Essay talk:Christian editing

This is a Draft so far and is meant for Christian Editors. I have Refrained for using my usual Capitalization so as to avoid Offence.--Tolerance 17:45, 25 February 2009 (EST)
 * Could you please learn how to capitalize? It makes you look like a fucking self-important douchebag and a moron. TheoryOfPractice 17:47, 25 February 2009 (EST)
 * Tolerance, I must tell you: if we did discriminate against people of faith, you would not be editing here. Nor would RA, AKjelsen, or myself (even though I do not believe in a god, I am still a Jew). --"C, U Rthe, ing. 19:31, 25 February 2009 (EST)
 * Hold on. I don't geddit. DSFARGEG 18:03, 27 February 2009 (EST)
 * CUR, your last statement is somewhat confusing. How can people who disavow all faith still be "people of faith"? 20:01, 25 February 2009 (EST)
 * Because I still follow the basic laws set down in the Torah. So I sort of fall under the faith label, but not completely. --"C, U Rthe, ing. 20:18, 25 February 2009 (EST)
 * With regards to Capitalization I feel it is Important to identify the Significant Words. I am sorry if it causes Distress. With regard to editing, my point is that Christian edits in articles would not be tolerated.  I understand that the Wiki has a Tolerant Attitude to opinions on Talk Pages.--Tolerance 13:30, 27 February 2009 (EST)
 * I wasn't aware the "basic laws set down by the Torah" included believing you had a special connection with animals. Oh, and Judaism doesn't use the Torah for laws at all, it uses the Talmud.   19:30, 28 February 2009 (EST)
 * One can follow rules and follow other ideals as well. And there are basic laws set down in the Torah. The Talmud details the laws, but the Torah contains some of the broader ideas. --"C, U Rthe,. 22:04, 28 February 2009 (EST)

Overcapitalization is really bad grammar in the English language, which most educated people figure out in high school. Perhaps you should switch to German. Sterilewalkie-talkie 13:38, 27 February 2009 (EST)
 * Thank you for your Advice.--Tolerance 13:45, 27 February 2009 (EST)
 * You should use italics instead; this, while it is very annoying, is at least grammatically correct. 14:10, 27 February 2009 (EST)
 * You mean, "Danke für Ihren Rat." See caps work there. Sterilewalkie-talkie 22:42, 27 February 2009 (EST)

Clearly, getting yourself blocked or put in the vandal bin will do little to help you spread the good word of the Lord Jesus,...
Please show me a list of editors who have been blocked and/or vandal-binned for making (ahem) "good-faith" edits of a religious nature: not for edit-warring to keep those edits in, or for page-blanking or otherwise eviscerating an article and filling it with religious content, but for normal editing of a religious bent. TheoryOfPractice 17:51, 25 February 2009 (EST)
 * Or for changing established articles like evolution claiming "it is only a theory".  17:53, 25 February 2009 (EST)
 * Let us imagine a Christian Editor who wants to make a Point on an Article Page. It would be Reverted At Once. The Christian Editor would re-insert God's word, be accused of edit warring by the atheist Majority, and Vandal Binned. I have Not Done This myself becasue it is Obvious what Would Happen.--Tolerance 13:33, 27 February 2009 (EST)
 * You are quite free to add "God's word" to any article that you wish. That is not the act that will get you reverted and/or vandal binned.  The trick is putting an appropriate "God's word" edit in an appropriate context into an appropriate article.  All those appropriates are what you need to think about.  Try it.  13:53, 27 February 2009 (EST)
 * That is an Excellent Idea.!!! If you are are Suggesting that we should add a Section at the end of every Appropriate Article titled God's Word or a Christian Opinion then I agree with All my Heart!.--Tolerance 14:06, 27 February 2009 (EST)
 * I can't say that I had anything particular in mind, but if you can add something that is deemed appropriate, then I have no problem with it. I tend to doubt that you'll be able to meet the appropriateness of such edits, but if you are up to the challenge.  14:13, 27 February 2009 (EST)
 * That is most Responsible of you! Perhaps a few other editors would like to Comment before I start adding Such Sections?--Tolerance 14:19, 27 February 2009 (EST)

(undent) I fear that you are not considering appropriateness. You're edits regarding NOMA below (as I indicated there) make me believe that you are embarking on an impossible challenge, but if you still believe that it is possible, I don't deny you the chance to try. 14:22, 27 February 2009 (EST)

What Christians can edit
Please show me a list of pages that Christians qua Christians are forbidden from editing. TheoryOfPractice 17:52, 25 February 2009 (EST)
 * The atheistic principles of the wiki are implicit in the mainpage.--Tolerance 13:34, 27 February 2009 (EST)
 * That doesn't mean Christians can't edit the pages, jackass. We haven't started forcing people to wear crosses sewn onto their clothing in order to police who works on the wiki. TheoryOfPractice 13:39, 27 February 2009 (EST)
 * I have not tried the Experiment, but I doubt that an edit which supported the Reality of, for example, the Flood would Stand for Long.--Tolerance 13:47, 27 February 2009 (EST)
 * That has nothing to do with Christians not being allowed to edit, troll. It has to do with inserting unsubstantiated nonsense into articles that are based on reality. Lots of Christians know that Genesis isn't meant to be taken literally. Grow up. TheoryOfPractice 13:51, 27 February 2009 (EST)
 * To be a devil's advocate, so to speak, there is a scientific/liberal bias that has to be kept to in mainspace articles. Anybody can edit them, true, but only if they stick to the RW mission. So in this respect Tolerance is correct. Pro-Flood edits would vanish pretty sharpish, as would e.g. any pro CAM edits I tried to make. Totnesmartin 13:53, 27 February 2009 (EST)
 * At the same time, Tolerance goes too far. Before an edit about the reality of the flood could be put in, there is the problem of establishing the reality of the flood.  If Tolerance can make that case then I welcome his edit.  13:57, 27 February 2009 (EST)
 * Conflicted EDit. So only certain Christian Beliefs may Not be used? How is a Christian supposed to know Beforehand which Beliefs are Permitted and which not? The existence of God? The Garden of Eden? The Flood? The Virgin Birth? The Resurrection? Which are permitted and which not? Who is to decide which Christian beliefs are Myths and which are Acceptable? Clearly we should recognise they these beliefs belong to another way of knowing which is just as valid - even more -valid than that provided by science.--Tolerance 13:58, 27 February 2009 (EST)
 * We have all told you all that needs to be done. Can you substantiate any of your claims as TOP (sort of) suggested?  I asked about establishing the reality of the flood.  Can you do that?  This isn't really that hard to understand.  Doing it might be though.  14:03, 27 February 2009 (EST)
 * This is Why NOMA is so important. It is not a question of evidence but Faith.--Tolerance 14:08, 27 February 2009 (EST)
 * With my understanding, this is a complete bastardization of NOMA. A global flood is well within the naturalistic magisteria...or is it cafeteria? Neveruse513 17:23, 27 February 2009 (EST)
 * Agreed. This is not NOMA. --"C, U Rthe, ing. 17:28, 27 February 2009 (EST)
 * I do not accept faith as a valid mechanism for discovering truth. I have faith in my beliefs, but it suits me. I do not try to prove to others that they are true. Totnesmartin 14:13, 27 February 2009 (EST)

(undent) Now that you are back to NOMA, I must ask then - why does this essay exist? You seem to be advocating that there should be no edits of a religious nature in a non-religious article. 14:17, 27 February 2009 (EST)
 * Why should I want to put Religious Edits in a Non-Religious Article? Long-Term I would like to see religious Edits in Religious articles.--Tolerance 14:24, 27 February 2009 (EST)
 * If we can consider this conversation to be directly related to the one above, then I will be quite curious to see what you come up with. 14:30, 27 February 2009 (EST)

OMG I love Fundie capitalization schemes! Neveruse513 17:17, 27 February 2009 (EST)

