RationalWiki talk:What is going on at ASK?/Archive13

This is an archive page, last updated 13 December 2011. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <9>, <10>, <11>, <12>, <14>

, (new)(back)

Gotta say this for "Mr. Reasonable"

He's a class act all the way. --Kels (talk) 02:18, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh, so observable science is true, and they don't argue with that. They just disagree about what it implies. So, transistors work because of quantum mechanics implies that they will work... so far everything is cool. Same amount of work is put into detecting radioactive ratios of materials, and verification of their dating through dendrochronology, and other techniques, and suddenly now that it is implying a very very old Earth, NOW we're going to dispute the results. What an idiot... --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 02:56, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh oh oh! I have a better analogy. It's currently raining, so observable science allows us to state that it is raining. However, if after the rain, our friend walks outside and witnesses the exact same evidence, he's perfectly validly able to claim that it didn't rain, and state we just sprayed water everywhere. (Creationist response: "but you would witness to the fact that it did in fact rain!" Guess what? We could be lying.) --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 02:58, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

The terrible ASP deletes talk page comment, Philip resurects it, and gets bit on ass , lol

Sadly aSK fell over while I was reading the copyrightissue page. 67.72.98.58 (talk) 05:50, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Wait, are you talking about this? If so then it wasn't Ace. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 15:13, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

yer right of course, sorry :( 69.95.240.77 (talk) 17:54, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I like how Phil wasn't wrong. Ever. Occasionaluse (talk) 21:33, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Astounding

No misrepresentation, quoted in full from the horse's ass wiki:

“”Anything that claims to be science but which disagrees with the Bible is necessarily false/unsound. To hopefully make it clearer, as the Bible provides truth, and as science is investigating reality, then science cannot, in principle, disagree with the Bible. I am not saying that science that appears to disagree with the Bible is to be simply dismissed out of hand. Rather, that's reason for further investigation. It could be that the science has not been done properly. It could also be that the Bible has not been understood properly. So in that sense, I'm not favouring the Bible over science. However, there are two differences. One is that the Bible is authored by an infallible Being, so, in principle, it cannot be wrong, whilst science is the work of fallible beings. (And there are many examples of fallible beings claiming that the Bible is wrong, only for the Bible to subsequently be vindicated.) The other is that essentially the only area of disagreement is with what scientists claim about the unobservable, unmeasurable, unrepeatable, past, that is not amenable to empirical research and where presuppositions play a big part.

Seriously. How anyone can say all that and still stand there bald-faced and claim they're not anti-science (and in fact understands science better than the actual scientists he argues with) totally blows my mind. It's sort of amazing that after all this time, all the discussions he's had with sane people and, like I said, actual scientists, all the links to real science and information on the scientific method and the philosophy of science he's claimed to have read, he still misunderstands the whole idea of science on such a profound level. Got to admit, I'm impressed. In the negative sense. --Kels (talk) 17:46, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

That is the single most idiotic thing I've ever read, and given that I keep up to day with Andy's dribblings on CP, that's saying something. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 17:52, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

If it were anyone/anywhere else, I'd refuse to believe that one person wrote that. No one in their right mind is that inconsistent. Occasionaluse (talk) 17:57, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Also, this bullshit would make for an excellent and ridiculous flow chart...one that PJR might even endorse. Occasionaluse (talk) 17:58, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

While I'm sure (or at least I hope) that most religious people would not say anything similar - isn't this the logical conclusion of any thought process which begins "God is omnipotent and omniscient, and the bible was created by him as his divine inspired word."

Now, most religious people will (again, I hope) immediately start putting qualifiers into the statement to distance themselves from such obvious insanity. But to a certain extent Philip is to be admired for taking such lunacy to its obvious conclusion and explicitly stating the result.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 20:00, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I want look someone intelligent directly in the eye and say "I'm not favouring the Bible over science, but anything that claims to be science but which disagrees with the Bible is necessarily false/unsound". Just to see the look on their face when they realize they think they're talking to a crazy person. Occasionaluse (talk) 20:35, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Who was it that said (paraphrasing) "Where the Bible and science conflict, the scientists are mistaken"? Yeah... Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 21:35, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Fuck. Fuck. PJR, man. The guy is fucking cooked. Fuck. Ace McAwesome 22:52, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't PJR say you can't prove the bible is the word of god, it's something you have to take on faith? In which case it's perfectly acceptable by this logic for a Muslim to do the same thing with the Koran vs Science. Or any other holy book. Count down to special pleading... Jaxe (talk) 11:00, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I remember "talking" to him about "faith" once. His definition is quite unusual and he maintains that Christian faith is based on knowledge - none of this "evidence of things not seen" stuff. So I don't think you'd get very far with your point. Sorry. But don't let me put words in his mouth - why not ask him?--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 11:10, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

It's very hard to get a straight answer out of him but I'll try. Jaxe (talk) 11:18, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

PJR doesn't understand what the words faith and evidence don't really go together. In Philip's world if you believe that the Bible is True, then the Bible is evidence, and you don't have to rely on faith. More than one person has gone through this with him before, and he just doesn't understand. And given his style of responding that doesn't require him to actually form full ideas in paragraphs, he'll just weasel his way out of the conversation. Not worth it, IMHO. sterile lens cap 00:24, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

ADD: One bizzare passage from the mind of PJR:

“”What such sceptics overlook is that there is evidence for God's existence. Whether that evidence is "sufficient to establish something as true" in their minds is another matter. Indeed, the evidence may well not convince them. And in that sense God's existence will indeed not be "proved". But the evidence may well be enough to convince some people. So for those people, God's existence has been proved. It is therefore unreasonable to say that God's existence cannot be proved. God's existence indeed can be proved, depending on what evidence it takes to convince one.

sterile lens cap 00:31, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

“”try wikipedia for that discusion. I have, of course. And note what happened: nobody could support their opinions with evidence. In other words, they were displaying the same sort of bigotry you are

Hamster is pleased to be included in such a group, but much hurt shown by our dear Phil Hamster (talk) 05:13, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

It's pretty clear the english translation of Philip's comment about WP is "they wouldn't let me have my way, and the bastards didn't care that I don't agree with them." Like CP, aSK is a testament to butthurt. --Kels (talk) 23:39, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Braaaain... melllltttinnng... Jaxe (talk) 10:33, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Someone should post the quote at the top of this thread on Fundies Say the Darndest Things. Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 00:37, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Philly has perfectly illustrated why it is futile to discuss science and the absurdities of their own beliefs with fundamentalists: The bible is true, so anything that contradicts it is de facto wrong. Such a discussion simply cannot progress because such religionists will never admit (or perhaps genuinely cannot grasp the concept) that their holy book contains incorrect information. I honestly think that sensible people should just give up with these kind of people, and put our efforts in to preventing the next lot of people ending up the same. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 00:59, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Evidence or faith? Both! Faith is trust! Trust is evidence based! So evidence then? No! Faith! Faith is trust? No they're different. Whhhaattt? Jaxe (talk) 09:06, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Keeping in mind what Philip considers "evidence", I'm pretty leery. --Kels (talk) 11:45, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I think I've got it: Faith is trust based on evidence but you have to have faith in the source and understanding of the evidence or otherwise it's just blind faith which isn't even faith anyway. Jaxe (talk) 11:51, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

The problem though is that - in Philips world - if evidence contradicts faith then the evidence must be wrong by definition as his faith cannot be wrong.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 12:06, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah. Faith is based on evidence but nothing can contradict that evidence. He has faith that that cannot happen. Confirmation bias and circular reasoning at it's worst. Jaxe (talk) 12:10, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. I've given up reading anything he says on that basis. It's like arguing with somebody with a mental illness. He's simply unable to see some things.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 12:18, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, apart from breaking my New Year's resolution, I started to write back to the faith-and-evidence stuff, and realized he has it so distorted in his head, it's just not worth it. It definitely fills a psychological need in his head, like the justifications for any denialism do. I wouldn't be surprised if it was a mental disorder. (He definitely has control issues.) sterile lens cap 13:37, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I put up a dictionery definition of faith and his answer is odd. He seems to be trying to say that the original word used had a specific meaning that common english does not, but he is unwilling to say it directly. Hamster (talk) 15:10, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it's "meaningful information" all over again. Philip has ideas that he associates with faith-as-evidence, but he has no actually definition to it, and hence he can weasel his way out of any conversation about it. sterile lens cap 00:57, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Wish I could make words mean what I want them to mean also. Ace ^{of Spades} 19:59, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I stopped replying because he did seem to backtrack a bit on science vs the Bible. Before he said science could never contradict the Bible, but now he's saying it could "in principle" but he doesn't think it will. Progress I guess?

Also I really couldn't be bothered getting drawn into yet another semantics debate. Jaxe (talk) 20:28, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

What a complete asshole

really. Ace ^{of Spades} 20:45, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't even surprise me anymore... --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 21:07, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

"You spin right round baby right round, like a creationist baby, round round, right round". Ace ^{of Spades} 03:05, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Philly seems to be uber-concerned about being mocked right now. And yet the he leaves the door wide open.... sterile lens cap 03:17, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm very fond of this comment, "Your question about cattle has been answered many times." Yup, using waaaaaay more convincing arguments than the ones you routinely blow off for real science, Phil. --Kels (talk) 03:58, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Some interesting history

Some interesting history on PJR here. I get the feeling that everywhere he goes people find him arrogant and abrasive - even among creationists. Ace ^{of Spades} 22:26, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Whatever. Neither those CP buffoons, including a man who i personally knew as one of the most persistent liars I have ever encountered, nor Chris Ashcraft is exactly a credble judge of anyone's character. If you disagree with them in any way you're an enemy. Rayment's history on wikipedia is more interesting. It reflects years and years of the cultish dogmatism, hypocritical pedantry, offensive rhetorical style, and moral flexibility we've come to know so well. In any event, this conversation is easier to have than having to dig through that turd's web history for context. He's not like some young person who uncritically believes this creationist nonsense because that's all he's ever been exposed to. No, Rayment knows better yet continues to employ his dishonest apologetic methods to justify beliefs I don't trust he even honestly holds anymore that, if true, would require us to discard our entire modern history of science, not to mention rewrite the history itself. There's a name for a man like Rayment, the use of which justifies one simply ignoring the man from here on out. You already know what it is because your been blocked for using it. User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 23:46, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Do I smell a hint of monothematic delusion? 167.123.240.35 (talk) 02:00, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

No, it's sandalwood. --Kels (talk) 02:09, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

:) 167.123.240.35 (talk) 02:19, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't like it! Now its gone! Ace ^{of Spades} 02:10, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Bahahaha: "Yes you almost quoted me but you didn't italicize so now it means something completely different. Heh, idiot..."information...information...meaningful information...information with meaning..."

The guy is toasted man. He sound like me when I am whacked out on goofballs. Ace ^{of Spades} 02:26, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Wow... so we're just deleting posts that we dislike now? aSK has really matured into its best form now. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 02:28, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Sigh. I warned him. He'll lose control of his wiki if he's not careful. sterile lens cap 02:35, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, that was fun. I wonder when he'll revert. sterile lens cap 02:55, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Getting back on topic about the email thread, you know, I didn't get the memo that we were running aSK yet... did I send it end up in my spam folder or something? --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 05:03, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Another Gem from science guy Phil.

"If a carcass rots away, there is nothing to fossilise." See it HERE my brain hurts now Hamster (talk) 04:36, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Wow! You must be having fun over there! Apparently, the best thing to cover I could think of is 'this'. Sad, isn't it?--Colonel Sanders' (talk) 14:00, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Taking your wagers...

Oh this should be good. The best prediction of Phillip's response emailed to me by RW email gets a $10π donation made to the charity of his choice. User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 22:06, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Easy - "Depends on how you interpret the evidence" combined with the bullshit about how being convinced by the evidence is somehow proof enough that the earth is a mere 6000 yrs old. Ace ^{of Spades} 22:08, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

All he ever says is that he's more convinced of a young earth, but never marshals any actual evidence with which to make an affirmative claim. Awc took the best effort Philip could make, which turned out to be a throw-away list, and roundly trounced it. Why did I waste my time following this or any episode over there. Cue Bradley. User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 22:29, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Blah blah blah, you're committing ad hominem fallacies, you're refusing to look at the evidence, and I am completely confused as to why this place is RATIONALwiki. --BoN 01:41:02, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello? Yes? Move over, poor, pale imitator (do some research, whoever you are - you've utterly failed to capture my voice). I know you still love us, Nutty Asp. That's why you follow. 118.208.114.149 (talk) 11:23, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

If you're Bradley, I can't say I dislike you as a person but I do find many of the things you believe to be ridiculous and much of your behavior tedious and trolling. I do personally dislike Phillip. He's a nasty, bigoted, hateful man who daily displays his contempt for a world that will never be as he wishes it to be. So no, I don't love you, either of you. You both seem to worship creationism and your own interpretations of your bibles rather than your Jesus, which is even less appealing to me than your religions before they became perverted by creationism. User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 14:12, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

"Tedious" is your subjective opinion, which you have every right to hold and about which I can do little. "Trolling" is a misinterpretation, whether intentional or not. I merely exercise a right of reply. As to the rest, I don't know whether it comes from plain ignorance or from misinformation - or a little of both - but again there is little I can do to change the contents of your brain. "Your religions before they became perverted by creationism" shows either a lack of scholarship or very selective scholarship regarding the history of creationism and Judaeo-Christianity. 114.72.237.224 (talk) 22:36, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Not a lack of scholarship, Bradley. This is a common Creationist meme - that all Christianity was Creationist for most of its history therefore Creationism should be the default Christian view or suchlike. Similarly the argument about science being "invented" by Creationists. But any Christian scholar worth his salt will tell you that what you call Creationism two hundred years ago was simply Christianity - everybody believed it because it was the only interpretation of the Bible that made sense at that time. They didn't know about the speed of light, radioactivity, or any of the hundreds of other pieces of evidence that blatantly contradict a six thousand year-old Earth. Want a similar story that ended differently? Galileo's fight with the Church over heliocentrism.

