20, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Minor correction to this entry: I'm thinking that the problem is not a de re/de dicto problem, but rather a referential/attributive one. Nothing important rests on this, but it's good to be precise.TallMan 03:42, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) The euthyphro dilemna is about "morality" rather than simply "what is good". The dilemna is "Is something moral because God decrees it so or does God decree it because it is moral." The answer is "because God decrees it" there is no arbitrariness to it because it is not simply God saying "what rule shall I make up today" but is an outworking of his very Being. I.e. "Morality" or "goodness" is actually Godliness. This is also why "God is good" is not so uninformative. God doesn't have goodness, He is goodness. He doesn't merely have love, He is love. I am actually dropping out of this discussion now. It can only lead to topics of absolute morality etc, and too many people here find my views on that offensive. In turn they then make comments that I find offensive and it'll all end in tears. (It's only fun until someone loses an eye). Tricksy 13:30, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You're welcome to drop out of the discussion, but I'll note that 1) you don't seem to understand the Euthyphro dilemma and 2) you still haven't adequately responded to it. God "is goodness" is only informative if "goodness" means something other than "what God is like/decrees/etc." That is, to claim that goodness is part of God's nature is informative only if there's an independent standard for goodness. If "goodness" just means "is like God" then you have the vacuous, trivial, and (saliently) non-moral claim that God is like God. (Aside: the claim that God is goodness also sounds a lot like a category mistake, since God is an entity and goodness is a property.) Finally, re: your decision to drop out: from what I've seen of your views, they are not offensive. They are, however, simply wrong.TallMan 17:39, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The wriggling of Godbotherers never ceases to amaze me. 13:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * See what I mean? Tricksy 13:47, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Poor baby. Go back to aSK where you can smear people without consequence.  For the record, it's not your view I find offensive, it's your willingness to smear with it, and assuming that it's as self-evident to everyone else as it is to you. --Kels 13:58, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It reminds me a lot of Andy's "Conservatives are good and Liberals are bad because I have defined Conservatives as good and Liberals as bad". No wonder it comes so easily to him. --Kels 13:46, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey Tricksy. I don't spend that much time here these days, but I was hoping for a response.  :-( --Bobbing up 20:10, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't spend much time here, either, and I didn't see your questions. Answers: Yes (God, via special revelation in the Bible), yes and no.  I like the fact that you differentiate b) from c).  It is the differentiation between morality and ethics (hugely simplified, though). Tricksy 01:02, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Leviticus
Don't you mean "repressed Greek", Gulik? --Kels 01:42, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I think he means "geek"... in the worst way, of course... 01:49, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * They didn't have computers when Leviticus was written! Everybody knows they were all destroyed in the Flood. --Kels 01:52, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Correct. The computer thing is a modern alteration.  A geek used to be the guy at the carnival who bit the heads off birds and stuff, IIRC.  01:54, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Given the diet and sanitary habits of some geeks I've met, standards have fallen since those days. --Kels 02:33, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yikes, gross. Hey, you gonna drop by the party and reduce the sanitation level of my talk page? (Pimping!  Also inviting....)  03:11, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Kels, have you read Ontarian Robertson Davies? One of his books has a fairly major character geek (think it was one of "The Cornish Trilogy"). I had a phase some years ago (late 80s - early 90s) of reading everything of his  I could find.  11:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I love me some Davies (got totally hooked on The Deptford Trilogy way back), although I haven't read everything. Dunno if I got to the Cornish stuff or not.  Most of what I read these days, unfortunately, is drawing-related stuff since I'm obsessed and all, so not a lot of novels on my list. --Kels 11:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I first found some of the Marchbanks stuff. He's got He had an enviable knack of making you want to know what happened next; hence the trilogies. A very readable man.  11:14, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * My father's got the Marchbanks omnibus, which has all three books. Memorable stuff, his battles with the furnace were epic. --Kels 11:49, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Ruy Lopez
is preparing to take over aSK, as is exemplified by Exhibit A.

03:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 * But you can't prove it's him! You're just paranoid! --Kels 10:39, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * He's got the 4th most viewed page on the site, so he's taking it over whether or not he intends to. 15:02, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The image text made me LOL in real life. Kudos! --Sid 00:15, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Say Bradley
What do you think of this? Are animals Christian now? --Kels 13:40, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey Bradley
Don't go pretending you're chummy and using nicknames when you started this whole conversation by insulting all non-Christians based on your own self-satisfied assumption. You're still an ass, and no more honest than Philip is. --Kels 02:35, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

切腹 (Seppuku)
PJR & Co undefined have managed a "Night of the Blunt Knives" of a sort. By their dogmatic refusal to be open minded[hee!], they have managed to cause their best contrary debaters to fall on their swords. Blocks given have been for reasonably short times and only against obvious trolls[self acknowledgement!]. Those with the patience, knowledge and skill to counter their stupidity have been beaten into walking away in frustration. Two years on and the inmates have taken over another asylum. 09:12, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, it's hard to complain that they just aren't changing their minds, though, right? They respond in general with civility (or at least in kind), make at least attempts to address the issues, and so on.  One can't fault them for simply not being convinced in the debates.--Tom Moore fiat justitia ruat coelum 10:23, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The thing is, what are you trying to achieve? Are you trying to change their minds (in which case, epic phail, as you must have known it would be) or are you simply challenging them in argument and debate to ensure that their YEC views do not proliferate? If the latter, then why the frustration? Ajkgordon 12:38, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It just annoys me that someone apparently so intelligent can be so $£!$!%$!%$£%$%%$£%$£% stupid. Ranting against the inevitable, I suppose!
 * When faced with the contention that a multi-thousand year old myth is true - It's not worthy of anything but absolute incredulity. They are truly not what I would define as sane, i.e. being connected to reality. One can't defeat a madman's delusions. 13:21, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

A semi-related-but-mostly-aside comment: As with most instances of behavior, positive reinforcement of good actions and habits is often more effective than negative reinforcement of bad actions and habits. A sysop is breathing down an editor's neck because the editor got angry for 10 edits is rarely effective at changing the editor's behavior. Letting the editor blow off some steam, and then maybe reverting down the road if necessary always seems like a better idea. Hence the "do not feed the troll" policies of most wikis. I am not a fan a finger-pointing civility and block police, and I especially don't like it when a sysop tells me I shouldn't be angry. (And it's really bad when there are only, like, 20 editors.)   Sterile 18:29, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Not exactly high drama... ok, 3 people are currently blocked, 2 to "return" in a couple of days and the third blocked themself. @ AK, what I like is watching them develop their thesis (and defend it).  It's much funnier than attacking it.  IE, if I start an argument over whether "God" exists, it gets old fast, because to even have it I have to explain I mean "any gods", etc., etc.  What's funnier is reading someone earnestly explaining how their god is the be all and end all of human existence, morality, etc. with a straight face.  Like the book(s) Alex Comfort sent me.  It be some high comedy. Almost as good as that BritCom about the vicar with Jen Saunders Dawn French.  20:42, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Doh, thanks toast (Jen/Dawn). I always get them mixed up, English women all look the same to me...  01:01, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough
Looks like Bradley didn't insert the morality thing, it's actually sat there like a turd in the punchbowl since Philip dropped it back on May 4. Bradly, for his part, reverted it when it was rightly removed for the smear it was (and still is) and has vehemently defended it since then, which Philip has not done so much. So Bradley might not have given birth to the mutant child, but he sure as hell adopted it on the 21st.

Let's get this clear. Bradley, you and Philip don't have any different basis of morality than anyone else on this planet. Simply put, humans are social animals, and empathy goes along with that. We're intelligent creatures, and can comprehend personal death and the outcomes of our actions. Societies, which we function best in, work very poorly without a shared code of behaviour that takes those things into account. That's about it, in essence. The difference between us is you accepted it uncritically when a member of the priest class told you it was because of some sky god or other. It's a nice story, until you start using it to smear your opponents, then it becomes offensive. --Kels 01:04, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Exactly the sort of thing I'd expect from an Atheist Liberal. What you fail to understand is that Bradley and Philip get their morality directly from God.  That means that if God commanded them to toss babies in a trash-compactor, then that is what they would do, because they are moral.  Unlike us ethically bankrupt atheists and pagans, who might recoil in horror at the idea, thus proving our inherent depravity. Fnord. --Gulik 19:46, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm not quite an atheist. But I'm a non-Christian which I guess is close enough in Philip and Bradley's eyes. --Kels 20:00, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * trash compactors are the evolved version of the wastebasket, and no good Christian would use one. The biblicly approved implement is the ROCK [ a stone and not the actor/wrestler ] Hamster 21:20, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Huh, I just realized
That whole "Lack of Accuracy" smear section on their Richard Dawkins article starts off with the bullshit statement about morals, and then comments he might be "simply careless with his research". That leads into four paragraphs that say nothing whatsoever about his research, and simply bitch about some "gotcha" moment from a Creationist video, which most people besides Phil and Bradley find questionable on the filmmakers' part. Philip, I know you take this whole Creationism fantasy seriously, but are you making an encyclopedia or a blog here? I'd honestly expect this crap out of a serial liar and IDiot like Denyse O'Leary. --Kels 10:53, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Absolutely love the "Dahmer's ok for us to use for atheists but don't use Phelps for Xtians" bit. Words fail! 23:45, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The point was, the quoting Dahmer was criticised on the grounds of choosing a statement made by "the worst" character from among atheists to smeer atheists. I was pointing out that the criticism was invalid because the statement was not being made by an atheist.Tricksy 02:18, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The other comment is just as good. "Nobody's saying that Dahmer is the "official spokescritter" for atheism, but his comments are valid, being consistent with the earlier comments in the section about atheism having no basis for morality."  That's awesome.  So basically, Dahmer doesn't speak for atheists, but since something he said fits into a self-justification he (or someone he believes uncritically because it agrees with his prejudices) made up, then I'll treat him as if he does.  Oh, and MORE STALIN and No True Scotsman, bitches! --Kels 01:43, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Is that Dahmer quote still there? How embarrassing for them.  02:27, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yup. Philip seems to think it's absolutely appropriate, the RW folks seem to be avoiding the inevitable revert wars with Philip, and Bradley, although he's a sysop and seems to disagree with the quote being valid, seems happy enough to leave it where it is.  --Kels 02:35, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * In other words, Bradley is to Philip what Philip was to Andy? That's even more amusing than Philip going all "Pretty much, yes!" at the mock-suggestions on Talk:Platypus. --Sid 23:07, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I think I'll be staying away from ASK for a while. (Although it is fun to watch Bradley alienate the whole site) Sterile 02:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * OMGDZ THE EVILUTIONISTS GAVE UP AND LOSE, oh sorry caplock jammed.  03:11, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Remember how Philip welcomed the RW crowd, saying he looked forward to them keeping him honest? Turns out, being honest isn't part of the "Biblical Worldviewtm".  Guess that moral foundation doesn't cover misrepresentation or logical fallacies by the truckload. --Kels 03:17, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I ♥ regulation 6. Sterile 03:22, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Aw, Kels, you and Phil just need to get a room ;) 03:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe he could have a nice, cozy little room with a cask of amantilado to keep him company. Jester bells preferred, of course. --Kels 03:35, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No Edgar Allan Poe-style death threats, please.  03:36, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * But they're the best sort! --Kels 03:37, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Worse than CP. They don't even follow their silly rules. Sterile 01:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Wow, way to be a massive troll. 01:21, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, please. Sterile 01:26, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Man, asking someone to live up to their own rules, that's the worst sort of troll. --Kels 01:31, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey, don't feed me. I might get stronger.  Sterile 01:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No...you're getting smarter...evolving! --Kels 01:34, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Cool. Übertroll.  Sterile 01:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Ooh, and you just had a mutation that made you poorly adapted for aSK! Damn that frontal lobe, anyway. --Kels 01:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I prefer to think of it as natural selection. Sterile 01:42, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, I was too busy laughing at your hilarious mutual masturbation to respond.  01:41, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You should wash your own hands when you're done with Ken's page over there. --Kels 01:47, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I get spiteful when I get mad, and point out things. Hence the grammar thing for Philip yesterday. (The bloke has a ton a trouble with it's and its...) And you all know I can't type. All good, I hope. Sterile 01:53, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Why does Phil have an encyclopaedia?
PJR doesn't seem to be terribly interested in actually creating an encyclopaedia at all. He's done all the jacking off parts, creating all the lovely rules and arranging the hierarchy so he's the king of his little castle. However, he seems far more interested in wombling on about how great his god is than actually writing articles. I don't understand why he doesn't just retire the creationwiki ghetto where he can exercise his delusion in peace. It doesn't make any sense. -- 14:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * He's waiting for the interweb to bring people flocking to edit? Apart from train time tables & creationism he doesn't have much personal encyclopaedic knowledge, I think. 14:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I wonder if he's not fallen into the same trap as Andy. Andy didn't like how Wikipedia did things, so he tried to beat them at their own game, then found out that real enclopedias were hard, so he contented himself with tossing spitballs.  Philip, not liking how Conservapedia does things, follows his example, just one more step degraded. --Kels 14:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * creating all the lovely rules and arranging the hierarchy so he's the king of his little castle well there's your answer.  14:41, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Does that make Bradley court jester? --Kels 14:41, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keeper of the privy rolls, perhaps. -- 14:59, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * So head(s) of the Privy Council? --Kels 01:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Undeniable dishonesty
Phil and Brad are quite possibly the most intellectually dishonest creationists I have ever encountered.

