User talk:Proxima Centauri/Archive4

This is an archive page, last updated 27 June 2016. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<2>, <1>, <3>, <5>

, (new)(back)

Barnstar

		Barnstar
		For your tireless contributions to RationalWiki, I award you this barnstar.

Thanks. Proxima Centauri 14:17, 1 January 2009 (EST)

Step 2

Step 1: Discover Secret Christians, such as Godot Step 2: Take that christian to the chicken coop and get her kicked out!

Come on Prox, save us from the secret christian underminers. --il'Dictator Mikal 01:23, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

RatWiki is crawling with groups of secret enemies out to undermine us! Proxima Centauri (talk) 01:27, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, totally. Тyrannis^Plead 01:30, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Which us, is us (there is no cabal).--GodotWhen I graduated, Cognative Science of Religion didn't even exist! now it's everywhere 01:53, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Well Godot you don't want to teach children more about atheism than that some people don't believe religion/Christianity and most kids know that by the age of ten. Despite that you were extremely concerned when I wrote stuff that pointed out the bad side of Christianity more than you liked. You feared young readers would get the wrong impression. I would like to know why you are inconsistent.

1. If an atheist writes material that emphasises the bad side of Christianity that must be corrected so youngsters don’t get the wrong idea.
2. We all know kids often get a bad impression about atheism from parents, priests, pastors, Sunday school teachers, various religious people at churches, mosques, other places of worship. Still there is no need for weekday schools to put this false impression right. Schoolchildren need to learn no more than that atheism exists. Proxima Centauri (talk) 14:08, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Truly, "wow". Did you remember to take the blue pill, when offered the two? GodotWhen I graduated, Cognative Science of Religion didn't even exist! now it's everywhere 15:04, 2 June 2012 (UTC) Comment edited by Proxima Centauri (talk) 15:27, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

That's equivalent to Test yourself and doesn't adress the arguments. Proxima Centauri (talk) 15:36, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

You made no arguments. You barely assembled something resembling English sentences. And why did you edit WfG's comment? You know that's not kosher, right? ħuman 02:08, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I made it clear that I edited the comment, when it was reversed I left it at that. Proxima Centauri (talk) 08:26, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Teaching atheism

Totally serious question. What do you think you can "teach" about atheism? There are no shared ideals. Athesists come in the form of murderes and "best people in the world", and everywhere in between. Atheists are racist and humanist. Atheists are cat lovers, dog lovers and money lovers. Atheists think abortion is good, and abortion is evil. Athiests think we should be capitalists, communists, and money hungry greedy bastards. The bible teaches specific things. "don't sleep with men" "beat up your women" "turn on loaf of bread into many", etc. Christianity has a shared, specific, and generally agreed upon history. "came from judeasim. Jesus born in our around the "0"s. Paul bastardized the religion. Augistine fucked it up beyond belife. The greeks left. The protestants left. etc. "Atheism" has none of that. You can, I suppose, teach various "arguments for / against God (god)", but that's philosophy and pretty deep for average highschool students. So what are you proposing we teach?^{— Unsigned, by: WaitingforGodot / talk / contribs}

I shall have to find that BBC documentary as part of the curriculum on it. It discussed the problem of evil, design, and a few other arguments. Although that is higher level than the primary school kids you're probably thinking about when saying this. ^bomination 15:15, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

1. They are teaching stuff like how to be moral as an atheist and that is more important than just saying that some people don't believe it.
2. They are teaching what terms like atheist and agnostic mean and that is more valuable than saying that some people don't believe it.
3. They are teaching school students how to evaluate arguments and that is more valuable than saying that some people don't believe it.
   RE studies 'should cover atheism'. Proxima Centauri (talk) 15:25, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

1) being moral as an atheist isn't really atheism. especially since not all atheists are moral, and what the fuck does moral even mean? 2) they already were teaching terms like atheist and agnostic. 3) knowing how to evaulate arguments (something you really need to learn, by the way) has nothing to do with atheism or agnosticism. It's about logic, science, and rational thinking. Having taught religious studies at University for nearly 10 years, I just don't see what you can get out of this, in any "history of religion" class, since atheism is a philosophy, a view about other people, and not something tangible. GodotWhen I graduated, Cognative Science of Religion didn't even exist! now it's everywhere 04:00, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

It looks like I need to refer Godot to RE studies 'should cover atheism' again. I'm sure the UK government consulted experts who know far more than Godot does as an academic teaching university students. Further I've read the Argument from authority article and we should accept the authority of impartial experts. Godot has some nebulous agenda. Part of that agenda is insulting leading atheists like Richard Dawkins and Stephen Pinker, calling them jerks. that's hardly impartial language. Just because Godot said something doesn't mean we have to accept it. Proxima Centauri (talk) 10:25, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Godot is right, "being moral as an atheist isn't really atheism." In the UK it's taught separately, see 'Right and wrong' lessons to end. When I researched this I was concerned to see they were considering ending that subject. At the age of 15 I finally decided I didn’t believe in God anymore, I also had to struggle over a secular moral system on my own and was far too young. Proxima Centauri (talk) 17:12, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Try the history of atheism. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 04:13, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

The Soviets used to have classes about "scientific atheism." ListenerX^TalkerX 04:16, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

With regard to this discussion and the same one elsewhere I don't think everybody is talking about the same things. "Teaching atheism" can be construed to mean "Teaching people to be athiests" or "Teaching people about atheism".

I guess that you could theoretically do both these things though I would imagine you would have a lot more to say about the second than the first. I mean, how much would you say if your task was "Teaching people fairies don't exist?" Where schools are "teaching atheism" it seems to me that it is inevitably in the second sense.

There is a second problem which is the confusion of the word "atheist" with the concepts rationalist, skeptic, secular humanist and such like. Many of the people on this site are athiests because they accept rationalism, skepticism and secular humanism. They are athiests because they hold to these ideas - not the other way around. But it is then easy to assume that all atheists share these ideas and confuse the teaching of rationalism, skepticism and secular humanism with the idea of teaching "Atheism".--Bob^{"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."} 10:03, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree teaching atheism is teaching about atheism. I think children should be taught objectively about atheism, and about other atheist related concepts like rationalism, skepticism and secular humanism. Lies by Christians and probably by other believers such as that atheists haven't got a good moral code need to be countered. The different moral traditions that are common among atheists, agnostics, secular humanists etc can be taught at a simple or complex level depending on the age and intelligence of the pupils. I’ve unearthed a video that would appeal to younger high school students as well as adults and teaches religion isn’t needed for morality:-

• Morality Without God
  

Certainly for school use the video would need to be politer and less polemic but the concept can clearly be taught.

• Help and general support for atheist students attending religious studies courses in secondary schools in the United Kingdom This site has been round since 1999 and works.

Proxima Centauri (talk) 10:16, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

"...life is not absurd..." These people need to read their Camus. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 15:32, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

What about atheist-related concepts like Objectivism? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 17:23, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Objectivism! AAAAhhhh! There are far fewer objectivists than secular humanists around. Objectivists and Randroids generally infest primarily the USA. I hope there won't be time for that selfish, anarchic system in the National School Curriculum. Objectivism is a suitable optional subject at college and university level. Proxima Centauri (talk) 17:28, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I think all the non-completely-obscure 'atheist philosophies' should be included. Nihilist 17:29, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

If objectivism and other obscure philosophies are included they should get relatively little time as there isn't time at school to teach everything. The case against objectivism, Marxism and other controversial philosophies should be given weight. Proxima Centauri (talk) 17:32, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

"The case against"

That sounds a bit one-sided. Nihilist 17:45, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Throwing Marxism and Objectivism in the same bin is sheer silliness. I'm not a terribly big fan of Marxism, especially in its vulgar formulations, but at least you don't have to deny much of 20th century physics, psychology, and environmental science to be a Marxist. (Denying bourgeois pseudosciences like genetics is always an option, though.) Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 17:53, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Not to mention Darwinian evolution and most of economics. ListenerX^TalkerX 18:27, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Economics really isn't a hard science. There is a shed load of difference between throwing quantum mechanics in the bin and throwing Ludwig von Mises in the bin. Plus, explain how Marxism is incompatible with Darwin. -- 19:10, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

ListenerX probably means Lysenkoism and the opposition to evolutionary theory in the USSR and its satellites.

Anyway, the whole thing reminds me for the umpteenth time to go to the library and look for "scientific atheism" textbooks, if they haven't pulped them yet.--ZooGuard (talk) 19:18, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Reds are big on the tabula rasa theory and have difficulty admitting to hereditary causes for anything. With the Soviets this manifested itself in Lysenkoism.

There is a shed load of difference between... There is also a "shed load of difference" between chucking out the work of Ludwig von Mises and chucking out the consensus that supports capitalism. ListenerX^TalkerX 20:09, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Other than the fact that Marx himself wrote positively on the Origin of Species. Furthermore, this is pretty much an association fallacy. Because Lysenkoist wingnuttery was dreamed up a Marxist doesn't mean that Marxism relies on said wingnuttery, no more than Capitalism relies on intelligent design or global warming denialism. Finally, Marxism was already a well developed philopshy long before Lysenko's deranged scribbling. -- 22:45, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

If you examine why Marx approved of The Origin of Species, you will find that he did so not on account of its differences with the Lamarckian variant of evolution theory, but on account of a commonality between the two: that they both demolished the teleological argument.