Unfortunately for you, most Christian denominations grew up and were able to view God's Creation with the light of science, making it all the richer and more wonderful. You lot got left behind in a stagnant backwater terrified that if you don't read the Bible literally it will all unravel and you'll lose your faith - a stunted myopic fear. Thank God most Christians' faith and intelligence is stronger than that. Ajkgordon (talk) 09:00, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

AjkGordon wins. Ace ^{of Spades} 09:14, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

–SuspectedReplicant retire me 09:16, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

"what you call Creationism two hundred years ago was simply Christianity" is correct and agrees with my point. In fact most of your post rebuts Nutty's comment, so thank you. Galileo's fight wasn't with the church but with a particular clergyman, and he was also patronised by a clergyman. Odd that you typify my confidence and security as terror and fear. Also odd that you typify as "stronger" a faith that must compromise to continue. As to viewing God's Creation with the light of science, have your had a look at Relativity: Modern Large-Scale Spacetime Structure of the Cosmos, or the more accessible Starlight, Time and The New Physics? 118.208.114.149 (talk) 10:09, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't agree with your point and it doesn't rebut anyone else's comment except your own.

This comfort blanket of what Christians believed about the natural world hundreds of years ago you insist on clutching goes way beyond ridiculous. And for every Creationist "book" claiming all sorts of evidence-free nonsense to fit the Creationist mould, real scientists could deliver hundreds of examples of proper scientific works that flatly contradict your puff nonsense. Ajkgordon (talk) 15:19, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

No most of his post doesn't rebut my comment. I was waiting for Ajkgordon to put in his own response before I offered my own because it seems to me Bradley's here to continue spreading that hoary old lie that his creationism has any business claiming the likes of Galileo as its intellectual forbears and I wanted to make sure Ajkgordon wasn't falling for it. He's obviously not. "Creationism" as anyone here uses that term bears no resemblance to the empirical natural philosophy that informed the work of Greek through modern scientists. So Bradley thinks he's being clever conflating the two because someone made the mistake of using the term "creationism" without rigorously defining it. But it's clear enough from the context of what Ajkgordon said and his later response ("what you call Creationism two hundred years ago was simply Christianity" clearly had "Christianity two hundred years ago as the subject, not "Christianity" without qualification and the "you" isn't Bradley) that he doesn't agree with you. If you want to have a discussion about the marked differences between the natural philosophies of the Greeks through modern scientists vs. that of your "creation scientists" I'm all for that, but blithely conflating your creationism with natural philosophies grounded in empiricism that reject faith and religion ways of knowing is getting old. I'd point out that your creationism is a socio-political movement born in the last half of the 20th century based on a thoroughly modern hyper-Calvinism and an epistemic methodology that requires the "creation scientist" to reject any conclusion contrary to the bible, but I'm sure you'll claim as Phillip does that there's nothing wrong with biblical inerrancy as a basis for science, hence my belief that there's little point in discussing such things with someone who doesn't reside in an evidence-based reality other than to highlight the differences between approaches employing empiricism and religion. User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 15:56, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

(OD)Maybe I should jut step back and let you two play through. You are both arguing against claims that I have not made, and missing my point. For clarity, by "creationism" is am referring to the belief in 6 days of special creation 6-10 thousand years ago - without regard to why the belief is held. NR said that Christianity became "perverted by creationism" implying that creationism was an addition or modification to historical [mainstream] Christianity. My reply was to imply (I never stated it outright) that this is not the case (btw, I was referring to Judaeo-Christianity, not just the Christian era). AJKG responded that [mainstream] Christianity included creationism until a couple of centuries ago but moved away from it implying that creationism is relic of historical [mainstream] Christianity. NR's claim and AJKG's claims are contradictory, and as AJKG's is the latter yes, it does rebut NR's. All the other stuff regarding who has what evidence and who may be "intellectual forbears" and why creationism was believed by some and why it was abandoned by some are all beside the point, and red herrings in this discussion. I was addressing NR's claim that creationism is a modification of mainstream Christianity (i.e. that it was not part of historical Christianity). AJKG's indicated that the modification was the removal of creationism (i.e. that it was part of historical Christianity). It's this simple. NR's claim about the history of Christianity was incorrect, regardless of the reason for inclusion or exclusion of creationism. The belief in 6 days of special creation 6-10 thousand years ago has been integral to Judaeo-Christianity since antiquity. NR started out only speaking of his perceptions, for which I was grateful, but you both have descended to insulting and impugning my motives rather than acknowledging that you can't see inside my head and addressing what I actually claimed. I'm done. Go ahead and post another bunch of tangents and declare victory. 167.123.240.35 (talk) 03:27, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

No need, you've done it yourself.

Remember that not every post is a direct response to another. Mine was pointing out the fallacy of believing in YEC because that's what Christians have done for most of their history.

If you're happy burying yourself in a resurrected tradition (because that, as NR has explained, is exactly what modern YEC is), then go ahead. Nobody here is going to convince you otherwise and I don't suppose anyone has that intention.

But don't expect people to be persuaded by cult books that fly in the face of evidence and the uncontroversially accepted scientific conclusions. No more, at least, than they would be persuaded by books on the healing powers of crystals and how man never walked on the moon, whatever the authors' apparent credentials. Ajkgordon (talk) 09:10, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

"You were clearly presupposed to the idea of an old earth, so you will read this in to any and all evidence, regardless of what that evidence actually says. There are far too many inconsistencies in your evidence, and all your data is from secular sources." Or suchlike. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 11:50, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I especially like this gem, "First, that there is considerable—even overwhelming—evidence for the biblical history, and second, that much of this history is suppressed from most people." But don't go callin' it a conspiracy now! --Kels (talk) 10:15, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Aw, heck, we all got Bibles at home. sterile lens cap 16:52, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

He's at it again.....

More post deletions. It so weird, soon it'll start looking like he has been talking to himself. Ace ^{of Spades} 02:01, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's the only person he actually listens to there anyhow. --Kels (talk) 03:09, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Why doesn't he just start a wiki about creation science and lock down all membership to creationists only and then......oh wait... Ace ^{of Spades} 03:12, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I guess I'll just keep pointing it out and see if he pisses everyone off. sterile lens cap 13:22, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

How long before oversight starts making an appearance for posts he dislikes? Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 13:39, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Man, he's gotten to be a real dick lately, hasn't he. Totally letting his inner CP sysop out to play. --Kels (talk) 02:09, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Gold quote

[1]:

“”Just write [articles] to be as factual as you can, and others will do their best to remove any inadvertent bias opposed to a biblical worldview.

Love it. Write articles to be factual, and then we'll remove all the facts that contradict our worldview. If I didn't know better I'd say that was parody. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 13:45, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Beautiful. That just about sums it up. Many people here have written at great length in an attempt to nail the religionist mindset, and Phil's done it in a sentence. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 13:50, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Just FYI

I doubt Sterile and whoever else is participating in this rambling meta discussion have any idea what it's about anymore. I couldn't follow it the moment Philip started deleting posts and I sure as shit have absolutely no idea what the point of it is anymore. How did this thing get so incomprehensible?! User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 19:19, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

When you become a megalomanic and delete posts, that's what happens. You get trolls, spam, and anger. He asked for it. I'm not sure he know what's going on either. To be fair, Philip's having a rough time right now. sterile lens cap 16:27, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

answering deleted posts make it just a bit more hard to follow than usual. Just tq some comment and reply wut ? that should be good for a half page reply from Phil Hamster (talk) 16:55, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah well he's always been a tedious megolamaniac. Just look at his behavior everywhere he's tried editing. Nobody's right but him. But on the topic of this disjointed meta conversation... what's it actually about? Where are the posts that started it? User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 17:14, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I was only following talk:fossil where Phil seemed confused about rivers and floods. Also burying stuff in sediment. He seemed to deny deltas even existed at one point. Hamster (talk) 18:04, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I would kind of like to see Bradley's apologetics for PJR in this delete posts you don't agree with... not because I find them convincing or accurate, but rather, because they have entertainment value... as in, so bad that they're hilarious. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 22:43, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Bradley, you fucking twit. Right. You're not implicitly criticizing my own talk page deletions (instead you're criticizing everyone on aSK for letting them pass without the kind of controversy you think they deserve) and you think they're the exact same thing as Philip deleting extremely substantive comments in the middle of a very contentious discussion. This kind of thing is why I've lost a tremendous amount of personal regard for you. Do you like it when people shudder at your dishonesty? The fact that I periodically tidy my talk page (there's no policy here requiring anyone to archive on aSK) and deleted 2 posts by a troll CPalmer (one of which was him trying but failing to insert a picture of Hitler with the caption "Ich bin ein Creationist" on my page and the other was him telling me to go edit somewhere else in the context of Philip's mad conflation of respect and civility and my statement that I disrespect him as a person but have been civil) has nothing to do with Philip's unlateral discussion-busting policy. Maybe instead of criticizing everyone on aSKyou should have simply asked CPalmer if he cared very much I was deleting his trolls (hint - he never said anything either, which either means there's a site-wide policy in favor of deleting whatever the fuck you feel like or he knows he's a troll - my money's on the latter); I cannot imagine anyone else giving much of a shit what anyone does on his own talk page unless it's for the very purpose of disrupting a conversation. User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 13:54, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

You have the very wrong end of the stick. I don't think your deletions deserved controversy, and I am not criticising others for letting them pass, & I don't think that tidying a talk page is controversial. I was pointing out that deleting content on the talk page is not considered intrinsically problemmatic. Those that have asserted that it is seem to be a bit one-eyed about from whom it is problemmatic. I am sorry if it looked like I was singling you out. I had intended to pull some diffs from a few different users, but there were so many on your page that I didn't move on to another (again, not a criticism, just a fact). I was trying to prompt people to consider what deletions they object to and why. Do you like it when people shudder at your dishonesty? <sigh> You (collectively) keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means. Please point to said dishonesty. 167.123.240.35 (talk) 01:46, 23 March 2011 (UTC) p.s. note who brought the topic to a relatively neutral page (i.e. no user's talk page) to lay everything on the table and get it resolved. (Eira should note that, also).167.123.240.35 (talk) 01:49, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Please point to said dishonesty. "Bradley, you fucking twit. Right. You're not implicitly criticizing my own talk page deletions (instead you're criticizing everyone on aSK for letting them pass without the kind of controversy you think they deserve) and you think they're the exact same thing as Philip deleting extremely substantive comments in the middle of a very contentious discussion." User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 02:01, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll assume you're not saying that you are being dishonest here (joke, for the record). Are you saying that although I said I wasn't criticising your deletions, I actually was criticising them? I really wasn't, and I think I already addressed that in my previous post. To be explicit, though, I also made no comment at the time because I had (and have) no problem with them. I want people to consider what they do have a problem with - in principle rather than incident/case basis. I also addressed that I do see different reasons for different deletions. I would perhaps dispute that what Philip deleted were "extremely substantive comments in the middle of a very contentious discussion" but I do acknowledge that they were not simple cleanups. 167.123.240.35 (talk) 02:10, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

lololololol, I told you guys, it would be HILARIOUSLY awesome, what Bradley comes up with. And he doesn't disappoint. "There's nothing wrong with PJR deleting those comments." lololol, classic Bradley... --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 07:38, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

p.s. Imagination - 8/10; Reading Comprehension 1/10.