This is going to push me over the edge, I think. Textbook example of argument from silence. &mdash; Unsigned, by: Neveruse513 / talk / contribs 15:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I got in hot water for calling Philip a liar before, based on him actually believing he's putting forward an honest argument. But of course that just puts the liars further up the chain, and he's only too happy to believe them (and promote them actively) because they satisfy his prejudices.  --Kels 15:32, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Lying to me is one thing, lying to himself is quite another. Giving me four quote mines with links to the originals...that's just too much. &mdash; Unsigned, by: Neveruse513 / talk / contribs 15:35, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * One might say that it's impossible to believe in Creationism without either lying to yourself or willingly giving yourself over to those who will lie to you. Actively trying to base it on science like Philip and Bradley do, and actually receiving so much well-documented information and still not questioning the lies?  That takes a special sort of deception. --Kels 15:47, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Anything that contradicts or even questions s word -the bible- is automatically WRONG & any argument to back it up is TRUE. 15:51, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

"the most intellectually dishonest creationists" - there's not much competition. They all have to be "intellectually dishonest", by definition. 03:14, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Now, now--they can also be sincere and utterly ignorant. But it takes a lot of effort to STAY that ignorant. --Gulik 19:36, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That's why I have to look at this and ask how many times he's been handed exactly what he just asked for on a silver platter? --Kels 19:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, but it's what he asked for, not what he wants. Keeping his ignorance pristine take s a lot of hard work. --Gulik 02:39, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm think of responding to that, but I'm really not going over there for the week. Sterile 03:02, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Another example of lax thinking/research
The latest WIGO by Kels is just plain false, it claims a refusal to define "absolute morality" and the edit summary asks for an article. Well there IS an article (Hint, "Morality") which explicitly defines absolute morality. The linked diff shows Philip commenting on provability (and saying that provability and absoluteness are not the same thing). So the diff doesn't match the claim in the WIGO, and the edit summary falsely implies that an extant article has not been written. "Never let the truth stand in the way of a good story." Tricksy 10:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll bite. Here's your "Absolute Morality" section of the "Morality" article in full.

Absolute morality must be based on something external to human opinion. If morality is based on human opinion, and opinion changes, then the morality changes and it is not absolute.

Therefore absolute morality is based on what is deemed to be right and wrong by our Creator.

Absolute morality can depend on the circumstances without being relative. For example, it can be considered wrong to kill another human being, except in cases of self defence, punishment, or similar.


 * So, uh, that says what an absolute morality can be, I guess. There aren't any citations, so I guess it's all Philip's (or your, I'm not sure who wrote it) personal opinion.  And since between you two, you've made it very clear that there's only One True Faith and therefore only One True Morality, you're still damn cagey about what that morality actually is.  Sorry Bradley, but vague handwaving and a definition of this absolute morality are not the same thing.  Come on, Braley, if it's absolute and the only real one, you must actually know what it is, don't you?  After all, if you didn't, you'd be on exactly the same level as the atheists you seem to see as a different species or something. --Kels 10:52, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Unchanging? The last I checked our society wasn't much like the bronze-age near-east nor like Roman Judea, Middle-ages Europe, or even the 18th and 19th-century United States.  Something has been changing.  11:39, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * That's not in any sense absolute. You've merely moved what morality is relative to from the whims of human society, to the whims of your sky daddy. I'll save you some time too, next you're going to tell us morality is part of god's nature and is unchanging, which has the obvious implication that the absolute in your absolute morality isn't god at all but some force greater than god that constrains him. If you're smart, you'll probably want to stay away from those theologically choppy waters. -- 11:49, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * @Kels, so did you not want "absolute morality" defined, but rather the actual propositions of Biblical absolute morality? That's similar to the difference between describing what a national constitution is and listing a specific constitution's provisions. Also, not only have I not said the Biblical morality is the only true absolute morality, I have specifically said that there is scope for other sources of absolute morality.  So the research is still lax.  As to "I'm not sure who wrote it", apart from Theresa's spree and Pink's reverts there are very few diffs to check, and I also posted a notice at aSK stating who wrote the article.  So the research is still lax.  And that is my point; you either did not check or did not care that what you posted is false.  There is an article called "Morality" which defines morality, and then defines the distinctions of absolute and relative morality.  You are free to disagree with those definitions, but to persistently claim that they do not exist is either willful ignorance or dishonesty. @Edgerunner and Jeeves, I am not arguing here about the merits of the definition, I am pointing out that contrary to the WIGO, aSK has one.  The fact that you both disagree with the definition at least shows there is a definition (else what would you be disagreeing with?). Tricksy 16:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't check the diffs because it wasn't important who wrote it, but I guess that's enough for you to dismiss what I said. I quoted the entirety of your "morality" article dealing with this "absolute morality" business, and it has no citations whatsoever.  It's just opinion.  Whether it's yours or Philips, it doesn't really matter, does it?  It's the article you both keep referring people to.  And honestly, I don't see where I used the word "Biblical morality" at all.  But since Christianity is, apparently, the Only True Faith, and then the God of the Bible is the Only True Creator, then I guess that would follow that the only absolute morality is the one that "is deemed to be right and wrong by our Creator" as it says right above there.  So I'm not sure why you're so hot on separating the "absolute basis for morality" that Christians have and atheists do not from Biblical morality, when the Bible is apparently a record of God's acts and the source of, well, everything we know about the guy.  So if you're gonna get morality from God, where the hell else is it coming from?  The Rg Veda?  --Kels 17:55, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It's also very telling that you totally ignored every other point made in this whole section. --Kels 17:58, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I addressed the points dealing with the claim challenged. If you are unable to address them without digression, that does not mean that I have to digress also.  That of the existence of a definition.  You are now criticising the definition as opinion only.  That's an arguable point, but it is still not your original claim that no definition had been given. Apart from the only comment here that addressed my challenge to claim is Sterile's below.  Whether it be thesis or definition is indeed arguable.  IMO it seems semantic hair-splitting, but in Sterile's it is not, therefore we have an arguable point.  @Edgerunner, if you don't care about the definition then why comment on a discussion about the definition? Although it wasn't just you.  I raise an issue about the "no definition" claim and apart from Sterile's comment below, all responses have been about the content of the definition that exists. Tricksy 00:15, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I would argue that saying absolute morality is based in any religion is a thesis to be defended, not a definition, IMHO. I also would say that absolute morality probably would be best defined on whether certain actions are absolutely considered right or wrong, not based on human or God-given notions. Sterile 16:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The well-supported definition above says that absolute morality is whatever your Creator damn well decides is moral. For instance, "it can be considered wrong to kill another human being, except in cases of self defence, punishment, or similar."  Similar in this case meaning, say, if the Jews have some problem so a lot of babies have to be murdered in their cribs.  Or if some children make fun of a prophet's bald head, say.  Absolute, yeah?  --Kels 18:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Bradley, you are mistaken. I don't care about the definition. I haven't read any of the relevant portions on aSK regarding this. My observation was more base. I think that the absolute part is totally bunk. With that, I dismissed everything else. This isn't even worth discussing. 18:48, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Back to my point above: "Absolute morality must be based on something external to human opinion" is actually premise that requires more support to back up the argument "Therefore absolute morality is based on what is deemed to be right and wrong by our Creator" (which is also potentially supported by your "if... then" statement). It's hard to call it a definition because "Absolute morality is defined as something external to human opinion" doesn't make any sense.  And I can't find anything else if your morality article that I can put the phrase "is defined as" in and make sense of what you mean by absolute morality.  Mind you, your sense of what you consider absolute morality to be or not to be may guide you to your definition, but it's not a definition.  (To be fair, Philip's "'Absolute' would mean, in part at least, unchanging; it's not relative to something else that changes (such as public opinion)" is on the right track, but is not in your article.)  Sterile 03:14, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * As I said, yours was the only post actually arguing the point about a definition. The article section does say if morality changes it is not absolute, so although it is stated as a negative assertion (rather than the positive "absolute" includes being unchanging) it is there.  Try removing "based on" in the second line (or replacing it with "defined as", and you have "Therefore absolute morality is [defined as] what is deemed to be right and wrong by our Creator."  I know that is not quite the same statement, but to me the "absolute" section in the context of the whole article (particularly the lead) made the meaning clear.  I am thinking now that maybe it could be clearer.  If I haven't done anything by the time you come off your self-imposed block, post a suggestion (or even a reminder) on the article talk page. Tricksy 03:53, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmmm.... Interesting. That would seem to be different than Wikipedia's definition of moral absolutism as "the meta-ethical view that certain actions are absolutely right or wrong, devoid of the context of the act".  Only after providing exposition on moral absolutism do they discusses it in terms of religion (including Christianity).  While I recognize ASK's disdain for Wikipedia, this seems like a more logical way to go as absolute morality is a known, real concept.  The use of the word "therefore" still suggests a conclusion to me, and hence an argument, and I still think defining absolute morality as God-given is awkward and, frankly, a rather loaded definition.  As for the morality section in the atheism article, well, there we will probably disagree.  (Apologies to Human for pushing him down again.)  Sterile 23:57, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * "Disdain" may be a bit strong (generally), but given the dynamics of WP I certainly have no in-principle objection to any given definition of aSk beinf different from WP's. As to that particular definition, I think it is actually well constructed but has some problems.  "Meta-ethical" seems to be a slightly clumsy way to avoid a recursive use of "moral" in a denifition of a form of morality.  I think a two part definition is better.  In other words define morality and then define the difference between relative and absolute.  I also think the WP definition is wrong in declaring "absolute" as "devoid of the context of the act."  but that is a discussion for the article talk page, as is most of the rest of your post.  I would rather take it up there, as an actual effort to build the content into something better.  As for the morality section, maybe we will be closer to agreeemnt once we are done with the morality article (or at least our disagreement will be well defined). Tricksy 02:05, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Surely if this "morality" is "absolute", and defined by a "creator", to be any use at all to us we must be cognizant of it (otherwise, our changing opinion of what it might be interferes). So, what is this "absolute morality"?  As in, the exact moral rules by which we must always live?  I think that is the sort of thing we would expect to be an answer to "what is absolute morality", not some hand-wavey definition that is it morality that is absolute.  The definition begs the question: "what are the absolute morals? (and don't forget to define exactly when killing other human beings is moral and when it isn't)"  03:37, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, I think I have mentioned this a few times before. I agree, the definition of absolute morality is not the content of Biblical morality.  Yes, an article on Biblical morality is probably in order, but it is not going to happen in the blink of an eye, and it should be separate from (but linked with) the general morality article.  (BTW, you meant "Raises the question" didn't you?) Tricksy 02:05, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

