Talk:Maratreanism/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 3 May 2016. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:  , (new)(back)

some talk

Feel free to copy any material you find useful from my draft article on this important topic. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 22:04, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Tell me more about the giant fanged cat and the giant fanged bat.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 22:16, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Funny how everyone focuses on them when they are very peripheral ideas... if you are going to mention them, you should mention that the Prophet Claretta herself said that she did not believe in them — As to these words of his which you do not believe, I do not believe them either. For these were but tales he told for the amusement of children. As I said, I do not believe them; and if you read the entirety of that page, that should be clear. They are, as the page makes clear, essentially nursery rhymes, tales told to amuse children, but not meant to be literally believed by adults. They are a Maratrean version of Humpty Dumpty or Jack and the Beanstalk... (((Zack Martin)))^™ 22:26, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Then why does your wiki start off by saying:

• The Terror Taba is a gigantic bat which lives beneath the earth, in a subterranean cave. He is seven cubits tall and has fangs and claws one cubit long, and a seven cubit wingspan

It's initially worded as a statement of fact about your religion. You try to distance yourself later, true, but it begins as a statement of bald fact. --Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 22:32, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

It's a test to see if you can actually read two paragraphs, or if you stop at the end of the first one. It many seems people here fail to read the second paragraph. It's not like its a great long essay, it is well under 300 words... whatever the first paragraph says, the second one says it's just a story told to amuse children... if you check the revision history, you'll see the second paragraph was there from the very beginning, not something I added later in some fit of back-pedalling... (((Zack Martin)))^™ 22:44, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Then it's very badly worded. And it ends by implying that if people believe it then it could be true - so it doesn't even properly let you back out of it, but sort of leaves the whole thing ambigious.

And when you say it's funny how people always focus on them I guess it depends on what you mean by "funny". It's certainly the funniest thing I've read so far about your religion but I live in the hope of finding some more jewels.

If by "funny" you mean "odd" that people should point out the absurdity then I disagree. Come on! Giant bats dropping rocks on people!! it's as weird as things get. Of course people are going to pick up on it.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 22:49, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

If the bat's not supposed to be real, are the prophets not real too? I've never heard of them in any history class I've taken. SoCal ^{But said it would be legal...} 22:54, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

No one is required to believe in the literal truth of Travancus or Claretta. I wrote something on this exact topic, actually, trying to find it. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 22:58, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Straight from the Harpa's mouth:

“”I think the point of the protoscripture is the message, rather than whether it literally happened or not. Maybe it literally happened, maybe it didn't. Here are some possibilities: It is some kind of "sacred fiction" or myth, not meant to be taken that literally (although, maybe the boundaries between fiction and non-fiction are not as clear as we think they are) It actually happened, in a parallel universe Rather than existing in just one universe, maybe I exist in multiple universes simultaneously. Maybe in some of those universes it happened, in others it didn't There are multiple, simultaneously existent pasts. Like branching timelines, but here the timelines branch backwards rather than forwards. In some of those timelines, the events happened as described; in others they did not There is a single past, and these events happened as described in them at some unspecified point in the past, but all historical and archaeological records have been lost There is a single past, and the events recorded happened roughly as described, at some unspecified time in the past, but the names and places recorded are not the actual names and places, but some kind of code Maratreans are free to believe any of the above. On this issue I actually suspend belief - I don't have the belief that it is literally true, but neither do I have the believe that it is not literally true.

Sourced from Essay_talk:How to Overcome Atheism/Archive1#Whence Maratreanism? (((Zack Martin)))^™ 23:02, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

(EC)No more absurd than Humpty Dumpty or Jack and the Beanstalk... and the comment And, if any believe in these tales with enough earnestness, they may even cease to be mere tales, but become thereby truth is a general principle of Maratreanism, which is in no way specific to this topic, that if we desire something deeply enough, then Maratrea will create a universe in which it is true. But could anyone desire the truth of the Terror Taba with sufficient earnestness for Maratrea to create a universe in which it is true? I doubt that, but I can't entirely rule it out either. On the other hand, things like "I wish my thirteen year old son had not been murdered", those kind of desires can be sufficiently earnest I have no doubt. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 22:55, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

So if people really really really believe in the giant fanged bat then it will come into existence? --Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 22:59, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

(EC) If they believe in it with sufficient earnestness, then yes, although maybe not in this universe, maybe in another one. But I doubt one can actually believe in that with the requisite earnestness. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 23:07, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

And how can we know for sure Maratrea will create this alternate universe??? SoCal ^{But said it would be legal...} 23:03, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

That we may know through faith. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 23:07, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm starting to think that Maratrean comes from an alternate universe.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 23:06, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Sigh. Bob, I do exist. How else could I be writing on this wiki? Flap, flap. Anybody got some misquitoes? Taba (talk) 00:20, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

We need to clearly distinguish the God Taba from the Terror Taba, they are not the same thing. (And I always saw Taba as megachiroptera not microchiroptera, figs not flies...) (((Zack Martin)))^™ 00:25, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Slurp, slurp. Flap, flap. Flap, flap. Oh noes, the Terror Taba approaches! Taba (talk) 01:20, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Seriously people?