Phil and Brad are infallible. End of story. Occasionaluse (talk) 12:46, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

OMG, Philip is really that dumb. He's using logic but not making an argument even though an argument means using logic. He's doesn't have premises, even though premises means reasons and he has reasons. It is his personal opinion but it's not just his personal opinion; it's the Christian POV. Maybe it's not really Philip but a parodist of Philip. sterile lens cap 19:53, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I laughed out loud when I read that this morning. There's really no point in trying to have a conversation with a man like him unless the goal is to goad him into making an even bigger fool of himself. What a fuckin' gobbler. User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 20:26, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I can't make any sense of it. Ace ^{of Spades} 20:29, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I just had another look and I can't either. I wonder how long it took him to write that post or if that kind of pedantic (and just odd) nonsense pops into his head naturally. Perhaps Bradley will chime in to defend him and we can get even more laughs. User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 20:37, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Let me Phil that up for ya: "He's using logic but not making an argument even though an argument means using logic. He's doesn't have premises, even though premises means reasons and he has reasons. It is his personal opinion but it's not just his personal opinion; it's the Christian POV." Occasionaluse (talk) 20:44, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Is it just me, or is he arguing that his statements can't be made to form a logical argument? Occasionaluse (talk) 20:50, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

It has got to the point where even PJR doesn't know what he is talking about anymore yet it must still be right because he is saying it. Ace ^{of Spades} 21:16, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

FFF Brad, go sort PJR out already. He's cracked. User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 02:12, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I need to defend the word "pedantic" here. PJR is not being pedantic here, he's being sophist. If he were being pedantic he would have noted that a statement of "my opinion is X" is still an argument, and a premise... it's simply an argument and a premise that one cannot argue against, because it is an argument of opinion, not fact. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 09:14, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

"Wow! We've reached one million views!"

Seriously what is it with Creationists and page views? It just seems to be "loads of people are reading this so what we're saying must be true". Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 09:44, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

AiG also boasted about its visitors a few days ago. They're obviously much more popular than ASK, but as it turns out, even the Creationists' flagship is being put to shame by an anime blog. Röstigraben (talk) 09:57, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Ask reaches 1m views? Finally something me and Phillip can agree on!! Occasionaluse (talk) 13:00, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't be surprised if the majority of them were not at all sympathetic. Jaxe (talk) 13:40, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

It still has a lame wikifactor in part because no one really adds content. sterile lens cap

It's a much worse place for Christians than it is for us, so I wouldn't expect many sympathetic views at all. Occasionaluse (talk) 14:25, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm... a little suspicious growth there. sterile lens cap 20:51, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Spammers, much? Occasionaluse (talk) 12:55, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I remember Philip & I discussing the upswing, and the discussion took place before the spammer(s). I'm not saying that they must be unrelated, but if they are cause and effect, the upswing came first. 167.123.240.35 (talk) 06:05, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Incest? Well it's OK in my book!

So PJR is now defending incest. Revolting. Ace ^{of Spades} 08:10, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Fucking scumbag

Absolute nonsense. There is no defence of incest there at all. Unless of course you think any kind of discussion about it as defence. Discussing who is guilty of an atrocity is nothing like denying that it is an atrocity. 118.208.42.142 (talk) 09:28, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Piss off Brad, I like you and our off wiki conversations have been pleasent but, like I said, your defence of Philip when he suggests that such behaviour is OK considering the circumstance and/or the author speaks volumes. Ace ^{of Spades} 10:06, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I am not defending Philip suggesting that because he is not suggesting that.

Did Lot have sex with his daughters? Ace ^{of Spades} 10:32, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Bradley, Philip is a well-known defender of incest. Read this^img and weep. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 10:43, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

If it's in the Bible, it's moral. Bible says incest is okay, it's okay. Bible says human sacrifice is okay, hell yeah! Bible says offering your daughters up for gang rape is okay, do it, dude! Don't matter what it is, if the Bible says it, it's cool. And for Bradley, if Philip says it, the Bible might as well have. --Kels (talk) 13:07, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

If it's in the Bible, it's moral, oh, you are out of touch. As well say that WikiLeaks endorses everything it reports. 167.123.240.35 (talk) 06:12, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

You know, I am Philip's main interlocutor in this conversation. And I don't agree with what he says. At the same time, I don't think he's defending incest out of any personal inclination towards the topic; I think he is just forced into this by the logic of his position - he is a biblical literalist (for reasons that have nothing to do with incest), so to the extent the Bible endorses incest, his position forces him to do the same. I don't know him personally, but I have seen no evidence he actually has some personal interest in defending it. --(((Zack Martin)))^™ 13:16, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Just be glad that the bible told him not to kill, because it's the main reason he won't kill you for disagreeing with him on incest. Occasionaluse (talk) 14:07, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

It's surreal. What a weirdo PJR is. As with TK, I hope PJR's internet behavior comes back to bite him in the ass one of these days. He can describe himself as a upright moral christian man, but the record is quite clear that he's a lying sneak of a fat bearded cunt. And this one is further evidence that Philip has a tremendously unsophisticated biblical apologetics lifted entirely from CMI, which may as well be his religion. Riiiight. I'm not a presuppositionalist even though I use the exact same language they do to describe my approach to presuppositions. No point in talking to him other than to expose his predilection for lying about anything under the sun. User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 14:41, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

"Just be glad that the bible told him not to kill, because it's the main reason he won't kill you" that's actually when I stopped being helpful on ASK (besides his insults): he doesn't believe in an innate morality - even given to all of us by God - no, he doesn't kill only because it's in the Bible. Editor at CP^{mały książe} 16:12, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I hate Biblical literalists that claim no innate morality, when you know, it said that Adam and Eve ate of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. They didn't know being naked was "bad" until they ate of the fruit... so obviously, we have a morality apart from God, using the freaking Bible word for word literally to prove so. Yet another example of cognitive dissonance. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 00:42, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

“”My purpose is not non-presuppositionalist. Rather, my approach is to point out that we all start with presuppositions, and that my presuppositions make the most sense of the evidence as a whole.

—Philip J. Rayment

Classic. --Kels (talk) 22:40, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

403'ing?

wat hapn? Jaxe (talk) 19:02, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

It turned into another CP!--Mr. Bojangles (talk) 19:09, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Here too. I've not edited on ASK in yonks, but took a look at it a couple of weeks ago and it worked. 403'ed now. WTF? EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 19:24, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Same here. Can't even remember the last time I logged in and only viewed the site once or twice this year, so this looks more like a configuration issue unless Philip went drastically overboard. --Sid (talk) 19:32, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Also, that "Down For Everyone Or Just Me?" site lists it as down, so I guess it's a config thing. --Sid (talk) 19:34, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

He's a horrible person but he's not that kind of horrible person. I suspect his server shitted out, which has happened before, of they're trying to deal with a DOS attack like everyone else. User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 19:34, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I've also not checked in a while so it could have been down for days. Jaxe (talk) 19:43, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I looked at it earlier (~6 hours ago) and it was fine. 403ed now. I agree with Nutty - this is a server problem, not PJR turning into teh Assfly. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 20:49, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Of course he might have realised that he's not gonna win (get everyone believing in a 6000year old universe) so he's taken his ball home. When the site's gone belly up before it's not given 403s. --Scream!! (talk) 20:52, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Conservaleaks has a thread talking about them getting 403s, and it appears that in that case, the hosting ran out. It's a possible equivalent situation. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 00:23, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Awc-wiki's borken! sterile lens cap 00:38, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Back up, with explanation. --Sid (talk) 19:38, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

hmmm, did someone do a DOS on Phils wiki ? Hamster (talk) 22:15, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

nutshell

If you don't "tq" everything you've ever written to Phillip, he will pretend like it never happened. Occasionaluse (talk) 14:12, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

The best part is, if you take out the second "Because" it becomes a complete thought. --Kels (talk) 16:20, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I find it amusing that he's avoiding telling me what I'm avoiding. sterile lens cap 17:25, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Usually an honest and humble person will examine his claim if you tell him it's wrong, especially one as simple as him misidentifying the fallacy of affirming the consequent. I tried formulating an argument, any argument, in the form of Sterile's assertion that Phillip is making an argument when he uses premises and draws conclusions (even if it looks like an assertion) that looks like affirming the consequent, but failed. I suck. User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 19:19, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

A very telling comment

"Having a detailed "theory" ("explanation" is a better word) doesn't mean that anything more is "known". -- PJR --Kels (talk) 19:35, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Well how could it? Everything knowable is in the bibble and your earthly explanations cannot possibly add to it.

Fuck me PJR is a dickhead. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 19:57, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

That's somewhat ironic since Philip doesn't think creationists (or his creationists, at least) say that evolution "just a theory." And yet, that's what this says. sterile lens cap 23:36, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Safe to say that even after all this time, and being beat over the head by actual, legitimate scientists, he still doesn't understand even the most basic things about science. It occurs to me that he's got at least that much in common with "culture wars" Conservatives like Andy. Where that sort sees things like film, music, and so on in terms of political posture, Philip reads science and education through the lens of persecuted truth-tellers. Sure it's a fantasy in the first place, but it's that same sort of mindset. --Kels (talk) 03:39, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

PhD physicist who cites (and reads!!) articles from actual scientific journals in order to derive and describe a coherent picture of the state of science vs. a high school educated creationist who cites CMI material. Absolutely. Fucking. Precious. User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 15:42, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

aSK seems to be down

it seemed to be when i tried it yesterday, and seems to be again today... anyone else having the same experience ? --(((Zack Martin)))^™ 06:58, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

hmm, seems to be back now, but rather slow... maybe it is having stability issues... --(((Zack Martin)))^™ 07:50, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh, it is so slow as to be unusable... especially when one tries to edit.... --(((Zack Martin)))^™ 08:30, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Is it just them or the same attack that's plagued many other sites? Totnesmartin (talk) 09:24, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Wait a minute! You and PJR both live in Melbourne, don't you? Pop round and ask him. Totnesmartin (talk) 09:25, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

A little bit of both. My Internet connection is ADSL over the world's dodgiest phone line, so I often have troubles accessing things. I hadn't heard anything about any widespread virus or DDOS at the moment, but I'd believe you. But the last couple of days aSK has been orders of magnitude slower than other sites I use (e.g. RW, or Wikia, or Wikipedia, or Google...) Yeah, we both live in Melbourne, I am not sure whereabouts exactly he is though (he mentions the Dandenong mountains a bit, but not sure if he means he lives there now or just that he grew up there...) --(((Zack Martin)))^™ 10:28, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

There's been a massive DDOS attack on many websites. LiveJournal, for instance, has been up and down for days. By the way I am joking about visiting PJR, don't do that please. Totnesmartin (talk) 10:50, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't turn up to his place uninvited of-course - not that I even know where he lives (except in very broad terms) - but if he invited me over to his place for tea I might well take him up on the offer. --(((Zack Martin)))^™ 07:42, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I apologize to all in advance, but "IT'S A TRAP!!!" --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 18:34, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

He's not a nice person unless you agree with nearly everything he says, Maratrean. Tea with him? Maybe for laughs. User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 18:50, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I dunno, it would be amusing for him to be in a situation where he can't just run to CMI for help, and I doubt he can Gish Gallop as effectively (and get bitchy when you ignore his side tracks) without his tq's. --Kels (talk) 19:03, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

OTOH, if you actually meet him he might get you drunk and have sex with you - because teh bibble says that's okay. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 19:34, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Typical atheist evolutionist, completely ignorant of the actual contents of the Bible. I find it irritating that you're all so confident that you're correct in your worldview yet you can't be bothered to learn the first thing about mine. In point of fact, I won't get you drunk and have sex with you because I'm not related to you. If you were my father or child then I'd be down your pants faster than a Baptist minister with his adopted Vietnamese "daughter". But you're not. So fuck off. Phillip J. Rayment (talk) 19:42, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

But Philip... (*kfooor* *pseeesh*) I am your father. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 20:21, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

You can be friends with people even if they have very different ideas about the world from you. I wouldn't call myself friends with Philip (I hardly know him), but I can think of other friends I have who have very different ideas from mine. e.g. one of my old friends is a rather fundamentalist Pentecostal, and so him and I disagree on lots of issues. At the same time, we've managed to remain friends - we find other things to talk about than our differences, and when we do discuss them I think we both begin from the position that we've known each other long enough that we know neither is likely to change the mind of the other, so we don't try to hard and aren't too disappointed at the inevitable failure. So I don't see any issue with hypothetical tea with Philip, even if he has very different views from me and neither of us is likely to change the mind of the other. --(((Zack Martin)))^™ 22:53, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

tq-ing about choo-choos

Wowsers. He does it with everything. sterile lens cap 19:03, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Ace has a good routine from private emails about PJR tq'ing his wife about dinner. I'll let him share it if he wants. Needless to say, it's spot on. Nutty Roux (talk) 19:49, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

What makes it even funnier is Horace was clearly just making a friendly joke and that's the response he gets. Jaxe (talk) 08:16, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I am very fascinated by trains. It is quite interesting to talk to a man who knows them much better than I do. Besides, I like tq - it was a good invention on Philip's part, which I myself have adopted. --(((Zack Martin)))^™ 09:02, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

What an absolutely thrilling thing to know about you. Maybe you could incorporate trains into your made up religion. And then go tell Phil all about it. Nutty Roux (talk) 13:11, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I have always felt that I should have a railway god. Railways have something supernatural about them. But, the inspiration just isn't there.... --(((Zack Martin)))^™ 21:44, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Railways have nothing supernatural about them. Neither does the rest of the universe, but it should be obvious with choo choos. ħuman 03:49, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

