RationalWiki talk:What is going on at ASK?/Archive6

This is an archive page, last updated 9 September 2009. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <7>, <8>, <9>, <10>, <11>, <12>, <13>, <14>

, (new)(back)

God and murder

Buried in this reply from Philip in the ongoing Morals debate over there is one element I always find deeply disturbing. The comment about "God made us, and He therefore has the absolute right to do with us as He wishes." Is anyone else bothered by these people happily following a deity to whom we're clearly nothing but playthings? To break and torture and debase at mere whim, because he's God and he owns us? I've seen him toss it about a few times, and it always comes off as a seriously dark side to this whole Christianity thing that he just doesn't seem to realize he's doing. --Kels (talk) 15:09, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the anthropomorphizing of God is interesting, although it's not always clear to me if God is a being (i.e., Old Testament God) or more remote (New Testament God). That, and if God changes His "mind", is it still absolute morality? Ah, another conundrum. Sterile atheist 20:58, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm certainly not denying that it's interesting. But it is disturbing that someone like Philip recognizes this dark nature of the God/man relationship and still happily says God is wonderful. No wonder he's easily led by the likes of CMI. --Kels (talk) 21:10, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, his mode of being in some ways follows a religious mindset of "follow the priest" or "follow the Bible." For at least some of his thought and actions, an authority provides a context for his actions and thought and justifies them because the religious mindset is that of following. It, of course, is a tendency and not an absolute. That's opposed to the science mindset of questioning critically and skepticism. Sterile atheist 21:19, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

True, true. It leads to some interesting little revelations like this one, which I doubt Philip would even notice or think is an issue. To those outside the faith and inclined to question, it looks bizarre and disturbing. Same with things like the ritual cannibalism of communion. --Kels (talk) 21:24, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I put my two cents in at the end of that thread, but don't expect anything to be added by Philip other than something along the line of "if we perceive any of God's actions as cruel or unjust it is because we're applying human standards to an omnipotent entity who is beyond our standards, and whose purposes are unknowable to us". That's the answer I got from a Christian friend, and it mimics the unsatisfying answer I got from religious instructors during my college years. "When something God does makes no sense it's just a mystery we're not meant to understand as mortals". I've always considered that a cop-out, and always will. --SpinyNorman (talk) 23:32, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I just misread that as "ritual cannibalism of communism." Stalin was weirder than I thought. 23:42, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Basically, to a Fundamentalist, all ethical and moral questions can be answered with "Because He SAID SO, now shut up." --Gulik (talk) 20:52, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

PJR: "If you give your young child a hammer, you've just given him the capacity to break windows, but you're not giving him the right to do so, and you will rightly punish him if he does." Yes, Philip, but who in their right mind would give their young child a hammer? Actually this is quite a good analogy for the Fall story: tempt your creation with something they will clearly be unable to resist, and then punish them when they succumb (though presumably even PJR wouldn't suggest punishing all the child's descendents for ever). Cantabrigian (talk) 13:10, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Sterile, Dinsdale and Michael

Nice to see someone taking on that whole "Christianity invented science" canard. Philip loves that one, so I expect him and his pet Bradley will be along to claim y'all don't know nuttin' presently. --Kels (talk) 20:24, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I suspect that the justification will be that Christianity was behind "modern science", not "all science", but it's an arrogant statement nonetheless. --SpinyNorman (talk) 22:09, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Inasmuchas the western church had a stranglehold on education it's not surprising that science went hand in hand with religion. So did everything requiring knowledge. ^{This message brought to you by: respond}_and honey 22:26, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I like to think of it as Christians who rose above what their churches taught, rather than any natural outgrowth of the religion. --Kels (talk) 22:29, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Yup! That's about it. ^{This message brought to you by: respond}_and honey 22:32, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'm not an expert historian, but wasn't Islam a bastion of science during Christianity's dark ages? Генгис^unbelieving 22:42, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Of course, but they claim that Xtianity was the cause of any scientific advancement after that time. ^{This message brought to you by: respond}_and honey 22:46, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

(I'm still waiting for some more evidence for God's existence. I thought they might have done something but no, they can't justify their wiki's existence at all.) ^{This message brought to you by: respond}_and honey 23:03, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

The "father of chemistry," who rescued the scientific part of alchemy from the mystic part, was a Muslim named Geber. ListenerX^TalkerX 23:48, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

We should prod them for more about evidence for God's existence. They seem to have forgotten that part. Sterile atheist 02:17, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

conveniently! As I said, if they can't demonstrate anything more than the anthropic principle then the wiki's dead in the water. Trouble is if I go there, I'll just lose my temper again & get myself banned again. Teh stupid, it hurts! ^{This message brought to you by: respond}_and honey 02:31, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

How to be subtle, but not? Hmmm.....Sterile atheist 02:39, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I put a new paragraph in the "Evidence for God's existence" article using creationists' own logic to debunk the teleological argument. I wonder how long it will be before somebody burns it. ListenerX^TalkerX 03:57, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

(aside) One of this thread's bigger defenders on ASK has been CPalmer. I'm shocked to find he's a Brit. Was this common knowledge? I thought he was another wacky bible belter. ^{This message brought to you by: respond}_and honey 13:03, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

heh...Dinsdale cited my alma mater when providing the pre-Christchun psyence. ^{— Signed, by: Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 17:52, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I had to bite my fingers to stop me from adding "so how come it took 1500 years to get anywhere useful if xtianity was necessary and sufficient to develop science?" ħuman 21:53, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

50/3 edits per day!

Ask in decline? 50 mainspace edits takes us from now (21:46, 11 July 2009 (UTC)) back to 21:24 on the eighth. Not really living up to its promise is it? ^{This message brought to you by: respond}_and honey 21:46, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Just BTW, our 50 mainspace edit count is about 20 hours. ^{This message brought to you by: respond}_and honey 22:29, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I fear that Philip will keep it on life support for awhile. I can't imagine why, as he spends all his time defending his pet issue articles. Sterile atheist 22:54, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Same reason Andy created CP--so he'd have one place where he can ALWAYS win arguments, even if it has to be via banhammer. --Gulik (talk) 00:10, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I think Philip might want to kill himself, because we hijacked his bible wiki. Web (talk) 00:20, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I wish Philip would just block us all and then paraphrase or copy all of CMI. Can't have too many copies. Sterile atheist 01:50, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Can of Worms - Opened

I was discussing this edit with my significant other today, and it turned out to be more than just a conversation-killer. Sometimes we get into deep religious or philosophical conversations on Sunday mornings (for the obvious reason), and while we usually discuss topics of disagreement without problem, this one ended awkwardly. I haven't seen a response from Philip on this either, and I suspect that it would be difficult for most people of faith to come to terms with.

Her best attempt to find a scenario was to ask me what I'd do if the family priest, someone we know and trust, told me I had to jump off the church roof in an act of suicide instead of it being a stranger trying to kill me. My response was that anyone, even a trusted neighbor or close relative, could have a psychotic break and propose something unreasonable like that. So I said that if I obeyed, and jumped to my death leaving her a widow and our kids fatherless, with the priest only able to look at my body and say "Thank God he did that, otherwise the world would have been destroyed", she'd still have to live her whole life in the hope that when she died her beliefs were true, and that this wasn't a tragic mistake with such a high cost. I also asked her if anyone, even the Pope or me, could convince her to kill one of our children because God is real and commanded it as an Abraham-Isaac type test of faith, and she said absolutely not.