Because Lysenkoist wingnuttery was dreamed up a Marxist doesn't mean that Marxism relies on said wingnuttery... What I actually said was that said wingnuttery was drawn from certain aspects of Marxism. ListenerX^TalkerX 23:11, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

What a hilarious discussion... and to think I almost missed this. These things are not at all the same, and it's incredibly dishonest to act like they are. Whereas Ayn Rand ignored anything that was inconvenient to her worldview, Marx built upon and rationally critiqued the prevailing theories in every field he touched. This is why Marx is a significant force in the study of philosophy, economics, history, etc., while Rand is just another crackpot author.

And honestly, this Lysenko nonsense does nothing to aid argument. These are typical red-baiting attacks. Q0 (talk) 19:33, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

These things are not at all the same, and it's incredibly dishonest to act like they are. Quite so. I do not recall that Objectivism has a hundred million corpses to its name.

Whereas Ayn Rand ignored anything... That would be because Marx, working out of a framework of idealism as he was, merely had to keep yanking his material from where the sun don't shine.

This is why Marx is a significant force in the study of philosophy, economics, history, etc., while Rand is just another crackpot author. That has significantly less to do with the strength of his ideas than with the strength of the Soviet Union. ListenerX^TalkerX 04:43, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

It's good to see you're just trolling at this point. Q0 (talk) 05:03, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

To which of my claims do you take exception? ListenerX^TalkerX 05:15, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I think schools should teach that belief in God is a form of mental illness. People who believe in God should not be allowed any contact with children. If we took all the believers' kids away from them, within a generation religion would cease to exist - I'd love to live in a religion-free world, and I support using any means necessary to attain it. 89.248.173.112 (talk) 05:07, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm still trying to build support for my "identify the 50% most evil people on the planet and kill all of them." Think of how many problems would be solved, if only we egregiously violated people's rights! Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 05:22, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

My right to live in a religion-free world outweighs their "right" to be religious. (No one has a "right" to believe in evil religious nonsense, there is no such "right".) 109.163.233.205 (talk) 05:27, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

It wouldn't work, before we are strong enough to do anything like that the believers could decide to take the kids of atheists away from them and brainwash the kids of atheists into being religious. Proxima Centauri (talk) 05:31, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

(EC) "In the days of anarchy, it was freedom to. Now you are being given freedom from. Don't underrate it." — Margaret Atwood. ListenerX^TalkerX 05:33, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Looks like the BONS are fixin' to fire up the gas chambers. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 05:43, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

When they're done, they'll burn the bodies and compress the ashes into diamonds (in the name of SCIENCE), so whenever they're criticized they can say "How can you be against this beautiful, beautiful diamond?" Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 05:59, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Moral traditions of atheists

PC writes "The different moral traditions that are common among atheists, agnostics, secular humanists etc" oh, do tell what moral TRADITIONS we all share! GodotWhen I graduated, Cognative Science of Religion didn't even exist! now it's everywhere 15:40, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Atheists and other human beings all share those morals that are hard wired into our brains. Proxima Centauri (talk) 16:01, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Morals aren't hard-wired into anything. They're social & psychological constructions, which have varied throughout the history of human societies. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 16:07, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

^--il'Dictator Mikal 16:08, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Great example of why the word "hard-wired" needs to be expunged from pop science vocabulary. There is a lot of converging research from biology, primatology, neuroscience, and psychology that there is a neurobiological foundation for morality in the sense of a "moral sense." This doesn't mean that the brain comes "hard-wired" with specific instructions like "Don't rob banks" or "Give money to charity." Specific moral codes are the products of culture and history, but they wouldn't exist in the first place without the biological foundation. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 16:54, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

1. If It Feels Good to Be Good, It Might Be Only Natural Page 1
2. If It Feels Good to Be Good, It Might Be Only Natural Page 2

Proxima Centauri (talk) 16:12, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Based on the part of it i read... no. --il'Dictator Mikal 16:14, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

This has been my point the entire time, PC. Teaching "about" atheism, whether it's a history of atheists (which Nebby, I strongly disagree with), or trying to teach some generalized human morals - you are creating a construct "atheist" that does not exist. There is no more such a thing as "atheist" than there is "a-lepreichaunist", "a-alienist". "Atheist" as a concept only exists because "theism" pushes us as individuals to say "do you believe in OUR god, and if not, justify yourself". When you teach "atheism" you are teaching Christianity - just the lack of it. Now, I agree you can teach humanism, and rationalism, and the history of Christians (and others, but mostly Christians) trying to push humans who don't happen to believe in anything, into powerless positions and even out right discrimination. But to "teach" atheism is to buy into the idea that it exists. That there is such a thing. I appreciate the attempt on the part of British schools to admit that not everyone is Christian, much less believes in any god, but teaching it, is reinforcing the christian position. That you must "be" something in relation to the Christian view of god.

As for Nebby's history of atheism, I object to that, too. You are just listing "famous atheists in history" which is no more a "thing" than listing famous people who like the color blue. And? There are, or have been (at least likely) non believes of every single religion and culture within every single religion and culture from the first time some hominid named Urrhg said "ohhhh... scary. must be SuperNaturalBeing". and his buddy Uugh said "or, you know, just something natural we don't yet get". GodotWhen I graduated, Cognative Science of Religion didn't even exist! now it's everywhere 16:22, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

We need to make the general public, especially kids, become aware of us and who we are; we need to become a valid 'option' just as any religion is. Ideally, everything you said is correct, but there are lots of things that they could teach -- what atheism actually is, what it isn't, famous atheists, popular atheism-based philosophies, etc. Nihilist 16:31, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

If you're going to play the "social construction" card on me, WfG, I can ask what the use is in teaching the history of "Christianity." What did Adolf Hitler and Oscar Romero have in common than liking the color blue believing in the Christian god? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 16:38, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I would rather they just teach critical thinking, and real history of religion. ;-) Then you get more atheists anyhow. I do like the idea of teachign that "not everyone believes" and i love the idea of teaching about humanists, rational thinkers, etc. I just don't like the idea of reinforcing that I exist as something (or frankly, give a shit about the giant THING such to identify myself in relation to it) in context with what you belive. Even listening to people discuss arguments against "God" (in caps, cause it's almost never against the greek gods, or the egypian gods) makes me laugh, cause the single best argument I have is "cause it's dumb". It is so "on it's face" wrong, that i'm left saying "what's next, you want me to prove the easter bunny does not exist?" Why does no one ask us to develop complex arguments against zeus? or Thor? or Quin Lin, or any of the 1,000,000s of gods humans have invented? We say "cause it's dumb" and move on. That's my reaction to the God of the Christians, but because they are in power, I have to justify my non-beliefe with a PhD in anti-theology rather than the most basic "cuase - duh" that we use with every other magical being or thing. I would love it if what I just said got taught, but we can't even manage to teach kids that something divided by 1/2 is a bigger number than you started with. How are we going to reach kids and teach them that there are literally a billion people in this world who think your god is as obviously stupid as you think of Zeus or gnomes. That would offend the dear children - to call their god beliefs stupid. GodotWhen I graduated, Cognative Science of Religion didn't even exist! now it's everywhere 16:46, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Nebby (edit con) - I woudl not teach Christian History the way it's taught. I think 3/4 of the crap I see in the US, or even on pages like this, about what it means to be Christian is so full of it, it's not even funny. I would not make broad statements about Chrsitianity or its truth value to kids. Frankly, if you want my real opinion? Religious studies doesn't belong in school till highschool, and only after 1 year of philo, so you can start to understand perspective, argument, bias, etc. same with history, but what are you going to do. Facts about anything but science (and maybe even there) are virtually all based on perspective - you can try to correct the more galling errors, like "native people were not intellectually advanced", but the myriad of ideas you will reinforce and pass on... I think we should just raise illeterate kids and start over. ; -) GodotWhen I graduated, Cognative Science of Religion didn't even exist! now it's everywhere 16:46, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

"I would not make broad statements about Chrsitianity..." Well, if it's taught that way, then I agree. Rigorous study of history tends to demolish sweeping generalizations. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 17:28, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

If I were to create a religious studies course, I'd first figure out what our goal is and who our target audince is. That's so often ignored (intentionally) in modern academics, cause we think we are being "impartial" by ignoring the fact that almost nothing in education is impartial. I'd rather be open about our partiality. So if our idea is to give predominately Christian kids a wider view of the world they live in, I'd start with a (short) academic rehash of what is broadly "Christian" as western kids know it. Belief in a monothesitic god, jesus as dying/rising, Bible as the grounding text; then i'd broaden a bit "literalism vs. non-literalism" and maybe Greek/russian orthodox. Then I'd look at the other abrahamic faiths, and their generally accepted tennants, and discuss areas that not everone agrees. And same with Buddhism, hinduism and say "here are the big 5. There are thousands more. Then I'd state something like : just as buddhists do not agree with Christians and Christians with Shinto, there are people who have a view that no religion is valid as a truth-claim, and who look for science, philosophy and other humanist ways to guide their life. Done! more than that, go to grad school. ;-) If i dealt with "history" at all, I'd only look at accepted conflicts. the eastern orthodax/roman split; luther and his split; the 3 primary schools of islam and where the come from. But I'd stay away from looking at anything theological or developmental in the religion, personally. Course, I don't teach young kids or highschool kids. maybe I'm just cutting them short and they could handle it? GodotWhen I graduated, Cognative Science of Religion didn't even exist! now it's everywhere 17:41, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Seems pretty reasonable. Usually, the courses I've taken that have a curriculum aimed at a certain type of student ("x for majors in y") are more useful because they also teach why something is important as opposed to a lot of intro-level courses that boil down to "here's a pile o' facts, memorize them for the final." Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 18:12, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