My dad worked on the railway and I rode the engine with him at the switchyards on occasion. Believe me, they're about as far from supernatural as you can get. --Kels (talk) 04:06, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Although a rail-yard is not much of a high-place, there is a certain mythology surrounding railroads. As to a railway god, Rome had a god of roads and a goddess of sewers; whyever not a god of railroads? ListenerX^TalkerX 04:14, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Mystique, possibly. Tradition and romance, definitely. But I submit that most of those who ascribe mythology to trains haven't spent much time on an engine. --Kels (talk) 04:18, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Traditions rapidly turn into mythology (tales of ghost trains, to name one example). ListenerX^TalkerX 04:27, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Steam. Diesel. Electric. There is not a single supernatural thing about them, unless you personify or mythologize their muscular power to move objects from "here" to "there". ħuman 05:48, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

There are a few more things than that to mythologize when it comes to railroads. And you are making the error, very common here, of assuming that all divine acts are miracles, or more specifically that the non-miraculous nature of a phenomenon implies that the supernatural is in no wise involved with it. ListenerX^TalkerX 06:02, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Spend some time on a working engine, you see that, in fact, the supernatural is in no way involved with it. It's simply engineering and mechanics, laid right out in its impressive but otherwise bland glory. Most of the "mythology" comes from the wishful thinking of passengers who, in a fit of "fucking magnets, how do they work?" don't want to see the totally ordinary and non-magical man behind the curtain. Which, I suppose, is the foundation of most religion. --Kels (talk) 14:25, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Did I not just point out that even though railroads are all cogs and gears, that by no means implies that the supernatural is not involved with them? You, like these mythographers, are putting too much stock by your own subjective notions (although I personally think you are largely correct — I have spent some time around the nuts-and-bolts of trains, specifically some of the working museum-pieces around the Twin Cities); the difference being that the mythographers produce many entertaining stories on the subject. ListenerX^TalkerX 16:59, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I didn't miss it, I just think it's hogwash. There's a mythology for much the same reason that there were thunder gods. A lot of people prefer the romantic fantasy to seeing the man behind the curtain (or in the cab, in this case). That doesn't suggest the supernatural, that suggests people like stories and don't care about the reality involved. --Kels (talk) 17:07, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Look at what you guys are talking about and how the conversation started. I pity us all. *hangs head in shame and ambles off* Nutty Roux (talk) 17:48, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Ever since I've been a child, I've felt this strange presence around railways. I can't explain it. They have a certain, unspeakable profoundity (especially at night). Its not so much the trains by themselves, but also the tracks, the points, the signalling, the stations, bridges and tunnels and cutting and assorted steel and concrete infrastructure that together makes up the railway system. As ListenerX points out, the Romans had a god of roads and a goddess of sewers; I'm sure, if in some alternate history the Romans invented railways, they'd have a railway god too. And I think such a god could be a fitting response to that sense of profoundity I feel. But, as I said, I don't have a railway god - I don't know what to call him (something suggests to me he rather than she) - I've thought of names, but they all felt contrived rather than revealed. So, as I said, the inspiration isn't there, although who knows maybe it will come to me one day. --(((Zack Martin)))^™ 11:31, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

And in this day, we generally accept that Roman gods are non-existent. In some ways, Roman gods have been usurped by Catholic saints. I'm sure there is a saint of the railways... and like you said, if the Romans had invented railroads, they would have had a railway god... this is hardly surprising because they had a GOD FOR FREAKING EVERYTHING. The matter that you might invent a god for your invented religion is also insignificant, as it is entirely arbitrary. I feel great profound and stirring emotions when I'm in churches, but I understand that it's not because the Christian god exists, but because they are designed to inspire awe. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 22:37, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

And in this day, we generally accept that Roman gods are non-existent - As I have mentioned previously on Talk:Omnitheism, I identify as an omnitheist - I accept the existence of all gods, including the Roman ones. Or at least, all the gods that anyone has ever believed in - if there is a god whom no one has ever believed in, nor whom anyone shall ever believe in, neither in this universe nor any other actually existent universe, I am ready to agree that such a god does not exist. But since the ancient Romans definitely believed in their gods (or, at least some of them did), I believe the Roman gods existed, and still exist (even if no one worships them anymore.)

Since I believe in parallel universes, I think it's quite possible that there actually is a parallel universe in which the Romans did indeed invent railways, and thus began to worship some god of railways.

I share your sense of awe in churches, but I never felt that as indicating the existence of any particular deity. Whereas, the awe I feel around railways is different, to me at least - it is somehow suggestive of the possible existence of a deity, although as I have said I have not conclusively concluded such a deity exists.

Then again, being an omnitheist, I also believe in the existence of the Christian god, although I do think they must be mistaken about some of his alleged attributes. --(((Zack Martin)))^™ 08:06, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

And you base these beliefs on what evidence? Ajkgordon (talk) 11:21, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

A complicated mixture of reason and faith. --(((Zack Martin)))^™ 11:23, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Please don't let this troll start spamming another page with his bullshit. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 11:35, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Um, I didn't bring the topic of my religious beliefs here - NuttyRoux did. Try reading. How can that possibly be called me spamming this page? --(((Zack Martin)))^™ 11:39, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

What reason? What faith? Ajkgordon (talk) 11:48, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Too much to explain here... I am planning on trying to fit all the pieces together into an essay and posting it at some point though. --(((Zack Martin)))^™ 11:54, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Be sure to include evidence. Otherwise it can be safely dismissed as bullshit. Ajkgordon (talk) 11:59, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

–SuspectedReplicant retire me 12:04, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I raised your bullshit made-up religion to make fun of you, not to invite you to explain yourself. Because I don't care about a fake religion held by a single Aspergers who can't detect when people find him tedious and boring. Ajkgordon is the one who made the mistake of taking the bait and asking you a question, at which point you started channeling Rayment. Go write your essay on aSK if you want a discussion that will never end. Nutty Roux (talk) 12:18, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

If you aren't intersted in hearing any more about my views, why do you bring them up? Why do you feel the need to poke fun at people? If you don't agree with someone else's views, you can debate them; if you get bored with debating them, just drop the topic; if other people want to go on with it, let them; if everyone gets bored the topic will go away. Maybe I should poke fun at your views instead? --(((Zack Martin)))^™ 12:22, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't want to debate, I just want to know what evidence you have for your specific beliefs. I mean, you must have some pretty convincing testable evidence to draw the conclusions you have done. And the evidence must be pretty straightforward too, surely. Must be on your website. Perhaps you can point me to it. Ajkgordon (talk) 12:34, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Continued... Ajkgordon (talk) 09:13, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Battle of the TQs

God, I'm crazy myself, but that's TL;DR for even me... --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 00:50, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

footnote templates ?

I noticed Phil has created a few templates to add references. Is this sane wiki programming ? it seems from a quick look that one template takes about 47 characters , and it generates a reference of about 75 characters. The actual emplate must add some more to that. Are templates run every page view, or once only to create the page after an edit ? Hamster (talk) 05:20, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

There are ways to render a template and then inject it into an edit. Otherwise, I think they get kind of cached, and then pulled out. But then there are a few people here with templates in their signature that update every time it is rendered to the page, so... there are possibly a few different ways it works. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 01:12, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

So I checked in on aSoK....

I see even CParodist and Demons B. have jumped ship now. It's just PJR constantly rewriting the rules, with Kendoll occasionally dropping by to spruce up his link farm. Do you think he'll ever call time on his "encyclopedia"? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 16:06, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

You mean even Bradley has given up? Awesome news to hear. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 20:05, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Even the spammers got bored. sterile^talk 20:15, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

whither PJR?

No edits for 5 days... and a remarkable drop-off in volume. Seems it's only our little prophet keeping the wheels turning. --OompaLoompa (talk) 15:14, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Looks like the curse I put on aSK a couple of years ago did the job. ListenerX^TalkerX 03:12, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

perhaps he was raptured ? even PatternOfPersona seems to be missing. Hamster (talk) 03:19, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Philip has returned. I assume he must just have other things to do in his life, beyond spending 24x7 on aSK. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 00:16, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

what !

Has Philip had an alien encounter or something ? Its like he has lost the last year of talk pages and gone back to the 2009 version. Hamster (talk) 05:21, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah but what about this bullshit? Methodological naturalism is the public face of atheistic materialism? Really? Apart from, you know, all those religious scientists. Ace ^{of Spades} 05:27, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

They're either suppressing their true religious beliefs so the atheists don't find out and punish them, or they're not really religious. Both ideas get floated at arSK depending in how well they serve Philip's immediate interests. 21:24, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Dishonest, biased scum

At least we know where we stand! sterile^talk 20:52, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Rayment and Ken Demyer are of a kind. Stop paying attention to them and they disappear back to Nowheresville. Are you really surprised at how openly Horace is being railroaded more than a year after his alleged misconduct (Ironically, for calling Philip a liar when Philip hasn't lasted very long wherever he goes without others coming to the identical conclusion) and how Rayment is allowed to say whatever he wants about any of us whenever he feels like it? We're devils unworthy of honest treatment. I've never encountered a fundie whose zeal did not correspond directly to his disconnection from reality. Rayment is no exception. Just stop expecting him to operate within a moral framework that would be acceptable or even coherent to anyone outside his perverse cult and you'll be fine. 21:20, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Nutty, a few points you seem to have either misunderstood, or just plain missed.

• Horace is not on trial; effectively Philip is; and the "more than a year" is Horace's own doing.
• Philip's action was not due to what Horace said, but what he did with his membership priveleges.
• You keep making comments about Philip's online history that are already totally falsified, and easily checked. That does not make you seem reasonable or credible. 118.208.117.5 (talk) 02:51, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

• Bradley, I was mistaken about which appeal we're talking about. I just spent a moment reviewing the status of the proceedings and am refocused. I believe the appeal as to Horace talking about Philip's deceit is still pending, though whatever sanction he would have imposed would have long expired. I think it's safe to say it's moot. That's the original railroad I was talking about. My position is: I believe Horace made a good faith case for Philip's deceit under the circumstances; I also believe Philip rarely if ever conducts himself honestly when he purports to "require" someone to "justify" a claim he's been caught lying - he's got a habit of attempting to explain away a great many things and refusing to credit an opponent's claims and evidence so there's no point in even pretending a user could justify correctly describing Philip as dishonest. If I'm wrong about Philip ever admitting he lied, show me.
• In any event, despite focusing on the wrong appeal, I'd also describe this one as a sham. Horace's absence has nothing to do with the fact that the whole thing should never have gotten this far in the first place. It's a tempest in a teapot, a completely contrived overreaction to a minimal breach of policy and the degree to which Philip is continuing this process is evidence he's a bully.
• Before I get into discussing the appeal regarding Horace unblocking himself to discuss Philip's deceit (the subject of the other appeal), I need to say something about my relationship with you since we've publicly exchanged harsh words and you're now expressing what I think is an unfairly drawn opinion that I won't make a good RW moderator. I used to like you quite a bit and enjoyed our long email conversations back in the day as we were getting to know each other. You've never struck me as the "creation science" zealot Philip is, so I respect you insofar as your approach to your faith really does seem to me to be a more earnest and honest than Philip's or other's whose religion may very well be creationism rather than a vocation in Christ. You've described things about your personal approach to family that I admire and respect tremendously. I apologize that I've probably been overbroad in describing what I don't like about your approach to aSK: it is precisely that you've popped up for the sole purpose of being Philip's lapdog enforcer and that you've been as unfair as he is in your obtuse rhetorical style when it comes to these "required" justifications. That's it.
• Anyhow, I reviewed this and this and I think I've got it now. But Philip on trial? Are you kidding? Philip's rarely if ever wrong on his wiki, even when he sticks his elbows out, puffs his chest up, and bullies someone for defending himself like Horace did here. Am I correct that this is about Philip taking issue with Horace unblocking himself on several times on March 29, 2010 in order to post on his own talkpage? If so, let's look at the indictment. You two punished Horace for unblocking himself to discuss the substantive issue of Philip's deceit on his own talkpage. You yourself kept personally addressing him, though you quickly recognized it was inappropriate to continue. Horace disappeared just as quickly. You were the one who gave him "multiple opportunities to substantiate or withdraw your accusation (and I found it a little depressing, too). The onus was on you to adress the possibility of a good faith misunderstanding, and you failed to do that"? Why would he account for a good faith alternative when his position was that Philip was lying and he believed he'd justified it in good faith and was pointing you toward that discussion? You continued blocking him because you rejected his justification. That doesn't mean it wasn't a fair cop. Look, I know you disagree, Bradley, but it's hardly a mystery that some people are unwilling to credit Philip with bona fides after seeing years of similar behavior. Whether you accept Horace's justification (yeah right), he unblocked himself to continue discussing it and your bullying (with the single exception of welcoming what Philip calls a sockpuppet account belonging to someone who was open about who he was). I'm sure it was difficult to not respond to Philip jumping in to continue the discussion after you had the good sense to withdraw and Horace absented himself.
• I wonder if you'll disagree that it's appropriate to permit someone the right of response if he's been blocked. What about when you initially overlooked that Horace unblocked himself by continuing to personally addressing him? Should you all be estopped from busting him down for that? What about Horace's restraint in ignoring Philip typically having to get the last word? Should that be a mitigating factor? The conversation was clearly heated and ongoing. Is it not fair to permit him to continue to participate? It was a mere several days later that Philip provisionally unblocked him anyway. He also recently learned how trivially easy it is to permit blocked users to post on their talk pages. So I think it's perfectly fair to say that he doesn't object to a user continuing to participate in a substantive discussion about his alleged misconduct on his own talk page. Yet you all continue wishing to punish Horace over something that's really a de minimus breach of protocol. That's a strong overreaction and, along with the nature of the alleged crime and y'all's own participation, why this is a sham.
• Finally, I find it surprising you'd claim the notion that people who've encountered Philip online would consider him dishonest has been "totally falsified" when I know you're personally aware of occasions in which people have openly expressed exactly that belief. 15:55, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

(od)

• Regarding misunderstanding which appeal, fair enough. I don’t want to get into the actual content of the discussion itself, but that appeal is not pending. As far as I know everyone agreed that it is fact is moot.