I'm trying to think of a real life activity analogous to creating this article. I thought about "kicking over an asp nest," but that's too serious. I considered cow tipping, but that too harmless. But I'm settling on shooting the neighbor's dog with an airsoft gun to make him bark and annoy the whole neighborhood. Why don't we stop stirring trouble amongst ourselves? Are we trying to make more HCM?--User:Brxbrx/sig 23:32, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:NOTE is not a policy here, as I sometimes regret, but perhaps it could be moved to fun-space or essay-space. ListenerX^TalkerX 23:34, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

This article falls within our mission statements. What exactly is the problem? --Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 23:36, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Ir's as on-mission as any other fringe belief in supernatural beings, or fringe belief in woo, several cases of of which we deal with. B♭maj7 “We are moving too fast for any label to stick.”-CLRJ

when the loudest noise on this wiki, the most prolific creator of articles, and the guy who is pissing off more than any before, starts spouting his crazy made up religion then I fully endorse ripping it to shreds unless the casual observer considers that we are tolerant of such nonsense. Bob Soles (talk) 23:41, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

(EC) The problem is that the article is not being made to inform the public, but to pick on Maratrean, and will probably have the effect of raising the Maratrean cult's overall profile. ListenerX^TalkerX 23:42, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

From my viewpoint, I don't think the article is that bad. It's got some inaccuracies in it, but they've actually done a fairer job than I expected they would. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 23:44, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

From my viewpoint, the article should contain a picture of a large bucket of shit, but I've learned to accept you can't get everything you want in life. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 23:45, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

"The problem is that the article is not being made to inform the public, but to pick on Maratrean." You say that like it's a problem or something. B♭maj7 “We are moving too fast for any label to stick.”-CLRJ 23:50, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

My emphasis was on the "not to inform the public" part. ListenerX^TalkerX 23:55, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Then it's settled? RationalWiki is a troll site?--User:Brxbrx/sig 00:00, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Guy comes here to pimp his own made-up religion. Community of people who tend to not dig made-up religions pile on him, call him and his made-up religion out for being bullshit. Where's the trolling? B♭maj7 “We are moving too fast for any label to stick.”-CLRJ 00:05, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

People are pissed off at him. It'll calm down.--^talk 00:06, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

No, it won't. People don't appreciate having their community trolled by someone like Maratrean, and the community response is pretty clear: nobody wants him here. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 00:19, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

We have trolls on the Wiki — bad-faith shysters whose aim is division and destruction. Maratrean is not one of them. Now do we want to raise the profile of this one-man cult by giving it an article on a now somewhat prominent Wiki? ListenerX^TalkerX 00:29, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

How on earth is Maratrean a troll? He's one of the most civil people here. And he's done a lot, working on religion and philosophy articles. Nobody knows mythology like Maratrean. And honestly, in my time here I've yet to see him pimp his religion. Mormons might go door to door spreading the good news, but does Maratrean go from talk page to talk page talking about the eternal cycle (which sounds suspiciously similar to the Time Prophet from Lexx...)? People are focusing so much hate towards him and I don't understand why. "His religion is made up" is not a particularly good reason, BTW.--User:Brxbrx/sig 00:56, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Actual problems:

1. Literally all information is coming from the founder and sole proponent of the religion. If nothing has actually been written about it by anyone else, that is something that should be prominently highlighted in the article, because it is very important.
2. Maratrean's actual name, as he revealed here and on Ameriwikii, should probably be used. I understand the discomfort level associated with that, but after he lifted his own veil, I don't see a problem with it, and I don't expect serious objection to it.
3. Spending too much time mocking the more obviously crazy aspects of what he's created, like the animals, misses the overall point: this is one of a variety of "personal religions" that overcome all potential rhetorical attacks by "faith" - any objection is just magically not true. I actually think we should be making a personal religion article and folding this into it, but until we have one, I think the broader point is the important one.--^talk 23:51, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