While I'm rambling - I'd love to see more emphesis on modern conflict as a way to discuss or even understand religion. In my 100 level classes, we would do the typical "week for each religion" crap, but to bring the kids into the class, I had them bring in a news article (the is pre internet, by and large, so we didn't have nearly the resources) about any conflict grounded in religion, from Indonesia, to christian africa to "the us is a christian nation", and we'd look at religion and the particular religions we were studying from that perspective. I think that would really push more critical thinking, if you are asking "what about religion makes these people want to blow up those people, and how much really is the religion vs other factors". but again, I'm not sure how much you can expect from highschoolers. GodotWhen I graduated, Cognative Science of Religion didn't even exist! now it's everywhere 18:40, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Right, and the problem is that in a practical sense you're never going to get both a factual and realistic treatment of religion in a general education course. For example, how are you going to accurately depict the history of Christianity in an American public school without starting an uproar? Christians already send their children to highly religious private schools and colleges to avoid that sort of thing. It seems to me that people who advocate for teaching about atheism realize this difficulty, and so are taking an approach more likely to be implemented. Q0 (talk) 19:42, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism

Please read. And go away. Тy^talk 12:39, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Questions for you

I have several questions for you. The answers will influence how I'll treat you in the future. So:

• How old are you? (It's not necessary to give an exact number - for privacy, you can answer with a named demographic group, such as "late 20s", "in highschool", "in college", etc.)
• Have you ever been diagnosed with Asperger's disorder, any other autism-spectrum disorder, learning disability, or something similar?--ZooGuard (talk) 20:09, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Privacy issues prevent me answering either question. Proxima Centauri (talk) 17:50, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Liberapedia

Did you ever sort out what you are doing with the Israel article on LP? -- 21:16, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

The Goat Star

sterile^{no new information} 05:22, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

pedias

Nobody here really gives a care about Liberapedia. Seriously. Тy^talk 14:27, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Do you ever ask yourself how you could become more popular? Proxima Centauri (talk) 16:32, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

No, better things to do with my time. Тy^talk 17:43, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Whenever I ask that question, I always come up with "move to New Zealand and be devilishly handsome." Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 09:59, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Seriously - grow up

My replies are italicised.
I don't know what the church did to you, nor do I really care. but get the fuck over it and over yourself. I have tried over and over to say "I get that your writing skills, like mine, suck", but it's not that. Your personal delusion about me is whatever it is.
Yes I make similar mistakes writing to those you make. I was behind in reading up to the age of about 8 but by the time I was 10 I got to love reading and had fully caught up with other children my age. Sometimes I've wondered if I'm also mildly dyslexic but I’ve never been diagnosed with that condition.
But I'm about to make that view of yours look a lot more real, cause i'm tired of your anti-religion screeds that add nothign to this wiki.

1. you insist on writing from your own belief, and not doing any research. in fact, on other wikis you just make shit up. that will not be allowed if I see it.
2. I don’t make shit up here or elsewhere. No! that’s not quite right. The only times I make shit up are when I’m writing obvious fiction like,
   The Aliens of the Flaming Red Sun Do you make stuff up??? I’ve read through Myth: Atheist Critiques are Simplistic, Don't Understand Sophisticated Theology any number of times and I haven’t found

"I have read all (emphasis mine) of the sophisticated theology and none of it makes any sense".

Yet you insisted that is in the link Myth: Atheist Critiques are Simplistic, Don't Understand Sophisticated Theology . [1]

1. you frame all christians into some kind of anti human sect of icky bad horribly mislead fool. That will not be tolerated by me. Be specific in your criticism or I will revert.
2. I will work hard at making sure my criticisms are specific.
3. You endlessly (and i think, intentionally) find one example but are unable to put that example into context. One family kills thier children in exorcism - suddenly you think all Christians somehow exorcise.
4. I don't do what you accuse me of.
   1. I spent yesterday researching and gave sources for what I wrote.
   2. I don't frame all Christians,
5. I didn’t mention a family killing their children, if that's in the wiki somebody else put it there. This section copied from lower down the page.
6. the fact that you give this trite "some xians do not agree" all over the place does not change the tenor of your writing, that you dislike christianity. It is almost always never "some" but "most" Christians that are good people, thinking people, and yes, "evolved" people.

You teach at Sunday school. At Sunday school children are taught from a very young age that God is real, that Jesus is his son, that Christianity is good and true etc. All this is done before children are old enough to question.

1. Here and elsewhere I point out that there is a different side to Christianity and I reach adolescents over about 13 and adults. There is a good side to Christianity and I point that out.
2. Do you teach those credulous Sunday School kids that there are worthwhile alternatives to Christianity?

1. I’m tired of you and Christians/other Christians holding atheists to different moral standards from what you follow yourselves.
2. I’m tired of you and Christians/other Christians calling atheists immoral when we fall short of those standards that you don’t attempt to follow yourselves. Proxima Centauri (talk) 20:01, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

And we can add sarcasm to the list of things Proxie doesn't understand. Тy^Bored 20:16, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

In countries where the majority are Christian I expect Christians are representative of the majority there. I know no evidence that Christians are on average more or less evolved than other people in their countries.

What about the fossil evidence? Wëäŝëïöïď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 15:37, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

1. In your attempts to discredit religion, you add things to articles that have nothing to do with teh article at hand. (see exorcism, and your rant against the church's money making policies).

You want to turn me into the big bad Christian supporting lady? You just did! --GodotStop the damn screeds! 20:43, 8 July 2012 (UTC) I don't do what you accuse me of.

1. I didn't mention a family killing their children, if that's in the wiki somebody else put it there. Proxima Centauri (talk) 05:46, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Prox, you do exactly what I'm accusing you of. time and time again. For example you use a link to a russian article and imply that this indicates excorcism is growing. You need to learn to contextualize your articles. Explain them better. Until you do, I'm simply reverting. I'm no longer going to try to clean it up, even if it's a good reference. Which by the way, the russian article, ISNT. GodotStop the damn screeds! 14:55, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

In addition to the above

From your Liberapedia page:

I sometimes like men who are a bit feminine. Well the best relationship I ever had was with a bisexual man so I understand gay issues.

Not all bisexual men are feminine. And knowing a bisexual man does not give you insight into "gay issues." It gives you limited insight into the issues confronted by a single bisexual person. Friendship does not entail a magic transference of knowledge, nor is it a window into an entire population. "I have a minority friend, so that means I understand minority issues" is not how friendship works.

From your Wikipedia page:

This user is of Ashkenazi Jewish ancestry but is an Atheist. Confusing, huh?

Not at all. Did you try checking Wikipedia before you wrote that? Because you really should've checked Wikipedia. And the way you rail against Christianity but almost never mention Judaism suggests you were never Jewish in any way outside of the strict definition of having a nominally-Jewish mother. I suppose I should be grateful you didn't claim to understand anti-Semitism. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 01:46, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Atheist clergy

You might want to consider looking at the current links in the atheist clergy section on atheism. They seem to be older than the one you have just added, and are contradictory. Also the last sentence that *one* clergy is out, is also "old" (if that's the right term). you're link gives numbers in the 200's who are OPEN. You might think about what can be rewritten in that section to better reflect your new article. --GodotQu'un sang impur abreuve nos sillons 19:52, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

When did I say I planned to write a new article? Godot please stop misrepresenting me. Proxima Centauri (talk) 06:57, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Godot, please stop misrepresenting her. She does a fine enough job of that on her own. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 07:59, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

@Proxima: I think she's referring to the additional (new) source you added. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 07:59, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Rob

Hi! Just wondering if you could stop wheel-warring over Rob. I'm sure you're very frustrated, since he is very frustrating, but you can't just decide to ban him from the site all on your own, right? If it's important enough, then you can try to bring a vote to get him removed. Thanks!--^talk 08:41, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not the only one who's been wheel warring over Rob. Proxima Centauri (talk) 08:45, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Okeydokey. Well, if I see anyone else doing it, I'll ask them to stop, too. Or you can, of course! Thank you. :) --^talk 08:48, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

When you say "we need a break from him" you're really saying "I want a break from him". We all think Rob is moronic, he seems to get worse with each passing week, that doesn't mean you should unilaterally ban him. The hypocrisy of you banning someone else for being annoying should be lost on none; have the decency to afford Rob the same rights that you demand from others. Take him to the Coop if you think his offenses are egregious enough to ban him. Tielec01 (talk) 08:54, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Can everybody piling onto Proxima take a look at the relevant block and user rights logs? PC isn't the only person who did this, and definitely wasn't the first. rpeh •T•C•E• 08:59, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

