Information icon.svg The election booth for the RationalWiki 2019 Moderator Election is now open. Cast your votes today!

User talk:Agnostic0000

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
New logo large.png Welcome to RationalWiki, Agnostic0000!

Please see our guide for newcomers and our community standards.

Tell us how you found RationalWiki here!

If you are interested in contributing:

-💠💿☝️ (talk) 02:21, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Autopatrolled[edit]

Because of your edits to and time on the wiki, Autopatrolled has been added to your user rights. This lets you bypass most of the abuse filters, bypass the CAPTCHA, and edit more frequently. If you have questions, bleat ask away.

We hope you enjoy your newfound ᴘᴏᴡᴇʀ — and these external tools:

  • Rbutr shows user-submitted rebuttals to your current webpage.
  • Google Scholar Button (Chrome, Firefox) searches your highlighted text in Google Scholar. Easily check academic citations!
  • web.archive.org and archive.is can save permanent copies of webpages. Never lose a crank website or racist Tweet ever again! Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 02:54, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. (Agnostic0000 (talk) 02:57, 15 August 2016 (UTC))

Axioms and agnosticism[edit]

I tend to find that the difference between agnostic atheists (I don't think there is a god) and agnostics proper (I don't knowif there is a god) is hinges on acceptance of Occam's Razor. They both start from "there is no evidence for a god" -- the only question is whether they then say "and so it is unreasonable to believe in one" (accepts OR) OR "and so we don't know if it reasonable to believe in one" (denying OR). Thoughts? FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 17:01, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Greetings Fuzzy. I hope you don't mind my asking how does one know whether or not Occam's Rasor is a true principle? (Agnostic0000 (talk) 17:12, 15 August 2016 (UTC))

Please slow down[edit]

Hello Agnostic0000! I'd just like to say I'm a little concerned looking at the majority of your past edits - they haven't been all that great so far. I'd much appreciate if you'd put some extra thought into your next few edits, instead of riddling already written articles with various insertions stuck between parenthesis. Also, please, no more obscure television show references in the article text. How about maybe adding sources or the likes, instead of focusing on humor? I would be great if you could slow it down a bit here, and maybe focus on making more qualitative edits. Thank you in advance. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 19:02, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Greetings Rev, feel free to erase whatever you don't like. Best wishes. (Agnostic0000 (talk) 19:10, 15 August 2016 (UTC))
Thank you; I did! Now, before you add more at the same pace I can revert (heh)... I hope you take the time to maybe figure out some edit that requires a bit more calculation; maybe one that adds sources or the likes — we could use your help. Just think about the above and we should be fine. Oh, and feel free to ask if you wonder anything. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 19:13, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
Well Rev, after what appears to me to be a ham-handed unjust wholesale reversion of what I deemed to be quality edits, in no way contrary to any rule here, consistent with the guideline of injecting humor into articles -- even correct punctuation correction was reverted (for crying outloud), I do not feel like continuing to participate at this time in what appears to me to be an exercise in Cyberbullying. Is this not like a beach bully who kicks over sand castles? Goodbye for the moment. (Agnostic0000 (talk) 16:47, 16 August 2016 (UTC))