This quote might also be useful, from Dawkins: "No doubt there exist thoughts so profound that most of us will not understand the language in which they are expressed. And no doubt there is also language designed to be unintelligible in order to conceal an absence of honest thought. But how are we to tell the difference? " (http://richarddawkins.net/articles/824)--^talk 23:54, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Bob Soles (talk) 23:55, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

AD, I read the linked to article by Richard Dawkins. It might surprise you, but I actually agree with many of his criticisms of postmodernism. That is why I am careful in my use of science, not to make the mistake of drawing non-scientific conclusions from scientific disciplines (such as physics) that don't actually follow. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 00:22, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

An article personal religion is a good idea, and there seems to be some literature on it. I suspect there is more folk religion info, local variations on established religions, rather than religions that people just made up. sterile^talk 23:38, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Within neo-paganism, such one-man cults are common and, to some degree, welcomed. I do not think much of them because they lack a reality check, thus making it very easy for them to spiral into craziness. ListenerX^TalkerX 23:55, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I prefer the term "designer religion", that makes it sound like it's a trendy fad thing which is not expected to last, it also allows the term to encompass religions which have only a few followers. Labeling something a "personal religion" would require reclassification once it had two practitioners. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 11:11, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd go along with that. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 12:37, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd say that an article on "personal religion" would be a good idea - but that would be in addition to this one.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 14:07, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I have to say though, having this page come up as top result for a search for "Maratreanism" on Google is exactly what RationalWiki is all about. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 05:34, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

What she said. Ace^ace 07:26, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Vegetarianism

Perhaps this religion would appeal to people who want to be vegetarians but love meat. The question would be "does a cow have a soul" and if it doesnt it is a vegetable (or maybe fruit) and therefore fine to eat. Does anyone know how a nicely cooked steak tastes with a vinegrette ? Hamster (talk) 05:25, 3 September 2011 (UTC) [ Hail Taba lord of the fruitbats]

As far as I can see cows are soulless - unless they can be redefined as horses, as the following group has souls:

• The equine tribe - tutelary deity, the holy lord Harpa - the horse who is a god, the god who is a horse, the divine equine. This tribe also incorporates donkeys, mules, zebras, camels.

This may actually be easier than it might appear as on the same page we find that bats are canines.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 06:54, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

There is a three-fold distinction: ensouled animals, soulless animals, plants. Plants includes oysters, mussels, etc. Ensouled animals include dog, cat, etc. Soulless animals include cattle, sheep, chicken, turkey, fish... My girlfriend and I have this ongoing dispute about whether pigs have souls. I say that eating an ensouled animal is wrong, but eating pigs is OK because they don't have souls. She insists that pigs have souls, but she doesn't agree with the principle that it is wrong to eat ensouled animals. She loves pork more than me, and would find it harder to give up than I would; but Little Miss Piggy from the Muppets, therefore pigs have souls, so her logic seems to go. However, we are both agreed that cattle don't have souls, but that dogs do. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 08:21, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Is your girlfriend the "High Priestess"? ListenerX^TalkerX 18:07, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't your religion let you choose to believe whichever one you want? Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 19:26, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, its official , hamburger, steaks and roast beefs are vegetables (or fruit) and therefore acceptable to a vegetarian life style . Hamster (talk) 20:01, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

LX - I offered her the position, but she has not yet accepted. Actually, the position is on the verge of abolition for the time being.

Tetronian - No, on the contrary, my religion claims that whether animal X has a soul or not is an objectively true fact, independent in itself of our beliefs/wishes. And as for all objectively true facts, our knowledge of them may be imperfect, and we may be mistaken about them. On the other hand, if someone really really really wants animal X to have a soul, that may be sufficient to ensoul it.

Hamster - None of those are vegetables. They are meat of unensouled animals, not plants. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 22:44, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

para os mexillóns son plantas por que? puxar este material para fóra de un sombreiro? Hamster (talk) 22:53, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Mussels seem like plants, they do not really seem like animals. They have some faculties of sensation and movement, but to a human being these faculties seem quite similar to those of plants in their powers. From a scientific perspective, they may get lumped with plants; but scientific taxonomy, and Maratrean taxonomy, are motivated by very different factors. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 23:10, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

How do you know which animals have souls? Is there any objective test which shows that a bat has a soul and an oyster doesn't?--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 18:35, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Recall that Maratrean is an idealist. He thinks everything he observes is just "qualia" in his own mind. I would like to see how he wangles any sort of "objective test" of "soulfulness" out of that. ListenerX^TalkerX 18:40, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