As an agnostic I can only imagine how it must feel to want to believe something with all your heart and have your worldview dependent on it, only to realize that there were limits to that faith you didn't know existed until a scenario like this was presented. I wasn't looking to spring a "gotcha!" on her, on Philip, or anyone else - all I wanted to do was share the thinking of my own philosophical exploration with others to get their thoughts, and in this case all I feel I did was unsettle someone I care deeply for. I'm just writing this to explain my motivation better, and to caution others who are thinking of using the scenario as a "gotcha" on someone of faith to realize that it can be a very, very disturbing thing to contemplate. --SpinyNorman (talk) 16:55, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

It's not easy when you are in a relationship where there are clashes of "faith". Unfortunately religion plays a much larger role in people's lives than say a disagreement about the top level of income tax. Thankfully, after years of dating Catholics (I thought they were supposed to be in a minority in the UK?) I finally found an atheistic soulmate in Mrs. Khant (although she's much more left-wing than me). Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 19:21, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

When I was studying karate I picked up a great response to the question to the question of which style of martial art is better - "There are many ways up a mountain, and taking different paths does nothing to take away from the character you build through the effort of climbing, or what you you learn as you strive for the summit." While my better half and I have different outlooks on faith, we get a lot more out of being supportive, fun climbing partners helping the other on the journey, as I suspect you and Mrs. K do. --SpinyNorman (talk) 19:40, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

On a side note, completly unrelated to the god argument, the argument that all martial art styles are equal is total and complete bullshit. Some styles are inherently superior to others, and can be found so through repeated testing. Z3ro^talk 18:46, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

It's great that you can agree to differ on faith matters. I have met many where their faith became more important than the relationship which is a great pity. Mrs. K used to be a counsellor so she was always telling me about the importance of "the here and now" (therapy jargon) when I got the daily debrief of her caseload. No-one knows the unpaid hours I have put in to keep the National Health Service running smoothly. ;) Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 19:49, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

;-) indeed. --SpinyNorman (talk) 20:10, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I am a lurker but your post lead me to the conversation over at ASK and I had to comment. I read the entire thing and I have to say, I really enjoyed it. As an agnostic myself, I whole heartedly agree with the points you have raised. The morality of god is a question that I have contantly wrestled with. The thing that led me to comment was PJR's original response, and "clarified" in his further replies. I was shocked by the way he can contextulize and deconstruct such a simple staement as "thou shall not kill" but not other concepts in the bible, most notably the creation. I'm not really sure why this struck me so given his many other arguments but it did. Anyway, keep up the good work and I'll retreat back to my cave. --Boba Fett (talk) 06:32, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Well argued, SpinyDinsdale. The point about God creating the conditions for our "sin" (and thus the sin itself) through his omniscience is one I have made many times (Good to have company in insanity), though I've found that many Christians like to respond by pretending that God covered his omniscient eyes during creation to create the illusion of free will (in order to damn us with impunity, I guess?). 17:18, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd find it easier to accept if God was constrained in time, and could not predict the outcome of free will. You can't have it both ways, though - if God is beyond time and space and knows all because of omniscience, then by definition God is responsible for everything allowed to be real, including the outcomes of our decisions due to "free will". What I found more acceptable were the ideas expressed in Arthur Clarke's Rama novels, or the reimagined Battlestar Galactica series, where a less-than-omnipotent "God" allows one reality after another to come into existence, fine-tuning the parameters each time in a quest for some sort of desired harmony. A truly omnipotent God would just make the harmony happen the first time out. --SpinyNorman (talk) 18:09, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

(undent)

I reworked the thread into a new essay on my ASK user page. If they get around to allowing "Essay:xxxx" articles I'll move them there. In the meantime I've noticed that no one except Philip has taken up my offer to comment on them, and Philip did it indirectly in a talk thread on an unrelated article. I wasn't posting them to be obnoxious or provocative for the sake of being provocative, but I am disappointed that no one's taken up the offer to discuss them directly yet. --SpinyNorman (talk) 18:15, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I suspect that's because they realize that an honest answer will either make them look like potential mass-murderers of the "God Told Me To" variety, or like wishy-washes who don't really believe all that stuff they've been saying. --Gulik (talk) 18:42, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

One could, of course, just talk from the Calvinist position and have done with free-will altogether; God unconditionally elects the ones who will be saved (picks the winners out of a barrel). For myself, I do not have to worry about the Epicurean paradox when subscribing to philosophical determinism; the Weird Sisters are quite willing to throw you curveballs. ListenerX^TalkerX 20:15, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

These are the kinds of problems you run into when you try to mix magic religion and logic.--Bob^{Not Jim} 20:57, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

HEY! MY insane bogus UFO doomsday cult beliefs are _perfectly_ logical and consistent! (Mostly by being strongly maltheistic.) --Gulik (talk) 23:47, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

"unresponsive script" glitch

I've been getting this bork on several, but not all, pages at A Sockdrawerful of Kabbage since sometime yesterday. Anyone else? ħuman 00:27, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Hmmmm.... I've looked a few times, but I haven't gotten that. Sterile atheist 01:48, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Install noscript, go to options, allow scripts globally (bottommost checkbox on first tab), go to an aSoK page, click on the status bar icon and click "mark logos.com as untrusted". That reftagging script looks like it searches the whole page for some strings, so it's not surprising if it's slow. Nx (talk) 08:06, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Usually, you'll only get that warning if the script has gone in to an infinite loop though. I'd look at the code, but it's "compressed" so I'd have to go through and put appropriate line feeds and indents in it to make it readable, which is more trouble than it's worth. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 09:50, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it was the shitty "old factory" theme I was using. It slowed a lot of things down. Sadly, the theme I liked (FF classic compact) has not caught up with 3.5 yet. ħuman 06:21, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Can of Worms - Answered

Late yesterday, Philip responded to the hypothertical situation discussed above. I have to give him credit for taking the time for composing a thoughtful reply and using a reasoned approach in arriving at his conclusion. If this was CP, I would have been banhammered for trolling just for posing the question, so as much as people criticize PJR for his responses to certain questions, we should appreciate that you can at least have a dialog with him. That said, I don't agree with his reasoning, and responded back as such. I think that no sane person would allow a stranger to convince them to be willingly killed because God told the stranger it needed to happen. Philip's justification for the decision, though, involved his belief that God would never order such a thing based on his understanding of God's intent, and his belief Abraham obeyed God because deep in his heart he knew it was just a test that wouldn't go all the way. It also involved Philip determining that God never ordered men to kill innocent people, because when God ordered his faithful to kill "anything that breathes" in entire cities, that was an act of war, so anyone residing in or visiting those cities could not have been innocent, and deserved to be killed. It also involved Philip declaring that God's request for Abraham to kill Isaac was less questionable because Abraham "had dominion him" as his father. Those are examples of valid, Biblically-correct reasoning to Philip, and while I believe in his sincerity, they come across to me as a classic example of having to bend logic and definitions to have something fit a Biblical worldview:

• We can't know the will of God, unless we need to believe that God would never want something to happen that we would not want to happen.
• Murdering the elderly, women, children and visitors in the city of a tribe targeted for vengeance is not genocide, ethnic cleansing or a war crime - it's a legitimate act of war if ordered by God, and I shudder to think of people justifying an act like that today because it has a Biblical precedent. In fact, it sounds a lot like the justification radical Muslims use to justify the killing of innocent civilians because they are "infidels". One man's indiscriminate murder is a another man's God-sanctioned holy war.
• Having "dominion" over something becomes a rationaization for treating it harshly in the eyes of others. I recall content on CP implying that man has the right to strip and consume the planet's resources as he sees fit because he was given dominion over it, and Philip implies that it was more acceptable for Abraham to be asked to kill his son than a stranger because his dominion over his son gave him the right to do so. My view of being given "dominion over 'x'" is that you have been made the caretaker of 'x', and have a responsibility for its well-being as opposed to having that responsibility removed.