(EC) In Proxima's defence (for once), Psy and I were on his caseyesterday too. there was a lot of raw feeling after the Aurora shootings and Rob just couldn't resist being himself. Now it's the morning after I'm a bit less angry with him. I'd miss his ludicrous Obama conspiracy theories if he was permabanned, but not his race-baiting which, as "obviously vile trolling" we can just delete on sight anyway. Sophie^{because liberals} 09:00, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, I wasn't around then or missed it, but obviously that wasn't cool, either. I appreciate you saying so, though, because I don't want it to seem like I am picking on Proxima for something that's common. No one should just get to decide arbitrarily that another user should be blocked for a while.--^talk 09:15, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Here's a starter, but give the whole page a read, primarily the Aurora-related posts. I didn't join in on the blocking/rights warring because a) he'd just unblock himself while he had sysop, and b) sysop should be removed only with consensus, basically, so I wasn't about to abuse my brand new mop right out of the gate. Ochotonaprinceps^{not a pokémon} 09:24, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

To try to resolve this shit over Rob, I've opened a vote on the Chicken Coop and I wanted to make sure you were aware. Ochotonaprinceps^{not a pokémon} 10¹³ points 10:00, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I see things didn't go very well at the discussion. Many RationalWikians started because they liked trolling Conservapedia. Some still like that but others have grown out of CP. Anyway a great many RationalWikians like trolling and if they aren't trolling CP they're trolling Rob or trolling each other. Far too often it's hard to tell the valid complaints from the trolling. Proxima Centauri (talk) 12:32, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Genome

Thanks for your edits on the Random Designer article, do you know any criticism of this book Genetic Entropy & the Mystery of the Genome for some reason I can not find any and apparently this is the main "scientific" creationist that both creationists and ID theorists quote from. DinoCrisis (talk) 23:28, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Try Googling,

• genetic entropy & the mystery of the genome
• genetic entropy & the mystery of the genome

As far as I can tell the results are the same with Firefox and Internet Explorer but the URL's are slightly different. Proxima Centauri (talk) 02:42, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Editing

Hi, PC! I notice how much editing you do to mainspace, and wanted to say great work! I do notice, though, that sometimes there are spelling or grammar errors that slip in. I guess we all make those mistakes sometime. But I had a thought that might help: if you own a copy of Microsoft Word or equivalent, you could try using CTRL+A to copy an article before you save it, then paste it into Word. Word has a feature that underlines spelling errors in red and possible grammar errors in green, and that might give you a hand. It's just a thought, of course - either way, good job.--^talk 11:38, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Discussions about editing

If you have comments or objections about edits to an article, can you please make them on the talk page of that article. Not in the Saloon Bar. Not on another article's talk page. This is basic wiki etiquette & you shouldn't need to keep being reminded, but everyone is sick of seeing your "why was this edit reverted?" threads at the Bar. Please cut it out. Wěǎšěǐǒǐď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 00:26, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

That was a bitch move, Santa.

Did you seriously just edit someone else's talk page post to correct their spelling/grammar/typos? And in the snarkiest way possible, with strikeout humour? That is an incredibly mean-spirited thing to do. I'm really disappointed in you. Theory of Practice "the standards of the site are ultimately an expression of the community makeup, and not a set of rules or policies." 16:48, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Are you kidding, this is the same person running all over the boards talking about "if this had been a new editor, his/her changes would have been considered vandalism". The level of grudge proxi manages against people who dislike her ridiculous edits is rather amusing. shrugs. Assuming it was *my* comments (and it likely was) it's not as if the entire wiki doesn't know i cant spell. Hence, using spell checkers in articles. duh. --GodotL'important c'est d'aimer 16:52, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes I was rather too snarky. I think Godot is deliberately provoking. She has the following tactic:-

1. Do something provocative.
2. Wait for Godot Wait for her target to get angry and do something impulsive.
3. Wait for the rest of RationalWiki to turn against the person she provoked, start criticism of behaviour she herself provoked if necessary.
4. Enjoy!

A few weeks ago Godot wrote:-

Seriously - grow up

I don't know what the church did to you, nor do I really care. but get the fuck over it and over yourself. I have tried over and over to say "I get that your writing skills, like mine, suck", but it's not that. Your personal delusion about me is whatever it is. But I'm about to make that view of yours look a lot more real, cause i'm tired of your anti-religion screeds that add nothign to this wiki.

1. you insist on writing from your own belief, and not doing any research. in fact, on other wikis you just make shit up. that will not be allowed if I see it.
2. you frame all christians into some kind of anti human sect of icky bad horribly mislead fool. That will not be tolerated by me. Be specific in your criticism or I will revert.
3. You endlessly (and i think, intentionally) find one example but are unable to put that example into context. One family kills thier children in exorcism - suddenly you think all Christians somehow exorcise.
4. the fact that you give this trite "some xians do not agree" all over the place does not change the tenor of your writing, that you dislike christianity. It is almost always never "some" but "most" Christians that are good people, thinking people, and yes, "evolved" people.
5. In your attempts to discredit religion, you add things to articles that have nothing to do with teh article at hand. (see exorcism, and your rant against the church's money making policies).

You want to turn me into the big bad Christian supporting lady? You just did! --GodotStop the damn screeds! 20:43, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

The trap

1. I started to reacted in the way the trap was meant to work and began an angry reply.
2. I realised it was better to calm down before writing more.
3. Even the short reply I’d started was enough to get Godot and one other to troll me.

Back to the present snark
Godot wrote

While I understand that, It's not an actual theology as it was presented here. If you want to add something about the fights with Dawkins, that's fine, but no school teaches "sophiticated theology", and when I read atheist sites taking about "sophisticated theology" I want to roll oon the floor laughting. Theology doesn't need the buy in of scientists like Dawkins, nor do they care. It makes sense to them, and is never as simplistic as someone like Dawkins makes it, cause he comes from the point of view of a non believer who simply thinks all theology has no value. A valid point, but it misses the point that to believers, theology is complex. To read Christians who are offended by Dawkins defend their theology with "but dawkins isn't reading real theology" is really fucking frustrating. But to read atheists say (and this is directly from internet atheists incorporated, grins) "I have read all of the Soph Theooogy" is even more amusing. Theology stands because 1000's of years worth of believers talk about their belief and its meaning on the world and to them. Dismissing it the way Dawkins does, cause it doesn't fit into his world view is, well, stupid. GodotL'important c'est d'aimer 13:29, 1 August 2012 (UTC) [2]

Please bear in mind, she set out to provoke people. In future I will try to remember the more Godot makes me angry the more important it is to wait before replying. Proxima Centauri (talk) 19:19, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

"This atheism related article has been awarded GOLD status for quality. Please bear this in mind when editing the article"

Making a generalised, sweeping statement from a single event is not usually thought of as the ideal move in an argument. Sophie^Wilder 14:29, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I've left a mesage on your talk page

I have left this message on your talk page so that you will be able to read it. Sophie^Wilder 08:15, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

"Atheists trying to be accommodationist with Christianity is like Obama trying to be bipartisan with Republicans. You can bend and bend and bend all you like… but they aren’t going to bend back."

That may be the basest, bluntest, and out-and-out least intelligent thing that I've seen a non-troll editor write on this website. Do you have any Christian friends in real life? Do they manage to overlook your obvious disdain for them and their billion co-religionists and treat you like a decent human being, or do they run around your house spraying it with holy water and crossing themselves? It is truly a shame that what comes off as your fundamental hatred for people who believe differently than you do has led you to lump them all into one type and has blinded you to the possibility that they may be capable of basic rationality or of behaving on an individual basis. "They" actually react and behave in a myriad of different ways, which you might be able to acknowledge if you didn't see them all as one "type." Theory of Practice "Trampoline" is an Olympic sport now? 17:51, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

One family of former friends tried spraying my with holy water, not literally. I want nothing more to do with them. Other liberal Christians are better but even my liberal Christian friends wanted me to keep quiet while they taught their children Christianity. Their children are now teenagers, are they still Christian? I haven't dared to ask. Proxima Centauri (talk) 17:54, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

If "other liberal Christians are much better," then how can you maintain that "they" can't be compromised with"? If there are such people as "liberal Christians," it makes no sense to paint them all with one brush now, does it? As it reads now, that rant on your user page makes you sound like an unhinged bigot with a grudge. It reeks of some of Ken's "Gentlemen" shout-outs. (EDIT: Seriously: "The quote below is from an American atheist lady." Go read any one of Ken's contributions and compare it with that bit. It's the same style. Proxie, I'm starting to get worried about you.) It reflects poorly on you, and on the site at large. Theory of Practice "Trampoline" is an Olympic sport now? 17:59, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Try reading the whole article:-
Why Accommodationism Won’t Work, Or, Nobody Expects the Spanish Inquisition Try reading :-
Greta Christina’s blog Proxima Centauri (talk) 18:09, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

“”I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute- where no Catholic prelate would tell the President (should he be a Catholic) how to act and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote- where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference-and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the President who might appoint him or the people who might elect him.