Validity of beliefs
Tolerance, why are your beliefs just as or more valid that what science provides? Why is this another way of knowing? Why is it better than science? You tell us to accept what you are saying, but you give no reason (let alone a good one) for why we should do this. 14:08, 27 February 2009 (EST)
 * Because it simply is another way of Understanding the world. To an extent It's NOMA but to another it's all about Cultural Relativism. It's about accepting the Realities of Others.  the reality caused by Faith.--Tolerance 14:11, 27 February 2009 (EST)
 * do you accept other people's faiths? you may accept that they have a faith, but do you accept that faith as being as good as yours? Totnesmartin 14:15, 27 February 2009 (EST)
 * I Certainly think that I am Right, it would be Most Strange otherwise. I also Understand that everybody else has their Own Way to find Salvation. Perhaps there are Many Ways? I shall try to Persuade them of the Rightness of Mine.--Tolerance 14:21, 27 February 2009 (EST)
 * It is strange to me how people do not consider very carefully what they say or write. Tolerance, why should you need to persuade someone?  If you're right, it should be quite easy to indicate this and win over many converts.  I mean, you're quite certain, right?  So, it shouldn't be a problem.  14:27, 27 February 2009 (EST)
 * I imagine that, in this respect, I am hardly Remarkable. Does not everybody think they are Right? Do we not all wish to persuade others? Perhaps those of us Blessed with Faith simply have more motivation?--Tolerance 14:30, 27 February 2009 (EST)
 * Actually, I think that this might be the great dividing line. If anything, I have become more certain in my uncertainty.  I do not think that I am right.  The best I can say is that I am probably right.  I actually look forward to the possibility that something will come along and change everything.  Though it seems increasingly unlikely, that tantalizing possibility always remains.  14:36, 27 February 2009 (EST)
 * Edgy - I couldn't agree more.  Fundamentalists constantly try to make people believe that Science resists the possibility of paradigm shifts in knowledge, but NOTHING could be further from the truth.   Science defines itself by constant questioning - "You claim your Theory is correct - are you SURE?   Prove it to me.   Now prove it to them.   I think you're wrong, and here is why".   Now multiply that aggressive line of questioning by every mind on the Planet and you've got a self-checking system par excellence.   The Scientific Method depends at its very fundamental core on the constant questioning, distrust and doubting of all current knowledge.   It is Faith that is the field rooted in self-belief - indeed, that is what defines it.   Faith says, "Let's all agree on this.   There will be no questions".   I don't think I'm right, I know much of what I believe will be found to be wrong, and I look forward to that.   Human knowledge increases thereby.   DogP  18:31, 1 March 2009 (EST)

should be a great way to get God’s word across
There's no such a thing. Grow up. TheoryOfPractice 17:53, 25 February 2009 (EST)
 * See if you can learn out to use good grammar in your insults; it drives the point home much more effectively. 20:06, 25 February 2009 (EST)
 * Are you talkin' to me? and what does "learn out" mean if you are? TheoryOfPractice 20:12, 25 February 2009 (EST)
 * See the second Andy quote here. 20:16, 25 February 2009 (EST)
 * I still don't see where my grammar is faulty. TheoryOfPractice 20:18, 25 February 2009 (EST)
 * Did you mean to say, "There's no such thing"? 20:23, 25 February 2009 (EST)
 * "There's no such a thing as God." What's wrong with that? 20:31, 25 February 2009 (EST)
 * The correct phrasing is "No such thing." Does one say "There's no a God?" No; one says, "There's no God."  20:36, 25 February 2009 (EST)

Listener, two things: 1. According to the link you provided, "no such thing" is preferred, not correct. Learn to read. 2. Fuck off. If you have nothing else to contribute besides being an anally-retentive grammar Nazi, no one will ever have any interest in what you have to say. TheoryOfPractice 20:40, 25 February 2009 (EST)
 * (EC) (1) I have known enough fellow grammar-Nazis to know that when a grammarian says, "Phrasing X sounds better to most people," it is code for "I would like to strangle anyone who commits a linguistic travesty by not using phrasing X." (2) I put it to you that when you criticized Tolerance on the issue of capitalization, you lost all standing to complain about being corrected by a grammar-Nazi. 21:10, 25 February 2009 (EST)
 * (Bugger, made an edit & the computer went SPLAAAA)
 * Listener; I suppose you might have been attempting humour, in future, see Poe's law, might I suggest that you add a smiley if that's the case. :) 21:00, 25 February 2009 (EST)
 * I was attempting a joke with the reference to Andy's "learn out," but am very serious about the grammatical issue. 21:10, 25 February 2009 (EST)
 * Think it's possibly a Murkan v AngloCommonwealth thing. Language is an evolving thing & Grammar Nazis are doomed to eventual disappointment. 21:23, 25 February 2009 (EST)
 * I doubt that it is an issue of a regional division, seeing as how hits on Google for "no such thing" outnumber hits for "no such a thing" by approximately 80 to 1. (Incidentally, as a grammar-Nazi I am in a perpetual state of disappointment, except when examining the prose of immigrants who are so recently arrived in this country that they have not yet learned how to butcher their grammar. There is hope for us yet.) 21:36, 25 February 2009 (EST)
 * Recall from somewhere (memory going, going ...) that the ultimate world language will evolve from the pidgin English of SE Asia. 21:44, 25 February 2009 (EST)

Satan would like nothing better than for you to come across as an angry idiot.
There's no such a thing. Grow up. TheoryOfPractice 17:54, 25 February 2009 (EST)


 * Satan would lurve Conservapedia if he existed. a whole bunch of supposed Christians acting like angry idiots. Sadly, we don't need Satan to "explain" evil - humans are perfectly capable of evils which would have a Beelzebub fuming with envy. Totnesmartin 13:07, 27 February 2009 (EST)
 * I have noticed a certain Lack of Tolerance at Conservapedia as well. Indeed I was blocked there for presenting a similar Message.--Tolerance 13:17, 27 February 2009 (EST)
 * That's interesting, isn't it?  ħ uman  14:17, 27 February 2009 (EST)
 * That's because you're the wrong sort of christian (from their view) - you want to preach the love of Jesus, they prefer the Hellfire and eternal damnation aspect. Totnesmartin 14:09, 27 February 2009 (EST)
 * We all look for different paths to salvation, even those who don't know they are Looking.--Tolerance 14:12, 27 February 2009 (EST)
 * That's pretty true; even atheists (and this will probably get jumped on) are after some ultimate "meaning of life", even if they reject religion. They might find a salvation in e.g. being the best at something - which would be a salvation of the ego. Any atheists care to comment on this? Totnesmartin 14:21, 27 February 2009 (EST)
 * When I was an atheist, I rejected the idea of a "meaning of life," considering the question nonsensical — as I still do. As to a "path to salvation," I have a clear one, if for some reason I wanted to walk it: run myself through with a spear, die the sword death, go to Valhalla. 14:28, 27 February 2009 (EST)
 * What? You literally believe you'll go to Viking Heaven only if you're killed with a sword or spear?   08:26, 28 February 2009 (EST)
 * Yes, I was sort of wondering about that as well, but I'm trying to stay our of the debates on this page. But OK, could you clarify what you mean by that Listener?--Bobbing up 08:35, 28 February 2009 (EST)
 * Apologies for the late reply on this (the diffs slipped by me). From what I understand, qualification for admission into Valhalla (or Folkvangr) is very objective: die by the sword, be admitted. Apparently dying people used to injure themselves with spears to pull a fast one on the Gods and ensure their admission. 15:01, 6 March 2009 (EST)

atheistic science
There's no such a thing. Grow up. TheoryOfPractice 17:55, 25 February 2009 (EST)
 * Science usually assumes that God does not exist. Therefore it is Atheistic by Definition.--Tolerance 13:18, 27 February 2009 (EST)
 * More accurately, it assumes that supernatural entities do not act upon the natural world in ways that are not in conformance with natural law. This assumption is compatible with deism as well, and with (my variant of) Odinism. 13:38, 27 February 2009 (EST)
 * Tolerance, you proceed from a false assumption yourself. When you write that [s]cience usually assumes that God does not exist, you are jumping a step ahead.  Your statement would mean that the question Does god exist? is actually asked, considered, and then the assumption that God does not exist is made.  However, this is a meaningless question.  The point is not even considered.  Therefore the existance or non-existance is irrelevant.  13:41, 27 February 2009 (EST)
 * Bear this in mind, I was a Catholic for... quite a while. I edited on RW quite a lot (see my contributions before Sept 26 for a more accurate picture), and did not have any problems with religious inclination because I adopted a policy of "Live and Let Live". I recognised that science is not the realm of "god", and that science deals with natural explanations for natural phenomena. Science does not go, "Hey, my flashlight is not working. I must be cursed by God!!!", it goes "My flashlight is not working, I wonder why. I think the batteries are dead."
 * Science uses Methodological naturalism - your own article says it. It assumes God does not exist before it begins.--Tolerance 13:50, 27 February 2009 (EST)
 * Did you by mistake read the article on philosophical naturalism? 14:03, 27 February 2009 (EST)
 * All science's results are based on Methodological naturalism, it excludes Faith at the start.--Tolerance 14:13, 27 February 2009 (EST)
 * But methodological naturalism does not assume the non-existence of Gods. 14:17, 27 February 2009 (EST)
 * Allow me to express a dose of reality...