Sorry to ramble, but I had to get this out of my system. I pose the questions I do because I once had faith, but it was eroded by reason, and I wonder from time to time if my reasoning was flawed in some way. Dialogs like this one on ASK simply affirm the comfort I have with my choice to be an agnostic, because doing so doesn't require me to condone ethnic cleansing, the acceptability of a parent's right to kill their children because of "dominion", or the double-standard that we should never assume the intentions of God unless we need it to justify our actions. --SpinyNorman (talk) 13:28, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion you are correct on all accounts. It is a credit to Philip that you can have the discussion, but the whole conversation shows how dangerous it all is. Although I don't believe that there is much to fear from PJR, there are obviously people with an even more tenuous grip on reality who think just as Philip does.

All of this is so amazing. Philip gives those reasons and you must assume that they work for him and affirm his views. I look at them and am reviled even more. No matter how many examples I see, I simply can't understand how PJR (and others) can believe what they believe. I am sure that the reverse is true. Simply fascinating... and frightening. --Edgerunner⁷⁶ 14:11, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

"Murdering the elderly, women, children and visitors in the city of a tribe targeted for vengeance is not genocide, ethnic cleansing or a war crime - it's a legitimate act of war if ordered by God,"

O_o

...Soooooo.... nobody's allowed to criticize Hitler any more? --Gulik (talk) 18:39, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Hitler wasn't taking his orders from God, so that would be too easy to dismiss. On the other hand, imagine if a preacher who had a track record of being a rational but extremely conservative, YEC Biblical literalist took up assault rifles with a group of his fanatical followers and started shooting up "anyone who breathes" in Las Vegas. Any of the shooters who aren't killed by law enforcement claim afterward on a stack of Bibles that God had appeared to them during worship, and ordered the attack as he ordered the attack on Canaan. They may even pass polygraphs for this, because their faith and belief in God's communication with them is truthful and real to them. Under these circumstances, someone like PJR might have to find themselves either in sympathy with the shooters, or having to rationalize why God would not repeat something with a Biblical precedent. --SpinyNorman (talk) 18:51, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Hitler aside, I find Philip's point of view here rather horrifying, and it actually undermines his own belief in the Bible. In order to rationalize that God is good despite all this, he's forced to dehumanize all of the victims, basically reducing them to the level of characters in a novel. Cannon fodder, there to prove a point, but not real humans. This has the effect of (1) making parts of the Bible "unreal", and (2) revealing a shocking lack of empathy on the part of PJR. --Kels (talk) 19:14, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure that it displays a lack of empathy, at least, not a total lack of empathy. This "god is always right despite abundant evidence to the contrary" attitude has always interested me, and I've tried to figure out why. I've come to the conclusion that the way I see "right" or "good" is different to the way people like PJR see them. I, and I suppose a lot of people, see right and good as relatively fixed concepts. I don't believe in a universal constant "good", but my own definition of "good" is relatively consistent. People like PJR seem to use a similar system for a lot of things, but when god is involved, god is automatically right and good, by virtue of being god, regardless of what he does. So using the "kill anyone who breathes" example, I would define the action of killing anyone who breathes as bad, because the people are innocent (not that killing a city full of murderers would be "good", but it'd be less "bad"), their only crime being that god doesn't like them. Thus, god ordering someone to do it is ordering something bad, and could easily be described as bad or evil themselves. But with PJR's definition of god being good by default, then whatever god does has to be good. The people deserved to die because god said it. Not in that "the leader said it so I'm just following orders" way, but in a deep, emotional level that whatever god says is true and whatever he does is good. I have not done a good job of explaining this. It is hard to put into words. I hope someone can make sense of it. X Stickman (talk) 23:11, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

(undent)

I think I see where you're coming from, so I'll attempt to paraphrase. God is the standard of perfection and goodness by which all things are measured (and come up short by definition). When we discuss a concept like "absolute morals" as being absolute because they come from God and not man, we think the standard fails because God does things we consider immoral. I'll play devil's advocate and offer a different perspective. We're like cartoon figures living in a 2-dimensional reality, and can only perceive things in that 2D context. God lives in a 3-dimensional reality beyond ours, and understands concepts like volume that are beyond us because we can't perceive depth. In a God may discuss concepts that seem inconsistent to us in a 2D context which make perfect sense in a 3D one. For example, the distance between two points is fixed to us, but variable to God because he can "fold the paper", so to speak.

So we live in a mortal life bounded between birth and death, and ponder the justice of acts occurring in the life we perceive. If God looks at things beyond our death, though, then perhaps being killed in a city where no one was to be left breathing is rewarded in the afterlife in some way that makes it all right. Anything we experience in a mortal life of under 100 years is a blip on an eternal scale, and who is to say God can't remove any memory of pain or suffering from someone unjustly killed? It could also be that we are mistaken as to the concept of Hell and eternal punishment, and are judging things we are wrong about.

Am I suddenly a Christian apologist? No. These are simply stories and musings, just as I consider formal religions to be stories and musings cast into dogma for others to adhere to. This is why I prefer to follow my conscience and live a life based on ethics and an understanding of reality based on objective science. --SpinyNorman (talk) 23:56, 14 July 2009 (UTC) So, Does Phil approve of abortion now? Since the egg is under the dominion of the mother?--ScottA (talk) 02:18, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Women can't hold authority over men (1 Timothy 2:11-12). Abortion would be okay as long as the father did it but not the mother.HumanisticJones (talk) 15:11, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

"Adam saw it with Eve."

[1] Wasn't Adam asleep? --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 18:39, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Apparently Adam had the ability to see DNA with the naked eye. --Kels (talk) 18:41, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Via PZ Myers

There's pretty much PJR in a nutshell, I'd say. --Kels (talk) 01:01, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

That was simply awesome! Thanks, Kels. --SpinyNorman (talk) 01:35, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Great link, Kels. "Another winner, Lord! You're certainly not tinkering with an already perfect creation, like some giant see-through George Lucas." Truly fantastic stuff. --PitchBlackMind (talk) 02:38, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

The bit about not questioning an authority figure, that's classic Philip right there. I thought I was reading ASK for a moment. --Kels (talk) 03:06, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Very subtle and very funny. Ironically, the BBCish peeps are expecting their audience to have been to Sunday School enough to get the back story for a lot of the humouuur to work. ħuman 03:30, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Awesome stuff. Mitchell and Webb are by far the best working comedians around at the moment. I'm thoroughly looking forward to the new series of Peep Show whenever they decide to air that. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 23:55, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

They sure are. I've enjoyed much of their work recently due to you folks' links. ħuman 01:11, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Won't somebody tell me?

Is CPalmer a parodist? I really can't tell any more. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 11:21, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think so, just a sense of humor. He does like to badmouth the Americas though. Aboriginal Noise ^{What the ...} 11:58, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I think he is - if he's not then he's "no true Brit". ^{This message brought to you by: respond}_and honey 14:31, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I remember going to a seminar by a British doctor concerning placebos (this was back in my psych major days), and he peppered his talk with making wicked fun of the French. But it was an interesting style, you could tell he was terribly fond of them even as he made jokes about their personalities. --Kels (talk) 15:38, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, Kotomi...

“”Sadly, I feel that until he takes his ego and leaves Conservapedia, it is no place for decent people to try and edit.

Fixed that for you. --Kels (talk) 16:41, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Good to see...