—JFK

Yep, sure sounds like a Catholic bigot angling for world domination to me. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 18:25, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Prox said "even my christian friends wanted me to keep quiet when they taught their children about xianity". They are the parents, and they are teaching their children. Why shouldn't they want you to keep quite, and why is this something that is offensive to you. I do not want religious people to be talking about their gods around my very young children. I don't want my children to be listening to creationists, or racists, or radical no-kill vegans. That is called being a parent. Do you think you should have a "right" to teach the kids other than what the parents want taught? GodotL'important c'est d'aimer 18:54, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

A writing assignment

If you think parents are responsible for the religious indoctrination education of their children then to be consistent you should oppose evangelism in schools that happens without parents giving permission. I've found a link here, Christian Proselytizing in Public Schools. I'm sure Godot with her academic skill could write a very effective article criticising that Christian proselytisation. If Godot writes that critical article it will help reassure me and other RationalWiki users that she really is against all religious or atheistic indoctrination that happens without parents giving permission. Proxima Centauri (talk) 14:32, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

A writing assignment? Really? Why should Godot feel she has to prove anything to you? ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:37, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Godot doesn’t have to do that writing assignment, still if she did it would reassure me on 2 points.

1. It would reassure me that she isn’t a sekret Christian.
2. It would reassure me that she isn’t an oddball atheist in a religious studies department with a Believer/Christian majority at risk of developing Stockholm syndrome. She’s not at risk of physical harm but a dyslexic academic is a rarity. Does she have trouble reading student assignments? If there are questions about redundancy in her department, well? That can create a sense of helplessness and trigger something like Stockholm syndrome. Proxima Centauri (talk) 06:47, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm getting a distinctly McCarthy-ite vibe here -- "I have in my hand a list...of 205 sooper seekrit Christians!!!111!!" Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 07:47, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Prox, these concerns of yours are not shared by many (if any) other editors, and are very much your problem & not Godot's. I see no reason why she should go out of her way to appease them. Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 12:24, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Richard Dawkins and parenting

Richard Dawkins doesn't believe parents have the right to take advantage of childish credulity when teaching religion. But then Godot believes Richard Dawkins is a jerk. Proxima Centauri (talk) 21:18, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Anyone who tells parents how to raise their kids, baring actual harm to them, is a jerk. You really need to stop making Dawkins your god, and actually attempt to argue a point directly from your own head. Do you think it would be right for a christian to talk to your kids about God? Do you think it's ok for a strict "raw foodists" type to tell you not to give your kids a hamburger? GodotL'important c'est d'aimer 21:25, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Funny how you called me out for an appeal to authority just last week, and now you appeal to authority--except your appeal is to a biologist on the question of child rearing, something he is not an authority on. I suppose he is an authority on having basic and narrow-minded disrespect of human beings and their closely-held beliefs, a value you seem to increasingly hold dear, so there is that to consider. Theory of Practice "Trampoline" is an Olympic sport now? 21:27, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I’ve read through Myth: Atheist Critiques are Simplistic, Don't Understand Sophisticated Theology any number of times and I haven’t found

"I have read all (emphasis mine) of the sophisticated theology and none of it makes any sense".

Yet Godot insisted that is in the link Myth: Atheist Critiques are Simplistic, Don't Understand Sophisticated Theology . [3] Does Godot teach her kids that making stuff up to show atheists in a bad light is OK but showing religion in a bad light is terribly wrong? Proxima Centauri (talk) 06:56, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Me: "Hey Proxie, I find your posting to be really narrow-minded, offensive, and am concerned that it points to the kind of thinking demonstrated by a possibly mentally-ill internet troll that we both know." You: "Some links to articles, an irrelevant rant about Godot and more ranting about how Christians are liars." I'm being serious now: Are you okay? Your writing looks increasingly unhinged. Are you in contact with responsible people who care about you? Theory of Practice "Trampoline" is an Olympic sport now? 13:44, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Um Prox. my comment was about the COMMENTS on the atheist wiki page you first linked to. You "figured out" it "must be" cline. But ok. whatever. GodotL'important c'est d'aimer 16:36, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Please give a link to that comment so I can check it. Proxima Centauri (talk) 19:23, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm running 4 Light years away

I need at least a partial break from the Rat-pack at RationalWiki so I've gone over to Novelas and I'm working on The Aliens of the Flaming Red Sun. Proxima Centauri (talk) 20:16, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I look forward to reading about an alternate universe where your writing isn't mocked. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 21:28, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Nun abuse

I took your nun abuse stuff out of the articles you tossed it into. It did not fit into the articles, nor was it fully developed. If you feel strongly about this topic, you should write an article on it, on it's own. "Nun abuse scandles within the Church" or something. I'm sure you can find far more examples than the two unsourced, sensationalized, suggestive examples you give. There have been nuns in the US who have been forced to give birth to the priest's child. There have been scandles in France about similar things. But since it's a serious accusation, please find actual news articles on it, and not speculative arguments about being "nearly brothels for priests" or "having to have sex to apply as the Holy Mother". it could be a good article.--GodotRIP original "muahahahah". 1...2....3...4...muahahahahah 14:41, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Why don't you start the article? Proxima Centauri (talk) 14:44, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

No desire to. This is material you are adding, i figured you cared about it. I personally suspect it's just another anti-religion screed of yours. But at least this one is documented fact and should be explored.GodotRIP original "muahahahah". 1...2....3...4...muahahahahah 14:48, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I thought several of my sources were OK.

If you disagree about my sources you'll probably tear into any new sources that I find. Please give me a list of acceptable sources and I'll write the article. Proxima Centauri (talk) 14:50, 27 August 2012 (UTC) This is frustrating for me, I would like to write that article but I fear I would be wasting my time. I fear Godot will find reasonable or unreasonable criticisms of my sources and the rest of the community will support Godot because she works to be sexy. So much for RationalWiki. Proxima Centauri (talk) 07:47, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

My best source is AIDS exacerbates sexual exploitation of nuns, reports allege and that’s the National Catholic Reporter. I used a journal and you asked me to “please find actual news articles on it”. Here’s the Wikipedia article on the National Catholic Reporter and according to Wikipedia that journal ‘won the "General Excellence" award from the Catholic Press Association in the category of national news publications each year from 2000 through 2011.’ That looks to me like a reliable source.

Godot, you just assume my sources must be bad because you dislike my opposition to religion. Do you understand how far you are falling short of proper academic standards and how far you are failing to apply the scientific method? Proxima Centauri (talk) 07:43, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I repeat, I used a journal and you asked me to “please find actual news articles on it”. Here’s the Wikipedia article on the National Catholic Reporter and according to Wikipedia that journal ‘won the "General Excellence" award from the Catholic Press Association in the category of national news publications each year from 2000 through 2011.’ That looks to me like a reliable source.

In the case above when you criticised a reliable source that was just annoying. I hope you check sources more carefully when marking student assignments.
A student may go to the trouble of finding a really good source, like a journal that repeatedly won a "General Excellence" award. Then you may mark it down without doing checks and a student who deserves to pass could fail. Proxima Centauri (talk) 07:07, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, but Proxy, you write for shit and you still don't understand how to indent talk page comments. I may return and make cleaning up the garbage you post on this wiki a full time job, like it once was. ħuman 04:20, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

ED Wiki

I created a wiki all about ED in the ethos of RWW. Because I know you know how it feels to have no editors on a wiki, I am inviting you to come and contribute. Srsly, please come. Thanks, 64.180.243.158 (talk) 19:09, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Good work re-organzing the Armstrong material...

Most of which I added 3 months ago. I've been planning to supplement it with stuff from the better reviews, but haven't gotten around to it.--WickerGuy (talk) 18:45, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Godot is planning a rewrite, here. I suggest you collaborate with her. Proxima Centauri (talk) 06:50, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I took the liberty of developing the article further here. Proxima Centauri (talk) 08:06, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I spent nearly an hour improving the article and it was hard work. Then I made a small alteration to someone else's work page in the hope it would prevent further work being overlooked. As you can see below I got badly told off for that. This type of gratitude sometimes comes with IRRationalWiki. Proxima Centauri (talk) 18:41, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

"But I thought this was supposed to be RATIONALWiki!" Drink! Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 19:18, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Editing other people's pages

I don't know where the fuck you went to wiki school, but here we don't edit other people's pages.GodotRIP original "muahahahah". 1...2....3...4...muahahahahah 16:23, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I didn't f*****g alter what you wrote, I simply pointed out that I had altered the page since you copied it. If I didn't make sure you knew you might edit your version and overlook the changes. Then your work would be less good than it could be. Proxima Centauri (talk) 16:33, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Editing pages in another users userspace is verboten. Don't do it again. Тy^JFBAA 16:36, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Child sexual abuse

Awesome, thanks.

Anyone else feel like adding to Religion and child sex abuse? Proxima Centauri (talk) 17:03, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Preview

Have you noticed the "Show preview" button? It's right next to "Save page". It allows you to see what your changes to the page look like without saving them.--ZooGuard (talk) 16:24, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

No Seriously
Use the Preview Button and do less edits in general; I like seeing other names on RC--Mikal ^{Harass Follow} 17:26, 24 September 2012 (UTC) It's hard! I'm constantly criticised, I try to get things right, then there are more different criticisms. I'll try and reduce edits but there are times when I can't.