PJR: A bigot and a moron
OK, that seals it. That PJR apparently thinks all us atheists are mass murderers in waiting who only require a little thought about our beliefs to trigger our kills crazy rampages has erased any shreds of lingering respect I had for the man. To imagine he threw a hissy fit when I called one of his pet creationists an idiot when he very clearly was, but could come out with that sort of statement. Incredible. PJR is a moron, a bigot and an all round arsehat. I hope he and LowKey are very happy in their ghostwiki trading slanders and delusions of ever increasing magnitude. -- 18:50, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I've seen a disturbingly high number of self-proclaimed Christians loudly insist that without Jesus monitoring their every action, they'd be on a three-state rape and murder spree at this very moment. --Gulik 19:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Since I'm not editing at ASK, I'll comment here. There are people known as religious scholars who often know more about a religion than its actual adherents, as they have studied and critically engaged with the texts.  Sterile 20:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * We could say the same thing about its detractors, but that has never stopped people on this Wiki from acting otherwise... 20:55, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * ListenerX FTW! 23:36, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

My point was not that people here cannot try to advance a point; my point is that Jeffrey Dahmer is not the best person to quote in a discussion about morality, absolute or relative, because he hasn't really studied it. I realize that's an argument from non-authority, but I'd trust a PhD in religious studies any day over JD. Sterile 02:05, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * @ LX, the obvious unfounded claims of most (all?) religions don't require intense study of their tracts to ignore them. However, to claim they are "true" does.  02:30, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * If you do not know how the holy-books are supposed to be read, you may misinterpret what they say as "obvious unfounded claims." For example, a while ago, a Vatican astronomer stated that young-earth creationism had more in common with paganism than Christianity, presumably because the YECs were reading the Bible the wrong way. 04:09, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Seriously, they're assclowns. Just stop even posting there and let it truly become a real ghostwiki. They're creeps and the site sucks. Thankfully we're the only ones keeping PJR and his quim busy, so just let it be. 03:05, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Ghost is right: a curve of new articles like LArron did for cp would quite possibly be even more illuminating. Asymptotic to the x axis?
 * I would also like to see such a graph, along with a similar one for edits. 04:15, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow, I guess it just goes to show that Philip was only the reasonable/likable one by comparison. Sad. -- 04:16, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

":::I always love the line "if you don't know how to read the books". The facts are, 4000 years have passed since much of that material was written, 2000 since the rest of it was.  No one knows "how to read the texts", frankly... least of all the non-theologians of Lay Christianity.  Scholars spend years learning languages and more importantly, historical and cultural context to figure out what the books say...they may or may not be believers, but they generally are not practicing clergy.  and Human is right, few of those who practice a religion (our very PJR specifically) have read the bible in depth enough to understand it.-- 04:20, 3 June 2009 (UTC)(edit con)(

Mosaic Law
It is my understanding that it is only a fringe minority of Christians who believe that the Mosaic Law applies to non-Jews. 04:05, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The belief is that all humanity is constrained by the Noachide Covenant (see Seven Laws of Noah). Mosaic Law only applied to the Jewish people - never to Gentiles.  Paul specifically and repeatedly states that circumcision (and by extension the rest of Mosaic law) is not necessary for salvation (1 Corinthians 7:19, Galations 5:6, Romans 2:25-20 - and some conflict over it at Acts 15:1).  Paul points out (Romans 4:13) that it was not through land, law, or family hereditary that Abraham was made heir to the world but rather through faith.  He goes on further to point out that if it was law or family that was the key to being heir to the world, then faith would be 'made void' (KJV).  Acts 10 disposes of dietary laws.  A good bit of reading can be found at  with examples.
 * Ephesians 2:15 "By his death he ended the whole system of Jewish law that excluded the Gentiles. His purpose was to make peace between Jews and Gentiles by creating in himself one new person from the two groups."
 * Romans 10:4 "For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes."
 * so... It would be a fringe minority that hasn't read any of the epistles. --Shagie 06:05, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That was what I thought. Fred Phelps thinks that the "ceremonial" part of the Mosaic Law was scrapped when Jesus came and that the "moral" part applies to everyone. This enables him to justify his advocacy of the death penalty for gays. 06:23, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Susan's doing a nice job of pwning over there. I guess PJR still hasn't defined which parts of his "absolute morality" are the unchanging ones?  23:17, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think Philip's really defined what this "absolute morality" consists of, beyond airy handwaving and an example about murder with convenient loopholes. --Kels 14:57, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I gotta give huge respect to Dinsdale for his scrupulous intellectual honesty. It stands out in sharp contrast to Philip's "Dahmer belongs in the article because he agrees with my prejudices". --Kels 14:56, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Active Editors
08:17, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * For my convenience, I reused the table of RationalWiki:Active users
 * For recent edits rate, the average of the post over the last full three months is taken. As March wasn't a full month, this number is smaller than last edits rate for everyone.
 * I reduced the number of entries to 50, as aSK has only 221 members editors.
 * Enjoy


 * I made the "most articles created" chart but not this one. Hmm! Totnesmartin 08:21, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * You made 22 edits - which makes you editor Nr. 137 - but a third of your edits (7) were new articles. 08:36, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * And if I recall rightly, most of the rest were about Australia... Totnesmartin 20:52, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Edward
Edward's certainly got his focus down pat. And I honestly can't tell at all if he's a Poe or legit. No "I have my suspicions", I mean I really can't tell. Stuff like this seem a bit strong, but it's not that far from what a lot of the nutters actually write in their own spaces. --Kels 14:29, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. "Sprenger believes Mohammed’s supposed revelations were hallucinations brought on by epilepsy" makes me suspicious.  Sterile 14:39, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I dunno. This Bible Probe page he uses as a reference doesn't strike me as parody, and I can't find any reference on Google to it being so.  The Mohammed/epilepsy thing doesn't seem to be fake either.  So while I'm automatically suspicious, I can't find anything of substance to hang that suspicion on. --Kels 14:51, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