 * @Tol, no it doesn't, silly. What it does do is only examine that for which there is evidence, or for which evidence might be found.  ħ uman  14:22, 27 February 2009 (EST)
 * Faith is the Evidence of things not seen.--Tolerance 14:32, 27 February 2009 (EST)

(unindent)Oh, you'll have to do better than that. Faith is faith, evidence is its opposite. 14:45, 27 February 2009 (EST)
 * Well, if I said I had faith I was Napoleon, despite a complete lack of evidence in it, you would call me delusional. You say you have faith in a god despite a complete lack of evidence in any way, shape, or form for its existance, so I say you are delusional.
 * I have been called many Worse Things! So Thanks.--Tolerance 15:08, 27 February 2009 (EST)
 * You are completly missing my point. Please provide ANY evidence AT ALL for the existance of an all-knowing, all-seeing, all-powerful sky entity. Go ahead. The stage is yours, shoot.
 * This is what NOMA is about. Thinks which are known becasue of Faith should not be examined by the scientific method.  It's like examining Art and asking if it's "true" - the question Doesn't Work.--Tolerance 15:14, 27 February 2009 (EST)
 * Translation, "Don't question my beliefs. I know they are unsupported and have no proof, and I just want to believe what a guy in robes has told me all my life."
 * Faith is an assumption about things that do not have proof. You cant know things from faith; that's kinda the point.   15:20, 27 February 2009 (EST)
 * Come on Tolerance... proof a god exists... or do you admit there is no proof, and that you have no reason to believe in it beside the fact you were told to?

This EZ edit button placed for the convenience of Tolerance
The question lacks Sense. If there "Proof" who would need "Faith? If you have "Faith" why ask for "Proof"?--Tolerance 15:32, 27 February 2009 (EST)
 * Because proof, unlike faith, has an tendency to be blindly held onto in spite of contridicting evidence. Proof, which is used by science, can be refuted. Faithm if you try to refute it, is instantly an attack on the person who believe it. So, back to the question, please prove to me that there is a god and your beliefs are grounded in observations and reality, or that you have no proof that there is any god at all, and your beliefs qualify as delusional.
 * I am sure that You know more about science but does it deal in Proof? In any event, there is no Proof God exists, that's why we need faith. If there were evidence then the Gift of Faith would not be necessary.  I can't put it any clearer.--Tolerance 15:51, 27 February 2009 (EST)
 * The curse gift of delusion, more like. 15:56, 27 February 2009 (EST)
 * Science is agnostic. It ignores the question of god. You cannot use science to say whether god exists. That takes faith, or lack of it. Not science. No machine has yet been made that can tell whether god exists. The most probable scenario is that he doesn't, but we don't know. Or rather, science and logic doesn't know. --"C, U Rthe, ing. 17:43, 27 February 2009 (EST)
 * And as we like to say, "That which cannot be proven with evidence..."
 * Science deals in proof, and if proof arises that contradicts the belief, science looks to explain why the previous belief was incorrect, and explain the new observations. Faith produces a belief, and holds onto it no matter how heavily it is disproved by rational inquiry.
 * While not wanting to get too Technical I rather think that Science deals more in Evidence. Is anything ever Proved in Science or is it all "Our best Knowledge to date"?  In any event Faith speaks to neither.  If either "Proof" or "Evidence" existed, Faith would not be required.  Is this not Axiomatic?--Tolerance 16:55, 27 February 2009 (EST)
 * How about this.
 * Think of a god who is the supreme natural creator of this universe.
 * We can reasonably expect that evidence would exist for such a purposful and supernatural creation of this cosmos, as it would be in violation of the known laws of reality and physics.
 * No evidence exists for a purposeful and supernatural cration, and no universal laws of physics have been violated in this universe.
 * Modern cosmology indicates that the initial state of our universe was one of maximum chaos so that it has no trace of that "supreme natural creator"
 * Scientists can provide plausible, purely natural scenarios based in well-established observations that show how our universe likely came out of that state of chaos.
 * From that, we can conclued that a highly intelligent and all powerful creator does not exist.

<-- I wrote this ten-odd years ago, it might not be clear, but I could improve it.  ħ uman  01:25, 28 February 2009 (EST)
 * Javascap - I'm not convinced (especially) by your point five. But this is not relevant.  Yet again you are trying to use science to explain art.  It's not built for that.--Tolerance 14:36, 28 February 2009 (EST)
 * I am trying to use reality and rational thought to help you figure out that you beliefs are a result of your enculutration into your Catholic faith, rather then analysis. I am trying to use analysis of your beliefs compared to the reality we live in to tell you that there is no god, and that one is not needed for this universe, and that natural explanations, not magical sky-fairies, explain the process of how this universe and life came to be.


 * Your "god" is nothing but an ancient way of explaining that which could not be explained, and is, as with so many other scientific statements, an outdated and irrelevant explanation.


 * Yet for whatever reason, you keep insisting that blind faith in a fairy tale should take priority over rational thought, that the ancient and irrelevant dogma of a blind group should take emphasis over reality. Yet every time I try to tell your beliefs are irrelevant and ultimitally based on a delusion, you insist that delusions and analysis should remain seperate.


 * So lets play a nice game of reversal. I will state that I am the King of Europe, and that anyone who disagrees with me clearly is supressing me, and that any and all disagreements are a form of censorship, and society as a whole should accept that I AM KING. You would call me delusional, and I would say "Faith (I have faith that I am the king!) and reality (I really am not the king of anything) should remain seperate".


 * Do you see the cross over here? You say that a god exists, with nothing but blind faith, and in the same way, I could say that I am the King. Both of them are blindly believed in, but only one delusion is acceptable to society, the belief in a god.


 * Ultimitally, I say that beliefs should be just as subjected to analysis, just as a psychotic patient would be observed by a psychologist. Faith is a blind assumption, just another word for a delusion, and no mollycoddling or word weaving can change this simple fact...


 * God is a concept spun by ancient societies to explain that which could not be explained any other way. In the same way Zeus was the Greek explanation for lightning, electricity and charges replaced the concept of Zeus with a reality based explanation. By the same way, "Yahweh" is an ancient explanation, just as relevant as Zeus, not at all.


 * There is no god, just ancient and irrelevant explanations.


 * Thank you for taking the time to Explain your Position at some length. (Before continuing I feel that I should Mention that I am not Catholic.) Your Analogy of your having faith in being the King of Europe and my Faith in God is interesting but False.  Your possession of the title "King of Europe" could be easily tested and falsified.  It can be shown to be Untrue.  You have previously Challenged me to prove God exists and I have accepted that I only have my Faith to back me up. However in this case there is also no evidence that I am wrong (Unlike in the case of the King of Europe.)
 * (Incidentally if you Religion obliged you to maintain that you were the King of Europe then I would say that you should be Protected by NOMA a it would be a Religious belief. Strange isn't it?)--Tolerance 15:16, 28 February 2009 (EST)

How do ya like those edit buttons?

 * In a word, teapot. I could establish my delusion of being king by having it taught in schools, and whining everytime someone infringed on it, and by pissing "NOMA! NOMA!" everytime someone questioned it. In just the same way, if my "being king" became a religion, it would become just what every other religion is, completly unsupported by reality, and all my followers would argue that the lack of evidence is just ignorance. They have faith, therefore, all contradicting evidence is just others ignoring the obvious, that the leader must be king.


