Talk:List of second-generation atheists

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Include RW users?[edit]

PLEASE DISCUSS, rather than edit war. Blue Talk 03:25, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

No, we should not. There are far more than those two these days, I can come up with at least 2 more of the top of my head. It's a typical idiotic injoke. Тytalk 03:27, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
I see not reason not to, really. So long as doing such things are done in moderation. I think our incessant references to CONservapedia in mainspace are far more damaging than our referencing of the active users here ever could be. The Spikey Punk I'm punking my punk! 03:29, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
cool. I'm citing myself as a reliable source for all citation needs, as that comes out to only about, 5% of main. Тytalk 03:31, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
No, because this isn't a citation. AceModerator 03:33, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Oh, yes it is, this list is entirely here to refute some idiotic claim at CP, and if you'd bother to check article history you'd know that. Тytalk
I know exactly what this page is and how it started. I don't need to check the history. AceModerator 03:35, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Can never tell with you, now can we? Тytalk 03:36, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Oh yes, because I am such a drunk or what have you then it must always be assumed I don't remember/know something. Why don't you go back to cataloging every one of your lifes failures in block-logs and edit summaries? AceModerator 03:38, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Nope, not that at all. Why don't you go back to aimless chit chat? Тytalk 03:40, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Why don't you go back to aimless chit chat? Sorry, is there something wrong with that? AceModerator 03:43, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
No, not at all. Тytalk 03:44, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Sorry but you seemed to have implying that my aimless chitchat was somehow a reason to disparage me. You see, I used your use of block-logs and the like to broadcast the banal details of youR life in a disparaging fashion because no one really gives a shit that you have degrouted the bathroom and you pop on back with a comment regarding my aimless chit chat so one figures they are somehow related. AceModerator 03:46, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Jesus Christ, Ace, I thought I was the one with the persecution complex. — Unsigned, by: Brxbrx / talk / contribs 03:49, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Can't we all just get along? The Spikey Punk I'm punking my punk! 03:45, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Eh, I'm not feeling the need to die on this hill. Тytalk 03:48, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Ty's vapid bullshit[edit]

Ty, amusingly ironic in this instance, is pulling Human and removing edits he doesn't find funny or detract from his idea of a serious wiki. Now, it isn't even this particular edit that is important but Ty's manic bullshit in deciding what is or isn't "Ty approved humour" and feeling that RW is no longer allowed to have an in-joke or refer to some of its more prominent members in an mainspace article. I find this attitude weird and while I again stress that it isn't this particular edit but his interpretation of what is or isn't allowed. Thoughts anyone? AceModerator 03:27, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Ace for Mod!!! The Spikey Punk I'm punking my punk! 03:29, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Exactly how "prominent" a "member" have these guys? Blue Talk 03:32, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
All this arguing has made my membership a little more prominent. AceModerator 03:33, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
You always know how to erectify the situation, Ace. Blue Talk 03:39, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Why is there an article?[edit]

Maybe a list on RWW for editors here, but otherwise, I don't see how this is relevant to the mission or even interesting.--User:Brxbrx/sig 03:42, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Because CP had a claim and they felt the need to refute it. Тytalk 03:44, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Now, I like having CP space around. I like watching CP and laughing at their antics or being outraged at whatever latest outrageous things they say. But that just seems like a trivial reason to have a mainspace article.--User:Brxbrx/sig 03:47, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
You wouldn't have even needed to ask what this was about if Ty hadn't bowled along and said he didn't like it therefore I must remove stuff from it. AceModerator 03:48, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
That's why talk page goes first.--User:Brxbrx/sig 03:50, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
I see no harm in keeping this article around, though we could, perhaps, merge it into s sub-section of the article on atheists. The Spikey Punk I'm punking my punk! 03:51, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
It just seems like a needless list, and doesn't really help to dispel peoples' conceptions that atheism is a religion--User:Brxbrx/sig 03:52, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Might be better to move it to second-generation atheists and/or atheist, and then actually explain something (e.g. "there aren't a lot of them,[citation needed] whereas religions spread that way a lot"). I don't have much against random tangential lists, though. Or we could always delete RW, since it was made in response to CP's claims. ~ Kupochama[1][2] 04:07, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
It might be worth addressing, somewhere, the question of whether the children of atheists tend to become atheists for the same reason that children of the religious stay with their religion. Peter Urist for Mod! 04:10, 18 June 2012 (UTC)