That explains a lot
I always wondered why Philip cites almost everything from Creation Ministries International, but then I read the WIGO'd "INFObyte" - and it all started to make sense: "To provide an alternative, a friend of CMI has created a new encyclopedia that, like Wikipedia, anyone can contribute to." Hmmm... --Sid 17:36, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, we've already noted many times that CMI (and AiG before that) was Philip's primary source of information. He's quite willing to accept without the slightest question everything they write over there, assuming that they did their research.  He doesn't need to. The milk one made me laugh, mind you. --Kels 17:45, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I found that fairly funny too. I don't know about you, but I knew the milk thing for years. It has been the mainstream scientific view for ages, it's even pop science enough to have been mentioned in films. To claim that's new research is ludicrous. The other funny thing is that we're now "anti-creationists." They're now in denial about what the mainstream view of origins of life is. I guess since they're in denial about everything else, it's only natural. -- 19:18, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, so far ASK has been a blistering debate about great flood, info, morality and atheism, and then a compilation of grunge and alternative bands, the requisite chemical element entries that all wikis have, and now computer languages and church software. What a mix! Sterile 04:25, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * They are definitely your one-stop-shopping location for concise info on someone's favorite punk rock bands. I'll give them that...  04:42, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Good heavens...the milk thing. No sooner does CMI say it...but Philip starts an article parroting them. Look at the dates, he posted his THE SAME DAY as he read it on CMI! --Kels 14:55, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Dinsdale/Inerrancy WIGA
For the record, I don't want anyone thinking that I made those comments with a "gotcha" mindset. I was a true-believing Roman Catholic up through college, and wound up an agnostic because that's the only way I could remain intellectually honest with myself. What I want to continue to do on ASK is present the questions that I asked myself during that period in my life, and see what answers others have come up with for themselves. --SpinyNorman 22:31, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, I don't think there was. As I said, intellectual honesty and due diligence.  The idea behind my WiGO is that the response from Philip is certain to be more justification to how his faith already works, with little if any serious consideration that you may in fact be right in the context of the story told in the Bible.  Now personally, I don't think any of it should be taken as fact, but that's going outside the context of the book, isn't it? --Kels 22:50, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't think you saw it that way either, Kels. It just seemed like a good idea to put that out there because I haven't had much time to edit on ASK (or anywhere else for that matter), and I was mindful that some folks might see "Dinsdale" as someone who only pops in to take polite shots at matters of faith when it suits him.  I was laid off in April, so most of my time is spent in job-search mode.  Once in a while I need a break, though, and it's good exercise to dive into a topic or two that engages me.  Congrats on your progress with school, btw.  --SpinyNorman 23:19, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * As for responses from the faithful, it should be interesting. Tim's response was a good one, and actually answered something I'd been wondering about for some time.  What's ironic is that it pointed right to a Biblical denial of Biblical inerrency, from the one figure whose statements are not subject to invalidation.  The responses should be interesting, indeed.  --SpinyNorman 23:24, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I could stand to be doing better in my job search as well. Six weeks and not a damned thing.  I'd rather not spend the whole summer not working, although it gives me more time to develop my skills.  As to Philip, I'm expecting some rationalization that says Jesus didn't really mean that.  Presumably someone at CMI thought of some way around his words. --Kels 23:47, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Totally off-topic, but on-conversation, I've been doing a bit of "handyman" work to pretend I am bringing in the money I need to keep afloat. Servicing a tractor, fixing a busted outdoor faucet, replacing a bunch of dead light bulbs... man, this recession sucks.  Although getting the Renault Dauphine running might be interesting.  01:29, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm filling out a merit application in a year with no pay raises and hence no merit money. While it is an exercise in futility, I am certainly grateful to have a job.  Sterile 01:41, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I've gone through those phases too - the year after my former company's last merger they froze the salaries of everyone from VP on up for a year, so the concept of tying pay to performance went out the window for the next twelve months. The challenge now is competing as a newly-laid-off technology expert in the NYC/NJ market, where thousands of people have been in the same boat for a year or more already, and are willing to work for 50% less because it's better than being unemployed for another year.  Things seem to be thawing a bit (finally), but I'm hedging by working on some entrepreneurial projects while I have the free time, and with any luck they'll start to provide some extra cash so I can take a good job for less pay too, if only to maintain medical benefits for my family.  --SpinyNorman 02:41, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * My vacation time that is unconstrained by worries of employment (there's a positive spin for you) will take me roughly 10k miles on a roundabout road trip across North America (I'd have to double check, but I think I hit most of the states west of the Mississippi (well, I know I'm not hitting OK, AR, TX, or LO... but other than that, well, probably not Kansas or Nebraska either... still...)... and a few provinces too (BC, Alberta, Manitoba, Ontario). Ending up in Wisconsin, unless I get waylaid by one of those elusive Canadian Girlfriends.  Though, I'm not quite that desperate. The tech job market in California is going the same way it is in New York... perl and biotech though... thats another story (to be had where there are biotech companies and few techies). --05:06, 7 June 2009 (UTC) &mdash; Unsigned, by: Shagie / talk / contribs (I think)
 * Hey, I am a Canadian girlfriend! --Kels 05:16, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * So you are. And all my friends believe me when I brag about you!  Hehe...  06:11, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

That shit was awesome. &mdash; Unsigned, by: Neveruse513 / talk / contribs 02:12, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

PZ Myers' latest
It's amazing, almost like Philip was cloned. What an image, eh? --Kels 00:07, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Ms. Kersten acts as gadfly there at the Star Tribune; if you get her off the topic of economics, she spazzes all over the place, as seen here, libeling atheism left and right. 00:23, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I made a funny
And I'm still laughing. Stop me before it hurts! 00:59, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