 * Eventually, by time, my delusion could be accepted into society, and my "NOMA!" whining would become just a shield to protect me from my own ignorance. Despite a lack of evidence, you gotta have faith would become the central tenent of me knowing that I must be right, just 'cause I know I must be right. Yes, my belief in my being a king could be discredited, but so long as I hold onto that faith and know I am king, it would be right to me, and everyone who believes it.


 * Just like god, as long as people know there must be a god, and people hold onto it because they are deluded into believing there is a god it will be an accepted delusion.


 * Good for you, though, that a god cannot be completly disporven, only shown to be so hysterically unlikely that it cannot possibly exist. That analogy stands by the logic that if I could brainwash enough people to believe I am king, it would be just as accepted to my followers as your belief in a sky fairy.


 * It is still just a concept, your "god", an irrelevant and archaic delusion that has harmed this world in a diverse myriad of ways, a primitive explanation with absolutly no evidence. I still challange you to prove god, and you said you can't. I challenge myself to prove I am King, I can't. Both are just as incorrect as the other, the only difference is that god is accepted by the masses.
 * Thank you again for your patience. Anyway, your kingship could still be objectively Disproven. As could the orbiting teapot. You challenged me to prove God exists - knowing that it cannot be done. I could Challenge you to Prove he does not - knowing that this also cannot be done.  I will not play that game.
 * I will return to the fact that Beauty cannot be dissected by Science. Art cannot be Disproved. Such ideas do not make sense, this is what NOMA tells us.--Tolerance 17:23, 28 February 2009 (EST)
 * Tolerance, the problem is that you cannot disprove the orbiting teapot. Doncha know the teapot is too small to be seen by telescopes? 17:55, 28 February 2009 (EST)
 * "Beauty cannot be dissected by Science" Perception Of Beauty Is Something That Science Has And Will Continue to "Dissect", Whether Or Not You Are Familiar With The Research. Neveruse513 18:41, 28 February 2009 (EST)
 * I'm sure that one could do Research into the perception of Beauty. If I remember Correctly, Recent Research has Shown that Men and Women have differing Ways of Perceiving Beauty. But does the fact that we can measure how we react to Beauty tell us what beauty actually is?  Does it tell us Anything about the objective existence of Beauty? Will it tell us if Beauty is Timeless?  Will it tell us if Truth is Beauty? If you have a sufficiently Reductionist Ideology, I suppose your might answer "Yes". Personally I doubt it.--Tolerance 17:26, 2 March 2009 (EST)
 * Beauty is neither timeless nor objective. What's beautiful to one person or age or culture may be unremarkable, ugly or even absurd to another.   17:34, 2 March 2009 (EST)
 * Which, I think, is what Tolerance was saying. Science cannot say what is beautiful. Religion can't really either, though. --"C, U Rthe,. 18:23, 2 March 2009 (EST)

Other Christian editors
There is a particularly notable Christian editor on this site known as User:AKjeldsen. While he often gets into arguments with non-religious editors he has made many edits on the basis of facts and challenged poorly held viewpoints. What he does not do is inject unsubstantiated dogma into articles. I suggest that you adopt a similar approach. Генгис   18:04, 25 February 2009 (EST)
 * I have never ever (I think) Injected Dogma into articles. Furthermore I am not suggesting that my co-religionists do so. Furthermore I believe that User:AKjeldsen is the Best Educated and most Holy User on the site; although I see he has not Edited in close to a Month.--Tolerance 13:23, 27 February 2009 (EST)
 * You should make him a barnstar saying that.  ħ uman  14:24, 27 February 2009 (EST)
 * Beyond my skills Alas.--Tolerance 14:33, 27 February 2009 (EST)
 * Open image editing program. Learn how to make 5 pointy star.  Make pretty picture.  Upload.   Add to AK's talk page as donation.  If you can't do something that simple, why on earth would I listen to your religious poopage?  Seriously.  ħ uman  01:29, 28 February 2009 (EST)
 * I don't believe that being Right (or sensible) is directly Proportionate to Photo-Shop editing skills. But I could be Wrong.--Tolerance 14:34, 28 February 2009 (EST)
 * No need for photoshop, or epic skillz. Just any image editing program, the math to make a five pointed star (or whatever shape your prefer), and some fun playing until you like the result.  Lernig is funn.  ħ uman  21:05, 28 February 2009 (EST)

Always good for a laugh
Keep it up, Tolly baby. I like a good snortle at this time of night. 18:05, 25 February 2009 (EST)
 * This guy is giving tolerance a bad name, especially by capatalizing Every other Word. --"C, U Rthe, ing. 19:29, 25 February 2009 (EST)


 * He's An old Friend actually. We quite Like him Really. Sort of Like a Pet. 19:35, 25 February 2009 (EST)
 * And what would I be? Another pet? Should I meow cutely? Because asking me to do so would be a terrible affront to my honor. . . --"C, U Rthe, ing. 21:02, 25 February 2009 (EST)
 * There's pets & there's vermin. Take yer pick. 21:05, 25 February 2009 (EST)
 * I chose option 3: mascot/whipping boy, as described by TOP. --"C, U Rthe, ing. 21:06, 25 February 2009 (EST)
 * Wasn't on offer. 21:08, 25 February 2009 (EST)

I would quite willingly be Toast's pet. Ant day of the week. ;-) TheoryOfPractice 21:08, 25 February 2009 (EST)
 * Don't know if you'd like it. I can be very strict! 21:25, 25 February 2009 (EST)
 * That's what I was hoping. TheoryOfPractice 21:29, 25 February 2009 (EST)
 * If I have won the Tolerance of User:Toast then I am Most Grateful.--Tolerance 13:25, 27 February 2009 (EST)
 * I suspect all you did was provide her with a late night chuckle, and not so much "with you" as "at you". But that's ok, you're making me laugh too.  ħ uman  01:31, 28 February 2009 (EST)
 * I am glad to bring a little Pleasure to your life. If later you Consider my Words more deeply then So Much the Better.--Tolerance 14:32, 28 February 2009 (EST)
 * I think I've considered them as deeply as they are worth. NOMA = shield for whiny religionists.  That weird geo-history you describe, amusing fiction.  "Tolerance" within limits of sanity, we're pretty good at it here already (we put up with kittenpuppy, and even HOG, after all).  Trouble is, those of us who aren't believers are fairly immune to proselytising.  Why doesn't FF like that word?  It wanted to suggest proselyting!  ħ uman  21:09, 28 February 2009 (EST)

May I suggest an alternative essay
'''This essay is an original work by Tolerance, except for the bits in bold italics, which were added by CUR, because part of it seemed to be a personal attack, so. . . '''

I have noticed that at the start of this year 2009 a number of fellow Christian editors have briefly edited this wiki. Frequently they have not been shown much tolerance 'Oh, yes they have. Unless you are talking about Shay, who's every other word was 'God's right, you're wrong. Not the best example.', even though the very front page of this wiki clearly states:

“We welcome contributors, and encourage those who disagree with us to register and engage in constructive dialogue.”

It is possible that some of my brothers in Christ have not always chosen their words well, or may have misunderstood the purpose and function of this project.

As I have been present both as a contributor and as a lurker for longer than many of my brethren I feel that it is incumbent upon me to share some of my opinions about, and experience of, editing the wiki in the hope that my humble musings may assist my Christian brethren when editing this wiki. It is my further hope that should these simple advices be followed then a more harmonious relationship may develop between those of faith and those whom the Lord has not yet seen fit to call.

Non-existent Editing restrictions for Christians
Although these notes are of particular interest to fundamentalist Christians they will be interest to all individuals with a more religious worldview. Wikis may have differing ways of ensuring that their articles remain on-message. Some Wikis, such as Creation Wiki, explicitly forbid those who do not share their world-view from editing their pages and oblige them to only contribute on the talk pages. Although RationalWiki has no formal instruction to this effect, its Mainpage “mission statements” are generally interpreted to mean that edits with a spiritual message are not accepted by the wiki. Attempts to actually insert the Word of God are usually interpreted as either vandalism or satire, and edits with a clearly Christian (or even religious) bent are quickly reverted and the poster is either blocked or put in the “Vandal bin”. 'No, no one has ever been vandal-binned for doing that, unless they replaced, say, the article on homosexuality with 'God hates fags' which is vandalism. And you notice we don't call it CHRISTIAN vandalism, do we? If you really do have an example of this, tell us, we would love to hear it and put the idiot who did such a thing in the vandal bin himself.'