1. On the 22nd September there was a long section on The priest molestation scandal.
2. On the 22nd September someone else moved it to a fresh article, Priest molestation scandal and changed the section heading to a new title. That was long overdue but I’d delayed the long job of fixing links.
3. If I’d gone back to the old title there would have been complaints because the new section heading was better.
4. There was nothing else to do except change 50+ links so readers wanting to find about priestly child molestation get to priestly molestation and not general child sex abuse.
5. I did the long boring job of changing all those links and my name dominated RecentChanges for over an hour. Proxima Centauri (talk) 19:59, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

When you move the page it makes a redirect, making the change unnecessary. Тy^{Bother me} 21:08, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

They didn't move the page, they removed material and created a new page for it. They altered the section heading so readers following the old link would get to Child sexual abuse and not Child sexual abuse in the Roman Catholic Church, they wouldn't even get to the section with a link to the new article. Proxima Centauri (talk) 21:17, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

FFS learn to indent already. And seriously, you would be hassled a lot less if you would freaking use preview. Тy^{Bother me} 21:19, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for replacing the articles on Liberapedia

AgnosticoRationale (talk) 01:54, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

An assignment for you.

The debate page is a mess, so I'm putting this here. You seem to go on and on about the fact that public money is going to fund theology departments, and that this takes money away from what you think is more valuable research. As a student at an American university, I am only familiar with the US context. I cannot find a single public university with a theology department (here's a list). So if this is about private individuals spending their own money to support this, you have no stake in the argument.

But the US is not the world. You might point to Oxford, for example. What is the annual budget for Oxford's theology department? How much of that comes from public coffers? What does that amount represent as a percentage of, say, the biology department? Are you getting really pissed off about a non-issue here, perhaps? JubalHarshaw (talk) 13:31, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

If I do this assignment will it get into any article or will you and/or Godot take it out? Proxima Centauri (talk) 17:21, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

It depends on if what you write is relevant and coherent, I guess. I was actually less interested in the article and more interested in seeing if you had your panties in a knot over something that barely exists. JubalHarshaw (talk) 17:30, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure all the old established universities in the UK have theology departments and and these departments are publicly funded. Proxima Centauri (talk) 17:35, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, if you're sure, I guess there's no reason to try to learn anything about it then. I mean, that's the how spirit of open enquiry that guides your approach to these sorts of questions works, right? JubalHarshaw (talk) 00:26, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I've found a list of universities offering Theology & Religious Studies but disentangling which are primarily theology and which primarily religious studies would be a very long job. I suspect there are other things I can do that are more productive but I may come back to this. Proxima Centauri (talk) 13:14, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

It's called "work". Do it before you make blanket claims. ħuman 04:17, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Happiness

At the moment one possibly very productive job I've found is researching what makes some nations happier than others. Can RationalWiki take this up? Proxima Centauri (talk) 07:44, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

"See Talk Page"

You keep using that phrase, I do not think it means what you think it means. --Mikal ^{Harass Follow} 15:26, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Active in the religious right

I didn't revert that for reasons of content, but because the writing was atrocious. JubalHarshaw (talk) 17:51, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Are there any elements of the American Religious Right that support equality of the sexes? I fear this edit is wrong. Proxima Centauri (talk) 17:56, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

There are a number of different factions within the Religious Right. The Calvinists and old-school Baptists are far more patriarchal than the megachurch evangelicals. ListenerX^TalkerX 18:27, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

As I said on that talk page, you need to look into a remedial literacy program, maybe. The section that you're referring to about Christian economics; it's the preceding bullet point that addresses gender equality. There are 2 different arguments going on there. I know that can be confusing. JubalHarshaw (talk) 20:24, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I think it is the author(s) of the original bullet point who need to look into a remedial class in writing; those words could be interpreted about eight different ways. ListenerX^TalkerX 20:42, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the support. A lot of the time I ignore JubalHarshaw's unpleasantness, he'll learn what's acceptable when he's been here longer. Proxima Centauri (talk) 06:11, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

That wasn't "support" that gets you off the hook. You REALLY need to spend six months to two years learning how to write good, flowing English text. ħuman 04:15, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

JubalHarshaw has grown to understand RationalWiki better and has contributed better edits in the 20 days since they've joined then you have in five years. You, Proxima, are a hopeless case, whose presence is universally disliked, whose edits produce more work for everyone else, as they scramble inject quality into your poor writing, and who dogs other, more valued users with petty complaints. If it wouldn't generate an enormous controversy, I'd desysop and de-autopatrol you, because as far as I'm concerned, you deserve a big red exclamation point next to every single edit you make. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 05:38, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Her name is a big red exclamation point. She does do some useful stuff though, mostly wikilinking. -- Nx / talk 06:07, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not ignoring the unpleasantness any longer as it has one very serious result. There's so much destructive criticism in RationalWiki that I (probably other users too) can't easily tell valid criticism from criticism that's just trolling done to create an impressive firework display. Then it becomes harder for me and other users to make necessary improvements to our writing. Proxima Centauri (talk) 17:31, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

>> . . . can't easily tell valid criticism from criticism that's just trolling done to create an impressive firework display. Which kind of criticism do you think comments like this might fall under? Щєазєюіδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:15, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I was making a valid point about inconsistency. Proxima Centauri (talk) 06:36, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

No you weren't. Your comment had nothing to do with what that discussion was about; you just butted in to make childish remarks about WfG. Ŵêâŝêîôîď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 06:51, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

And this, posted immediately before your little bold-text rant above? Since you're finding it hard to differentiate valid criticism from destructive criticism, here's a little tip: when users are discussing or debating something, and somebody else jumps into the conversation just to point out that they don't like one of the other editors in the conversation, not just once but on basically every page where that editor is talking to others, that's "criticism that's just trolling done to create an impressive firework display". And it's really not an impressive display. Please cut it out. Wěǎšěǐǒǐď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:00, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Godot is allowed to accuse me of dishonesty despite her record for making claims that she can't prove. I can't accuse her of dishonesty. Proxima Centauri (talk) 06:36, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

You can if you like, but don't expect anyone to listen, especially when you follow up your unpleasant trolling with complaints about how much unpleasant trolling there is around here. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 06:51, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Isn't there a "Stop Proxima Centauri" movement going on around here somewhere? I would wholeheartedly support it until she can pass a basic writing and reading comprehension test. Meanwhile, she is our resident prolix cretin. ħuman 04:15, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

You promised me...

...a block war. Yet you haven't blocked me back! :< --Andy^{not Schlafly} 14:00, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Your writing style and how to improve it

I was going to put this on nonchameleon's talk page but as it's about you and not him I thought it'd be better here.

My main reaction to your writing, Proxima, is that it is just a string of facts and assertions presented in a very plain and unvarying way. here are some tips to improve your writing: merge sentences, and use commas and semicolons - just having full stops deadens the text. Group phrases by a common theme and have one set of ideas flow on to the next in a logical way. Have more than one sentence per paragraph, and more than one paragraph per section. If you are using an external link, use something from the linked article in your own article - it's not a good reading experience to be sent back and forth between two articles on two websites with two writing styles (and even two fonts!). Examples and anecdotes add flavour and interest. If you're going to have jokes, they're normally best at the ends of paragraphs and in picture captions. For the longer term, buy or borrow a "how to write an essay" book. Finally, break the rules if they get in the way of having an interesting article.

I hope this helps. Sophie^Wilder 22:39, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

ListenerX^TalkerX 23:25, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I hope I'll have time to read up about essay writing. At the moment I'm very busy with Liberapedia, take a look at Recent Changes there. Proxima Centauri (talk) 12:36, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

OMG are we still trying to teach PC how to write? After all these years? Give it up, don't you know she is very busy writing badly on other sites as well?

Proxima. Before you "write a lot", "learn to write". Do you understand the basic prioritization of these two concepts? ħuman 04:11, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Email

You have one. --Andy^{not Schlafly} 12:46, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
No. Proxima Centauri (talk) 12:52, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Did you check your spam folder? --Andy^{not Schlafly} 19:30, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Improving your writing, redux.

You need to practice writing sentences before thinking about writing paragraphs. You tend to write these sprawling sentences that should probably be broken up. You also need to understand what pronouns are and how they work -- you don't need to write "the two boys" three times in the same sentence. We have a word to make that work better-- "they."

Once you've practiced sentences for a few months, you can start thinking about paragraphs. The key thing here is the idea of a topic sentence. Your paragraphs tend to be nothing but poorly-strung-together lists of things. You need to tell the reader what you want them to get out of reading the examples you provide. It seems like you're just recounting stuff that pisses you off, and that you think it's so obvious why that everyone should be pissed off to. The story about Father Brennan is a real horror show, but you need to tell the reader what the bigger point you're trying to make is.