...that even with aSoK struggling to top a score of edits a day (and most of those to various talk spaces) that our LowKey continues to prosecute the prude's agenda. You'd think they couldn't afford to scorn any edits these days, no matter how bad they were. Even the brief insurgency of crazies from CMI have deserted the sinking ship. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 23:42, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

The ship didn't so much sink as fail to be launched in the first place, and it slowly crumbles in a neglected shipyard, itself falling to rust. --Kels (talk) 23:49, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't gloat too much unless you want Rational Wiki to get the blame for it. Not sure if that's a good thing or bad thing, of course. ^{d hominem} 00:12, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

"Blame"? For what? No one turning up and caring about PJRwiki? It it weren't for the rats, this ship would have fallen off its life supports long ago. PS, @ Kels, pure poetry. But surely PJRark is made of wood? ħuman 01:10, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

It's made of particle board composed of printouts of the entire CMI database. --Kels (talk) 01:14, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Papier mache of same! And the rats chewed holes in all its bulwarks... ħuman 01:18, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

If I was a vandal, I would start making articles on "violent rappers". They are now deciding what genres of music are family friendly? If it can offend anyone, it does not belong at ASK--Tabris (talk) 03:03, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I enjoy chatting with Ken without getting blocked... larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 21:24, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

That SBI issue is hilarious. By the way, I searched the UNH card catalog database for the SBI. No hits. ħuman 21:33, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

This whole thing makes me laugh given how "Ruy" was all hot on PJR and Bradley permabanning all "evolutionists", which would have saved him being questioned at all. --Kels (talk) 22:34, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Most universities in Sweden seemed to have a botanical institute (botaniska institutet), but I couldn't find any national one (statens institutet för botanik, Svenska botaniska institutet, etc.)

It's so typical for creationists: while A. Schlafly won't believe that Dawkins was a professor even if Sir Isaac Newton appears and tells him so, Conservative invokes a whole institute to bolster Nilsson's position.

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 06:52, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Creationists. Conservatives. They lie. It's what they do. To themselves and others. --Kels (talk) 16:33, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I've met honest conservatives, but there is - to paraphrase Wolfgang Neuss - no intelligent, honest and creationism-adhering man. larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 16:54, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Mmm, small-C conservatives, yes. Oldschool conservatives, even. But modern, "movement" Conservatives of the sort found online, running Fox News, and so forth, not very many who don't lie. Those that do stand up for principle over "winning" are generally shouted down and labled as RINO and the like. Creationists...you've basically got a choice. Either deliberate ignorance or deliberate misrepresentation. There's no other way to maintain it. --Kels (talk) 17:00, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Just plain stoopid? Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 17:09, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the lying business is true of most contemporary politicians, no matter the party. ListenerX^TalkerX 17:26, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not so much talking the politicians themselves to much as the tribes that follow and support them. Especially the most vocal varieties. See Conservapedia, or in Canada the Blogging Tories. Racists, fools and liars through and through, but very few actually work in politics. I guess the same is Creationists, you've got people like Dembski and so forth who are of course full of shit, and then you've got legions of people like Philip or Ken saying "please pull the wool over my eyes, I'll back you up regardless of facts". --Kels (talk) 18:27, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)WesleyS should create the article for Agnostic Front on aSK. It's redlinked in their Metalcore article, so they must want an article on it. --Edgerunner⁷⁶ 16:22, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

That could be interesting. Perhaps I will. Aboriginal Noise ^{What the ...} 21:05, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Just a curiosity

I can type anything into the search bar at aSK, but when I type the word "freedom" I get a database query syntax error. Every time. What gives? Just curious. Aboriginal Noise ^{What the ...} 21:03, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

PS Figured I'd ask here. The response should be quicker than at aSK. Aboriginal Noise ^{What the ...} 21:04, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Dropped me straight on ask:Freedom. ^{This message brought to you by: respond}_and honey 21:19, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Did you hit the "Go" button or the "Search" button? When I hit "Go", it takes me to the page. Hitting "Search" gives me the error. Aboriginal Noise ^{What the ...} 21:23, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Strange: A database query syntax error has occurred. This may indicate a bug in the software. The last attempted database query was: (SQL query hidden) from within function "". MySQL returned error "1194: Table 'searchindex' is marked as crashed and should be repaired (localhost)". ^{This message brought to you by: respond}_and honey 21:26, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. What's up with that? Aboriginal Noise ^{What the ...} 21:31, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

? no idea. I tried several other words & it only did that for "freedom". ^{This message brought to you by: respond}_and honey 21:44, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

It is cached searches only, for example atheism. Essentially the database server closed for some reason during a write operation and was marked "crashed." This prevents it from being damaged. It is easily fixable by running a repair query on the database, but will need to be done server side. tmtoulouse 21:47, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up. I know near nothing about wiki software. I'll inform PJR. Aboriginal Noise ^{What the ...} 21:59, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Great, now we are debugging three wikis. (Not counting RWW) ħuman 01:21, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

The only reason I "aSKed" here is because there is no one else over there. Aboriginal Noise ^{What the ...} 01:33, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't criticizing (sorry if you thought I was), I was trying to make a "joke". I don't blame you, getting ask fixed is easier to do by posting on RW. Go figure. Same for CP, although in a more oblique way. ħuman 03:32, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Phil ...

... hasn't edited since the 16th. Nothing wrong, I trust? ^{This message brought to you by: respond}_and honey 04:22, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't his wife have health issues? Hopefully it's just a winter holiday? ħuman 05:37, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

That (his wife) was my thought. Hope she's OK. ^{This message brought to you by: respond}_and honey 05:40, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, me too. Hopefully he's just out playing with trains or something. ħuman 05:44, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Massive activity

aSK has got its hands full with this guy. I guess at the very least there is some sort of activity going on over there. Phil could probably use some more senior members. --Edgerunner⁷⁶ 11:43, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

One would have thought with the evolutionists away, the creationists would blossom. Apparently not. I for one am going to see if they do anything for the next week or so other than categorize. To be fair, if this vandal gets worse, Bradley will have his hands full.... Sterile atheist 12:38, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Bradley will, although there are two other senior members; one who hasn't edited since March, and one with 1 edit in the last month. Aboriginal Noise ^{What the ...} 20:22, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

"This site is calcifying rapidly!"? --Gulik (talk) 21:29, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Someone should give him a smack--Tabris (talk) 01:04, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I feel bad for them. With only really two people able to delete on such a small wiki (and the apparently paranoia about NM), it would be tedious. On the other hand, while I don't know a lick about perl, I can tell that the script will do what he says it will. Sterile atheist 02:05, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

(OD) Philip went away on Holidays ("vacation" in Mercan) for a week and is due back any time now... I am sure he would appreciate your concern for his wife, though. As to the vandalism, I have been very busy with work, and missed most of it. I think the storehouse may need a guard dog. Tricksy (talk) 04:29, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm so glad he's figured it out since then...

"Creationists do not deny that there are beneficial mutations" - Phillip J. Rayment? (01-04-2007). ^{— Signed, by: Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 13:29, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that. ^{This message brought to you by: respond}_and honey 16:15, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Wait, what? Phil, you've been denying there's such a thing as beneficial mutations as long as I can remember. Did he get visited by the Ghosts of Pseudoscience Past, Present, and Future, or something? --Gulik (talk) 21:34, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

You wouldn't be goldfish by any chance, would you? Tricksy (talk) 04:26, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

If he is, it's your turn to feed him. --Kels (talk) 04:47, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Theres a cavet though. There are beneficial mutations but its not an increase information, its a decrease and that decrease just happens to suit the organism. At least I am sure thats what he'd argue. Ace McWicked^Necron99 04:57, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah. its just like omitting a comma to make a sentence read more smoothly or reducing the number of eggs in a recipe to make it more healthy for you. Precisely. It's that sort of benficial reductive evolution -- sort of like make God's creatures a bit more elegant -- less is more. ^Me!Sheesh!_Mine! 14:48, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

It's meaningful information, too (which must be italicized!). Sterile atheist 15:56, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I've got this squared. It's "beneficial", but not meaningful (i.e. it does not increase what it means). Therefore, there is no new information^®. Phil could rationalize anything to himself. ^{— Signed, by: Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 16:44, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