The primary test for ensoulment, is whether anyone truly desires them to be ensouled. Let us suppose in the beginning, only one human being has a soul (solipsism), but Maratrea does also. Maratrea tells them — you alone have a soul, everyone else is just a zombie. They say, That's horrible. She says, I'll hand out souls, if you wish — but to whom? They reply, To friends, family, lovers, and thus some more become ensouled. And she asks them also, and through them yet further are ensouled. And all she ensouls, she asks. And this web of ensoulment extends even to animals, but not all animals. I would wish my pet dog has a soul, hence it has; and if someone really loves dogs, they might wish the same for all dogs. But does anyone really love oysters? Read the beginning of section 30 "Of animals", CTCV 69-70. We don't claim to know for certain, for every animal, whether it be ensouled or not. I know my pet dog be ensouled; I know an oyster be not; but some other animals I am not so sure. Part of the function of "sacred animal tribes", is that if animal X is ensouled, and animal Y is "like" animal X, then we will considered Y ensouled too. "Like" here is not a matter of objective scientific taxonomy, but a subjective test of the human mind and heart, since it is the human mind and heart, and not scientific taxonomy, that determines ensoulment. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 21:53, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

In other words, when it comes to souls, cogito ergo sunt.

Also, your prophet or whoever really needs to learn the difference between the indicative and subjunctive moods. As Blackadder put it: "'Yes, it is', not 'That it be'." ListenerX^TalkerX 22:26, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Cogito ergo sunt... I like. As to grammar, there are quite a few grammar and spelling errors in that document, but I have no intention to edit it further for the time being. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 22:38, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

If I understand you correctly - at some time in the past somebody had a pet bat and asked the Goddess for a soul for the and all bats had souls from there on. But nobody ever had a pet oyster and asked for it to have a soul so oysters have no souls. This leads me to further questions:

1. A repeat of my first question - how could we test the truth of this belief?
2. If I were to ask for a soul for my pet oyster - and for all oysters - would all oysters then have souls in perpetuity?
3. How would you, as the prophet, become aware of the change in the status of oysters?--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 07:12, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Me, I suspect that if this particular theory of ensoulment were true, certain members of PETA would ensure the ensoulment of every organism in the animal kingdom, even oysters, alias "sea-kittens." ListenerX^TalkerX 00:05, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

How can we test the truth of its belief? Well, it can be verified as follows: Maratreanism predicts that at the end of time, all souls will merge into one, with perfect memory, including those of the ensouled animals. So, if you suddenly found yourself merging with billions of billions of other souls, and suddenly found that you remembered being every human that ever lived, every dog that ever lived, every cat that ever lived, etc., but not ever being an oyster... and then your memory grew such that you could perfectly remember the future and the present... thus demonstrating that nothing exists outside your own being, and that the entirety of reality is now contained within yourself... would that not function as a verification, as a positive test, of the belief that oysters lack souls?

If you ask for the ensoulment of oysters — the question is, could you, as a matter of human psychology, love an oyster in the same way that you might love say a cat or a dog? If you could, I would have to say that your love would be sufficient to ensoul even oysters, but I very much doubt that you could.

As (proto)prophet, if I detected a strong enough, and deep enough, movement for the love of oysters, I would have to reconsider my position that they are essentially plants. However, I very much doubt that would ever come to pass.

As to ListenerX's question, the issue is really, they may think that they can love a "sea kitten" as much as a kitten, but can they really? It is not enough for ensoulment that they think they do; it is necessary that they actually do. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 10:09, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

We might be playing semantics here - but I have no doubt that anyone could love an oyster. Whether or not anyone does love an oyster is a different question. People love cars, homes, trees even dolls (woo); surely they could love an oyster. Tielec01 (talk) 10:14, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

(EC)You're just making this stuff up as you go along. --Damo^Hi 10:15, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Could a person really love an oyster, in the way they could love a dog or a cat? You have no doubt that they could, but I do. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 10:18, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Checkmate Tielec01 (talk) 10:31, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Nah... they might think they could love an oyster as much as a dog or a cat... but could they actually? (((Zack Martin)))^™ 10:36, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

If this were a serious conversation we would have to start asking this question . Suffice to say that you could simply say that people only ever think that they are love with anything but they never actually are. Incidentally I agree with you for -what I think- are different reasons. Tielec01 (talk) 10:46, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

So somebody once loved a bat but it's impossible to love an oyster?--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 11:22, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Sometimes we have to have faith that love is. "Yet each man kills the thing he loves", as Wilde said — but do we love them not even though we kill them? I have faith that love is, that love is even in terror and madness, even if I cannot say precisely what love is.