One could posit that putting the gospel in RW is the same as putting science in its associate site Conservapedia – something so far against the ethos of the site in question that its owners regard it as vandalism and treat “vandals” accordingly. Clearly, getting yourself blocked or put in the vandal bin will do little to help you spread the good word of the Lord Jesus, so you will need to find better means; so, sadly, it’s best to leave mainspace articles alone. *facepalm* We're associated with CP?

What Christians can edit
It is interesting to compare RW with CP in terms of what may be put in talk pages and article pages. CP’s rules force people to edit article pages rather than talk pages and consequently anybody with a differing view has to either ignore the pages with most interest them or edit them and be banned for eternity. On RW you are able to legitimately do three things and you should be safe from censorship. You should note however that the bar for sysop entrance at RW is very low (Sysop means nothing. We think that the best way to keep power from being abused is to give almost everybody some.), and some (perhaps lightly educated) adolescents may not fully understand the rules under which they should operate (You talking about me? Yes, you are.). If you get abuse from these individuals you should not hesitate to make a complaint (Already been made, and I don't abuse any viewpoints here). The three things you may freely do are:


 * Create essays.
 * Create, and get involved in debates.
 * Get involved in talk pages.

Using either of these routes should ensure that your message will not only be allowed but will even be protected from removal by the RW statutes. Yes that’s right – unless your words can be construed as vandalism or offensive in some way then they are permanently protected and can’t be removed.

No, if they edit in mainspace, we will bring it up politely on a talk page.

Essays
Creating an essay should be a great way to get God’s word across. It is, in fact, far better than an article because only you can edit it. Others may only comment on the talk page. Do your best to get your facts straight and remember to try to make your points clearly and persuasively. 'Oh really. . .' Be prepared for an abusive and ill-considered reactions on the talk page. This is where you will be able to show your Christian dignity and demonstrate that you cannot be provoked – because the provocations will come. Always reply politely as Satan would like nothing better than for you to come across as an angry idiot. Provocations' seem to consist of having your beliefs challenged. This is called debate. Get used to it, children. If I can deal with someone saying that I don't exist, you can deal with someone telling you that there is no little elf in the sky.' Also remember that for every individual who post and inflammatory response to your essay there will be ten more who will read your message and not respond. These are your audience. If they see you being mocked and still responding with dignity they will be inspired by your Christian fortitude and will look with distain on those who try to provoke you. These people are your audience.

Debates
Always get involved in debates. Again you should avoid being drawing into the games of insults and name-calling that some atheists love. Be firm and clear. Your opinion is as valid as that of anyone else. 'Yes, some atheists name-call. So do some Christians. So do some everybody.' Read up and understand the principle of NOMA, it is one of the best defences against religious intolerance. If you feel that people are trying to use atheistic science to investigate spiritual issues then remember to point out that NOMA should prevent such investigation. Also remember that RW has not yet fully accepted the NOMA principle. 'Sort of, sort of not. If someone says that their beliefs are irrational, we typically will go bully CP and leave them alone.'

Talk Pages
Similar principles should be used when involving yourself in talk pages.

Question
Shay = user:Shatoyaah C? (how the do you spell that?)
 * Yes. --"C, U Rthe, ing. 21:14, 25 February 2009 (EST)

Not bad
With a little tweaking this could be hilarious. For instance, references to blocking sort of miss the point that we don't block editors here. It's an interesting twist on Poe's Law, since it's not "fundamentalist" per se, so much as it displays a certain earnest naivete. It also, of course, ignores that there are many religious traditions and "truths" and "gods", and that the irrational elements of any of those perspectives won't survive long in our articles. Anyway, it's a handy piece to have around to link to when the more religious folks turn up and wonder why their Good News is not properly documented in our articles.  ħ uman  21:31, 25 February 2009 (EST)
 * See above. But we do have some irrational elements in our articles. Our love of goats, for one. --"C, U Rthe, ing. 21:33, 25 February 2009 (EST)
 * You mean your bowdlerizing of the essay? No, that wasn't an improvement.  ħ uman  21:45, 25 February 2009 (EST)

Voting and the social hierarchy
This Wiki is a mobocracy, not a democracy. We are not required to accept the decision of any majority, and probably would not react very kindly to an attempt by religionists to take the Wiki over.

Does not your religion take a position against such deception? Does it not have the concept of a Father of Lies? 13:55, 27 February 2009 (EST)
 * RW endorses the creation of Socks does it not? If this activity is not acceptable I shall consider removing the advice.  However it was inspired to an extent by some of the articles here about infiltrating Conservapedia, so it might seem a little hypocritical for this wiki to condemn it.--Tolerance 14:02, 27 February 2009 (EST)
 * Socks are all right, but if we suspect that religionists are attempting to "game the system" that way, we will likely put much less trust in votes, since we are not required to accept their results. 14:06, 27 February 2009 (EST)
 * I hope you don't mean that you would not accept Votes from Religious Editors? But as I said in my essay, we should Expect, even Welcome, Persecution.--Tolerance 14:15, 27 February 2009 (EST)
 * We'd resist concerted efforts by a particular group to skew the wiki. It'd just mean the end of mobocracy if enough Christians joined up and mass-edited RW 24/7. We'd be obliged to act if that happened. incidentally skewing the site has been tried, and we're still here. Totnesmartin 14:27, 27 February 2009 (EST)
 * Ignoring people who are trying to game a system in order to undermine a wiki's mission is not "persecution".  ħ uman  14:28, 27 February 2009 (EST)
 * Thank you. I shall add a note suggesting that people are Not Too Obvious.--Tolerance 14:45, 27 February 2009 (EST)
 * Do you just want me to rename this to "Essay:How to proselytise on RationalWiki without being caught"? 02:36, 28 February 2009 (EST)
 * Thank you very much for your Offer, but not at the Moment.--Tolerance 14:30, 28 February 2009 (EST)

Which religion? Which sect?
A recurring thought I have while reading this essay, and Tolerance's comments here, is which religion is supposed to be promoted? And which sect of that religion? While some of the Time he is vague and hand-wavey about "respect for religious beliefs" and such, at other times it seems like he wants to promote some very specific, and rather silly, notions as being somehow on the other side of NOMA from science (like a global flood). Let's say this site changed enough that it heavily promoted one sect of Islam, while still debunking pseudoscience. Would that be enough religion for him, or would he still feel the need to try to get "persecuted"? <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms"> ħ uman  14:33, 27 February 2009 (EST)
 * Honestly, aren't these the questions to which this all comes down to? 14:39, 27 February 2009 (EST)
 * EC. Thank you for that most Reasonable Question. If you Remember form my Last Visit I Believe in the Gap Theory. The idea that: God Created the Earth; Satan Rebelled, the Earth was destroyed and the dinosaurs died: Aeons passed; then it was Remade over Seven Days and later was destroyed again in a Global Flood.
 * I believe this as a matter of faith. Satan has Blinded the eyes of the scientists of this World and Clouded their vision so that they do not see the Evidence in front of them. They do not present it nor publish it.
 * Obviously I would like to see this idea presented in the wiki but Atheist Censorship prevents it. I would also like to see a greater acceptance of Religious ideas in general as all religious may have their own path to Salvation. The greatest gift thr wiki could give is Eternal Life. --Tolerance 14:44, 27 February 2009 (EST)
 * i'd have thought that it was the creationists who refused to see what was in front of them. Incidentally, if Satan clouds scientists eyes, why does he let them find cures for diseases? Totnesmartin 15:17, 27 February 2009 (EST)
 * I don't know. It's one of the many Mysteries of this world.--Tolerance 15:28, 27 February 2009 (EST)
 * Translation: "Holy crap! My beliefs are in contridiction! I have to make up a bogus response to explain my view of the world!"
 * I think that "I don't know." is one of the most honest responses that anybody could make to any question. What do you say when you don't know an answer?--Tolerance 15:36, 27 February 2009 (EST)
 * "I don't know." Not "I have faith, therefore all of your reasoned argument is the work of Satan and as you don't let me push the aforementioned faith OMG CENSORSHIP!!!!!" 15:40, 27 February 2009 (EST)
 * I really don't see the Problem here. I was asked a Question and my response was "I don't know." Where is the Problem?--Tolerance 15:53, 27 February 2009 (EST)
 * The problem is that your beliefs were just blatently contradicted, yet you still insist on holding onto them, despite that contradicton, you dismiss it with a "you gotta have faith" style response.
 * To which particular Contradiction do you refer above? Something in this particular section or is this a general Complaint?--Tolerance 16:57, 27 February 2009 (EST)
 * You said, "Satan has blinded the eyes of the scientists of this world and clouded their vision so that they do not see the evidence in front of them." Totnesmartin said, "if Satan clouds scientists eyes, why does he let them find cures for diseases?". Your contradiction is in your statement that scientists cannot see evidence, yet they have found evidence for cures to diseases.
 * (insert your obligitory "ya gotta have faith" statement here, or "I am being prosecuted", or other statement to brush off a debate)
 * I thought my answer was Quite Honest. "I don't know. It's one of the many Mysteries of this world."  When I don't know something I Admit it.  Why the Debate?  What do you say when you don't have an answer?--Tolerance 17:23, 27 February 2009 (EST)