That is sort of the point of aSK. --Kels (talk) 16:48, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

But that would imply that God's designs weren't perfect and flawless from the start.... now I'ze confuzzled again. --Gulik (talk) 19:18, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

HELP! Darwin: Hitler

There's a Kenalike putting the Darwin hitler connection on Ask. I'm not up to it HELP! ^{This message brought to you by: respond}_and honey 09:02, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

CPalmer's come to my aid. Off out now: should be interesting when I get back. ^{This message brought to you by: respond}_and honey 09:10, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Pascal seems to want to highlight the nuttiness of CMI by using their most outrageous material... larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 10:05, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

There's so much to choose from. I want to find the CMI article again that says Ragnarok is an example of "flood mythology." --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 10:33, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm in great danger of blowing my top at PJR now (unparliamentary language could ensue) so I'm not gonna look again for a couple of days. ^{This message brought to you by: respond}_and honey 16:16, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Kels, kindly stop posting PJR's antiDawkins rants on WIGOaSK - it makes me go and look and it HURTZ. ^{This message brought to you by: respond}_and honey 17:31, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

You have a problem with PJR's writing? The devil, you say! --Kels (talk) 17:43, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Ha! 'twas ever so. As it was, so shall it be. ^{This message brought to you by: respond}_and honey 17:51, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Say, let's go through this, noting that it's entirely Philip's baby, bit by bit:

• False suggestion that the whole point of evolution is to tear down Christianity.
• Debatable and irrelevant speculation about Darwin being ill due to doubt and worry. Reference that to CMI's hit job on the man.
• One actually relevant quote, well done Philip.
• Poor quote mine of a joke Darwin made, taken well out of context.
• Pointless reference to a joke that was made at Huxley that might never have happened in the first place.
• Short quote about how Huxley was a fierce defender of biblical literalism, coming just after mentioning that he was also a fierce promoter of evolution, thus contradicting the original premise.
• Unexplained dig via quote mine at NOMA, for some reason.
• Irrelevant quote by Julian Huxley that only appears in Creationist quote mines.
• Make that two, and the second is demonstrably wrong anyhow.
• Little bit about Haeckle, including the obligatory "fraudulent embryo drawings", and then suddenly veering off into ad homs about what a horrible little man he was, and MOAR HITLER.
• Interesting admission that Darwin didn't come up with eugenics at all, but assumes they're the same thing and proceeds to smear everyone in sight with it.
• Strange admission that there may actually be an appropriate use for eugenics.
• Clumsy smear of Dawkins via quote mine from LifeShite of all places.
• Largely worthless reference section.

...and Philip wonders why I call him dishonest? --Kels (talk) 18:02, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah, but what does dishonest mean? He's arguing invention v discovery now somewhere (I can't be arsed to go and source it). If you're wrong: change the meaning of your words. ^{This message brought to you by: respond}_and honey 18:20, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

“”`When I make a word do a lot of work like that,' said Humpty Dumpty, `I always pay it extra.'

He's arguing that because you can't "discover" something that isn't "real". It was funny how he can't even discuss the point under consideration because he can't allow that perhaps evo was "discovered". ħuman 18:55, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I find it obnoxious. Sterile atheist 19:01, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't bother me so much as the air of intellectual superiority he's been aggressively pushing lately. Dude, you're running a moribund wiki on behalf of a religious cult that tries to subvert honest science. That's nothing to be proud of. --Kels (talk) 19:15, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I remember him telling me (on the slavery debate I think) that there was a difference between "Christians' ideas" and "The ideas of Christians" in order to try to slide around some point. Don't think he ever clarified it. --Bob^{Not Jim} 19:31, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Wow...just wow. If we ever make an article for "bad faith", we can just drop that diff in and be done with it. What a superior little prick. --Kels (talk) 00:27, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

He's progressing from creationist to raving lunatic with this evolution causes evil thing. Uber-wow. (And then there's We're a biased wiki so we can say that Dawkins was inaccurate, don't delete that stuff, just add stuff.) I think we may need to boycott soon or there may be open YELLING. Sterile atheist 03:23, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Re the Dawkins thing... oh, fuck it. PJR is slowly becoming less and less interesting... and more stupid. ħuman 03:47, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: the evo thing... "The theory says nothing that in any way supports murdering "inferior races". ---- On the contrary, that's almost exactly what "survival of the fittest" is about." So he has no idea what he's talking about, as usual, but now almost embarrassingly bluntly. ħuman 03:49, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I used to laugh about Philip turning into Andy. But honestly, what I'm seeing in him now is definitely approaching Andy's performance on talk.origins. Beligerent, utterly sure of himself, and about as anti-science as you can get, all the while proclaiming science and evidence are all on his side. He's even got Bradley to take Roger's place, although Bradley's been a big quiet of late. --Kels (talk) 04:15, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Argh!

I cant take it any longer!!!!!!!!!!! Ace McWicked^{Model 500} 00:46, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I damn near choked on my tea at "Outside their own specialist fields, scientists are laymen." Oh really, Philip? Then I guess we don't have to listen to a chemist when he mouths off about biology, then? Or, indeed, most of the Discovery Institute Fellows, or the board of CMI. --Kels (talk) 01:05, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

You read my mind Kels, I already posted the "Who we are" section of CMI in repsonse to PJR's comment. Not one of them is an evolutionary biologist. Just waiting for his bullshit well thought out response. Ace McWicked^{Model 500} 01:11, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Seriously, Philip, when we said that Creationism required lying to yourself or lying to others, the appropriate response is not "can't I do both?" --Kels (talk) 01:51, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

It's amazing how long we can play the game of "all the rules apply to you and not to me." Sterile atheist 02:36, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

As long as you have read, and agree with, Genesis, you are fully qualified in all matters. ^{This message brought to you by: respond}_and honey 07:45, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm still baffled at creationist's ad hitlerum attack on evolution. It's basically like saying "The Nazis used guns to kill people, therefore guns don't exist". Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 13:03, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Thinking....

Call me a creationist crazy but wondering if perhaps we should let up a little on PJR in order ot let him build his encyclopedia a little? Refuting is fun and interesting but I dont wanna harrass the guy. Know what I mean? Ace McWicked^{Model 500} 04:47, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Err ... no? ^{This message brought to you by: respond}_and honey 04:52, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I see Ace's point. I also see the point of PJR being an ass and people arguing with him. I say, let it be what it is, he could ignore comments and write his 'pedia if he wanted to. Seems like he enjoys arguing with us/you guys. You know the thing about wrestling a pig in the mud, though... ħuman 04:55, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

He's getting a little testy (not that it worries me) and there is a line between reasonable debate and being a pain in the ass. Ace McWicked^{Model 500} 04:57, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Hope he does get testy. The man's a dishonest, gullible brainwashed, badly educated dimwit who deserves as much consideration as a flea.If he wanted to just build it up, he should just block us all and carry on. As long as he leaves it open to us we shouldn't hold back. ^{This message brought to you by: respond}_and honey 05:02, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I quoted above, "The theory says nothing that in any way supports murdering "inferior races". ---- On the contrary, that's almost exactly what "survival of the fittest" is about" That's not "reasonable debate", that's a person being willfully ignorant, not even having the slightest clue what he is arguing about. ħuman 05:47, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Someone is wrong on the internet. How can we just leave it alone?!? --Gulik (talk) 07:25, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

They really need more creationist members. I don't mind ignoring him for awhile, but he should still be accountable to reality and to the members of his "collaborative" wiki at some point.Sterile atheist 13:15, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

True that, Sterile. ħuman 20:19, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Always impressed

by Phil being a fucking moran.