• Horace’s absence has a lot to do with it, because he lodged the appeal. The default status was “no membership” but on the understanding that an appeal was forthcoming membership was reinstated pending an outcome. After everyone else did their bit, Horace left it to lapse. Why should anyone then presume the appeal to have succeeded? I’ll discuss the degree of the policy breach in a following point.

• I’ve responded regarding my comments about you as a moderator at that page, so I’ll say no more on that here. As to being unfair about justification requirements, I recall once spelling out exactly what I believe a lie to be (and I mean believe) - an intentional attempt to deceive – and that is what I am looking for in justifications/substantiations. I would enjoy discussing whether or not that is fair, but I think not here-and-now. As to “popp[ing] up for the sole purpose of being Philip's lapdog enforcer.” That is not true. It may be your impression, but it is a false one. I “popped up” here (RW) to respond to criticisms that were here (back in my CP days). I have continued to respond here – but to criticisms of aSK that are here. If those criticisms are often personal criticisms of Philip, then my responses will be of the same flavour. I am hardly a “lapdog” (way too big, for one thing), and as you should well know have disagreed with PJR and raised questions and issues as I have seen fit. As to the charge that I am PJR’s “enforcer” I would say aSK’s rather than PJR’s, and aSK’s for reasons that I am not willing to go into in a public forum. I also enjoyed our email conversations and would have preferred that they continued.

• No, you are not correct that “this is about Philip taking issue with Horace unblocking himself on several times on March 29, 2010 in order to post on his own talkpage.” It was I that initially questioned Horace’s blocking privileges, and yes it was partly for the unblocking but only slightly. I was already concerned about Horace repeatedly blocking OscarJ simply to amuse himself and annoy Oscar – and had raised this with Horace. Horace constantly unblocking himself did add to my concern but was more a reminder that I had wanted to address the earlier misuses.

• Editors have always had a right of response while blocked. Until recently, that could be exercised by posting on “leave a message” or by email. Those were not optimal methods, but they were the methods that we had at the time and they were the methods that should have been used at the time. Yes that breach of protocol was minor, but that breach of protocol was not for me the major reason in questioning membership status. The continued vexatious blocking of another editor was the major reason. I also don’t see it (removal of access) as a punishment but as a management of risks (I figure you will disagree on this). Membership rights are granted on the basis of an expectation that they will not be misused. If they are misused, it makes sense to cancel them. Maybe the name of the access level is an issue (I will think on that).

• Finally, what I said had been already totally falsified was not that “people who've encountered Philip online would consider him dishonest” but “Philip hasn't lasted very long wherever he goes without others coming to the identical conclusion”. There are two key distinctions there.

Tricksy (talk) 03:41, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

• No, you are not correct that “this is about Philip taking issue with Horace unblocking himself on several times on March 29, 2010 in order to post on his own talkpage.” It was I that initially questioned Horace’s blocking privileges, and yes it was partly for the unblocking but only slightly. I was already concerned about Horace repeatedly blocking OscarJ simply to amuse himself and annoy Oscar – and had raised this with Horace. Horace constantly unblocking himself did add to my concern but was more a reminder that I had wanted to address the earlier misuses. Is this the page for the appeal we're talking about? If so, I'm not seeing anything about Horace repeatedly blocking OscarJ. The only reference I can find is a brief discussion in which both of you were being dicks to each other over a broad and unfocused range of topics, including 2 references to Horace blocking Oscar J that very obviously take a backseat to your bigger gripe that you didn't like Horace's editing and wanted to fight about it. You didn't even mention the blocks until you got frustrated more than a week into the conversation and enlarged the gripe to other perceived crimes. So, you only cursorily referenced what you're now saying was serious business that justifies removing his user rights. Is that full extent of it? Where was Horace put on notice 3 months later that the OscarJ blocks were being considered? The only other reference I can find is you appearing out of the blue on June 2, 2011 to ask Horace about something I don't believe was originally a reason for his punishment, but that's not timely either. Please explain.
• Re: your agreement that the only basis on the record I've seen for Horace's user rights being held over his head is a minor breach of protocol: bingo! That's why I think the whole thing is a sham.
• Re: Horace absenting himself for a year: I simply do not see how your explanation adequately justifies the process continuing for so long when (I'm going out on a limb here because I wonder if you're going to continue trying to claim this has anything to do with Horace blocking Oscar) it really looks like Horace was being punished (harshly) for something that wouldn't have been a violation of the rules a year later and that you agree was a minor breach. Hence Horace's primary plea: de minimis non curat lex, or the law does not remedy trifles. Nothing you've said is relevant to whether the entire proceeding was provident in the first place. I don't think it was. You apparently disagree, but you're not arguing on point. Whether or not Horace let the appeal "lapse" (that term doesn't make sense to me except when I imagine you mean something like "languish") has nothing to do with my point that the proceedings are "a completely contrived overreaction to a minimal breach of policy." So, I fault Philip for having a vendetta and blowing minor shit way out of proportion. I would have said the same thing if the entire appeal was resolved within a week. Do you understand now?
• As for the "management of risks" bit: give me a fucking break. It's a wiki. There's literally nothing Horace could have done that justifies that kind of overblown response because all it ever takes is a few clicks of the mouse to undo nearly anything! When you've got more than 6 editors then you come on back over to RW and have a look at how difficult it's been for a real wiki community to manage real risks that have the potential to destroy things a lot more precious than a few minutes of sniveling OscarJ's time. Now, I'm not saying that baseless blocks are Ok. There are circumstances under which they're not. But I'm not going to take your bait and get into a longer discussion about what seems like a bogus issue until I see that it's relevant to Horace's appeal. As I said, I don't see any reference to this purported reason for Horace's user rights being reconsidered anywhere in the record. Show me.
• Re: Philip's record on the internet: focus on what was actually said instead of getting enamored with a distinction that doesn't work. I wrote: Ironically, for calling Philip a liar when Philip hasn't lasted very long wherever he goes without others coming to the identical conclusion. You responded: You keep making comments about Philip's online history that are already totally falsified, and easily checked. I said: ... I find it surprising you'd claim the notion that people who've encountered Philip online would consider him dishonest has been "totally falsified" when I know you're personally aware of occasions in which people have openly expressed exactly that belief. Now you're saying there's a key distinction between unidentified people thinking Philip's dishonest and him not lasting very long wherever he goes without others coming to the identical conclusion. How are these propositions not functionally identical? I see you're not going to bother defending the odd claim that anything at all has been "falsified" or the even more odd claim that this is "easily checked." Should I start putting together a list of users who think Philip's a skunk? That's silly. My point was simply that Philip is poorly regarded wherever he goes because of his deceitful rhetorical style. You know there are people from RW, CP, and WP who believe that. Do what you will with my statement, but don't try and get slippery with me over an immaterial distinction just because you can't help arguing. 05:15, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I raised the vexatious blocks with Horace almost 3 months before I raised the issue with Philip. On the same day that the appeal was created, I specifically stated that I was referring to long term abuse and not just recent incidents. In his statement Philip gives two reasons apart from' my request. "Apart from" would normally refer to something additional, so I don't see why the long term misuse should be excluded from consideration (it certainly doesn't appear to have been excluded by Philip at the time). The timing of my raising this with Philip was unfortunate, but I have already explained that. When I posted on the appeal page, TimS (panel member) asked if I had anything to add other than the block/unblock list... oh carp... which until right now I always took to mean Horace's block history. Now I can see he could have meant the list in Philip's statement - nuts. My post to Horace was because I had always considered those earlier blocks to be in consideration, and I was concerned that he had not addressed them in his statement. There was nothing in that other than making sure Horace didn' skip something that he should have addressed. I am pretty sure that Horace accepted it in the spirit that was intended (eventually). Tricksy (talk) 06:45, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I actually meant languish rather than lapse.

How can I justify my rebuttal of your statement, if your statement won't sit still? Your earlier statement which I rebutted is sweeping and universal, even giving a general time component. Your later statement was much more vague and weasel-worded. I am sure that there are people who would find me short and thin (I am neither) but it is not true to say that whereever I go others arrive at that conclusion before long. RW lauded PJR for quite a long time, in fact pretty much the entire time that he was at CP. The only CPers whom I am aware of having questioned his honesty were confirmed socks, parodists or trolls. I have seen editors at WP disagree with his position and his approach, but I haven't actually seen accusations of dishonesty there, either. What about CW? What about other fora? I don't expect you do make a list, but I also don't expect you to make universal statements that are clearly false on the basis of their universality if nothing else. Tricksy (talk) 06:45, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Universal statement that is functionally identical to the specific claim, you mean. Of course not literally everyone thinks he's a skunk. Your assessment of RW and CP is more than a little rosy... Anyway, please go counsel Philip to dismiss the charges on his own motion. 13:56, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I have often wondered what Philip thinks about the fact that wherever he goes people, including creationists, get sick of his argument stle and often accuse him of dishonesty. Does he really think everyone else is to blame? Ace ^{of Spades} 05:19, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Bradley - here's yet another example of Philip's deceit. There is absolutely no possibility he'll accept any effort by Jaxe to substantiate claims that have already been argued to death and very well justified on aSK. I'd hazard to guess that half a dozen of us have tried explaining why, from the perspective of someone who does methodological naturalism, this "creation science" stuff is bullshit. From Philip's perspective as someone whose religion very much seems to be creationism, of course he'd be unwilling to credit a single thing Jaxe could say. And that's exactly what happens and why some of us regard him as a lying shit who's corrupt from the basement to the attic with these foundational lies he tells about science being capable of accommodating his supernatural handwaving (he even claims science was "invented" by creationists, as if that's even responsive) buttressing a broader program of denialism. Get yourself away from this guy ASAP, dude. You're a much too thoughtful guy to be carrying Philip's water. 05:30, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Nutty a lot here. Philip has been in several arguments on several sites; I suspect he's closed himself off at his own wiki because that's the only place he feels welcome. (And I did imply in May 2007 on CP that he was being dishonest, although I didn't stress the point: [2]. (And my CP work was never particularly troll-ish. Honest.) Mind you this was two years before our discussions on creationist meaningful information (that ended up frustrating me on their utter ambiguity on the concept, which I cannot understand how Philip cannot admit to) and the particularly misguided creation-evolution controversy article (which I fail to see how anyone call call that anything but a dishonest characerization of evolutionists). He is either dishonest or painfully sheltered in his ignorance of how the world works. (He certainly lacks a sense of sourcing and balancing arguments, which is a part of academic and intellectual honesty, although I don't think that's what we're talking about here.) You really are better than that, and I don't get why you would want to defend Philip. If that's "uncivil", so be it, but the double standard stinks, especially given the way the Philip treats those he disagrees with. sterile^talk 00:44, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I've had disagreements with Philip before (e.g. on Lot and his daughters), and I've never found him to be anything other than civil and reasonable. I am one of the people he disagrees with, and I have no objection to how he treats me. Just because someone isn't convinced by your arguments doesn't mean they are treating you badly. Philip wasn't convinced by mine, I still consider them right and him wrong, but I don't think that means he has been dishonest, or treated me badly, or so on. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 10:54, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

What's happening here is obvious. Philip and Jaxe are arguing about technical issues, like whether sea slugs can do photosynthesis, or whether pollen is found in pre-Cambrian rocks. Philiip says yes to both, Jaxe says no. And then they go on and and argue back and forth about what is the evidence available. Which is all swell. But Jaxe then accuses Philip of lying, when all he needed to say was that in his opinion Philip was mistaken. Then Jaxe goes on to claim that CMI is being deliberately dishonest for financial reasons. Jaxe changed the topic, from sea-slugs and pollen, to allegations of people lying for their own financial benefit. Jaxe may well have been right about the original topic (I don't know much about the science of sea slugs, so I can't say which of Philip and Jaxe were right). But, he had no need to move on to accusations of lying and financial impropriety. So, Jaxe was in the wrong, by being uncivil, and Philip has done the right thing by banning him. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 20:22, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