Finally, when the marginal blog that you use as a ref has a link to a real newspaper article about the story--use that, and not the marginal blog. OnTheInternetNobodyKnowsYou'reAGod (talk) 13:23, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

But that would require her to read real articles, rather than marginal blogs. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 19:21, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Disagreement =/= trolling

"I disagree with the wording of this sentence, therefore the other editor is trolling"? I kept reverting because I thought the other wording sounded better. Do I ever tease you? Quite a bit. But I do not troll articles. I try to make every one of my (mainspace) edits leave an article in a better state than it was before. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 17:39, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

If you're going to accuse someone of being a bully....

I posted this on the relevant, page, but I wanted to make sure that you saw it: the word "idiot" in that link was directed at this "TJ" fellow, not at the RW user to whom I was replying (I wrote something like "Did he actually say that? Idiot..." I could have put a "What an" in front of the offending term, but I thought the meaning was fairly clear..."). Sorry if that was not clear. Mr. J said something idiotic, and I called him on it. I hardly think that rises to the level of "bullying" in any meaningful sense of the term. OnTheInternetNobodyKnowsYou'reAGod (talk) 20:23, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

"Yesterday NobodyKnowsYou'reAGod called somebody an idiot, it isn't clear if he insulted TheAmazingAtheist or someone from RationalWiki..."

It is clear, I was referring to the "Atheist" and not someone from RW, as I explained on that page and in the section above this. OnTheInternetNobodyKnowsYou'reAGod (talk) 21:12, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

You still should be consistent and if you call someone like TAA an idiot you shouldn't criticise someone else for referring to idiocy. Proxima Centauri (talk) 08:04, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

prox, your vendettas are really tired. No one but you thought OTINKY was talking about an RW user. sighs.... Are you a troll? If you are, you're good. i bite every time. otherwise, can you just keep your promise and go edit the other great writing you are working on? (your own fiction, i think, was your last claim to faim) (there's a pun there, but since i spell so bad, no one will know it's a pun and not just a typo. oh sighs again. heh.)--GodotCalibrated! let the voting begin! 01:06, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

OnTheInternetNobodyKnowsYou'reAGod (talk) 13:06, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

3 would be enough, you don't need 65. Proxima Centauri (talk) 14:15, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Mesopotamia

You deleted the entire Mesopotamia article for no reason (as far as I can discern), just so you could suppress two revisions that didn't need to be suppressed? That's not what the delete button is for, Proxima, nor is it what the hide revision button is for. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 20:36, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I accidentally copied copyright material into the article. It was in a Microsoft document and I didn't notice I'd copied it till it was in the article. I deleted the article and restored it so this copyright material is nowhere where anyone can mistake it for free-use material and the copyright holders have no reason to complain. Proxima Centauri (talk) 20:53, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Next time, explain that in the delete comments. Don't just mysteriously delete-undelete articles like that. Also, delete the specific revisions only, don't delete the entire damn article. That's what revision delete is for. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 20:59, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

That's still totally inappropriate. even if you have added copyright, the fact that you deleted it, or some other editor deletes it covers the wiki's butt, legally. you don't need to do something that removes all edit history.--GodotCalibrated! let the voting begin! 21:02, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Meh, I've done worse. Long-time users will remember. Theory of Practice Haters gonna hate. 22:10, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Don't compare yourself to her. Your record of incompetence isn't nearly as consistent as hers. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 22:14, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

When you write sentences in articles,

please try not to end them with "etc." This looks like a shopping list. This looks like a proper sentence. The "such...as" implies that others may be there. Theory of Practice Still tryin' to figure it all out. 13:44, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Main page

Don't fuck around with the Main Page, this is not CP with Andy trumpeting his political biases at the top. Генгис^{Gum disease} 10:12, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Syamsu

Could the social darwinist scum, such as yourself, contain themselves, and acknowledge the validity of subjectivity on rationalwiki? To acknowledge the rightful place of feelings in reaching a conclusion about what exists, which pertains to the general category of things that choose. Or is rationalwiki to be understood as a cartoonish parody on scientists excluding all emotion? --Syamsu (talk) 11:22, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

You annoy many people here, the problem isn't with me. Proxima Centauri (talk) 11:33, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Footnotes and references

How to make multiple links to the same content is described here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Footnotes#Multiple_references_to_the_same_footnote RationalWiki is using the same extension for "ref" tags as Wikipedia.

As for the references you added to that article: to attribute some quotes to Craig, you are citing a blog post reproducing an Alternet article that cites Craig's blog post. The next time try following the links and cite the original source directly, unless there's a good reason not to.--ZooGuard (talk) 12:48, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Refs

See Help:Refs and check out the Help section on the sidebar first if you don't know how to do something rather than bleating in your edit summaries. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 12:49, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

On the initial reference you use: <ref name="name here">details of the citation</ref> Then to cite the same source you: <ref name="name here"></ref> LOL. And what he said^^ IslamoCriticism (talk)

archive my page

Hi, I am leaving rationalwiki (I might come back next year) after I complete my college course. This site has been quite a big distraction, but I enjoyed adding some evolution articles. Is there any chance you can blank and archive my talk page? Thanks, and all the best. DinoCrisis (talk) 22:22, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Done. Sophie^Wilder 22:25, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Proxima, stop it. Just stop it.

There is no such thing as "sophisticated theology" or a "sophisticated theologian." Putting references to a "sophisticated theologian" in an article that explains how the term is actually a mistaken/derogatory term and not a real thing looks stupid. Put those links somewhere relevant, and don't use a snarl word as though it's a real thing. Thanks. Theory of Practice Still tryin' to figure it all out. 13:39, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 13:54, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Your Coyne links

The PoE link was actually really good, except you need to go to the primary source. You do that a lot - find a general source that talks about another source. Get that primary source, it's so much more worth it. Loftus has written several articls/blogs that would be a great reference to POE, so you should look at those. --Godot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 19:15, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

"EvolutionisreallyreallytrueforrealsandpeoplewhobelieveinGodaregiantdoodyheadsandItotallywannahavePzMyer'sbabies.blogspot.com" isn't a decent primary source? Theory of Practice Still tryin' to figure it all out. 19:20, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Loftus' blog really great stuff. He's an ex theologian. all those questions you ask of me, he's asking other theologians, and teh answers are amazing. Intelligent, thought provoking from both sides. He has, obviously, a large number of christian friends, including scholars. I think you'll find it full of stuff to add to Rational wiki. --Godot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 19:40, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

i found it now, PoE refers to Problem of Evil. Proxima Centauri (talk) 10:19, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Theology v. apologetic

I think you made a good point on the talk page, but i think you should look at theology and see if your point has been made there. I doubt it is, so you might consider adding it to the main theology page. Godot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 16:11, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Done. Proxima Centauri (talk) 17:29, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

How bout a line on perception

How bout adding a line to the intro of "witch" saying something like "many peole think witches are women, this is in accurate" or "this is popular/media only" or something. You seem to really want to say that in your edits, just be more direct and put it out in the top. --Godot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 16:53, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I've added a line but I'd prefer a more neutral term, say "witch/sorcerer" to cover both sexes. Proxima Centauri (talk) 17:42, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

The word witch can be applied to men too, although this isn't well-known in most places (Scotland is one exception, I'm told). Sophie^Wilder 11:07, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Dirk Steele

Why did you take the vandal brake off DS? Sophie^Wilder 11:44, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

There wasn't a unanimous decision to vandal brake DS, see here. Proxima Centauri (talk) 13:15, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Your rejection of subjectivity

There is nothing wrong with my explanation of free will. Don't bullshit me with wiki-rules, make a substantive argument about the main content of the entry, or don't delete the entry. --Syamsu (talk) 13:46, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I make typos.

True. I do not, however, write fundamentally incoherent sentences, nor do I make egregious grammatical errors on a regular basis. I also do not continuously support statements with references--drawn from questionable blogs--that have nothing to do with what the original statement was about. I'll take the typos any day. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 18:02, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

What counts as a decent reference.

Please, please, please try not to use "free websites4u.com" type sites as references; Blogs are also lame, for the most part, unless you're quoting the actual blogger. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 16:26, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

“” Nevertheless, you will find it in some ultra-modern treatises on physics, which contend that physical processes, traced backward in time, show that there must have been a sudden beginning and infer that this was due to divine Creation. They carefully abstain from attempts to show that this hypothesis makes matters more intelligible

—Bertrand Russell

“”If everything must have a cause, then god must have a cause. If there can be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the world as god, so there cannot be any validity in that argument.