Let us look at dogs. They are by nature social animals. So they naturally form mutual social and emotional bonds with human beings. Dogs actually have a surprisingly good understanding of human psychology; they know how to read humans and signal them, even when the signals humans give off and best respond to are somewhat different from those dogs instinctively have. By comparison to oysters? They have no such faculties. Being a social animal is a major part of ensoulment. Now, you ask about bats specifically, and maybe we should just allow bats to be my own peculiar fascination, and not worry too much about them if you do not feel the same way... although I should note, they are very social animals. The principle is what counts, more than arguing over specific applications of it. Ants, bees, termites, also are "social" animals, but their sociality is very different from mammalian sociality - to my knowledge, ants' relationships with one another are not based on identifying each other as individuals, just on whether they are fellow members of another collective or not. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 11:45, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

So somebody once loved a bat and now all bats have souls?--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 12:06, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Random comment. You argue that ensouled animals are willed souls by those who have souls. Your girlfriend has a soul, and wants pigs to be ensouled, so by your own argument, they are ensouled. Stop eating that pork! --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 09:21, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

There is wanting, and then there is wanting. Maybe she wants, but does she want sufficiently? If she does, then Maratrea will grant her what she wants; I cannot say. I would not say it is impossible that pigs have souls; but I doubt it. I suggested to her I would be willing to give up bacon if she would, but she loves it more than I do. Sometimes I think, well, Jews and Muslims have the pig as a sacred animal — and yet to them, it is the very opposite of sacred. But maybe somewhere there is a Jew or Muslim who has thought that what is prohibited to eat must in some sense be set apart as holy? Much as many Hindus refuse to eat beef on account of the purported holiness of the cow (cows as holy? that I could never understand.) Most likely, the answer is No; but nonetheless I wonder. Zack Martin  09:49, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I see, the convenient "she must not want it enough" dodge. Some think it's a little cliché, but the people who still use it really think it's a crowd pleaser... overall, I think this has been a disappointed mental gymnastic competition, and I think this candidate is unlikely to get on the podium... --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 19:31, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

This whole discussion reminds me of The Walrus and the Carpenter. Sophie^Wilder 09:52, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Maratrean cosmology

I haven't read the protoscriptures, but I am a bit confused on one point. On one hand the world is supposed to be 10,000 years old or so. On the other, we're supposed to have eternal return and circular time. What's the deal? Have things not repeated yet, and the universe really is just 10,000 years old? Are we 10,000 years into the current cycle (and what would that mean -- what's the starting point)? I read here that the protoprophet believes some version of the Omphalos hypothesis, but I don't know precisely how this ties into the belief in circular time. Can some scholar on Maratrean belief help me out here? (I'm looking at you, Maratrean) --Benod (talk) 23:58, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

The universe is somewhere between 10,000 and 10 million years old (maybe even 100 million, but certainly less than a billion). Given that there may be multiple simultaneous pasts, it may not have one single age, it may have multiple, but I believe they'd all be within that order of magnitude. How much time do we have left? Well, at least a few centuries, at the upper end again I'd say around 10 million years. So we have up to 10 million years before us, and up to 10 million years ahead of us, and we are somewhere in the middle, but who can say exactly where. Which would suggest the total circumference of the time-circle is maybe around 10-20 million years. However, since universes divide and merge, there is not one single circumference, but many circumferences, some longer, others shorter. Maybe the shortest circumference is only 10-20 myriad years; maybe the longest is up to 200-300 million... Maybe rather than asking its circumference, a better question might be to ask its average circumference... Anyway, the temporal circumference of the multiverse is an interesting topic, on which I would be interested to hear your thoughts... (((Zack Martin)))^™ 09:59, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Delete

This article was created in bad faith in an attempt to make fun of Maratrean. If we want to make an article on personal religion (as per sterile's suggestion above), then we could include a subsection on Maratreanism. Otherwise, this is obscure enough and ignored enough so that no article is warranted.--User:Brxbrx/sig 00:26, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Delete

1. --User:Brxbrx/sig 00:26, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
2. --If this wiki had a notability requirement, this article would be pralines and dick. Sprocket J Cogswell 01:25, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
3. --Delete this fucking mind numbingly tedious bullshit. MtD^{Pinko Scum} 01:38, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
4. --Never heard of it. I've also studied PHP and haven't used it since (thus also making me an ex-PHP programmer); should I make up a religion and give it a RationalWiki article? I think not. --GastonRabbit (talk) 01:42, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Keep