I thought it was the Shadow who clouds men's minds so they cannot see him, but it turns out to be Satan. Who knew? --Kels 17:27, 27 February 2009 (EST)


 * You said: "I don't know. It's one of the many Mysteries of this world."  You didn't just say "I don't know" - you added some crap about "Mysteries" and capitalized it.  "I don't know" is a very good answer.  Your addending of "Mysteries" is lame.  A dodge, an attempt to run undercover of NOMA, perhaps.  <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms"> ħ uman  23:39, 27 February 2009 (EST)
 * The world is Replete with Mysteries both sacred and profane. I see no problem with Referring to them.--Tolerance 14:29, 28 February 2009 (EST)
 * Mysteries are just things to solve. Calling on your lack of knowledge makes sense; referring that lack to a Mystery is a cop-out. <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms"> ħ uman  21:11, 28 February 2009 (EST)
 * I'm afraid that I don't understand your Point. Consider the Particle Wave Dichotomy in the nature of light. I don't know how to Resolve it and it looks like a Mystery. Of course, not all Mysteries will always be Mysteries, but some may.  To say that you don't know the Answer to something and that it is (indeed perhaps, only, presently) a Mystery seems no more than Common Sense.  Where is the Bone of Contention between us?--Tolerance 17:12, 2 March 2009 (EST)
 * I would like to Nominate the Response Above for an Award.  17:17, 2 March 2009 (EST)
 * Thank you. I would also like you Congratulate You on your new-found Capitalization Skillz.--Tolerance 17:32, 2 March 2009 (EST)

Dawkins
1: Noma is crap

2: Dawkins would be more like the high priest, were atheism to be a religion.

3: Dawkins unfortunately has negative charisma, much like many high priests

4: The lack of study of religion (although I'm sure he's studied it more than many religious persons) is no bar - the basic premise is ridiculous - so why bother?

5: His books aren't intended to convert, merely to refute.

15:32, 27 February 2009 (EST)
 * Yes, refute to the point that they might as well be converting. Aside from the denial of a spirit, there is little difference, at least from what is described here, from a conversion book. And NOMA is not crap. Science has better things to do than to talk about sky faeries, goblins, and elves. You know, like SAVING LIVES! UNLOCKING THE SECRETS OF THE UNIVERSE! AT THE END OF THE DAY, WHO GIVES A S**T WHAT PEOPLE THINK! IT'S WHAT WE <big DO    THAT MATTERS. WHEN ALL IS SAID AND DONE, ANY SCIENTIST THAT SPENDS ALL HIS TIME ARGUING WITH A BRICK WALL IS NOT HONORED. THEY GET SCORNED, BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T DO ANYTHING FOR MANKIND! -- 18:05, 6 March 2009 (EST)
 * Don't think that you understand what NOMA's about, CUR. Basically what it says is that there are areas where science shouldn't venture because science is invalid in those areas. If science is barred from such things as The Flood, 6 Day Creation, Virgin Birth etc etc, we just give these wazzocks a free ride and allow them to further their "mission" - not desirable. NOMA by banning science from refuting the mumbo jumbo is BAD.
 * AND DON'T SHOUT!!! IT'S BAD MANNERS. 18:21, 6 March 2009 (EST)
 * NOMA can only apply (when properly done) to things that can neither be proved or disproved, without the invocation of supernatural forces. Basically, it says that science does not have to conflict with religion. It isn't barred from the flood- the only thing it is barred from is god and morality. That's all. SJG didn't think of it like Tolerance does- more like I do, a necessary sacrifice and diplomacy tool. -- 18:30, 6 March 2009 (EST)
 * (EC, reply to Toast) That isn't NOMA: it's just Tolerance's bullshit version of it. The theory of NOMA only says science can't investigate such things as existence of God, meaning of life, etc. which are (arguably) not testable by the scientific method.  Otherwise everything in the physical universe is fair game for science.  If events such as the Global Flood & the Virgin Birth are alleged to have happened in the real physical world, then science can investigate them.  This won't necessarily stop others believing what they want to about them.   18:34, 6 March 2009 (EST)
 * To be nice to tolerance, I think he is as sane as Toast. -- 18:38, 6 March 2009 (EST)
 * @Weaseloid; Yes, I know, but many silly people try to use T's version. What NOMA says is basically: Science cannot investigate Bullshit. It is my opinion that Science can investigate anything including God & the Meaning of Life. If only to show that they don't exist. Nothing is outside the purview of Science.
 * @CUR: Fuck off!
 * 18:50, 6 March 2009 (EST)


 * Thank you for responding, but they were largely suggestions for my co-religionists.--Tolerance 16:58, 27 February 2009 (EST)
 * Aah, I understand - you mean "lies" when you say "suggestions". That's cleared that up. 00:40, 28 February 2009 (EST)
 * Tolerance, we don't censor. As for insults, I could count the times you've been insulted on one hand. You're luckly. --"C, U Rthe, ing. 17:03, 27 February 2009 (EST)
 * I count myself Most Fortunate.--Tolerance 17:05, 27 February 2009 (EST)

I find it Interesting that You RecommenD using aD homineM aTTacks: "Use words such as “hostile”, “extreme”, “anti-religious”, “anti-Christian”, and "shrill”. Thus you will devalue his points without actually having to refer to them." <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms"> ħ uman  20:28, 27 February 2009 (EST)
 * Is it just me, or does this whole thing boil down to "People don't like it when we try to push our views without a shred of evidence, so it's okay to argue dishonestly all you like"? --Kels 22:55, 27 February 2009 (EST)
 * Pretty much, yeah. We're hosting a "how to wreck our site" article.  I Hope toLerance doesN't feel too PersecUted. <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms"> ħ uman  01:14, 28 February 2009 (EST)

I find it really ridiculous how some theists (and South Park?!) try to make atheism into a religion, and Dawkins into its God: while many atheists passionately adhere to their belief system and to Dawkins, passionate adherence is not enough to make something into a religion. Is patriotism a religion? No. Religion becomes religion only when adherence is predicated on faith and not evidence, the lack thereof, or some other objective markers. I also really like it how theists try to "insult" atheists by calling them religious... doesn't that argument seem to bite its own tail?-Diadochus 01:19, 28 February 2009 (EST)
 * Yeah, well, South Park is crap unless the 4th graders are swearing. Gawd that show sucks.  Parker & Stoner ;) are overrated. <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms"> ħ uman  01:34, 28 February 2009 (EST)
 * There've been a few gems though. The Awesome-O episode; the one that makes fun of reparative therapy; aaand. Aaaaaand. Oh! The musical movie.-Diadochus 01:39, 28 February 2009 (EST)
 * Yes, a few. Out of over a hundred-odd episodes? MASH had a far better track record for quality.  OK, IMNSHO, of course. <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms"> ħ uman  02:29, 28 February 2009 (EST)