Q: "Didn't Project Steve adequately demonstrate to you just how manufactured the "controversy" surrounding evolution is?" - JeevesMKIII

A: "It demonstrated that evolutionists are happy to use an argument ad populum to disprove a non-existent argument ad populum by opponents of evolution!" - PJR

Wow. Just...wow. I mean...wow. But really...wow. Seriously? Wow. ^{— Signed, by: Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 16:33, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Seriously, you could have a Philip quote page that's just as entertaining/WTF as some of the early Andy ones. Fer'instance:

• "Whether it is "part of" evolutionary theory or not is not the question. The question is whether it's legitimate to base morals on it."
• "Please stick to what I am claiming instead of overstating my claims in order to reject them."
• "Bad people misused the Bible that way. Leading evolutionists used (not misused) evolution to justify their views."
• "Regardless of whether one is an invention and one isn't? So the facts don't matter? Interesting."
• "I note the hypocrisy: Evolution is not responsible for the actions of its followers, but Christianity is." (Um, yeah Philip, that's exactly how it works.)
• "Evolutionists are like the tobacco companies who kept denying that there was good evidence when it was staring them in the face. Yes, the parallels are stunning."
• "I'm not saying that most evolutionists are dishonest, but Haeckel was a major player in promulgating evolution, and there's enough other examples to blacken the credibility of evolutionists."
• "I'm not actually aware of any such tests showing that [radiometric dating] methods work reliably, but I'm aware of many showing that they are unreliable."
• "All scientists are (hopefully!) trained in the scientific method, but they don't all get trained in evolution. Outside their own specialist fields, scientists are laymen. They are not that more likely to have their opinions based in relevant expertise."

And those are all from the same talk page! Seriously, ignorance + arrogance = talk.origins-era Andy. --Kels (talk) 16:58, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

These don't exist!!! ^{— Signed, by: Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 17:09, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah, but according to Philip most of them don't count because they specialize in other fields like chemistry, and therefore don't have any credibility. So maybe...couple dozen? How many evolutionary biologists and similar are there in the world, anyhow? --Kels (talk) 17:20, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Nice quote list, but it would be even funnier if they were paired up with the contradictory statements he has made - ie, the Project Steve exchange, where he makes his argument ad populum on the main page last I checked. ħuman 17:43, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Why, thank you for volunteering, sir! --Kels (talk) 17:46, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Does that mean I'd have to read Philip's tripe in detail a second time? I guess it's time we started taking things like your list above and at least storing them somewhere longer-lasting so we can add the contradictions on a one-by-one basis? ħuman 02:31, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

All he's demonstrating is that he doesn't have a clue what he's whittling on about. The Dissent from Darwin vs. Project Steve thing, neither are arguing about the truth value of evolution. Rather the Disco Institute is saying there is significant dissent (a controversy!) while NSCE is demonstrating that isn't true. Essentially any "dissent" there is is from a lunatic fringe of religiously motivated nuts, most of whom aren't working scientists (indeed the original newspaper advert was heavily padded with actual scientists who didn't in fact dissent from Darwin, and a large contingent of non-working scientists, computer scientists and educators who, being fair to my colleagues, aren't in fact scientists at all.) All Phil is doing is confirming my opinion that people who throw around Latin phrases in their arguments are, by and large, morons. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 18:26, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

This whole "designed by one intelligent whatever and not multiple whatevers" is just bizzare. As if software these days is written by one person.... Sterile atheist 19:00, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I like how Jesus' resurrection is somehow evidence, as if it's an unquestionable fact instead of an uncorroborated story from a book. You need evidence for that before you get to use it as evidence for something else, guys! --Kels (talk) 19:35, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

DNA

So long as we're on the topic of amusing quotes, I love this one in response to the idea that DNA was designed by committee:

“”Yeah, right. The most compact data-storage medium known to exist, with extremely complex multiple and overlapping coding systems that we are only just starting to understand, and which is beyond anything that any human has invented so far, is so bodgie that it looks like it was designed by a committee! Pull the other one.

Other than the really shitty attitude, isn't that exactly what we'd expect of a dynamic system that's been honed under real-world conditions for several billion years? --Kels (talk) 19:38, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

So basically what he's saying is "Your claim cannot be true because it would go against creationism, which simply must be true." Unbelievable. Mindless word Hoover! 21:05, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

To be fair, that's every argument he's ever made, on aSK and CP. --Kels (talk) 21:21, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but he's not even trying to mask it as science this time. Mindless word Hoover! 22:00, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

That's because now that he's on his own, it becomes more and more obvious that he has no grasp of what science ir or how it works at all. ħuman 02:34, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Science is whatever CMI says it is, I'll have you know! --Kels (talk) 03:56, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

You gotta have a degree in "Divinity" to truly understand science. ^{This message brought to you by: respond}_and honey 04:03, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Physicists? No - use the Bible

... We have no idea (ignoring what we might deduce from the Bible) how the non-physical operates without time, ... Don't let that Einstein guy fool you - it's all in the Bible you know. WAZZOCK!! ^{This message brought to you by: respond}_and honey 10:54, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, that's quite a good point he's making. Time is indeed a feature of the physical universe - a relic perhaps. What happens in the non-physical (whatever that is) is open to all sorts of conjecture, and objections to them based on the physical universe are irrelevant. The rules could be (if they exist) very different. Ajkgordon (talk) 13:25, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

THe point he's not making surely! Obviously meta-time & meta-space would be very weird but it's the "deduce from the Bible" bit that makes me squirm. ^{This message brought to you by: respond}_and honey 13:38, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Why? Surely the Bible is the only source of information about the immaterial.... place where God resides and is therefore a good starting point for deduction. He's not actually making any claims about its properties. He's objecting to someone else deducing properties of God based on properties of the physical universe. Seems fair. Ajkgordon (talk) 13:43, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

If the Bible is a "possible" source for such material, then surely any other revelatory texts, including my own, are equally valid possible sources? Or were you being sarcastic? ħuman 17:40, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

No. The Bible is the only (not "a possible") source as it is the only source that makes claims about the nature or property of God. (For the sake of argument, ignore the other Holy tests associated with Christianity and ignore that PJR disregards centuries of sophisticated theology.) Your own texts are irrelevant. The point is that the objection the poster was making was based on the science of our own material universe. Whereas PJR'c claim is that God occupies a universe/plain/reality/whatever that is only described in the Bible and where science has no jurisdiction. It's the ultimate get out clause of the fundamentalist but valid nonetheless. Ajkgordon (talk) 21:57, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

The Old Testament makes it quite clear that God is capable of sitting down and having lunch with humans. Or wrestling them. --Gulik (talk) 04:19, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Unique aspects of the Bible

Philip's been on about there being things about the Bible that sets it apart from all other revealed scriptures out there, but he doesn't really say much about what those things are. His Bible article doesn't really help, it just says the religion's followers think it's holy book is true. Not really different from a hundred other holy books. Maybe it's Jesus, but then you've got Mithras standing there saying "been there, done that". Can't be historical accuracy, there's loads of stuff in there that doesn't match up. I don't really get what he's aiming at there, anyone else have an idea? Has he specified anything in the past? --Kels (talk) 18:13, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Lots of Christians say the faith, not works thing is unique. This may be true, but I can't possibly see that as a recommendation. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 18:18, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Is that original to the Bible (new testament, I assume)? Or is that another outgrowth of something the Romans were doing? Philip seems to put a lot of stock in the idea, so I assume it's something more substantial. --Kels (talk) 18:26, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, like a lot of things, it's in the Bible if you turn it sideways on tuesday and squint just right. Basically, if you ignore all the times Jesus says you have to actually do things to get in to heaven, you can find support for only having to think things. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 18:31, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah, right. We're back to what I said elsewhere about how they're so ready to quote-mine others because they've already been quote-mining the Bible almost since the beginning. --Kels (talk) 18:35, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Insult