There was no point discussing the sea slugs or pollen because Philip trusts what CMI says over the real science. Unlike him I read the journals referenced and it's laughable the spin CMI put on them - all of them completely support evolution as you would expect (except the make-believe creation "journals" of course). You can't rationally discuss a scientific topic if someone is going to use non-scientific sources as a reference (otherwise I'll just point to My Little Pony as evidence that unicorns fart rainbows and therefore evolution is false QED). That was the root issue; CMIs goal is too sell anti-science material and trick their audience into believing it's real science - and Philip doesn't care. Like I said, Philip wants to be fooled by them and wants others to be fooled by them. That's dishonest. I don't know how conscious he is of his own dishonesty, maybe "lying" is too strong as that sort of implies a conscious attempt to deceive, rather than self-deception. But really, that's a quibble, he's certainly lying to himself at the very least. He doesn't care a damn about truth - only how far he can spread his particular brand of 21st century super-literal young-earth creationism. It's an end-justifies-the-means take on proselytism, so long as they end up accepting creationism who cares if we had to bend the truth a little to get them there. Jaxe (talk) 21:06, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I haven't read those journals, so I have no comment on whether Philip or CMI's interpretation of them is correct. You may well be entirely correct, that they are both deeply mistaken as to what they actually mean. However, it is one thing to say that Philip, or other CMI people are mistaken. It is another to suggest they are guilty of conscious deception, especially for financial gain. Philip and other CMI folk may well be mistaken about many things, but if they are, there is no evidence that is a product of conscious deception on anyone's part, as opposed to the well-known limitations of the all too fallible human mind. Likewise, to my knowledge (and I've seen no evidence by anyone to suggest otherwise), CMI is a not-for-profit. Not-for-profits draw revenue, but they reinvest the bulk of it into their own activities, and most of them pay their own staff nothing more than reasonable wages (sometimes far less than that). I've seen no evidence presented that CMI's leadership is living in luxury villas or flying around in private jets (unlike what may be said for many televangelists and megachurch pastors). So, when you attacked their views on the substantive issue, I have no problem with that, for all I know you are entirely right. But when impugn their character, you need to provide actual evidence, and you haven't provided any specific evidence, just vague allegations. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 10:10, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

What do you think would happen if CMI started putting out scientific content and material? Their customers would be outraged and find somewhere else to go. CMI revenue would go down, less money to pay staff with, less money to pay authors of the books/dvds with, less money to spend on advertising. Of course they have a financial incentive to continue peddling misinformation. That's what they want to spread and that's what their customers want. They can't do anything but that. Jaxe (talk) 11:28, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

CMI is promoting a point-of-view with the veil of being "scientific" and "less biased" (even than AiG). Yet, their work is clearly not scientific, and the perform most of the techniques of denialists. CMI is particuarly prone to cherry picking and misrepresentation; they even redefine evolution to fit their needs. Evolution is framed as a "worldview" instead of a scientific theory, as it implies there are legitamite alternative "worldviews" such as YEC. That's no different than saying global warming is a contraversy; ie, it's there to generate doubt. Perhaps the most telling sign is that they do little to provide evidence that God did anything (because they can't). They do attempt to support of the testable parts of creationism, such as a 6000 year old year earth or a global flood, but the evidence is so cherry picked or weak that it's laughable. sterile^talk 16:21, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

@Jaxe, suppose tomorrow the Human Rights Campaign announced "We've changed our mind about homosexuality, now we agree it is immoral and should be punished". Suppose the Red Cross announced "We've reconsidered the issue of genocide, and we've come to realize its good points". The John Birch Society announces "We've being reading Marx, and actually he was right after all". In all these cases, we have an organization supporting a particular viewpoint/cause/concern, and a supporter base willing to extend financial support to the organization because of that. If tomorrow, any of these organizations totally switched their viewpoint on the relevant issues to the opposite, their supporter base, and hence income stream, would dry up in a flash. So, what you are describing with respect to CMI's income stream, is true of the income stream of all non-profit organizations; so I don't follow how that is a valid argument against CMI. (A valid argument against the John Birch Society is that their publications are filled alarmist and unfounded right-wing conspiracy theories; the fact that their paying members only stay paying members because those publications say what the membership wants to hear isn't a valid argument against them, since that's true of most non-profits, including those with completely different views.)

@sterile, if you want to say CMI are totally wrong, deeply mistaken, etc., I have no problem with that. As I said, you may well be right. (Since I don't believe in a literal reading of Genesis, I probably agree with you instead of CMI on much of it.) It's the attacking of their character (e.g. conscious deception for financial reasons) I object to, unless strong evidence is provided to back it up. ("Never attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity", as the saying goes - if CMI are wrong, we should prefer the more innocent explanations for their wrongness to the more guilty ones, in the absence of further evidence.) As to evolution being a worldview, the theory of evolution itself is not a worldview, but it is a key part of several larger worldviews (e.g. atheistic materialist worldview, theistic/deistic evolutionist worldview (non-overlapping magisteria), etc). I don't think there is a "scientific worldview", in the sense that one can only successfully do science within the bounds of a single worldview. But I think various worldviews have particular relations to various scientific theories. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 21:55, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

It probably is true for many non-profits that push an idealogical position. People subscribe to UFO magazines because they want to believe. The same goes for conspiracy and paranormal other anti-science, non-rational beliefs. CMI is one of those. They do not value truth, they just want to push a specific belief and therefore cannot be trusted. It's dishonest to try and present CMI as trustworthy when clearly they are not. Jaxe (talk) 09:55, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

It's true of all non-profits which exist to propagate a particular viewpoint; if they stopped propagating that viewpoint, their funding stream would dry up very quickly. This is true regardless of whether the viewpoint they are advocating is right or wrong. Most of the people who subscribe to socialist magazines do so because they have some belief in socialism; likewise, most people who subscribe to libertarian magazines do so because they have some belief in libertarianism. If a socialist magazine began to sing praises of capitalism, its leadership would desert it; if a libertarian magazine began to laud the work of Marx, its readership would desert it. Those facts are true, regardless of which (if either) of socialists or libertarians are right. If Greenpeace announced "Global warming is a fraud and whales are very tasty", it would loose all its funding; and that is true irrespective of what the truth about global warming or whaling actually is. What you claim is true of CMI or UFO groups is true of all non-profits.

I never called CMI trustworthy. I simply objected to claims they were enaging in deliberate deception for finanical gain, as opposed to honest advocacy for a genuinely held belief. Now you are accusing me of dishonesty too? Where is the evidence I am dishonest? I may well be wrong, but if you are trying to suggest I say things I do without actually believing them (which is what dishonest means), you better have some pretty good evidence. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 10:43, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I haven't accused you of anything, I haven't even mentioned you. Although defending CMI here is coming across as pretty dodgy to be honest. I'm not even sure what your argument is; it seems to be accepting I am right and then saying it's true for some other groups as well. So what? Also I don't know where you are getting this "all non-profits" from. Unless "all non-profits" push an ideological position and also don't care about the truth like CMI then they are not good comparisons are they. Non-profits that do care about truth clearly won't have the same problem changing position when new information becomes available. Jaxe (talk) 11:13, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, you were responding to what I was saying with It's dishonest to try and present CMI as trustworthy when clearly they are not, so I assumed you were directing that to me. This is why the passive voice is bad, it let's you produce sentences like that where you accuse someone but leave people to guess who it is you are actually accusing. My point about non-profits is that they all depend on maintenance of a particular viewpoint for their continued funding (whatever that viewpoint is), which can even produce resistance to change in views when change might be appropriate. So, the fact that CMI must maintain its viewpoint to maintain its funding, is not an argument against CMI.

I don't think it is fair to say they don't care about the truth. They do care about what they honestly believe to be the truth. They may well be totally mistaken in that belief. But, being radically mistaken about the truth and not caring about the truth are not the same thing. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 11:22, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Any organisation that puts ideology above truth is untrustworthy. Presenting non-science as science is dishonest. They know it's not real science, yet they still present it as such. This is dishonest. They deliberately misrepresent the science to trick the public. Dishonest. They deliberately blur the line between public controversy and scientific controversy. More dishonesty. They ignore/reject scientific consensus in favour of conspiracy theories for which there is no evidence. How much more dishonest can they get? If they cared about the truth they wouldn't be producing anti-science material.

I'm bored of arguing things that are self-evidently true now, so bye. Jaxe (talk) 13:33, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

The remainder of this section was moved to User talk:Maratrean.

(Add break being used implicitly)

Philip is the one who has spent time trying to line up a panel of non-current members and now seems intent on putting in OscarJ as an 'impartial" judge. Philip was recently told to take a walk at Wikipedia and that incident alone shows his character. Hamster (talk) 03:56, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Horace had the choice of having me as a panelist instead of OscarJ. His objections to OscarJ are based on some "history" between them, I don't know what the history is or whether it is enough to make OscarJ inappropriate. But, assume for the sake of the argument, that the history was there. His other choice was me. The only objection he has raised with regards to me is the fact that I am not a site member. Does Horace think I would not make a good site member? He hasn't voted for or against me; Hamster and Asp who are joining Horace's chorus voted against me, and Sterile explicitly abstained. It is inconsistent to claim the membership process is a farce, and behave in a manner which could be viewed as undermining it - those who have voted against my membership, do they in good faith believe I would not make a good member of aSK, or are they trying to throw a spanner in the works? And then turn around and endorse the view that I would not be a suitable panelist because I am not a member. If the membership process is a farce as some claim, why care whether a panelist is a member? And if it is a farce, isn't trying to derail it just making it more of a farce? It is hardly fair to complain about a farce you've had a hand in making. Anyway, based on the reasons Horace has given, it seems like his issues with OscarJ are bigger than his issues with me. He could have said to Philip, I don't like either, but I'll take the lesser evil. But he didn't do that. Since Philip gave him a choice, and he refused to take it, it is a bit much to complain when Philip makes the choice for him. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 04:44, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

as you say you are not a member at Ask. Several other active users are. Why do you think that Philip asked You to be a Judge rather than any of the other members that Philip himself voted to be members ? you are a member at RW so doesnt that by association make you unreliable and dishonest per Philips comment. Does Philip believe you will vote in a specific way ? Why should a person going to trial chose any evil ? "I would rather be convicted by the guy who hates me and was involved in the incidents being judged or buy a guy who made up his own religion and who may benefit if Philip gets what he wants" ? Thats Horaces choice ? 67.72.98.45 (talk) 04:55, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I think Philip is choosing Maratrean because Maratrean edits RW and Philip thinks that alone means aSK/RW editors will accept him. It's just more sleight of hand from a despot trying to allay concerns about the appearance of him stacking the jury with creationists by propping up what is essentially a false flag candidate; whether or not Maratrean intends to prejudge, given Philip's conduct in trying in fighting for Oscar (for fuck sake, REALLY Philip?!) reflects open bad faith unless Philip's really prepared to say he's not aware that people in leadership roles (but not despots!) should avoid the appearance of impropriety, I won't credit Philip with doing anything but looking out for his own best interests. That includes getting rid of RW editors, as in twice asking Sterile what it will take for him to leave aSK alone. This will backfire; the perception of several people I've discussed this with is that Philip believes Maratrean would be hostile to an RW editor because he's repeatedly (on like 5 websites already) expressed his hostility to some of the basics of how RW does things, turned the RW article on aSK into a hit piece, and had a nice bitch session with Philip about us not being "rational" and some of us (me!) being uncivil to him. He's a shoo-in. 15:22, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

If you pay careful attention to what Philip says, although he does make some general statements about RW users, he also makes clear that those statements do not apply to all of them, just in his view the majority of them. Why would Philip think I would vote in a particular way? I have no fixed opinion on Horace's membership, if I was a panelist I would hear both sides and make my own judgement after hearing them both. Philip and I have had no private discussions about the substantive content of this case (just about procedural issues regarding whether I would be a panel member, etc.) Normally speaking, a person going to trial doesn't get to choose the judge, and has only limited influence over the selection of the jury (if there is one). So, I don't see why Philip is under any obligation to offer Horace a choice of panelists at all; that Philip is willing to make that offer is to his credit. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 05:08, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

If Philip really felt that Horace should have no choice of panel, he would simply chose them, and he hasn't. Why solicit members who had not been active for over 6 months ? why not simply select from available active members ? Membership seems to count as irrelevant since it conveys no benefit and a non-member is set as judge. Perhaps Philip feels that you display a particular religious view that makes you lean more in his direction ? Perhaps you too feel that Sterile, Hamster, Ace, Asp and others are unable to listen to the evidence and make a decision ? if you feel that the majority here are dishonest why do you stay ? Hamster (talk) 06:21, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Philip could quite legitimately have not offered Horace a choice, but he did. He's made a concession, and rather than being seen as being to his credit that he has done so, it is being twisted as if he did something wrong. He's given something positive to Horace (a choice he has no inherent right to), but his positive offer is being wrongly painted as something negative instead, when as you admit if he'd never made the offer you couldn't do that. I think the membership process Philip has come up with is a good idea in theory, but yes has not been working well in practice. It is rather hypocritical for you to criticise it not working, when you are one of the reasons (not the only reason, but one of them) it isn't working. You vote against me, and then when asked for reasons, refuse to give any. That doesn't seem to me to be evidence of a good faith desire to make the process work; it seems more likely to be part of a desire to undermine it. I think, the current membership process for aSK, even though it was a good idea in theory, isn't working in practice, and should be done away with, at least for now. I have been trying to encourage Philip in that direction, but as yet been unable to convince him. But, if you think it isn't working, maybe by taking a constructive rather than hostile approach, you can help it work better?