1. --Damo^Hi 00:29, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
2. --B♭maj7 "If two men say they're Jesus, one of them must be wrong." 00:44, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
3. -- Ace^ace 01:25, 12 September 2011 (UTC) (I am thinking brxbrx thinks he is at wikipedia or some other site the promotes NPOV)
4. Tmtoulouse (talk) 01:36, 12 September 2011 (UTC) Since when is notability a requirement on RW?
5. --MarkGall (talk) 01:45, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
6. --Benod (talk) 02:19, 12 September 2011 (UTC) I suggest all discussions involving Maratreanism anywhere on the wiki be moved to this talk page.
7. Can we keep the article and delete Maratrean? 03:09, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
8. --Suaretta, She Who Returns (talk) 03:15, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
9. --Suarenna, She Who Remains (talk) 03:16, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
10. --Suade, She Who Divides (talk) 03:17, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
11. --Hamster (talk) 04:04, 12 September 2011 (UTC) we just can't ditch this much entertainment eek, I hear flapping, oh noes Terror Taba comes with a rock, run away...
12. --Röstigraben (talk) 05:32, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
13. --Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 06:02, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
14. Making fun of bullshit peddlers like Maratrean is exactly what this wiki is about. -- Nx / talk 08:15, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
15. Blue (is useful) 08:27, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
16. This fits exactly within the mission statement. --★uːʤɱ secularist 08:40, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
17. Travancus (talk) 08:56, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Goat

1. On the one hand, there is nothing wrong with this article considered by itself, and we should not let our judgment be swayed by the fact that the religion's proto-prophet is an editor here. On the other hand, the article does tend to raise the profile of his religion. ListenerX^TalkerX 01:20, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
2. I EAT GOATS. TERROR TABA 01:29, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
3. -- Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 02:17, 12 September 2011 (UTC) Had this article existed a year ago, I could've learned what Maratrean's actual justifications for his religion were, and I wouldn't have wasted so much hypertext arguing with him. Though this is a good argument in favor of keeping it (others can get a succinct summary of Maratreanism and decide what they think of it rather than having to go through the actual scriptures), I don't actually care either way.

Delete tag

Should be removed. We have articles on all sorts of weird and whacky stuff. If anything is inaccurate then it can be altered but we shouldn't deviate from our mission just because it makes someone feel bad. If Maratrean doesn't want to be mocked he shouldn't go around preaching this nonsense. If a practitioner of homeopathy became an editor we wouldn't delete our article on homeopathy just to make them feel better. Why are you seeking to prevent any criticism of Maratrean Brbx? --Damo^Hi 00:28, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

because I adhere to this great faith Because if you want to criticize Maratrean, you don't need a mainspace article to do it. Because homeopathy is much greater than Maratreanism, and because this article was not made to criticize but to troll. Also, this could very well have gone into the section above.--User:Brxbrx/sig 00:32, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

We have articles on numerous whack-jobs, are we to take them all down if one of them showed up here? Shall we take Ed Poor's down also? How about the article on Ken? Ace^ace 00:35, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Touching display of concern from an artless troll. Can you tell when you're displaying comedic levels of insincerity or is it a subconscious phenomenon? 00:37, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

This is exactly on mission as we are seeing the attempted creation of a religion before our very eyes. If that isn't on mission I don't know what is? It's not an attack on Maratrean. If he is going to put all sorts of info about his religion on his talkpage and attempt to proseletyze this nonsense over various wikis then pointing out how ridiculous it is is very much something we should do.Damo^Hi 00:47, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

The mission does not say RW has to host publicity (any publicity, even if it is cast as ridicule) for any randomly concocted religion. There is a difference between a charismatic con-man like LRon and a recovering Catholic indulging in pathetic transient fantasy therapy. I do not smell a developing cult here, but I've been wrong about lots of things before. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 02:20, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

do I need to point out that the great prophet Travancus is dead , that the High preistess Claretta (?) and several of the Matrean dieties are members here that obviously the proto-prophet is onto something very real. What this article needs is a physics analysis of a 7 cubit tall bat with a 7 cubit wingspan for aerodynamic ability and load carrying capacity. Hamster (talk) 04:01, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

About as on-mission as any article we have.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 08:36, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

@Hamster, while you are at it, give me a physics analysis of Jack and the Beanstalk... remembering that the Terror Taba and Terror Trinca are tales told for the amusement of children... (((Zack Martin)))^™ 09:52, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Maratrean, I believe a psychological analysis of your entire pantheon would be less enlightening than a deconstruction of a small handful, chosen by chance, of the tales of Oglaf. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 11:42, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Me - Terror Trinka