Has anyone else noticed how often Phil uses the word "insult" (in many forms) as part of a reply to criticism. Isn't this as much of an insult as whatever fuelled his comment? Some defence for his encyclopaedic knowledge and overpowering intelligence! ^{This message brought to you by: respond}_and honey 03:48, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Not really, can you paste links in here? I started getting bored with Phil a few weeks ago, wikisynergy is much more fun. ħuman 04:43, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I could, but it's late (early?) 6:15 am & i'm gonna get some much needed beauty ^[sic] sleep. ^{This message brought to you by: respond}_and honey 05:16, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Aw, we all know you're a beauty, at least in the eye of the beholder. Later, maybe? ħuman 05:36, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Here, no? Sterile atheist 13:51, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Little Philip stamps his feet

I got a 1 month block and 3 months of probabtion for calling Jonathan Sarfati "stupid" and "uneducated". Someone want to tell PJR that he has a PhD in chemistry hence, as Philip pointed out, is not qualified to speak about evolution? Ace McWicked^{Model 500} 03:16, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

recant I say, recant or face the wrath of the church! Ace McWicked^{Model 500} 03:19, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Start swingin' that banhammer, Phil. It's all you've got left. --Gulik (talk) 04:32, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

But that's all he had to start with. It probably smarts since all the valid statements made about the liar/moron Safari apply in equal measure to Philip himself, and I suspect he realizes that on some level. So you insult Creatards for misrepresentation, ignorance and outright lies, you're insulting him. --Kels (talk) 04:37, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Is there a little of CP starting to creep in?

Phil's started down the path of the slippery slope towards the memory hole. --Edgerunner⁷⁶ 16:15, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah: the argument can't be answered so vanish it on grounds of rudeness. ^{This message brought to you by: respond}_and honey 16:20, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Again, he's a fool content to repeat lies. And apparently embracing his inner authoritarian. Not a surprise really, he's been getting increasingly aggressive about things for the past few months. For the record, I don't think Safarti is a moron. He's a liar and a propagandist, and Philip's just fine with that. --Kels (talk) 16:22, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and I'm rather fond of Philip's comments in that link that got WiGO'd. Essentially it's THOU SHALT NOT SAY BAD THINGS ABOUT CREATIONISTS. But Dawkins? He's a moron, fuck him. --Kels (talk) 17:21, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Yep, Phil's found his 90/10 all right. Now, if only he had a loyal toady who would enforce it with gleeful abandon. *cough* Bradley *cough* --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 19:17, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah, the escalation begins. The truly sad thing is if he blocks us, it truly is a deadwiki. Sterile atheist 19:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

It's kind of sad really. When he started his wiki, I think he was expecting blackjack and hookers. What he ended up getting was us lot. He's learning what it is to have to defend his belief, without physical shielding from TK or the mental ablative armour that is Ken

. I'm almost wanting to leave him alone to slink away and die, but somehow that seems even more cruel. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 20:32, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

It's going to happen again, because you missed one of the offending phrases in the fourth paragraph. You'd better JESUS it quick. If you don't get it soon, he'll block you for "incivility," though he'll probably invent an excuse even if you do. --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 22:25, 3 August 2009 (UTC) P.S. - I agree Kels. I love that PJR basically says it's ok for him to do it because you're allowed to be rude to rude people.

It's probably blasphemous now. That's against the rules, right? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 22:44, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Uh-huh. (I think someone could write a book How Not to Administer a Wiki and use Philip this week as a case study.) Sterile atheist 02:38, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

It'll be a nice blog once he's tossed out all us filthy unbelievers. --Gulik (talk) 18:09, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Checkuser

I think it's fairly recent. ^{This message brought to you by: respond}_and honey 03:17, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, he did block my sock today. Ace McWicked^{Model 500} 06:44, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

So did I, on every wiki I could. Linkies? ħuman 06:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

@Ace: that's what made me look. ^{This message brought to you by: respond}_and honey 07:00, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

PJR gave himself checkuser righrs on 24 July. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 09:15, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Thought For The Day

"If you have to resort to fraud to achieve a goal, your goal is wrong." - Nick Johnson, founder of Morons.org --Gulik (talk) 05:37, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

CPalmer channels Andy

This seems WIGO-able. Unfortunately, I can't think make it as humorous as it deserves to be. Godspeed (talk) 18:14, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Done. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 18:18, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Eh. WIGOing obvious parody is just too easy. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 18:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

That deserves an immediate assquote response. --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 19:39, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

D'oh! Haven't been hanging around CP/aSK enough to spot that; and didn't read to the end to see the talk, talk, talk. Godspeed (talk) 21:06, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Recognition by Conservapedia

• 12:52, 6 August 2009 TK (Talk | contribs) blocked Vjjc (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of infinite (account creation disabled, e-mail blocked) ‎ (Trolling / Liberal Trolling: Australian Troll. aSK, and you shall receive. We trade user IP's now. Bye.)[2]
• 12:49, 6 August 2009 TK (Talk | contribs) blocked 60.240.0.0/16 (Talk) with an expiry time of 1 year (account creation disabled) ‎ (Trolling / Liberal Trolling: 60-240-242-167.tpgi.com.au - TPG Internet Pty Ltd., Prahran, Australia (Please stay at your AU wiki or your vandal site. Thanks!))[3]

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 17:06, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Heh, wow. I guess that not blocking for things done on other sites rule at CP is dead and buried with a giant wooden stake through the heart now. Is creepy stalker TK really being aided and abetted by PJR, who at first blush wouldn't seem to like him all that much? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 17:11, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Nah, that's just TK trying to fuel the flames of paranoia. For one thing, there hasn't been very much outright vandalism at ASK - which ASK user would warrant an immediate block like that?-- Kriss Akabusi^{AAAWOOOGAAAR!!1} 17:16, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

(EC) I can't see PJR doing anything to help TK. Unless another admin is running checkuser over there and sending IPs to TK, I think he's full of shit. He may even be trying to sow suspicion and mistrust over at aSK, that seems like something he'd do.--PitchBlackMind (talk) 17:18, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm willing to assume that this is just TK... well, being TK. PJR isn't exactly my favorite person on Earth, but my impression is that he's mostly a decent guy when it comes to certain common-sense issues. But if PJR or any other aSK sysop really gives TK such info, there will be Hell to pay. Even though, if just to fuel the flames of paranoia, go ahead and click the "Privacy policy" link at the bottom of any aSK page... hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm... Now would be a good time for Philip to speak out clearly. --Sid (talk) 17:42, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I just asked at aSK larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 17:54, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

If their ain't no wiki-leadership from Philip, ASK's going to degrade even more rapidly than it already has. Sterile atheist

"I known nothing about this". Philip J. Rayment 04:24, 7 August 2009 (UTC) larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 06:27, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I added quote marks. Of course, TK is simply lying. It's his MO, after all. ħuman 07:46, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Any chance TK is working with other admins at aSK (why anyone cooperates with TK is anyone's guess), and should we ask over there (I have yet to be interested to sign up over there yet)? [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 09:31, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

NO CHANCE at all. Haven't you read PJR's website (not ask). See also above: LArron did ask PJR. ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 09:40, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

And PJR is the only one with check-user rights, so, if he says no it is no .... larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 09:45, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

TK is probably rubbing his hands with glee at us spending even this amount of time looking into his ridiculous lie. At least, I hope it's his hands.-- Kriss Akabusi^{AAAWOOOGAAAR!!1} 09:47, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

It is a ridiculous lie. But a lie nevertheless, and it is shown to be a lie. Makes TK a liar. Nothing new about that - and TK will claim in his private conversations with Andy et.al. that the lie was justified. But Andy should (and won't) ponder: if TK can convince Andy that TK should be allowed to lie for Andy's cause, isn't it imaginable that he is lying to Andy for another cause?