HILarious. MarcusCicero 19:18, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Islam
Man, that's just a mess over there, isn't it? They've left in the "Some Christians see Islam as a creation of Satan" and let that stand as the main Christian view of Islam, despite Bradley reverting Pascal several times on the same page. Mohammed's page still has the stuff about epilepsy and sinning, and maybe he was just a filthy liar. And there's even a special section on the Islam page about Slavery, even though similar things are in the Torah and Bible and HEY, WHAT HAVE CHRISTIANS TO DO WITH SLAVERY!?. And let's not forget Bradley's "Allah and Yahweh aren't related at all, they're totally different" stuff that's been onging for a while now. I guess that's the Biblical Worldviewtm, smear your enemies (Islam, atheism, science) and whitewash your own misdeeds (No True Scotsman, etc.). --Kels 14:28, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * They should put up the Jack Chick conspiracy-theory about how the Vatican is responsible for the creation of Islam, which is just the rebranding of an ancient moon-cult (as opposed to a modern day Moon cult). 14:37, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Hah, I remember that one! Actually, other than the "filthy Papists" bit, you could probably tone down a lot of the Chick rhetoric and post it over there with nary a whimper. --Kels 14:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, they do have their little Roman Inquisition over there; at one point I made some edits to the Christianity article that were reverted for "vandalism" by the aptly named user "Catholic." 15:21, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Rename this page
I'm not particularly serious about this, but shouldn't this page be renamed - Is anything going on at ASK? 17:49, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Needs moar tumbleweed. --Just passing by 21:07, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh look!
Darling Veronica asserts her extreme holiness as compared to evil secular PJR. Who'd have thunk that CMI could attract an audience of quite so many religious nutcases? -- 18:00, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The diff doesn't really look like she's pushing her "holiness" to me. I doubt she's much of a CMI type, given how she's criticized the US Bible Belt there already. --Kels 18:06, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Main Page
This WIGO:aSK has been around a while now and obviously has legs so perhaps we should have another look at adding it to the front page with the rest of the WIGO's? Ace McWickedDisco Jesus 05:31, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I dunno... legs? Is the site finally growing in terms of dedicated users and not just us?  I'd say, if the YECers ever actually outnumber the active RW molerats, then, yeah, let it go primetime.  Otherwise, it is pretty much an irrelevant backwater of the internets.  It's nothing compared, say, to Assfly "teaching" children (the horror), or Limbaugh "leading" the GOP.   06:05, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you might miss the point there, Human. The value of a WiGO isn't in their membership, it's in our amusement and how much interest we have in discussing them.  And so far, this page has been decently active, as has the main WiGOaSK page. --Kels 15:29, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * seeing as a good chunk of CP's traffic is us too (see Boycotts passim) then why exclude aSK? There was a month or two when the only entries in WIGO clog was that idiot woman in Florida, but the page wasn't demoted. Apart from Wigo CP, all the wigos are on the undercard, so why not treat them as equals? Totnesmartin 15:53, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Totter makes a good point, clogs and probably blogs are both less active than this. I withdraw any objection to adding wigo ASK to the front page template (I think it's aotw main or something like that, btw).  21:08, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem with this page is that the aSK-ites aren't really doing anything very remarkable. Most of the WIGOs are just them expressing their beliefs, which we all know they hold already, and RWers carrying out their duty as upstanding citizens to mock those beliefs.--ConservapediaRoolz 09:25, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Its positively amoral to focus on ASK the way you do. The difference between ASK and Conservapedia is that ASK is run by a relatively open minded guy who allows small minded bigots such as yourselves to troll his site, Conservapedia is run by a nutter who shouldn't be allowed near children, never mind teach them. MarcusCicero 15:20, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You have an odd definition of "amoral". --Kels 15:42, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Not to mention an odd conception of who should be permitted to teach children. 15:44, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry. Could you use smaller words that can fit into my small mind?  Sterile 17:44, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Ha! Love the 'not bothered' routine. Really gives me a good old laugh. MarcusCicero 19:16, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit puzzled by what we're supposed to be "bothered" by. Your application of "amoral" here really doesn't make sense. --Kels 19:18, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, you're 'not bothered' Kels. I get that. You are just obtuse. MarcusCicero 20:22, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Small minded bigots? I suppose you do need a large mind in order to bend the facts around the bible. It takes a shitload of abstract thinking to pull that off. Ace McWickedDisco Jesus 20:27, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Troll much, MC? Sterile 20:30, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Phil and Brad are "open minded" in the sense that they will accept anything that could possibly enforce they're delusions. &mdash; Unsigned, by: Neveruse513 / talk / contribs 20:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you meant immoral, MC. I think you're not understanding why no one gets "bothered" by you anymore. You're played out. If you want to troll effectively, you've got to stay fresh and new. Better luck next time. -- 21:19, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * No, I meant amoral. It is indicative of a lack of any moral foundation whatsoever; ye don't seem to discriminate in whom you hate so long as they have a religious belief. Frankly Phillip and his cohorts aren't hurting society. Andy Schlafly and his semi-fascist 'conservatism' is. Get your perspectives right. MarcusCicero 21:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * MC, no one stated Philip was hurting anyone. The purpose of RW is to monitor, report on and laugh at those with extreme beliefs. That is it's point. So why on earth are you fucking around and bitching and moaning about it? We are not going to change our stated purpose any more than Philip would change his. So why dont you fuck off you dickless git? Ace McWickedDisco Jesus 22:03, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Alrite Ace, suggesting I lack a penis may be a step too far... Even for your standards. Nevertheless, my purpose is to moniter, report on and laugh at your 'batshit craziness'. The certainty, arrogance and frankly very poor standard of humour makes ye a fascinating sociological case study. There is a difference between meaningful satire and smug frivolity. I tend to think you all lean towards smug frivolity. MarcusCicero 22:07, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Alright then dickless, if you want to monitor us like we monitor others why dont you start you own dickless wiki and monitor us from there while you fondle the space where your penis should be instead of bothering us here? Ace McWickedDisco Jesus 22:11, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Why so angry Ace? Less of the penis envy please. Coming up with such a random insult is probably something to do with your own insecurity about your own bollox. But anyway... I am a member of a website that takes the piss of websites like this all the time. A private forum of like minded people. You might consider it a 'trolling hub' if you like - more a gathering place of people who enjoy the spectacle of observing people discuss profound intellectual topics and debates on the internet. Funny thing about RW is that you're more interested in shitty witticisms and adolescent whiny rants about categories and templates. Talk about vaingloriousness. And self delusion. MarcusCicero 22:17, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, so you claim to be a member of some private forum wherein you and other brilliang people like yourself mock places like us? WHERE?  I'm on for the ride, if you've got the testicles to share the place with us.  Otherwise, fuck off, you're a lying troll.  07:06, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * heh, who said I was angry? I feel grand. "Vainglorious" and references to John Locke? Someones been reading too much Thomas Hobbes and Two Treatises of Government . And if this place is so intellectually bereft, why bother trolling here? Ace McWickedDisco Jesus 22:22, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe I'm trolling, but I suppose thats a pointless line to do down. Its the fact that you consider yourselves to be 'oh so superior' that I find it so amusing. If you were either A) Genuinely an intellectual project or B) Openly a silly thing like that 'liberapedia' nonsense then it wouldn't be any fun. The fact that you cling on to delusions of grandeur... well, I believe that requires mocking. Pretty much the same way you lot feel about conservapedia I'm sure. Then again, a hypocryte is great at seeing anothers hypocrisy - terrible at seeing his own. MarcusCicero 22:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You only need to look at the Inactivity debate to garner the knowledge that very very few of us take RW or ourselves particularly seriously. I know I dont. We just enjoying being snarky. Whats so wrong with that? You sir, are the one imposing delusions of granduer upon us. As I stated on the page mentioned above, anyone who takes RW and themselves on RW seriously will leave pretty quickly as its not that sort of place. Wikipedia we are not. Now here's an idea...fuck off. Ace McWickedDisco Jesus 22:39, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Ooh, why don't we write RationalWiki:Delusions to balance Conservapedia:Delusions? That ought to be fun... 01:41, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The forum is secret. If you people knew about it you would troll it pretty much like you launch vandalism attacks on conservapedia. No thanks. MarcusCicero 08:43, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Then I don't believe it exists. I don't edit CP, I'm blocked. Your trolling is getting boring.  08:47, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Human, I couldn't give a fuck if you don't believe it exists. :) 86.45.200.112 12:32, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't believe it exists either. This is RationalWiki if you didn't know, not PayAttentionToRantingTrollsWiki, so we require evidence to back up improbable assertions.-- 12:38, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Hey kid, I honestly couldn't give a fuck what you think rationalwiki is. MarcusCicero2 14:00, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, yeah? I've yet to see any evidence to suggest you care as little as you say you do.-- 14:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Another barely comprehendable comment. What the hell are you frothing at the mouth about? Get some perspective man. MarcusCicero2 14:07, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Not much else is going on...I endorse feeding the troll. &mdash; Unsigned, by: Neveruse513 / talk / contribs 14:15, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Life must be tough as a 13 year old virgin who just figured out how to use the internet. MarcusCicero2 15:13, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Phil's declaration
I've been looking for a link to, or copy of, that declaration Phil made when leaving CP & starting ASK. Anyone? 03:57, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Found it. Hope it's useful and/or entertaining. --Kels 04:14, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks Kels. The reason I wanted it was that some BoN edited the WikiIndex entry & I wanted to possibly put in a link. -I've done so. 04:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Where to even begin?
The crazy just overflows in these two edits, but where to even start pulling out WiGOs? Thor being the grandson of Noah? Ancient China believing in Noah and the Garden of Eden? The old canard that history (or, indeed, anything in the past) is outside the realm of science? MOAR STALIN!? It's a veritable cornucopia of over-credible CMI worship! --Kels 03:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay... so, one of Noah's grandsons is a big, red-beared Viking god whose main hobbies are drinking heavily, chasing valkyries, and bashing in giants' heads. I read that, and then there was this flash of herring, and now everything tastes plaid....I can only assume the part of my brain that handles incredulity just exploded. Trippy. --Gulik 06:30, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Snorri Sturluson euhemerized Thor as a warrior from Thrace, which is much more plausible; at least the Thracian language is in the same family as Old Norse. 07:40, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Playing these sorts of word games was a medieval fashion, trying to unify pantheons of gods and names of places to "prove" that such and such a people were descendants of the heroes of antiquity from Troy or where ever. Snorri has it that Thor is the grandson of King Priam. Of course, there's no reason to believe that any of these fanciful speculations has any basis in truth. What's really sad is that these stupid games are still going on today, and that people would actually believe them over sound, professional scholarship. -- 08:08, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * "How do you know she's a witch?" "Because she looks like one!"  Sterile 12:24, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * She turned me in to a newt!  I got better.   Remember kids, putting witches to death: Biblical. Witch trials: non-biblical. Just test if they weigh the same as a duck. -- 12:41, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Is there any absurd situation that can't be livened up with a Python quote? 18:22, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Bad luck, Ed@CP
I tried the "random page" thing you suggested, and hit random five times. I got Julian Calendar, which is a pretty much accurate stub; Transubstantiation, which seems to stick to simply describing the subject; Human Origins, which is a stub that puts the YEC version (in one sentence) first, doesn't seem particularly controversial; Peer Review, which is actually pretty decent and doesn't have the whole "peer reviewers hate Creationists" conspiracy theory nonsense in it; and Finland, and what can you say bad about Finland anyway? Maybe you could have said a random page at CMI, pretty much everything over there has a whiff of lies and misrepresentation. --Kels 18:02, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sure you used Liberal randomness, which as we know is biased. About Finland, if my signature hasn't changed, it *was* in relation to something bad happened in Finland almost nine months ago. Man, time flies fast. Editor at CPOh, Finland! Why? 17:34, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Slavery and the Bible
They can't come to terms with the way the Bible sanctions slavery, watch them squirm Proxima Centauri 11:13, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * My favorite part of that whole exchange is that you linked them to evilbible.com. This rationalization is pretty great to watch unfold. --PitchBlackMind 16:32, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * What I find funny is seeing him get so peeved at the commenters because they won't see such obvious things. Obvious to him, that is, who buys CMI's version of the Bible without the slightest question.  The Dahmer thing, for instance, is totally because it fits with his own CMI-fed preconceptions.  His little disagreement with BobM, again, he assumes that everyone else sees what he sees, an obsession with morality.  I think it frustrates him a bit that what he sees as slam-dunks are not viewed that way by most of the world. --Kels 16:39, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Bob M pwned them for the moment but let's see what comes next. Proxima Centauri 16:59, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually having accepted (and edited) the OT verses I don't think he can reasonably revert the NT ones. I don't know if you've noticed but he seems to be arguing that people who held slaves were not real Christians. What I can't see is how he's going to reconcile that with the NT verses which actually give instructions to NT Christian slave holders. And how he'll then reconcile that with the idea that Christian morality is unchanging. --Bobbing up 18:50, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * He's going to do the dance he does everytime he's up against realities that don't square with his and refer to an undefined methodology of which only he and Bradley have personal knowledge for discerning which bible verses are truth and which a real need only regard as exegesis. Duh. 18:55, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Really? I've never debated him before but I was under the impression that he took the bible literally.  You're saying that he doesn't?--Bobbing up 19:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Correct. He's alluded to criteria he uses for determining which verses in the OT and NT are to be taken literally and which are not, though he hasn't given real guidance on how he uses them, or why someone who doesn't read biblical hebrew or greek has any business making such judgments based on the criteria he claims to be using. 19:03, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, he "defined" what was to be taken literally (vs allegorically, etc.) as well and clearly as he "defined" what he was using "meaning" to refer to. Not in the same way, though - he claimed "meaning" was obvious, whereas the to figure out the literal thing, um, you have to ask him about a given passage.  He has yet to present his annotated NIV so we can all play from the same rulebook.  20:51, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Shocked, I tell you. Shocked!
Looks like 🇰🇪 lied about no more "Gentlemen" shout-outs. He just started doing them on a new wiki, is all. Not that we expect anything less than lies from Queer-Obsessed Kenny, what with his track record. --Kels 17:02, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm shocked that he managed to do it in a single edit. -- Nx  / talk 17:11, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe that's his version of plausible deniability. It's only one edit, therefore it COULDN'T be him. --Kels 17:13, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * if it was him, there'd be moar creepy smiley faces :) &mdash; Unsigned, by: Neveruse513 / talk / contribs 17:15, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

This is almost enough for multiple WIGOs:
Philip says on Ken's talkpage: Whilst not denying that there may be a phenomenon of being obsessed with arguing against something that you are inflicted with yourself, I have no doubt that Ruylopez is heterosexual and that any suggestions to the contrary are nothing more than typical unjustified RationalWiki mud-slinging. As site owner of aSK it's none of my business what RationalWiki says about someone, but as a human being I'm saying that this sort of denigration should stop. Where to start? Okay, I guess it should be no surprise that Philip comes to help fellow "Darwin caused the Holocaust!" Creationist Ken. And the fact that he basically plays along with Ken's "What? No! I'm not Ken! I'm Ruylopez!" games is also mildly amusing.

Then the part where he has "no doubt that Ruylopez is heterosexual". Uh. Philip? We're talking about the guy who never gives out any bit of real personal information, not even to fellow sysops (*points at the Special Discussion Group thread where The Ten discussed whether our "Conservative = Ken" observations are plausible*). The guy who regularly tells different people different names and who won't even admit on CP under what name he's editing on aSK. And yet you're sure about whether he prefers girls over guys?
 * Point me to said thread? 01:23, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

And finally, the loveliest bit: "...but as a human being I'm saying that this sort of denigration should stop." - Sure, Philip. Unless it's denigration of an atheist or of atheists as a group. Because then, anything goes.

Oh, and bonus irony points for this moral high ground coming straight after "typical unjustified RationalWiki mud-slinging". (Though this is at least better than his other infamous comment about RW.) --Sid 19:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That reminds me, I keep forgetting to get Trent to make RW1 available somehow. It was lots of fun.  19:32, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, to his credit, 🇰🇪 isn't a homosexual like Phil isn't an OEC/atheist. Ken's not gay...yet. He's simply conflicted (albeit to the nth degree). &mdash; Unsigned, by: Neveruse513 / talk / contribs 19:44, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Anyone else amused that Phil thinks it's "denigration"? 00:16, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It does kind of remind me of kids calling each other "gay". FernoKlump  What the fuck Mr. Assfly??? That bastard DeanS deleted my petition! 05:31, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * But on our part (I fucking hope) we don't mean it as an insult. Considering how many people offered links to how to come to terms with one's difficult inner urges, versus how many said "Oh, Ken is so gay", I don't think we meant it as an insult at all.  Just, you know, an intervention.  06:00, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Constants
I really want Philip to answer how fine tuning fits with c-decay, but I think it would be unwise to push the point. Sterile 03:08, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I just laugh at the talk pages these days. So I probably won't be any help.  03:38, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Go for it, dude. Getting banhammered is just LowKey's way of saying "I have no answer to your arguments", after all. --Gulik 06:50, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Gulik, try actually presenting an argument sometime instead of trolling, and test that claim. Tricksy 09:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm currently blocked, thank youverymuch. Woo! I can get banned AGAIN now!  --Gulik 15:21, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The evidence for the existence of god page is awesome. I just love the way it starts "there is much evidence for god's existence" and then goes on to make one incredibly weak argument for deism. If that's all they need to believe, maybe I can interest them in my real estate portfolio. -- 07:08, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I asked once aboout how c-decay fits with fine tuning on CP but no answer was forthcoming. I did get banned however. Ace McWickedi9 10:43, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The speed of light has probably been slowed considerably by The Fall and you can't prove otherwise (but for some reason I don't have to prove anything). Remember, fine tuning only has to hold until Jesus get's back. If you're looking for a creationist "gotcha", this, like every other one, is not going make Phil/Brad think. Phil and Brad already know that c decay and fine tuning work in concert (or they know that it doesn't have to - one way or the other, they already know the answer - i.e. they will come up with it really quick) and will come up with any fathomable ad hoc explanation. Really, they are not worth the effort. They're too stupid to squirm. &mdash; Unsigned, by: Neveruse513 / talk / contribs 12:45, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I love Philip's response. Yeah, it'd undermine it, but only a little bit.  And the speed of light isn't that fundamental. ♥♥♥ Sterile 12:40, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Argument by WIGO?
This edit makes it hard to tell what one is voting up or down - PC's complaint about the warnings, or ListenerX taking a swipe at her. Perhaps it should be two separate items? 23:22, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. 23:32, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks! 23:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