This article needs more of ME. The kitty terror who when called forth in the end days will leap upon the foes, while carrying many people on my back, growling and rending them with my cubit long fangs. My pelt shall be glistening and a tawny brown color, my fangs as pure white as Pepsodent can get them. Gaze into my golden kitty eyes and grovel at my fearsomeness, grrrrowwlllll. ps the Bat is overrated grrwwllll. Terror Trinka (talk) 03:50, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Hey Trinka. To be honest you are a pretty minor god really. There could be a bit more of me however. What do you think of our plan to change the protoprophet? Zarancy isn't really working out his he? --Holy Lord Bacu (talk) 03:59, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

perhaps the two of you and Claretta could come up with Matrean baraminology ? Hamster (talk) 04:07, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

There is really only 3 divisions, souled animals like bats, unsouled animals like pigs, and plants like mussels. --Holy Lord Bacu (talk) 04:11, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

there have been a few rough patches recently but he is after all a proto-prophet so cut him some slack. We dont want a repeat of Travancus do we? Are hamsters plants ? I feel a bit hungry and could use a snack. meow meow. Terror Trinka (talk) 04:37, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

As I recall from the Great Council, hamsters are proto-souled animals, meaning in the future when they develop the power of speech and the ability to use tools they will no longer be edible for humans. Right now they are ok to eat. Holy Lord Bacu (talk) 04:47, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Is it me, or do these names sound like they're lifted from some early '90s Final Fantasy/JRPG-esque game? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 06:05, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, they might have that sort of feel. On another point - is this the first religion which absolutely literally deserves the description "batty"?--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 08:39, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

THE CAT IS LOOKING TASTY. THE FUR GETS CAUGHT IN MY 7 CUBIT FANGS, BUT IT MAY BE WORTH THE SACRIFICE. TERROR TABA 11:51, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Is there a

this article is of no importance to the wiki? sterile^talk 01:28, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

In principle, but it would generate an ugly red link. ^moral 01:29, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Very good. sterile^talk 01:42, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Greatest Poe of all time?

No, seriously. Osaka Sun (talk) 04:26, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Couldn't be. Exhibit A --Damo^Hi 04:30, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

How many of these does he have? Osaka Sun (talk) 04:47, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Well that appears to be the main one. Although if you want to read the most pretentious, almost awe-inspiring balderdash imaginable I suggest you check out the Letters to the Thirteen Dioceses. In fact, I challenge you to read it and tell me what it means. 1 million internets to the person who can translate it into English. --Damo^Hi 05:04, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Nope. He's a bona fide froot loop. Check out his talkpage. --MtD^{Pinko Scum} 05:06, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

@Damo, if that document doesn't make much sense, I'd suggest comparing it to Revelation 2-3. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 05:42, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I am not so ignorant of the bible that I was unaware of the attempted parallels between it and Revelation. Are you saying that you wrote it to be deliberately ambiguous? If so, why? Why not just come out and give your message in every day, unambiguous language. Who knows, if you try that approach, you might even double the number of adherents your religion has. Damo^Hi 05:48, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I do that too. I do what she tells me to do. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 05:51, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Lets just hope she doesn't tell you to start burning things, or to starting shooting at people. Damo^Hi 05:56, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

@MadZac Well, if nothing else, it's nice to see that you and the voices in your head are working as a team. --MtD^{Pinko Scum} 05:56, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe she would ever tell me to do such things. Such things do not advance her Cause. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 05:58, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

@MadZac Well alright. I hope so too. But if she did, would you carry out her instructions? Damo^Hi 06:00, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

That's the thing Zac, a vengeful goddess can make a man do all manner of things. Even burn shit. Which is why I ticked "ghey" on the application form and Abraham just did away with women all together. --MtD^{Pinko Scum} 06:02, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't burn things or shoot people. Period. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 06:03, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

That's only because you've not been able to lay your hands on a goodly cache. There's still time. Don't believe all that Underbelly palaver. Guns are much easier to come by in Sydney. :) --MtD^{Pinko Scum} 06:10, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

If I really wanted a gun, legally or illegally, I'm sure I could get my hands on one without too much bother... but the thing is, I don't have much interest in guns. I generally don't like the things. I'm not fond of killing or injuring, whether it be people or animals. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 06:12, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Maratreanism after Maratrean