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 09:59, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

That's good to hear. I was 99.99% certain it was a lie, but in cases like this, it's better to verify, even if it means feeding the troll. And LArron - you foolishly expect TK to admit he's lying? Hah! He'll tell Andy that Philip's denial there is just part of their cover and that he really has these new connections. Andy in turn will praise TK for taking these extra steps to secure his precious site, and we all know that he is too lazy to actually verify this with Philip behind closed doors. --Sid (talk) 11:11, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

This is pretty much a perfect litmus test for Andy's denial about TK, or if nothing else his approval of TK's tactics. Andy may have major differences of opinion with PJR, but Philip has never shown himself to be a liar or to practice deceit as a wiki-administration policy. So TK publicly states on CP that there's an IP-sharing arrangement with ASK, and Philip denies it. Anyone have a burnable sock to ask Andy why it's okay for a "trusted admin" like TK to openly practice deceit, then? --SpinyNorman (talk) 13:20, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

TK will just oversight it away. I'd normally suggest that someone should mail him, but if Andy doesn't just ignore the mail, he'll simply forward it to TK with something like "Wow, look at these liberal smears!" without even considering that it might be true. --Sid (talk) 13:32, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Good thing that aSK has only one pageful of user rights log to check if someone changed his own rights (more than 1 Bureaucrat) to do check users. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 16:22, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

1. 1 CONFUSE FOOLISH LIBERALS
2. 2 AMASS ATTENTION FROM MENTALLY NON-CHALLENGED
3. 3 GAIN POPULARITY ON THE INTERNET

--91.145.88.63 16:32, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

that's a little incoherent, BoN. Care to write it out in longhand somewhere? ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 16:39, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

roftl @ BoN... You forgot "PROFIT!!" ^{— Signed, by: Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 19:08, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

"Fine Tuning" for black holes

Here's an amusing take on PJR's favorite argument. I can't remember my password at ASK, so someone want to drop it on him? --Gulik (talk) 19:36, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

That's a hilarious bit! ħuman 21:37, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Don't wikilink idiotic terms - don't be an Ed.

That WIGO-update really cracked me up. And it sort of reminded me what headaches Ed's silly antics must have given Philip during his time as CP sysop. Just imagine, witnessing a bumbling fool using a (supposedly encyclopedic) wiki as a mix between Facebook and Twitter... and not being able to smack him upside down (because you're too polite and because the Eye of Sauron TK would instantly zero in on you)!

And just like that, I imagine that the moment he made this edit with that edit summary, a tiny smirk could be seen... somewhere in Australia... *fade to black* *credits roll* --Sid (talk) 23:29, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Too bad he sullies that brief moment of win with a rather astounding fail as he calls Fox's link "nice". Piece of ol' crap, I'd call it. --Kels (talk) 23:46, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm still waiting to see his, at present allegedly in draft, evidence for God's existence - and waiting - and waiting. As it's at the very root of his beliefs, you'd think he'd have managed something better than the teleologic alargument or anthropic principle by now. I've finally (slow - that's me) tumbled his m.o.: instead of answering questions, he questions you. I know it's a standard tactic but it succeeded in getting me angry for a while. ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 00:09, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

That's common among Creationists in general. They don't back up their arguments because they don't have any. Just "gotcha" tricks. Why do you think this whole information thing is so popular these days? They don't have to explain it! --Kels (talk) 00:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that appears to be a comon tactic: use a term without defining it and then wriggle like mad when someone demands a definition. Foxy seems quite at home there although he seems to think he can talk to people as if they were squaddies to his sar'nt major. ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 00:21, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

When my block is up i am gonna give PJR hell. People have been swearig and abusing each other all over the place but I get a month long block for calling Sarfati a moron. You are going to pay for this Phil. Ace McWicked^{Model 500} 00:32, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Eugenics pre-evolution

I was wondering - are we able to show PJR examples of groups engaging in racial/culutral eugenics before Darwin proposed evolution. Such as one race believing another to be inferior and attempting to breed/wipe out that group. Showing such an example would invalidate PJR's insistence that people "use" evolution to kill inferior peoples. It would show that rergardless of evolution, people have always triued to wipe out the "weaker" race. An example of Christians doing so would be perfect. I would post on aSK but I am blocked and PJR is using checkuser. Ace McWicked^{Model 500} 20:10, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

They certainly weren't Christians, but the Spartans were killing their weaklings nearly two millennia before Darwin.--EcheNegraMente ^{Where the sunbeams end and starlight begins} 20:19, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Not just killing weaklings but we need an example of, ideally Christians, wiping/breeding out a race they believed inferior because they felt they were the stronger race. Something that PJR can't (though he would try) weasel out of. Ace McWicked^{Model 500} 20:34, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Cro-Magnons wiping out the Neanderth- oh, wait. Never mind. --SpinyNorman (talk) 03:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure such an example exists, Ace. Even if it does, Phil will just claim that they'd been swayed from their faith by the evolutionary paradigm.--PitchBlackMind ^{When everyone around me's busy drowning, I float} 03:20, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Hm... didn't white colonists hunt Tasmanian natives for sport? Not sure if that was A.D(arwin) or not, though....(Wikipedia says settlements in 1809, so I think it's before the Divine Revelation occurred.) --Gulik (talk) 03:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Fuck, "white Christian" colonists and their descendants hunted "natives" for sport in the good ole USA... But for pre-Darwin examples, Genesis and Exodus run pretty strong. I suspect there are more OT examples. Of course, they had not be Christianized yet, they were just obeying the God they had at the time. ħuman 05:04, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

From wp: "... The philosophy was most famously expounded by Plato, who believed human reproduction should be monitored and controlled by the state. However, Plato understood this form of government control would not be readily accepted, and proposed the truth be concealed from the public via a fixed lottery. ... Adolf Hitler considered Sparta to be the first "Völkisch State," and much like Ernst Haeckel before him, praised Sparta due to its primitive form of eugenics practice of selective infanticide policy which was applied on deformed children though the Nazis believed the children were killed outright and not exposed. ... " There's plenty of examples of banning breeding of "substandard" people post Darwin but very few of actually killing them until Hitler. ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 10:13, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

The Christian church was pretty good at killing heretics such as the Cathars and after they finished with them they turned their attention - at least in Spain - to the Jews. I imagine that he'll claim that Catholics aren't Christians or something of that sort though. I think protestant churches also burnt witches though. Does that help your argument?--Bob^{Not Jim} 10:32, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, um...No true Christian would do such a thing. Checkmate. ^{— Signed, by: Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 16:20, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's the problem. The Christians who held slaves weren't Christians either apparently - even though the New Testament has instructions for Christians who are/were slave holders. It seems that anybody who does not hold exactly to his particular, relatively modern, version of Christianity is not and never could have been a Christian.--Bob^{Not Jim} 16:27, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

If you want to try and make some sort of point, the thing to do would be as Phillip does. Work backwards. Find out who he says is a real Christian and work backwards until he deems them no longer Christian. ^{— Signed, by: Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 16:46, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

It's all to circular there. I doubt that anybody really has the patience to try to pin him down. And if anybody does get close he just goes away till the point is cold or some other issue come up.--Bob^{Not Jim} 16:58, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

True, the patience required to pin him down is astounding. But I like to think that he knows exactly what he's doing while he lies and evades. Of course, he probably doesn't realize. ^{— Signed, by: Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 17:06, 11 August 2009 (UTC)