"It's a logical fallacy ..."
... says Phil to rule out 'a priori' a POV, but isn't that exactly what he's doing with the whole "Biblical" thing on his damn stupid wiki? He's ruling out 'a priori' the logical, scientific POV. The quote's in the edit comment and in the edit Grrr. 14:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Did you see his additions to Association Fallacy (see the WiGO). So obviously making excuses for his and the people he carries water for.  Dahmer, Hitler, Stalin, no problem!  Kind of like plausible deniability without the plausible bit. --Kels 17:15, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I did what I used to do at Cp, and followed the wigo and edited... oopsie, you people are out to get me ;) 03:42, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No, he's not ruling out one POV, he's ruling out EVERY OTHER POV IN THE WORLD! This wiki assumes the Bible is correct, and you'll roast in hell if you think otherwise foolish mortal. -- 17:19, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Is ASoK working?
I'm just wondering, because at the moment all that seems to happen is a "topic of the week" comes up and everybody leaps on to its talk page and hammers away. We've had atheism and now it seems to be "Evidence for God's existence". Has anybody here actually contributed to ASoK lately, apart from refuting Philip's stuff? Or is the honeymoon over? --PsyGremlinWhut? 10:15, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmmm... --Sid 10:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Good thing they don't have a 90/10 rule - the whole site would have to be banned.-- 10:46, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Why would anyone want to contribute to aSoK? -- 11:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It's fun to make them squirm. And reg 6 will eventually be their 90/10 rule.  We can eliminate evolution from any article about "empirical" science, but "design" is obvious, so it stays.  Already happened on the platypus page.  Sterile 13:01, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I think on some level Philip actually enjoys it. He's certainly not all that committed to building an encyclopedia, since he doesn't do much of that.  He mostly comes on and debates the athiests and evolutionists.  Not like he doesn't have the option of doing both, or even ignoring the debates, but he doesn't take either of those. --Kels 13:08, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Pages-creation-AStorehouseOfKnowledge.png They don't create much new content over there, that's for sure... -- 13:14, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I read some of PJR's anti-CP screed yesterday which included the gem that he thinks CP is (or perhaps was) god's encyclopaedia. Presumably now god is sick of that one and has demanded a whole new one, with less editors and content than ever before. Clearly god isn't in favour of this edumactation business, get back to endless grovelling and worshipping you miserable sinners! -- 19:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * God's encyclopedia? *Snerk*.  Reminds me of Groucho Marx's bit about how Texas is God's country, and He can have it. --Gulik 23:17, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

(UD) I dunno, I think what he needs are more editors who are "on his side". Remember, CP was pretty fallow for 3-4 months 'til they got some publicity. 19:29, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course, CreationWiki and Conservapedia pretty much take up the intended audience. I wonder if there is any real demand for yet another Christian biblical Worldview wiki.  Sterile 19:54, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, CW is only about creationism, and CP is totally disfunctional. So there is a theoretical "vacuum" for a YEC-friendly 'pedia.   23:40, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think you can make a general purpose encyclopaedia with an agenda that doesn't turn out to be in some sense dysfunctional. The problem is that you have to make editors toe the party line by one means or another, which means either strictly controlling the editor pool (as with CreationWiki) or by enforcing a bunch of content rules (CP, RW, aSoK.) This tends to filter out a large body of potential editors, which isn't a problem for wikis like RW who have a single defined purpose, but it a huge problem for general purpose sites like CP or aSoK where mass participation is the only way to survive. In any such wiki you just get a small group of people working on a narrow range of articles, which isn't the stuff from which an encyclopaedia is made. -- 12:58, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Now they have an article about "Narrow gauge railways of the Victorian Railways." I'm sure that'll bring 'em flocking.  Sterile 13:31, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Hee
Couple of days old, but I can't find it referenced on RW: But for what it's worth, articles don't get posted on the CMI site without having gone through some sort of peer review. Oh really? 03:48, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I love Ken's trolling in the section above that. There's a serious discussion going on amongst everyone else, but Ken just obliviously keeps posting those irrelevant links and "you'll never catch the Scarlet Pimpernel" rhetoric.  It seems like even Philip realizes it, and is studiously trying to avoid bringing it up. --Kels 14:46, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * ARRGHHH I HATE THOSE QUOTES!!! &mdash; Unsigned, by: Neveruse513 / talk / contribs 14:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You know how Phil makes everyone else's words small and grey? My reaction?  When he does it, I ignore his comment as disrespectful.  We need to present an armed front over this on his talk page.  03:01, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * There was, as it turned out, a compelling reason for darkening the small, gray text, so I gave it a shot. 03:13, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I saw that. I suggest we edit the template to make the text one size smaller, and a few shades lighter.  03:41, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Nice work. I did the final thing, and made it 100%.  I really hate how Phil tried (inadvertantly?) to reduce his botherers to small and light gray.  The green is very nice, and sets off the quotes perfectly well. In full size, fucking readable type.  05:56, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Beats me why he can't just italicise & use quotes like any normal human being. 06:34, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * (woah, EC on WIGO aSoK.. there's a first) I hate the whole "pull quotes and respond to them" style of debate that PJR uses. It irritates me that people can't even be bothered to write coherent paragraphs rather than staccato snippets. It also encourages him to ignore whole sections of what you're actually saying, plus it unnecessarily bulks up the reply and makes it harder to read. Hint, we can store the contents of previous replies in our short term memory, PJR, we don't need little hints scattered through your replies. -- 06:37, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Some people call that replying style wp:Fisking, and yes it is very annoying. If two people are both doing it, the replies just get longer and longer and resolution gets further and further away. Not constructive.-- 08:42, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

How ...
 Right: got that out of my system''' but, seriously, how do you, Jeeves, Sterile, Pascal (whoever that is), even ListenerX and anyone else, manage to keep your cool? I don't even know how Human can contribute to "non-sensitive" areas like he does without having some kind of mental crisis. To see him (PJR) wriggling around using mainly his own interpretation of language and definition of meanings as an alibi is horrifying. I know we're Rationalwiki, but does that automatically imply the existence of an irrational counterpart? They appear to have had the capacity for logical reasoning removed from their thought processes.

Threatening blocking for:"You think like child", "I found your vision...pathetic" is truly pathetic.

I feel like continuing for another couple of thousand words, but instead I'll just invite anyone over to their Recent changes. Of particular interest at the moment is "Evidence for God's existence‎‎ " where the only such yet found is apparently the anthropic principle which "rational" thinkers have long discounted. If they can't show that then where does it leave everything that stems from it?

And they cap it all by defending Ken - the guy's not defendable - he's a certifiable nutcase.


 * 12:27, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The short answer is by not taking it seriously. Really.  I mean, now we have Bradley saying that the second law of theromdynamics doesn't work, but it does in a naturalistic sense, but not for God.  How can anyone take that seriously?  Sterile 12:32, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * My favourite moment was when I used the phrase "taking the piss", and PJR decided to censor the work "piss." Ah, prudery, the carnal virtue of Christian zealot. It's a good thing we've never been stupid enough to let any of these guys have any power in government, we'd have a Christian taliban in moments. They'd be stoning gays before you can say "Adam and Steve."


 * The way I see it is that you have be something like Louis Theroux. Yes, these people are utterly nuts, but if you view their craziness with wry amusement and join in at the appropriate moments you can get through it unscathed. It's always amusing what they'll come out with. A couple of weeks ago, PJR didn't know anything about Trojan origin myths, now he's a staunch defender of them despite the fact that he hasn't (and refuses to) read any of the primary sources involved. I kind of regret not going with my first instincts now and going in to some of the conspiracy theory end of the market, I could have had him believing in Atlantis. Hell, I think it's our Bradley that already believes in crystal skulls, so there's some synergy there. Essentially, they're leaves in the wind, they'll believe any damn thing that they think might vaguely be Christian or creationist in character. You could turn this in to a fun game, who can make 'em believe the craziest thing? -- 12:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Well and good, but there are people out there in positions of authority who believe this crap. I shudder. 13:04, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * BTW, the lost city of Atlantis is great evidence for the flood.. &mdash; Unsigned, by: Neveruse513 / talk / contribs 13:05, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, and it's doubtless where they cooked up the chimeras in their pre-flood cloning laboratories :D -- 13:12, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but what!? Do you mean to say he's actually defending Trojan origin myths as true, despite them being quite clearly constructed, and dispelled centuries ago by, you know, history and archaeology and common sense? Please link.  03:32, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * So I explained to him, but he thinks the evil "secular" historians aren't looking hard enough for the evidence. I was going working up the reserve to reply to that outpouring of stupid, but now I've been banhammered by PJR's trained monkey. -- 04:47, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I just tried it for two days, I can't do it... 16:16, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