Persecution
So, out of curiousity, does not fighting back when persecuted include passive-agressiveness? Cause if it does, you fail. If it doesn't, great, keep it up. Oh, and does bragging about persecution increase your jesus-cred? 17:48, 27 February 2009 (EST)
 * *sarcasm* Halp! I signed into a wiki where people disagree with me, and they are arguing with me. HALP! I AM BEING REPRESSED! </*sarcasm>
 * Did you know that, toward the middle Roman Empire, some Romans would convert just to be martyred? They'd literally convert one day, go up to Roman legionnaire, proclaim their "faith," and then taste the sweet iron. It was like a glorified version of suicide, a way of going out without the societal stigma, like today's "suicide by cop" :). The Romans literally had to stop killing Christians to solve this problem. True story. I knew that History of Christianity class in college would be good for something.-Diadochus 01:29, 28 February 2009 (EST)
 * I tried to join CreationWiki, and they ignored me! Halp, I'm being persecuted!  See the violence inherent in the system? <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms"> ħ uman  02:31, 28 February 2009 (EST)
 * On this talk page I am merely responding to points (and sometimes insults) directed at me.--Tolerance 14:28, 28 February 2009 (EST)
 * OK, try this: I think your persecution complex is overblown and embarrassing. <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms"> ħ uman  21:14, 28 February 2009 (EST)
 * To be Honest, I don't thing that the Insults I receive here represent a particularly high level of Persecution. Given the Nature of the Site it is perhaps less than one might expect. I am sorry if you find my attitude Embarrassing.--Tolerance 17:03, 2 March 2009 (EST)

Bury?
This essay is basically a handbook for Christians to game the system and push their faith on others. It has passages which openly encourage socking to game the voting system and the use of ad hominem attacks. Are we going to do something about it, or are we just going to keep a handbook to mess the site up? 02:48, 28 February 2009 (EST)


 * If by bury you mean ignore the troll, then yes. Deleting it would just add more fuel to the fire. -- Nx  talk 03:13, 28 February 2009 (EST)
 * Deleting/burying it would be censorship, & we only do that for overtly offensive pieces. We don't have rules against sockpuppetry, & we vote so rarely that the advice on vote-rigging is little more than silly.   07:58, 28 February 2009 (EST)
 * The essay identifies two Much Longer and More Detailed documents on RationalWiki which tell people how to infiltrate CP or other sites. I even Refer to them.  This Leads me to understand that such activity is Encouraged.  To delete this essay because it Includes similar Exhortations would rather make the essay's point for it.--Tolerance 14:26, 28 February 2009 (EST)
 * I agree with M. Tolerance, this is a wonderful guide and perspective. Although, if T indeed honors NOMA, why is he/she/it attempting to assault a skeptical, scientific, rational website with religionism? <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms"> ħ uman  21:16, 28 February 2009 (EST)
 * Thank you for your Agreement. I believe that I have confined my Religious perspectives to Talk Pages, and Usually only supplied them in Response to Questions. the Thrust of my Arguments has been for greater acceptance of NOMA, which could be Fully Incorporated into a "skeptical, scientific, rational website".--Tolerance 16:59, 2 March 2009 (EST)

Great Essay
From the perspective in which it was written, I think this is a great essay. It presents reasonable advice on accomplishing a mission within RW, and does indeed make a good point that Christians are often viewed with contempt here. I think, as others pointed out above, that you may be wording things a bit strongly when it comes to their per se persecution, but on the whole this is pretty sound.

I encourage you to stick around and try to follow it, most particularly the debating portion. I would be interested to see a reason to believe in NOMA.--<font color="#000066" >Tom Moore fiat justitia ruat coelum 04:22, 28 February 2009 (EST)

Oh, one thing though, if you could remove the portions that discourage abuse of things like the voting system, I think it would demonstrate an actual willingness to engage in dialog. After all, what manner of evangelizing could be conducted through dishonesty? Surely not one based in the teachings of a man who purportedly died to tell the truth.--<font color="#000066" >Tom Moore fiat justitia ruat coelum 04:24, 28 February 2009 (EST)


 * I agree that it looks very deceitful, & actually will be fairly ineffective - we use voting so rarely, & socks are easy enough to spot (if We see Someone else who Writes like This, We will know it is a Sock of Tolerance).  Also, Tolerance, you say "we will need to make the Christian view the majority one on the wiki".  I don't see why you think that's either achievable or desirable, since your stated purpose in the opening paragraph is to create "a more harmonious relationship" between Christians & others.  If you want to participate in a predominantly Christian wiki, I'm sure you know that there are many of them out there, so why aim to bend RationalWiki to own your beliegs?   07:54, 28 February 2009 (EST)
 * It is clear that Tolerance is only faking his grammar to annoy us. 08:17, 28 February 2009 (EST)
 * And quite possibly everything else too.  08:45, 28 February 2009 (EST)
 * Narr! He's teh real thing - a total nutter! 09:57, 28 February 2009 (EST)
 * Thank you for Believing in me Toast. Thanks to Tom as well for actually reading it and Responding to the Content.--Tolerance 12:47, 28 February 2009 (EST)
 * In return for my good faith and topical response, you could have also responded topically. Are you going to remove the parts of the essay that encourage gaming the system?--<font color="#000066" >Tom Moore fiat justitia ruat coelum 19:53, 1 March 2009 (EST)
 * Thanks for Responding Tom. Following your Comment I did make an Update to the essay under a section "Do Unto Others".   It reads:


 * If you would like more RationalWiki sponsored suggestions, then ideas may be found at this link: Conservapedia:A Parodist's Guide to Villainy. This link is in the CP space and thus presumably represents what the powers at RW believe to be morally acceptable actions.  another link of interest is Essay:The Information Warrior's Handbook.  The history of this essay shows that it has been edited by multiple highpower RW authors and is presumably also thought to represent good practice by the users of this site.
 * The two articles Referenced have both been produced by Multiple Authors at this Site and are quite Substantial articles when Compared to the section in my Essay. They are far more Explicit about Infiltrating other Websites than mine is. It would Seem that the philosophy of "System Gaming"  is this quite Acceptable in the RW ethos. If this is Not So then why do these articles exist?
 * I am sorry that I did not mention the Update in Response to your message.--Tolerance 16:54, 2 March 2009 (EST)
 * The thing about gaming the system is that there has to be a system there to game. RationalWiki is a fairly loose mobocracy with minimal rules.  Your suggestions about vote-rigging fall flat because we just do voting very often (other than for trivial things like wigo).  Most decisions are made by consensus-building, persuasive discussion, or people just doing things & other people either objecting or not objecting.  You can certainly try gaming those systems if you want to.  Good luck with that!   17:04, 2 March 2009 (EST)


 * Because, simply speaking, you're talking about other websites. If you want to write such a guide to infiltrating Metapedia, that's much more acceptable to people here.  Of course, we're not going to force you to remove any of it - we live and die by reason here, and reason dictates otherwise as much as we may dislike it - but we'll pretty much always consider you somewhat of a dick if you leave up instructions for messing with our system.  So don't be surprised if we're rude and snippy.  It's the difference between following the rules and not being a prick.--<font color="#000066" >Tom Moore fiat justitia ruat coelum 19:38, 2 March 2009 (EST)