The way it works is that if you give a reason Philip may decide its not a good reason and discard that vote. So giving no reason is allowed and does not allow the vote to be discarded so what would you do ? Hamster (talk) 14:25, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Knowing absolutely nothing about why anyone voted against you I find it rich that you're suggesting bad faith, calling Hamster a hypocrite, and accusing him of affirmatively undermining the system. Hamster says the system isn't working because Philip requires him to explain his vote or risk it being thrown out. Are you really saying it doesn't work because Hamster won't justify his vote to your satisfaction, and then defaming him on that basis? Show me where in Philip's shitty rules he's got any basis for tossing votes and what it is. Show me where they require a man to explain his vote. As close as they come is saying the Membership Review Committee can intervene if there is strong support for a candidate, but no such committee even exists. For fuck's sake there are so few voting members that Philip's reduced the requirement for yes votes to 7 - so of course any opposition would ordinarily be a blackball, but he's also suspended blackball rules but completely failed to set up any other rule for how to count yes vs. no. But here you are accusing Hamster of trying to undermine the process in bad faith and blaming its disfunction on him because he voted against you and won't do something no voting system in the world requires, including Philip's, just so his vote can get scrutinized and potentially tossed if Philip subjectively determines it's no good. My god you're a self-righteous shit. As long as people are voting things are working exactly as intended. Philip doesn't even have to require a vote here - the rules permit him to shut the=is ridiculous fucking circus down and just appoint you himself. That he's not doing that speaks volume about his contempt for all of us. 16:04, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

This isn't a secret ballot. It's an open election, where everyone knows how everyone else voted. In that scenario, it seems quite reasonable that if you ask someone why they voted, the polite and reasonable thing to do would be to give some answer. This isn't like a general election, with each individual voter in the voting booth, no one knowing what they are doing. This is more like a rollcall in Congress / division in Parliament, when everyone knows who voted for what. You don't question the indiviudal voter's vote, but it is quite open to question the MP/Congresspersons vote, and you don't expect them to give a response "you have no right to ask". If your vote is based on any even remotely rational reasons, you should have no problem stating what those reasons are. Philip said he doesn't require reasons, but I read that as saying he doesn't require voters to give reasons at the time of voting, not that it is wrong to ask them afterwards, or that their is some expectation they won't answer. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 19:54, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

So in other words you've accused Hamster of bad faith, being a hypocrite, and undermining the system because you describe the process as a vote in a legislative body. The analogy might be apt if we represented constituents who had an expectation that we were legislating according to the platform we were elected on. But we're not MP's. We're peons with literally no franchise except to vote. As I previously explained (and you deflected by coming up with this inapposite analogy), the rules don't create any obligation to justify a vote and your assertions that people ought not have any problem stating their reasons, that it's not wrong to ask their reasons after a vote in which they're not required to give them, and that there's no expectation that they won't answer are your own good ideas that aren't supported by the rules. But I'm glad you backed off of defaming Hamster for declining to honor your request. 21:38, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

"Peons"? Come on. No one has to edit any website. No one has a right to either. Philip pays for the hosting, if he wanted, instead of aSK he could have a blog with comments off where only he could post. Instead, he has a site where he welcomes others to edit, and gives some of them a vote on its direction even. Membership of aSK is not a right, it is a privilege. And the ability of members to vote on the membership of others is not a right, it is a privilege, and a trust, to be exercised in the best interests of the site itself. Given all of that, it is fair to question whether those who have been extended that trust are being faithful to it, or instead working in the opposite direction. There is reasonable evidence available to justify questioning the faithfulness to that trust on the part of certain editors; but, if they were faithful to it, they could easily clear themselves of all suspicion by putting forward an explanation of how they have discharged it. And if they were really faithful to that trust, they would be more than willing to clear the air. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 10:25, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think Philip's preference for me is based on my religious views. I think it is more to do the approach I take to debate - one based on trying to analyze the details, than just going for quick one liners, repeated ad nauseam. See for example here, where I address your favourite question of "Which God?". Philip's point is quite correct, as I demonstrate - the definition of "God" only permits one God (while the definition of "god" permits many "gods"). But, will you respond, or just repeat "Which God?" again in the future? (((Zack Martin)))^™ 06:37, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Or... Philip's putting up a pretense of permitting Horace to participate in choosing a panel, while not actually giving him any choice at all and vigorously and dishonestly rejecting his objection to Oscar, because he wants to shut RW editors up by later being able to point at how "fair" the process was. Philip's preference for you is based on your hostility to certain RW editors and having enough arrogance to view yourself as some kind of great mind "analyzing the details" (I'll just comment that I don't think there are many people who've had a discussion with you who would agree) that you never fucking shut up. Just like Philip. He can rely on you to yammer on endlessly, effectively stonewalling any challenge, while he gets the result he wants from the creationists and crank. You're a great candidate. Philip would go up a notch in my book if he admitted the whole thing is a sham and dismissed it on his own motion, but I don't think that will happen. Instead we'll see him put together the panel he wants. I hope you guys do the right thing. 15:22, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

This is the problem with you Nutty - you love to hurl allegations against people you disagree with, but you don't make them specific. You just make vague, general allegations, with zero real evidence provided, and when challenged to make them specific, you'll not respond, or you'll tell me to shutup and go away, or you'll change the topic. That is neither rational nor polite. In this post you (1) accuse me of arrogance (no evidence supplied) (2) make some vague comment that you think some unnamed people don't agree with your strawman presentation of me (3) "that you never fucking shut up" (and nor does Philip), e.g. when you make vague accusations against me, I have the audacity to disagree with them and demand evidence, rather than shutting up and going away. Also, if the review panel is such a sham, why did Philip put Awc on it? Awc appears to be an evolutionist rather than a creationist (he spends most of his time criticising YEC from a scientific viewpoint). You are rushing to judgement without trying to really understand the situation, but that is true to form for you. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 20:13, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I've justified my allegations against you as well as necessary. If you don't agree that your statement that you think Philip prefers you for your analysis of the details over others who just go for quick one liners is arrogant then so be it. Denigrating others to prop yourself up is at least immodest. If you want to call my characterization of your arrogance a strawman and try claiming that there aren't people who think you're an arrogant bullshit artist, that's fine with me. I've seen a few tell you that to your face, but hey, there's no convincing you and I'm certainly not going to waste time engaging in a protracted discussion about it. I frequently don't respond to you because what you've said is frequently not worth responding to. More often I'm just ignoring you. I've certainly told you to go away. Not sure about telling you to shut up though it sounds right. Not sure about changing the subject in any conscious way that deserves holding it against me when you're hardly innocent of the same in spades. The "never shutting up" bit has nothing to do with you having the "audacity" to disagree with me, as I rarely have time to waste engaging you. Anyone with eyes can go around to the various sites at which you vomit forth your incessant pontification on any number of subjects centered around propping up your fake religion and see the walls of text and discussions that never end. Philip seems to be the only person who responds well to that kind of thing... How many other people tell you you're full of shit and they wish you'd fuck off? I bet it's the tip of the iceberg. 21:38, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

You've justified your allegations against me? When? You provide lots of vague allegations, and then when asked for specifics, most of the time you ignore the request, occasionally you will make a response which is slightly less vague. If you are going to say negative things about others, Nutty, then you ought to either back them up with specifics, or at least be open to doing so upon request. And how am I "propping up myself" in this conversation? I was simply saying that Philiip's preference for me over certain other editors could be rationally justified. Remembering the fact that in the end he didn't even pick me, that isn't saying much. How about your constant denigration of myself, or of Philip, to prop yourself up? And, for that matter, I often talk about matters which have nothing to do with my religious beliefs - I remember discussing with you and Eira the interpretation of Conservapedia's copyright license. You insisted on a certain interpretation (it is a copyright assignment), when challenged with specifics (i.e. the license has a choice of law provision nominating US law, and it is quite clear that their notice does not meet the legal requirements for a copyright assignment in the US), you refuse to respond, tell me to go away, and just start yammering on about my religion, when it had absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 10:42, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Also, I'm only going to respond to two things you said here. First, me yammer about your fake religion? You've got to be fucking kidding. At this point people should just go ahead and google "maratreanism" to see just what you're up to on the internets. It's shocking. If I'm yammering, you've cloned yourself 25 times and sent them shuffling around the plaza downtown wearing sandwich boards advertising your cult. What does it have to do with anything? It has to do with your crankery and the fair question of whether people want you around. You're fine when you're not pontificating about shit so few people here find credible and vomiting forth these unending walls of text. You should find balance and do something productive rather than wank over your crank ideas on idealism, burden shifting, etc. You put this kind of shit out there in transparent support of your fake religion. This is what I mean by propping. I'll respond to the copyright thing because I can't find the discussion. I remember it. I don't remember the context or why assignments came up, though I vaguely remember you were the one to raise the issue. Where's the discussion? 16:32, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, having re-read the copyright discussion, I see it is not quite as I remember it. You didn't raise my religion in that discussion. Sorry for the mistake, that is the fallibility of human memory for you. However, I do believe there have been other occasions, when we were talking about something unrelated to my religion, and you've used it as a basis to attack me. I will do some more research to see if I can find them.

My point is more, why should I be excluded from the website, as you very much wish I should be, just because I have unconventional religious views? I often talk about other things; and if I do talk about my religion, if other editors are willing to engage in discussion, what's the harm? If no one wants to talk about it, no one need respond. The fact that people will respond to what I say, indicates they are interested enough to respond. If you aren't interested, just ignore me - is that hard?

Yes, I did post on a lot of websites, because I was trying to find people who might be interested in discussing my ideas. What's the harm in that? You'll find most of them I haven't stuck around very long, because no one there seemed very interested in talking about it with me. Whereas, a few sites, like RW, I have found people willing to debate me, so I stick around here. You may not be interested, that's fine, but enough others have responded to indicate there are a fair few people who are.

And, a lot of the issues I talk about, such as idealism, or burden of proof, or faith, while about religion, aren't specific to my religion at all, but rather issues that Christians and others have addressed. The most famous idealist is George Berkeley, who was a Bishop in the Church of Ireland. Another notable idealist is John McTaggart, who identified as an atheist, since he denied the existence of God, but he believed in an immortal soul. Burden of proof is also an issue debated by atheists and Christians to this day (e.g. Russell's teapot). Faith is also an issue about which Christian philosophers have had much to say (e.g. Robert M. Adams' book The Virtue of Faith). So, you can disagree with my ideas on this issue, but they aren't specific to my religion in any way, since many Christians make the exact same arguments. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 23:14, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I find your reasoning specious and self serving. Throughout human history there have been Pantheons of Gods. As I have told Philip many times you need to actually convince someone that a position is correct and exclusive or it simply can be rejected. Typing a rebuttal also is insufficient in itself, it must be logically clear and address all the issues. I dont find that either of you have proven the case for a single God. When you consider the plurality of your Christian God what makes him different from any of the other God sets ? God made a human woman pregnant, so that God could be born as a man, and God was hung on a cross so that God could die to redeem mankinds sin, and God could be resurrected by God so God could assume dominion over the Earth replacing God. ? Hamster (talk) 15:42, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

So, is "God" always used in the same sense, or in different senses? Do monotheists define the word "God" in the same way as polytheists, or in a different way? How is it logically possible for multiple omnipotent beings to exist, unless they are always in agreement; and if two beings are always in agreement, are they really separate beings, or two constituents of the one greater being? How is the Christian belief in the incarnation relevant to this? (((Zack Martin)))^™ 09:32, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

why is it not possible for a whole pack of omnipotent beings to exist ? 67.72.98.45 (talk) 04:20, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

What happens when two of those omnipotent beings have a disagreement? They both have power to make anything happen, they want different things to happen, so they both try to make different things happen, what happens? They can't both have their way; but both of them must get their way to avoid a contradiction. You can only have more than one omnipotent being if it so happens that they always agree on all decisions; but, if that is so, then they have a common will, and hence aren't completely separate beings. (Imagine two people who miraculously always agreed 100% on absolutely everything... that's in a real sense less than two people...) (((Zack Martin)))^™ 19:42, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

then you have a war of the Gods. Otherwise one says "I am gonna make a chicken with 6 legs on that planet cause I love drumsticks", and the others say "meh". 67.72.98.45 (talk) 22:25, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