More like the Arsefly every day
PJR is now up to making the Liberals === Atheists connection. How long can it be before he starts rolling out the big guns like "godspeed"? -- 14:08, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Liberals, atheists, evolutionist--all the same! Sterile 15:10, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Dahmer, again
Really, I'm getting a little bit pissed - though PJR is repeatedly saying that no actual pissing is done. Dahmer evokes reactions... Color me surprised. I suppose Hitler does, too. 16:08, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I like the whole "nobody's replied with anything I consider a valid argument". Clearly he's been hanging around 🇰🇪 too long. --Kels 16:25, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Let's see how many atheists' quotes he can rebut. Sterile 20:38, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * "Let's see how many atheists' quotes he will delete without bothering to rebut." Fixed that for you. --Kels 21:49, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually the "rebuttal" of the Elizabeth Anderson quote is amusing, esp. in light of the circular argument: God is the only absolute basis of morality because God is the only absolute. Sterile 13:00, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You know, it's not even the "Christians have an absolute morality and atheists dont", even though the "absolute morality" of Christians is just an illusion. It's that in the Morality article they make a big deal about how if you don't have an absolute morality then you're a bad person. --Kels 14:42, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I've had another shot at absolute morality here, as I think PJR just left an opening. But I don't hold out much hope.--Bobbing up 16:35, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't understand why you guys try so hard to correct their "articles." It's not as if anyone is ever going to read them. aSoK caters to the vanity of two or three zealots, and that's about it. -- 16:41, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Because they're wrong on the Internet! And if we don't fix it, they'll go on being wrong!  --Gulik 19:15, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * These people deserve to be ridiculed and marginalized. &mdash; Unsigned, by: Neveruse513 / talk / contribs 19:20, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Can't edit CP, why not ASK? Sterile 20:13, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Bathing in the Kool-Aid
How far gone do you need to be to consider this mess a reasonable explanation for anything? Seriously, it amazes me to start with that people can look at "guy who comes back from the dead because he's really God", "the whole world flooded" and "the world got poofed into existence complete with two people in a garden" as anything but fairy stories to teach moral lessons. The ability of the human mind to rationalize the most incredible bullshit never fails to impress me. --Kels 15:17, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No kidding. It's the impenetrable metaphysical verbiage that I always find most amusing.  "Thermodynamics is materially universal but has no necessary meaning metaphysically."  Which means what exactly? Absolutely nothing, because you can have "metaphysics" mean whatever the hell you want.  Yet they think that kind of nonsense, talking about the "transcendent" and "divine" somehow has argumentative and explanatory force behind it.  For god's sake, look at the millenia of argument and dissertation upon the Trinity, which remains nothing more than a jumble of metaphysical nonsense with (amusingly) damn-near no scriptural backing.  "Oh dear, the silly skeptics atheists have made another "logical" argument.  Let's bastardize some scientific terminology and warp real theories into contorted caricatures in order to say goddidit in a convoluted way."   16:32, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Damn it, I really don't want to explain thermodynamics to Philip and Bradley. Sterile 12:22, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I got sucked in again - SIWOTI - syndrom - but to read I've never heard of a distinction between "closed" and "isolated", but I'll leave you two to sort that one out.  in an argument on thermodynamics is just rich. 12:34, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but the moment we start talking about ΔH and ΔS and they reply with Bible quotes, what's the point? Sterile 12:35, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * First, to show their ignorance to the world. That's the easy part. Second, to make them aware of their ignorance themselves. That's the hard work. 12:39, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll get there soon. But I'm going to enjoy my morning at the moment.  Then we can talk about perpetual motion and state functions and the like.  Sterile 12:44, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey Trent!
I think comin' on to you. --Kels 23:27, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * And BANG!!! went all aSk's credibility. 23:36, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Er, hm, why is he bugging me? I am not even Canadian! He should be bugging you. Can someone remind me again why these search rankings matter? Then maybe I will know why I should care. tmtoulouse 23:59, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you've got some things he prefers over what I've got, if you know what I mean. --Kels 00:08, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * "You have yet to show one single factual error in the Conservapedia evolution article" I find that hard to believe. 10:27, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * To quote the always-relevant Dogbert, "I haven't listened to a single complaint." --Gulik 05:15, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem is, the article contains no facts to rebut... 05:41, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey, Phil!
You said: "No article that I linked to in this discussion claimed that the law guarantees a right to a fair hearing, and in any case we were talking in the context of the mainstream media, not schools. So your claim about me is shown to be false."

Creationism HAD its fair hearing back in the 1800s. It _LOST_. Which is why, like Phlogiston and the Four-Humour Theory of Medicine, it is no longer taught in schools that aren't controlled by religious dingbats who are nostalgic for the Dark Ages.

And while I'm at it, humans who aren't religious DO have a basis for morality. Unfortunately, since it's instinctual, it's even parts "Love Thy Neighbor" and "KILL THE OUTSIDER!" But the Old Testament's got just as bad a batting average, so I don't feel too bad about it. --Gulik 03:43, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey Ken!
I made a joke! Two, even! That is all. 06:30, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey Ken! You are the joke! Yours in disgust, 20:30, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Fair hearing
Man, I'd forgotten that PJR is as GW denier, too. Man, is there any anti-science bullshit this guy won't wholeheartedly jump on? Although this whole "fair hearing" nonsense gets me curious. How does he think we got here, where apparently the small minority of atheists control the mass media? Given that for HUNDREDS OF YEARS Christians were in control of a huge proportion of the planet Earth and all forms of media right down to travelling storytellers. And let's face it, I doubt there was much of an impulse for most of that time to give Atheism, Islam or even Judaism much of a fair shake. Europe, Australia, huge parts of India and Africa, getting into North and South America, pretty much wall-to-wall Christians. And yet...they gave it up? Were deposed somehow? What happened there that made the still-majority Christians (can you become a US President without loudly proclaiming yourself as a Christian, even a nominal one like Obama?) were somehow not given a fair shake any more. Could it be...their ideas were bankrupt and didn't hold water when actually examined and tested? Hmmmm... --Kels 15:38, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * He has an alternative definition of "Christian" in which Christians (i.e. fundamentalist YECists) are a fringe minority. I am quite unsure how he classifies the rest of the Christians.
 * However, when it comes to science, there was a poll they did a while ago showing that about 92% of scientists are atheists. I am definitely in the minority there. 16:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I think he classifies them as well meaning but deluded. When I asked him why so many Christians believed evolution was true, he told me they'd been blinded by science and dragged away from the real truth of the scriptures. There's no valid exegesis but his exegesis, and anyone who says otherwise is a fool. -- 17:05, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * "blinded by science" = "convinced by evidence" ...? Sterile 19:52, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * As that great philosopher Chico Marx once said, "Lady, who are ya gonna believe, me or your own eyes?" --Gulik 20:26, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

What the hell?
This is the biggest spurt this page has possibly seen since aSK was created. Looking back in the (recent) fossil record, only June 16th is near the same and we've still got more today to go. 16:11, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 24 edits to this page (including this one); 13 mainspace edits so far at aSoK. But they do have a new article about Deep Purple, so all is not lost. Totnesmartin 19:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Does it count when we edit the section that talks about how many edits this talk page is getting? 21:47, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, but not the edits talking about counting the edits to the section talking about the number of edits. tmtoulouse 21:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * "I know"
 * "I know you know"
 * "I know you know I know"
 * "I know you know I know you know I know"
 * etc ... (Round the Horne circa 1967) This message brought to you by: respond and marmalade 08:37, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Seeking Socks
Methinks that CPalmer is trying to get me to out another of my AsksSox. Well no luck, specially as what you've written is so true: "Let us all give up on this religion idea, buy microscopes and lab coats and try to cure cancer instead". Thanks for being rational for once in your life CPalmer (wonder if there's anything in the initials?) (User 11) 10:41, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I think he thinks he's making some sort of good point, but in fact he's making aSK and Philip look bad. Not that Philip needs a lot of help with that, obviously. --Kels 13:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Philip seems grumpy lately. Sterile 13:51, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * His acolyte count isn't increasing as quickly as he hoped: there's about six of them now & several are nice right wing Americans from CP. There's one or two of us who can whip up a decent argument (not me, I hasten to add) and all he can do is redefine words and splutter. (user 11)13:59, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Now CPalmer is officially an atheist, should we tell him that our dark master only requires us to eat one or two babies a year, just to show willing? You know how inconvenient it is to have to kill and devour every baby you see, especially if the parents are right there. -- 15:16, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Wait a minute, you kill the babies before eating them!?
 * Heretic! 16:00, 30 June 2009 (UTC) CЯacke ®

Down the toilet is unsavory? What? Sterile 15:35, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * My gOD! How wery Wictorian. I hadn't seen that. Gotta be a parodist, no? This message brought to you by: respond and marmalade 16:00, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Gods and godlngs, they're really taking the war on the English language to extremes over there. Won't somebody please think of the children's stunted vocabularies? -- 16:14, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * And why not? After all, SCIENCE uses language, and they seem to be against pretty much everything else science does (but don't call them anti-science, nope!). --Kels 16:40, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I suspended my disbelief for a second and pretended that CPalmer was serious. It was awesome. Best idea he ever had. Too bad... &mdash; Unsigned, by: Neveruse513 / talk / contribs 16:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Sterile: that is worthy of a WIGO. This message brought to you by: respond and marmalade 16:30, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * CPalmer now objects ("ill-informed ranting about iron-age tribesmen.") to the writers of the OT being described accurately (I've upgraded them from Bronze Age after much persuasion from Akj). 15:33, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd say that applies well to the OT, but wasn't the NT more of an urban (for the day) phenomenon?  --Kels 17:15, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Disambig
Someone nip in & tell OscarJ about disambiguation pages. He's dropped Titan and Atlas on aSK without any mention of Titan the moon or Atlas the book of maps (Wp's Titan disambig page is longer than most aSK articles) This message brought to you by: respond and marmalade 08:34, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Done.  15:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Someone tell Pink to come over here and play with me. &mdash; Unsigned, by: Neveruse513 / talk / contribs 20:23, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * She's sworn off us, I'm afraid. 20:27, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * :-/ &mdash; Unsigned, by: Neveruse513 / talk / contribs 20:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You might be able to talk here though. 20:37, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Pascal's wager
The talk page over there seems very interesting and might spring into something. I especially like Johann's take (his views intrigue me and I wish to subscribe to his newsletter, an in-joke for AboriginalNoise). Jeeves is great as usual. 16:15, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Not looked at it for while but they seem to think that you can turn belief on or off at will. Crazy!  17:08, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I've read stuff by a few occultists who do try to do that. Odd folks, but Applied Theology is an odd line of work. --Gulik 04:31, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Now there's an incomprehensible piece of logic. If you can turn belief on or off, wouldn't you have to want to, which means you'd have to believe already!? (Or else want to live in blissful error)  04:34, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Why, thank you, Edgerunner. I suspect that where Philip and I actually disagree is the question of free will versus determinism. I learn towards some form of determinism, so to me it seems logical to view beliefs as being the inevitable consequences of what we experience, and that our beliefs must necessarily be beyond our conscious control. Philip, on the other hand, must believe in free will, so he holds that we decide our own beliefs at some fundamental level. In his last exchange, he concedes my point about how what we think of as "gut instinct" can really be an unconscious weighing up of the available data, but then proceeds to say that, nonetheless, we still choose whether or not to go with that instinct. I think he has missed my point. --Johann 22:07, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I may print this out and frame it
Have you ever seen such an impressive display of rationalization in your life? It's amazing, the lengths to which the human mind will go to support its myths. --Kels 16:33, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "Meaning"...god, I love it. &mdash; Signed, by: Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 16:48, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I suspect part of Philips frustration over the whole "information" thing is that he thinks it has been defined, and for some reason everyone refuses to get it. Except what he thinks is a definition really isn't, and in fact is useless for what he's applying it to. --Kels 17:29, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