So, now that Maratrean has waddled off to be the next Mark Zuckerberg or Jesus or whatever, do we really need to keep this drivel flapping about in mainspace? I think a mention in the list of internet kooks is all that's really warranted at RW. This article could be moved on to RWW as it's really just about a (former) RW editor & his beliefs rather than any recognisable movement that exists out in the real world. Ŵêâŝêîôîď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:41, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

He's pretty persistent, so he'll likely be back here or somewhere else around the intertubes. Also, this is a fun case study of a startup religion, kinda like Scientology a few decades ago. I think it could use some improvement, like taking out a lot of the details of his theology (or whatever he wants to call it), but the article itself I like having around. Cow...Hammer^time! 20:57, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I think it is handy to keep as a piece on startup religions and how someone can make up, and believe, whatever nonsense pops into their head. Ace^Moderator 21:01, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Keep, because Felidae. You'd risk bringing him back to fight his corner. Rennie McGreet (talk) 21:33, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

So long as this remains here i shall leave my created religion in my userspace, as a form of protest!--il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 21:35, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

We have some much minutia that as long as server space isn't an issue, keep it! sterile^talk 22:39, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

We have articles on all sorts of obscure crap most people have ever heard of. And this is frigging hilarious, and the talkpage is one of the funniest I've seen. Keep. Copperhead^Hisssssss 00:16, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete this worthless piece of shit. Funspace, userspace, toiletspace, wherever. RWW is actually the perfect place for it. - David Gerard (talk) 20:03, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

While my brain agrees with DG on this, I'm kinda attracted to Ace's suggestion above of turning it into a case study of how easy it is to generate your own religion. ^gnostic 20:05, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Fuck it. Delete. This is not so much an example of how to start a religion as a study in applied dickheadery. --MtD^{Pinko Scum} 20:45, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Our purpose for existence includes: Analyzing and refuting pseudoscience and the anti-science movement. and "Documenting the full range of crank ideas."

Unlike many of our fine articles on science fiction authors, musicians, European countries and American states this article happens to fall within our mission statements. It does not exist because the crank happened to drop in here - it exists because it's a great example of a crank. I oppose its deletion or movement out of mainspace.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 21:17, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

We could do a side-by-side: "here, a minor character from existing myths is used as the basis for an entire pantheon..." Peter ^{horas non numero nisi serenas} 21:20, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

As usual, Bob is right on the money here. This article is exactly on mission. The attempted start up of a religion, and this religion in particular fits squarely within the first 3 of our 4 mission statements. There is no 'notability' test for an RW article. Please leave it where it is. Damo^Hi 21:24, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't analyse or refute anything; it's just a series of trivia about one guy's made-up mythology. And there are notability concerns. We shouldn't write about Maratreanism & Scientology as if they're equally significant, when one clearly has a lot of influence over a lot of people & the other is completely inconsequential & has zero chance of influencing anybody. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:40, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I stand by what I said above, and I would also add that whenever mara goes spewing this stuff all ove the web it is handy to have a resource for people to look at to see what the hell it is all about. You won't get that at Mara's sites, here is a petty good place for it. Damo^Hi 05:52, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Bob, you worked hard on it and it's a well-composed article. But it's still utterly, utterly worthless as a topic. Essay space or user space then, surely - David Gerard (talk) 08:43, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I would suggest that we read this talk page. This article has (at least) twice before survived deletion requests. It has survived them as it is as clearly on-mission as any article we have. It won the last vote by at least 13 to 4 - (if we ignore what look like socks which make the vote 17 to 4). Do we really need to keep having the same argument?--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 20:44, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I nominate we be more like wikipedia; come back in a month and have somebody bitch and moan--il'Dictator Mikal 21:10, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Keep this please , I needs a home !!! *mreowww* thnaks Terror Trinka (talk) 22:34, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, although I am very busy, I still drop by to have a look here now and then, although up to now have resisted the urge to say anything. What I will say, is I am of two minds about deleting this. On the one hand, part of me thinks "any publicity is good publicity". On the other hand, I think this page is overly critical and a distortion of reality. So, in conclusion, I suppose, do whatever you feel like. Indeed, whatever you end up doing, is precisely what Maratrea wants you to do — you shall, as always, perfectly obey her every command. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 01:13, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Of course we will. To believe otherwise would be a distortion of reality. Tell Bacu I said hi. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 01:16, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I was going to say we should move this to Fun-space or Essay-space, but then I saw this and now I think it should stay in Main-space. Reverse psychology working its miracles again. An American Fallacy ^{(super crazy fun time!)} 23:45, 19 March 2012 (UTC)