If you have a war between two omnipotent Gods, who wins? If a being is omnipotent, then it wins all wars; if it lost a war, it musn't be omnipotent. But then, if it is a real war, how can both sides win? You have a contradiction. I admit, if there were multiple omnipotent beings, who lacked the same will, but nonetheless never actively disagreed (i.e. A wants X, B doesn't care), that would be possible. But it would be quite a coincidence, that although they have differences of will, their differences are never in the nature of opposite wills, but merely of a determination on one side meeting indiferrence on the other. This shows their wills are very closely correlated, which goes back to the argument I made before - they have a commonality will (even if partial rather than full), and hence aren't fully separate beings, but aspects/components/whatever of the one being. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 10:34, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

what you are suggesting requires that one wants A and another wants Not A at the same instant perfectly. That seems incredibly unlikely. Hamster (talk) 05:59, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

we don't want things instantly, we want things over longer durations. Why should we assume deities don't want things over a duration longer than an instant either? If people's desires are roughly randomly distributed, as they are, you'll expect some of them will sometimes want the same thing at the same time (overlapping durations), in other cases want opposite things at the same time, in other cases one will want something which another will be indifferent too. Why should we expect the desires of putative deities to be distributed differently? But, since we'll expect, at least sometimes, some of them will want incompatible things at the same time, that is incompatible with omnipotence. So, if we are speaking of omnipotent deities, either there is more than one, or else there are several with an unusual coincidence of wills, which suggests those several aren't really entirely separate beings, but somehow different aspects of the same being, in which case there is also only one God. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 06:28, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

omce again you seem to be confusing a non-action state of mind with an instantaneous creative event. I can for example see a woman and think to myself "gee , I would like to stick my head between those luscious breasts and .... " but I dont act on it. Then at some point I have a thought "I want an ice cream sandwich" and I go get one from the freezer. For an omnipotent God the creative event might be simultaneous with the thought "make it so" and therefore to have any conflict between two such entities you need A and Not A at the same instant of time , or you simply get multiple events happening , like maybe a bunny appearing and disappearing as two Gods act. Unless of course these Gods take a long time to do things , but thats an odd definition of omnipotent to me . 67.72.98.45 (talk) 15:28, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Let's suppose one God says, "I want to create life on this planet"... and another God says, "I want the next star over to go supernova". These are incompatible desires, since you'd expect the supernova would prevent life. (OK, maybe miraculously the first God could make life happen despite the supernova... let's assume the Gods want to maintain the laws of physics roughly as they are, just nudge things around a bit within that constraint - which seems a reasonable assumption, given it seems to hold true for our world.) Those desires don't conflict just at a single time instant, but over a long period. As long as the life is there, the supernova can't happen. As soon as the supernova happens, life can't. The desire itself may be instantaneous or timeless (depending on your model of divine psychology), but the object of the desire is not a single instant in time, but a long duration.

Suppose one God says, I want to make someone to assasinate JFK while he is President. Another God says, I want JFK to live to age 90. Those desires are incompatible. When the desire occurs is irrelevant; the objects of the desires themselves are incompatible. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 23:21, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Is this endless supposition rational? How on earth can you build a religion based on such nonsense? It looks like you're just making it up as you go along! Ajkgordon (talk) 14:43, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Basing arguments on hypotheticals (even quite contrived or unlikely ones) is accepted practice in philosophy. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 07:38, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I've told you before, Maratrean, Philip makes the decision for membership. My vote doesn't matter, especially as an abstain. He has made people members because they were "known to the management." He hasn't made people members when they've had plenty of votes. The votes mean nothing. Shrugs why he hasn't yet made you a member.

Otherwise, ask's HCM is interesting. sterile^talk 17:21, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

The rules already say that the site owner could make people members without voting. If there are 3 routes to membership, how does the existence of 2 of them make the 3rd meaningless? That's like saying, there are different routes to admission to university, but because one of them exists (say special entry) the other (say general entry) is meaningless. Doesn't follow.

Give me a specific example of a user who has got the requisite number of votes and yet hasn't been made a member. Give specific examples, rather than general assertions. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 09:37, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I have no intention of getting into a protracted discussion of ASK's membership policies here--take it over there--but JWiseman has been way over for a long time. sterile^talk 12:29, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

JWiseman didn't have the required number of votes when JWiseman left (ceased editing). Much more recently, they've got the required number of votes. Philip has said, he doesn't want to give membership to a nonactive editor, which implies (1) if JWiseman was still active, JWiseman would be made a member now; (2) if JWiseman comes back, JWiseman will be made a member. Philip's position seems perfectly reasonable to me. Now, if you want to object that the policies don't explicitly say that, fair enough; maybe we should amend the policies to make that rule explicit? (((Zack Martin)))^™ 20:16, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

A court room drama at ask? So unbelievably silly. I don't understand why people play along with Philip's fantasies that it is a real wiki. I did at the beginning but it quickly became pretty farcical. Now he's just playing games; word games, power games, mind games. Whatever it takes to out talk the enemy. He won't ever let anything on any page he personally wouldn't have written himself got off CMI. This guy has been completely and utterly taken in by their bullshit propaganda peer reviewed journals, and now he's spent his time, energy, and money on promoting it and he can't. stop. digging.

Sorry, rant over. Jaxe (talk) 13:48, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

ASK has 43 members, and no more than fifteen active editors. I'm not sure it's wise to make the barriers high for the eight candidates. That is all I have to say. sterile^talk 21:41, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Anyone else think PJR missed his calling as a middle manager? aSoK seems to be more "rules wiki" than encyclopedia, 100% baroque process and 0% actual content. He's got that great combination of astoundingly uncreative and incredible anality (is anality a word? if not PJR makes it one) that mark him out for mediocrity as a micromanaging douchebag. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 22:05, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

He is better off managing trains; their movements can be arranged with much more precision and they do not talk back. ListenerX^TalkerX 05:28, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Breaking news - JimJast now at aSK

that is all Hamster (talk) 14:45, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

We have our resident prophet to thank for that. Seeing PJR's reaction might just make me look at ASoK again. --PsyGremlinPrata! 14:51, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think PJR knows who he is. (The goddess worshiper sent him.) sterile^talk 15:23, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't matter who he is. Philip can't restrain himself from feeding the crank any better than several of you all can. We had our chance to get rid of Maratrean and Jast by simply not paying them any attention until they decided RW was "boring" like Maratrean did CP (read boring as "nobody pays attention to me and I don't get to post stupid long walls of text"). But now Philip's got all our cranks ... and so do we ... they've metastasized to another host. 15:36, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

These people remind me of the Schlecker franchise in Germany, everywhere where there's a little place for them they'll go. They spread like cancer but don't hurt anybody, they just take up space. @Nutty: Mara may be a bit crazy, but he's extremely calm when the community goes apeshit once more and in all honesty, for that he's a win for RW and not the other way around. --★uːʤɱ constructivist 15:55, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Nutty, Nutty, why all the hostility? I sent JJ PJR's way, because I thought it might be a fascinating encounter to observe - they both disbelieve in the Big Bang, but for very different reasons, and they have very different alternatives to propose in its place. However, as yet, they have not yet interacted. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 09:10, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

ask wiki broken or just my IP ?

I tried looking at ask this morning and just get 403 forbidden on recent changes and / Hamster (talk) 14:58, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

werks for me. Although it's mostly awc now.... sterile^talk 23:06, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

A win for Horace !

the judging panel has spoken , and it looks like a win for horace.Hamster (talk) 15:03, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Brad's butthurt was slightly amusing. Occasionaluse (talk) 15:16, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Never let the truth... Take an actual look at what I actually posted. I was seeking more information of use for policy development. LowKey (talk) 06:06, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Hitwin tossing fl- wait, are those nosegays? Boy I hope so!--Martin Arrowsmith (talk) 15:28, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

A Pointless Poll

As this will never happen over there - are we uncouth poo throwing monkeys?

We should try to take creationism seriously, even if we disagree with it; we should engage with it reasonably, rather than resorting to mockery and ridicule	7	Vote
Creationism is so stupid there is no point even trying to take it seriously. Engaging with it rationally is a lost cause, mockery and ridicule are the only options.	26	Vote
Goat	4	Vote

Bob Soles (talk) 09:33, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Both. Our articles are there to refute creationism rationally. But engaging creationist who are permanently lost in la la land like the people at ASK is a lost cause, and mockery and ridicule are the only options. -- Nx / talk 09:38, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

This poll misses the point about what is normal discussion at RW, but does nicely demonstrate the point about intolerance, as does Nx's post. Also, Bob Soles, can you please put a comma and a hyphen in your question above? LowKey (talk) 00:09, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

this poll does nothing of the sort. Exactly this poll was proposed over at the aSK RW article talk page. I knew that neither of the combatants were going to do anything about it but spout hot air so I took the question and posed it over here. As for your grammar pedantry, fix it yourself. Bob Soles (talk) 00:14, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Fuck off. Your non-scientific poll to try to add "content" to your farce of a attack and whine page RationalWiki article is idiotic. sterile^talk 02:48, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

PS ASK is far more intolerant. sterile^talk 02:48, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

No, Bob. This poll is about the response to editors with a specific pov. What Horace proposed - and what we were actually discussing - is far more general. I repeat, it misses the point. Sterile, jokes aside I actually would like to build an objective article - but just as that means not focussing primarily on negatives it also means not minimising them. Regarding the complaint the article is some kind of attack, see to the several planks here and then we can discuss that speck. LowKey (talk) 04:19, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

uncouth ? no Hamster (talk) 05:07, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

LowKey is a good guy and while hitched to PJR's particular choo-choo train of insanity he is still a good individual. Just, you know, saying... Ace^{of Spades} 05:18, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I would say about the opposite of what Nx says: that it is impossible to take creationism seriously, but that one should, when addressing himself to creationists, act with at least a measure of decorum. If one does not have other reasons for doing this, perhaps it would behoove them to note that our mockery and ridicule are here more to strengthen the hand of the reality-based community than to disillusion any creationists; one cannot topple such closely held beliefs by heaving broadsides of insults. That process must happen one of two ways: (1) gradually, by Fabian strategy, doubt instilled drop by drop until the dam finally breaks; or (2) the underlying cause of their faith being dashed in pieces like a potter's vessel. ListenerX^TalkerX 05:42, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I half agree. On one hand, nothing would be more awesome than your high school science teacher legitimately comparing evolution and creationism. On the other, (and I know you'll love this, LX) considering that people are too stupid to be trusted, this might serve to further legitimize creationism. Occasionaluse (talk) 15:03, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't get the obsession. What a very small wiki would want to spend so much time writing an entry about a relatively minor wiki (no offense, RWians) is beyond me. (And I was in a foul mood when I wrote that; give me a break.) And, LK, I have no intention of discussing anything about ASK civilly as Philip has throw me out, if you recall, and is quite uncivil himself. sterile^talk 12:11, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

"Philip has thrown me out" is a pretty severe distortion of the facts. 118.208.102.153 (talk) 21:27, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

To quote Phillip, about why there is an article on RW but not one on Queen Victoria: That's the nature of an open encyclopædia—the articles will reflect the interests of the contributors, unfortunately. But the solution is to add the missing articles rather than delete existing ones. (User_talk:LowKey#Edits_to_Rationalwiki_Article).

And looking at the edit history, I see that we have 45 separate editors, interested enough to contribute to that page, including quite a few RW users, including yourself even... (((Zack Martin)))^™ 23:04, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Gotta love that suppression of dissent. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 23:12, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

If only. You never shut up. sterile^talk 23:25, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

How is aSk coming along?

I have not been following the goings on at aSK for a long time. I was too much distracted by the main show (conservapedia) to pay much attention to it. I was hoping aSk would be nicer version of conservapedia, just the irrationality without the nastiness. Has it turned out like that? Is PJR still the gentleman I thought he was? Is ken still active there? Is the site growing or stagnating? I just noticed that there is a very balanced article on rationalwiki there.--Buscombe (talk) 10:40, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Stagnating. And read creation-evolution controversy decide whether ASK is really balanced. sterile^talk 14:45, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I meant balanced by the conservative creationist standards. Can you imagine anything like on conservapedia?--Buscombe (talk) 15:34, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

It has about 100x fewer edits and views than RationalWiki. RationalWiki has at least 10x fewer edits than Conservapedia. Not really blossoming. sterile^talk 16:11, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

It turned out PJR only appeared a gentleman in comparison to the other admins at CP. Jaxe (talk) 16:31, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Nine active editors in Sept. and page views way down. [3] Huzzah! sterile^talk 02:34, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

It's a pretty good place to directly talk to PJR.--^talk 21:27, 6 October 2011 (UTC)