That is all. Sterile 19:01, 6 July 2009 (UTC) Great, I always like a bit of dicsussion. 20:07, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Is that how you make homopathic remedies? 20:24, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Is Bradley/Lowkey a homopath then? 20:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Possibly Danny1212. --Kels 20:37, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I think all those fundies are. 20:43, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Erm... Thanks to Sterile for fixing my poor typing in the blue box. Tricksy (talk) 12:34, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

"How so? Much of science works by analogy.  We observe that people can shape rocks to use as tools, and we don't observe rocks naturally forming into the shape of tools.  From this, archaeologists conclude, by analogy, that rocks in the shape of tools were formed by humans." vs. "That's the problem with much of evolution: it's story-telling of what you think could happen, without considering what is likely to happen or is observed to happen." ... Am I the only one who sees a nice big contradiction there? Barikada 07:14, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Woah, here's a good one. "It's logically fallacious to require evidence of a designer before you can infer a designer."  It's not even supposed to be a joke, I think. --Kels (talk) 14:01, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Hatin' Gays Wiki
Isn't it cute? Daniel1212 has his very own wiki. He can hate on them gays in the comfort of his own little sandbox. -- 11:10, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, adorable. I'd always hoped this was him, but apparently it's another DH. Neveruse513Talk/Block 12:53, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * How long until he uses it as a citation? --Kels 16:32, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * He did that already, on his user talk-page. 17:20, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * All the articles were protected against editing so I started my own. Why take the Bible seriously? Anyone feel like joining in?
 * I've edited the ASK article, thanks for helping PitchBlackMind. Atheism (talk) 18:48, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * He's in trouble with Wikia. Atheism (talk) 06:16, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Who is? "Christinsouldr"? By the way, your style is still too recognizable.  Try harder.  Learn to use commas.  06:36, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Debates at ASK
If anyone frequents any message boards with a quote feature (and most have 'em these days), they may notice that the debates at ASK frequently resemble debates on those boards when one user has many apparently separate replies to another user's post. This results in.....well, I'm sure there's some neologism for it, but basically there ends up being huge posts that consist of a quote, a reply, another quote, another reply, a third quote, a third reply, and so on. Huge posts get broken up into tiny bits to make them easier for someone to respond to, and sometimes in order to take issue with individual points (whether fairly or in a petty manner). While many people do this and it seems the logical thing to do in context, it often makes conversations very hard to read and even harder to keep up.

Even with various different forms of quoting others, this problem is becoming more and more apparent over at ASK. I go back and forth between feeling sorry for the project and being angry at it, but this is definitely one case where I feel sorry for it. I can't help but wish there was a way to keep debates from looking like they were dredged up from a usenet squabble. 76.105.223.232 08:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I hate it. However, it's better than what PJR used to do which was to intersperse his reply with the original post. That was really, really annoying. If one of the participants does the pulling-quotes-and-responding-to-them thing, rather than drafting a couple of paragraphs of coherent response to the main thrust of the opponent's argument, it's really easy for the conversation to drift off track. Which, come to think of it, may be just what PJR wants. -- 09:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Quite right. If anyone has an example of a discussion conducted in that way that ever reached a conclusion, I would like to see it. I have been amazed at Philip's readiness to engage in endless 'debate', almost to the exclusion of actually adding content to his project.--Little Bobby Tables 09:28, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * People have been trying to tell that to Philip for weeks. I think that's part of the reason I can't stand Philip, but I can at some level deal with Bradley. Sterile 12:38, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I told him a while ago. I fucking hate those quotes. The readability of the whole thing is shit. &mdash; Signed, by: Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 12:40, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Someone here pointed out that it's called fisking. Sterile 13:06, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "Someone here pointed out that it's called fisking." I don't think "Fisking" necessitates ugly colors, strange text sizes and running it all together on the same line. &mdash; Signed, by: Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 13:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The green was my fault. I thought it was easier to read than the gray color they had before (#666, to be exact). 15:34, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

It's not just readability in terms of looking at the page; it's just hard to follow. It's a mess. Sterile 13:27, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Not only that, but it makes for posts that just get longer and longer and longer. Any constructive debate should result in shorter posts, as each party clarifies what the other means and whether they agree or disagree. With the fisking method, each new reply gives you a load more stuff to nitpick over, fragmenting the discussion into a hydra of separate, irrelevant discussions.
 * Philip's posts are achieving geometric growth!--Little Bobby Tables (talk) 13:49, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, THEY REALLY ARE! Look at this graph. Not exactly LArron, but it makes the point.--Little Bobby Tables (talk) 14:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * haha...very nice! &mdash; Signed, by: Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 14:16, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, that's sweet. Reading his latest BIG response, it looks like his aggressiveness is on the rise too.  A lot of "No, you're wrong.  You're wrong!  YOU'RE WRONG!" but not providing much of substance beyond that.  A lot of rationalizations, a lot of "if you can't see it with your eyes, it doesn't exist" (while giving the invisible, evidence-free designer a pass), the rather forceful defense of Creationist figures as if it were he, personally, who was being spoken of, etc.  I shudder to think of the painful eye-rolling done by actual scientists reading this stuff, especially when he claims to understand the science but clearly doesn't. --Kels (talk) 15:18, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I take the point-by-point stuff to be Gish Galloping, so when I lock horns with him, I try to narrow my replies down to one or two points, as recommended in the article on that debate tactic. 15:34, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Lol, I gave him a sequence of Vpu and Vpr to compare to show to him the sizes and mutation percents and he did not know how to figure that out (just look at the dam thing and compare how similar it is). So as to his understanding of such things as biomolecule complexity or physical and chemical dynamics I have little faith.  I wish he would dig himself out of the creation.com pocket and reason the science out.  --TimS (talk) 16:34, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Once you get to a certain level in discussing a certain sort of science, no one without extensive training in that particular discipline can even understand what is being said. This is why I think that science is useless against creationists. 16:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

It's really simple to be Philip. Sterile 20:53, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, come now. He's a far more complex induhvidual than that. I think I've captured him, though.



-- 03:22, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * LOL! Still, making people he argues with small and light gray had to be one of his better "moves".  03:31, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I like the thought clouds. Sterile 12:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * These are pretty clever - makes me wonder why these have never been made for Andy, TK and the other CP elite before. Hmmm, could there be a RW summer competition in the making?  --SpinyNorman (talk) 15:32, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The one for would not be too awfully complex; observe:


 * 16:27, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't "run checkuser" be step 2, before the decision point? --Kels (talk) 17:15, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I thought he only ran checkuser when he got suspicious of people's edits; the recent LeoS fiasco, for example. 17:26, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's way too complicated. I thought it went "notice new edit" -> "run checkuser" -> "burn edit" -> "block user and two others as AmesG"  18:03, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You should enter that one in the competition. 18:12, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I dunno, mine might be funny, but the one above might be smerter with that rnd(x) thing and all. 06:10, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Ahh.. checkuser doesn't work if you have a new IP address. Mreow~ I just wish I knew how I got a new one yesterday though. &#42;wanders off to sleep in TK's arms&#42; 19:18, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, Bradley...
I only see two differences; the selection pressure is artificial, and the article calls it evolution. In my opinion, if "evolution" was changed to "speciation" throughout, the article would need very little additional editing to be at home on creation.com. So near, and yet so far... --Kels 00:13, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow, that was fast. Thanks for the quote, but you haven't actually pointed out any faults in what I said. (There is that unfinished sentence, but I fixed that already).Tricksy 00:21, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Just...amazed, that's all. --Kels 00:31, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Back to the meaning of words. Apparently a creationist ploy (see "information" etc); aSK appears to be taking it to new heights though. If you can't prove something then change the meaning of the words so that your interpretation is the TRUTH. 08:37, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I saw a creationist blog once that said "ok species change - butthat's not evolution!". It's like they'll do anything to avoid the E word, even if it means accepting the definition under another name. Totnesmartin 10:11, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That's pretty much what I was thinking when I posted that quote. Seriously, there's so much pride there, backing up a pretty untenable position.  Can't even give EVILution that little inch, gotta change the name to make it acceptable.  Besides, if you accept that this is evolution (it is) then you have a hard time holding onto all those straw man versions of the concept you've been hauling around all this time, don't you? --Kels 16:07, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually the "ploy" is not from creationists but evolutionists, and it has a well known name: equivocation. There two completely different phenomona, one observed and one not, and both are labelled "evolution" so that the observation of the first can be argued as evidence of the second.  Creationists argue against changing the definition.  The creationist position is that observed downhill changes do not constitute evidence of unobserved uphill changes.  This is nothing new - creationists have been explaining this repeatedly for years - and I am surprised to find you ignorant of the position (unless you are merely misrepesenting either the position or your surprise).  If you want to call speciation (the loss of diversity) from existing genetic diversity "evolution" then go ahead, but find another term to apply to the gain of diversity.  The two processes are opposite. Tricksy 01:21, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * All you need to make the two the same is some way of introducing genetic diversity, such as mutation WazzaHello? Is there anybody in there? Just nod if you can hear me... 00:21, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

(Dude, we'll get there. Relax.  Sterile 01:41, 3 July 2009 (UTC))
 * Actually, I think we are getting there in our discussion (as in reaching some agreement as to what it actually is that we disagree about).  There is no particular angst in my post above, I'm just a stickler.  I pointed out the equivocation (which I believe many are not even aware of) at aSK but the post above accuse me of equivocating as a ploy.  I was answering that.  Actually, and semi-OT, this is part of the whole "Same evidence, difference world-view" issue. Tricksy 02:07, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I understand what you are saying (I think), but disagree, respectfully. Unfortunately, it will require a longer post than I am willing to work on now.  Sterile 02:16, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I pretty much understand all of those sentiments. :) Tricksy 02:22, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, I never really thought it was a "ploy" as in deliberate deception. It's just the quote above struck me that you were so very close, that just that little conceptual tweak would have allowed you to join us here in reality. It's a nice place, not so many invisible sky gods tweaking every little thing behind the scenes, but loads and loads of wonders of nature and the cosmos. --Kels 04:20, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Via PZ Myers, Richard Feynman gets it. S'funny, the more I look at stuff the more my personal version of paganism morphs into a sort of personalized reverence for nature as it is.  And you know, I can live with that. Our brains like symbolism, that's how we come up with such fanciful stories like the world being magicked into existence in six days and such.  But it's better to know they're symbols and they represent real things.  They're not the real things themselves. --Kels 04:33, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Niely put, Gentleman Kels. [Curtsies and walks backwards out of the Gentlemen's room...] 04:54, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Done, Bradley. All sorts of fun stuff about Haldane's dilemma (wrong), corn and mutations (it does involve at least one mutation), and complexity (not a problem). Sterile 22:56, 5 July 2009 (UTC)