Although this may or may not torpedo my chances of getting recratted, I agree with Tom Moore that this is a well written essay, with informative content. Thing is, I am so atheist that I realize the danger of being a website dominated by SusanG's and others. To use a metaphor from public speaking- we are preaching atheism to a hostile audience- the majority of the world is religious. If we, the atheists, are seen to be a radical, extremist group, thn we cannot possibly continue to wield the influence we now posess. We must rework our image so that, like Gandhi, we appear to be moderate, rational, and reasonable, while our enemies are shrill, deceitful, insulting and brutish. Constructive debate must be encouraged. This is exemplified by CUR's placing of an on ShayotollahC's user page, just because he thought that they were off mission. On contrary, rational, civilized dialogue must be our first priority. Rationality and reason can triumph, we just need to try to accept other views as legitimate. Sure, we may disagree, and yes, we will debate, but we cannot, will not, force our beliefs onto others. Although it is tempting, and a short term victory, it will in the end be our undoing. The Religious Right will hold it up as "the evils of Atheism" and it will cause far more harm to us than benefit. To conclude- Atheism is faced with a crucial tipping point. We have risen to mainstream prominence, and the old order does not know how to react without resorting to persecution and violence. We are better than that. Together, we can succeed, but only by appearing as the calm, rational party, in face oh hate and bigotry. We must be as Gandhi, for only then can we succeed. User:TheemperorUser talk:Theemperor 17:14, 2 March 2009 (EST)
 * Great essay, but I would like to point out that I was observing that the first edit made was gay-bashing and atheist-bashing, and that Shay seemed unable to engage in rational dialouge. I have apoligized to Shay, I do not think I was completely myself then. --"C, U Rthe,. 17:18, 2 March 2009 (EST)

I agree with this as well- It's an insightful look into the future of atheismAdministrator 17:57, 2 March 2009 (EST)
 * While I agree with the essay in general, I disagree that this is how we are acting on the site. We are a site with a mission; edits off mission will be reverted.  It's not that complicated.   18:04, 2 March 2009 (EST)

I wasn't saying that this was how we were acting, I was saying that we are dangerously close to acting this way. User:TheemperorUser talk:Theemperor 18:07, 2 March 2009 (EST)
 * A bit odd, coming from you. --"C, U Rthe,. 18:08, 2 March 2009 (EST)

How do you mean? User:TheemperorUser talk:Theemperor 18:13, 2 March 2009 (EST)

Drive by Template
I see that somebody who joined the Site in September has described me as a Drive-by Editor. I have edited both Here and at CP under this name since April 2008. I was also responsible for Identifying RationalWiki's name in the Lenski debate. Conservapedia:Censoring Lenski's RW ref Consequently I think that calling me a Drive-By is perhaps Extreme. I fully accept that some form of Disclaimer staring that the essay does not Conform to RW Beliefs might be a Good Idea, but not the drive-by one. I do not want to start an Edit War, but I shall remove it Presently if nobody Objects.--Tolerance 12:22, 28 February 2009 (EST)
 * In your defense, Tolly, I didn't like either. It's your essay, even if you can't capitalize worth a damn.  Sterilewalkie-talkie 12:24, 28 February 2009 (EST)
 * The drive-by template is the closest we have to describing this essay. Maybe creating another first before taking the template off?  Saying something like "we don't agree with this content, see the talk page".   12:35, 28 February 2009 (EST)
 * Nope, we have a nicer one -- Nx  talk 12:37, 28 February 2009 (EST)
 * Thank you. That's much better. I'm not entirely Sure that it's the Point of View that's being Disputed, or that everybody Defends the right of the essay to exist, but it's a lot better. Thank You again.--Tolerance 12:44, 28 February 2009 (EST)
 * Really, I'm not a fan of templates on the essay. I'd rather put them on the talk page.  But that' really up to Tolly.  Sterilewalkie-talkie 13:16, 28 February 2009 (EST)
 * Is it up to me? The Template was Imposed upon me and I have no real Desire for it. I didn't want to take it off and get accused of Edit Warring. That's why I was Low Key about it. Can I take it off?--Tolerance 14:21, 28 February 2009 (EST)
 * Hmmm... It seems the that the precedent is against you. See Essay:Bridge Collapse over the Mississippi, Essay:Low flow toilets, and Essay:The swarm.  Sterilewalkie-talkie 15:14, 28 February 2009 (EST)
 * No Problem. I just wanted it clear that it wasn't there by my Choice.  Thanks for Looking at it.--Tolerance 15:18, 28 February 2009 (EST)
 * I'm going to remove it. If T doesn't want it there - and this is an honest attempt at an interesting essay, as can be judged by the volume of interesting talk it has provoked - it's silly to have it.  The essay template already assigns authorship. <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms"> ħ uman  21:19, 28 February 2009 (EST)

So, you say this is for Christian eds. I was baptized (Methodist) and confirmed (Episcopalian). That was a long time ago, but can I edits? (OK, I'm an atheist, but what qualifies as Christian?) Sterilewalkie-talkie 21:15, 28 February 2009 (EST)
 * Thank you for your offer of Help, but I would Prefer to be the Sole Editor. However, if you wish to Fork the Essay off I would have no Objection.--Tolerance 16:44, 2 March 2009 (EST)

This article is 100% off mission
I'm surprised I didn't notice this offensive piece of shit earlier.

Tolerance is here presenting an article purporting to teach Christians how to debate dishonestly by obfuscating and avoiding. He/she/it disingenuously preaches NOMA on the one hand and that religious people attacking science from a religious perspective deserve to be heard on the other. Typical fundie mouth-breating. "Christians" writing this kind of nonsense haven't properly even registered for the debate, but it's not because of some stupid magisterium regime, but because faith can't answer scientific questions. Fuck NOMA.

I propose that this essay be removed, as apparently nobody is entitled to edit it. If it were presented in anything but a religious context, we would have deleted it long ago. RationalWiki doesn't participate in teaching people how to debate deceitfully.

Am I permitted to add the Mission template? It would be pretty disappointing if a self-righteous grievance collector like Tolerance got to put his/her/its personal screed in the mainspace without anyone else having the least recourse.

<font color=#1100aa face=albertus size=2>Thee Nuttish Talk 12:00, 15 April 2009 (EDT)


 * No, if we remove it, Miss ByTheRules would be all over us for Violating Her MOST HOLY Rights. --  Nx / talk 12:06, 15 April 2009 (EDT)
 * Is there a dispute template? Mission template?  <font color=#1100aa face=albertus size=2>Thee Nuttish  Talk 12:18, 15 April 2009 (EDT)
 * . Apparently, human didn't like it. <font color=#CC2200>Neveruse513 12:20, 15 April 2009 (EDT)
 * This has been discussed before, let's just leave it. Slapping a mission template on her essay is exactly the kind of thing Tolerance is hoping would happen, then she could play victim again. --  Nx / talk 12:23, 15 April 2009 (EDT)
 * Well, we do have this, which does kind-of fit the bill for "teaching people how to debate deceitfully." Freedom of speech all that... Bondurant 12:27, 15 April 2009 (EDT)
 * EC.I should like to point out that this Essay is not in Mainspace but Essay Space. I should also like to point out that RW most Certainly Does "participate in teaching people how to debate deceitfully". See Essay:The Information Warrior's Handbook and Conservapedia:A Parodist's Guide to Villainy. --Tolerance 12:30, 15 April 2009 (EDT)
 * Whilst this essay is as obnoxious to me as any of Fall Down's misogyny I'd say leave it be. It stands as a perfect example of it's type, urging that points should not be made rationally but by pushing a POV, in particular NOMA which Tolerance appears to accept as gospel and not open to debate. Silver Sloth 12:39, 15 April 2009 (EDT)
 * I'm going to go get some lunch and decompress before I escalate this. Neither of the articles you mentioned say anything about the message, only the means of getting it out there.  I'd agree with you if they had anything to do with teaching people how to lie more effectively, but they don't.  The closest the get to "deceit" is teaching one to conceal his identity while mixing with the other lunatics.  Anywhere but RW, some of us stand out as badly as you do here.  <font color=#1100aa face=albertus size=2>Thee Nuttish  Talk 12:40, 15 April 2009 (EDT)
 * I take it back. The IW article talks generally about inserting falsehoods.  <font color=#1100aa face=albertus size=2>Thee Nuttish  Talk 13:03, 15 April 2009 (EDT)

<-- Nuttish one, you refer to this early on as an "article" - it's not. It's in the "essay" space. Essays don't have to be "on mission", just not overly hateful. We do invite those who disagree with us to come and participate, in this fashion if no other. It's on the main page... <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms"> ħ uman  16:31, 15 April 2009 (EDT)

Why the delete
My purpose in Creating this Article was to Parody Essay:The Information Warrior's Handbook and Conservapedia:A Parodist's Guide to Villainy. The articles Still Exist, but my Point was not Taken. I have removed my Essay and the Red Links this would have Created.--Tolerance 22:14, 9 November 2009 (UTC)