—Bertrand Russell

I tried to address your criticisms and cited Bertrand Russell who I hoped would satisfy you. Proxima Centauri (talk) 16:38, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

You didn't cite Bertrand Russel. You cited a really dodgy looking webpage run by, I dunno, some fucking guy. You want to cite Bertrand Russel. Get a Google Books citation, or something from a proper academic/other reputable website, or shit, just cite the print version. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 16:41, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Kenneth A. Shouler, PhD is an associate professor of philosophy at the County College of Morris in Randolph, New Jersey., that's probably a Community College and he quoted Bertrand Russell. Does that count? Proxima Centauri (talk) 16:45, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure about that Athenaeum Library of Philosophy. They claim thousands of visitors daily and still rising but their website loads badly. Proxima Centauri (talk)

How do I get a reference from Google Books? Proxima Centauri (talk) 17:12, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Generally, someone "quoting someone" is best only as a last resort, and then you have to say so. The entire point of trying to cite directly, is to minimize errors. For example, with my typing skills, it would not be unlikely that I would mis-type a quote as "to be or not to eb". Someone else sees that and says, oh, the word "eb" is real, it's here in this shakespere quote. As often as you can, finding an exact print source with pages and book title is best. You can usually find that at "wiki quotes". Wiki quotes is also generically a good citation. If you are writing something controversial at all, you really really want to cite to the actual source of the quote. the book it was written in, the news paper it was stated in, the interview itself, etc., cause it's best way to back up your assertion that "yes,thomas jefferson really did believe in god, and here is a photocopy of his letter showing it" or whatever. Godot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans

b russel's page at wiki quotes I think you can find what you are looking for there.Godot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 18:12, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Citing Wikiquote is no better than citing Wikipedia, or TVTropes. Щєазєюіδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:15, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

my point was that you can find the citation to the book. If not wiki quotes, then what do you suggest?Godot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 18:41, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I suggest not padding articles out with unnecessary quotations. Ŵêâŝêîôîď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:54, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Quotes make articles more personal, interesting, and readable. Hearing what someone thinks in his or her words, vs our words adds clairty. Quotes are important, especially when they are by the person or orginzation we are talking about, or show that "yes, indeed', such and such really is a total jerk". Godot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 21:23, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not at all convinced that that is what Proxima Centauri is doing. Mostly they're just unexplained quotes stuck above the top of an article as if for the sake of putting something there. The Rusell quote, appearing out of context and before any explanation of what the cosmological argument is, is almost unintelligible. Wẽãšẽĩõĩď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:58, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

For someone who "worked hard," you didn't work very hard. Here's the first essay, reproduced in full at a website run by a group with some bona fides.. Work harder, I guess. It took me a whole 48 seconds to find this. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 18:43, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

...and here's the second Russell essay, reproduced in full.So hard to find. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 18:47, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Creationism links

You've added some great links over the last few days. One thing you might want to consider is saying "as an example, see xxx:" since you aren't giving links that state your claim, but rather ones that are examples of your claim. Just a thought.Godot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 17:48, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

A gift.

Happy New Year!! Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 16:17, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

You fork off a lot.

Atheist Wiki, Liberapedia, and now Secular Wiki. Why so many forks?! -- 21:48, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Other people started all 3, See here. Why do I put so much effort into the others? Partly that's because I get trolled here.

Also I fear for the future of RationalWiki. Nobody can be an expert in the libel laws of every nation in the world and we can't always stop illegal crap getting into an open edit website. As RationalWiki gets larger and more popular our enemies will be willing to put more effort into trying to shut us down and will pay more expensive lawyers. I think it's good if there are many small secular websites and our enemies can't target them all. Proxima Centauri (talk) 05:28, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Let's hear it for guerrilla skepticism! ListenerX^TalkerX 05:32, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

"We" have enemies now? Tell me who I should be worried about. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 05:33, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Vain, paranoid, petty, and stupid. She truly is the quintessential incompetent. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 05:36, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

So instead of trying to remove silly libalious crap from our pages, and making a kick ass wiki, it's better to make a new wiki fill of 8 year old arguments! got it! Godot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 05:37, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I think what Proxima was referring to is that some people, being uncomfortable with the truth, call it "libel" to great effect. ListenerX^TalkerX 05:41, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I can't remove it because I don't always know what's true and what's untrue. Also I don't know what's legal and what isn't in different jusisdictions. Further nobody can patrol the whole of this wiki. Proxima Centauri (talk) 06:43, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

You're not some valiant hero, single-handedly holding back the tides of irrationalism, Proxima. There are many editors patrolling here — we can and do catch most everything. That's the strength of the collaborative process; it doesn't fail or succeed on the back of a single person.

Furthermore, all three of your pet wikis are on Wikia, which is a business. They could defend all three of them out of principle — or they could drop them like a hot potato to avoid the legal costs. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 06:58, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

No secular website is safe but it's better if there are many small ones as well as a few big well funded ones. Also the others get to readers who wouldn't come here. Proxima Centauri (talk) 07:10, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

"No secular website is safe..." Alright then, point me to all the threatening lawsuits filed against the thousands of websites like the Skeptics Annotated Bible, RationalWiki, or Pharyngula. If nobody's safe, then everybody's in danger.

Of course, you can't point to any. Because such lawsuits are exceedingly rare and almost never end badly for the website in question. You are a shallow, impulsive, cowardly person, Proxima, and it's reflected in your every idea and every action on this site. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 07:27, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I am no friend of PC, Stabs-a-lot, but a person like you with a vapid, hateful stupidly is in no position to call others ...shallow, impulsive, cowardly.... Aceⁱ⁹ 07:39, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm one of many people who has expressed frustration about PC's inability to use either correct sentence structure or the Show Preview button, but the constant bullying she receives on this site is nothing short of disgraceful. Whatever you feel about her edits, she is trying to improve articles. rpeh •T•C•E• 07:51, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

+1. She might not be the most gifted of writers, but she doesn't deserve half the nonsense she gets. Look at what Stabby just wrote above. That is totally uncalled for. Whatever else may be said about us, this is not a great place to be if you aren't with the popular kids (as it were). --Damo^Hi 08:07, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

This is an open wiki and editors have a spectrum of abilities, our challenge is to work with them; after all, PC is not the only one who can't write perfect sentences. So long as there are no copyright issues, PC is perfectly free to edit at any other wiki - nobody seems to care that David Gerard is also a public spokesman for Wikipedia. It's very easy to be a bully online when you have anonymity and I am embarrassed by Stabby's vitriol which is the antithesis of 'no personal attacks.' Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 09:38, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

The insults I get here are just one reason why I sometimes like to get away to other websites. Proxima Centauri (talk) 07:35, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Hah! Retreat; exactly lwhat a cheese-eating, surrender monkey would do. I think that this thread can be summarised by the immortal Andrew Bernard. Tielec01 (talk) 08:25, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Prox, if you're concerned about libel action, the best advice is to avoid writing libelling things, not hiding them at multiple sites. Only write things about people & organisation which you know are true & verifiable, or make it clear where the information comes from if you're repeating one account of something which may be disputed. If you're writing something about a person or organisation and don't know whether it's true or not, then research it further before writing it. Putting it in multiple places as a safeguard against libel action is the sort of thing a court would look unfavourably on if it did turn out to be libellous.

That said, there's nothing to stop you putting RW-type content at other sites. If you do copy RW content, please attribute it as per the CC licence. And if you're writing stuff about RW, could you please give us a heads-up (e.g. at the Saloon Bar) in case it's anything the community would be unhappy with or would want some input in (remember the WikiIndex incidents). Wēāŝēīōīď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 14:25, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I didn't read PC's concerns being about what she writes but about RW in general - given the libel case brought against Simon Singh by the British Chiropractic Association. Now I don't agree with her POV but she seemed to be saying that there needs to be a variety of secular wikis in case RW gets taken down by some litigious woo-meister. Генгис^pillaging 19:12, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I understand that, but it basically comes to the same thing, whether it's about something written specifically by PC or by other users. "Safety in numbers" is a legally dubious argument; if something (justly or unjustly) could be targeted for libel action, then repeating it at multiple sites doesn't make it any more or less libellous. Wēāŝēīōīď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:38, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Email

Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 22:14, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Neanderthal

Just to clarify, yes, it's speculative that neanderthal had religion, but things like "burrials", "dressing in feathers" are generally signs of a possible first or proto religion. To suggest that someone cannot understand what death is, or that the dead dude is no longer around makes no sense unless we are trying to suggest that neanderthal is of the intelligence of an animal or child trying to prod a dead friend to life. That's why I removed that one line. You are right, to an extent, though. anything about neanderthal is speculation at this point, but some is better speculation than others.Godot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 19:39, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually, a "burrial" would probably be a oritual involving a donkey. rpeh •T•C•E• 19:57, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

heh. so funny are we! ;-) Were it not for the squiggly red lines under words in fire fox, you all would not just ban me, you would have scouts out on patrol to insure i never ever showed up again. ;-)Godot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 20:11, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

The claims for Neanderthal religion seem pretty flimsy for me, especially considering how much evidence turned out to fabricated or fraudulent. See, e.g., the "Cult of the Cave Bear." Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 20:59, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

WFG, you mean "ensure", not "insure". Given the number of people who constantly insult and bully Prox for her style of writing, I think it's only fair that when a board member turns out to have a similar lack of ability that it should be highlighted. I'm personally capable of spelling without paying attention to wavy lines, and I suggest you focus on developing a similar ability. rpeh •T•C•E• 21:27, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Could you try not to be an asshole? One, WfG makes way fewer errors where it matters--in articles, as opposed to on a talk page, where it doesn't. Two, WfG has on a number of occasions copped to struggling with writing issues, while PC is clueless and sometimes even boasts about being a great writer. Three, WfG's contributions are typically sound, well-reasoned, and relevant, if in need of a bit of proofing; even if PC wrote like Hemingway, many if not most of her edits would be problematic, for her incessant axe-grinding alone. Finally, the part where you wrote "that it should be highlighted" should be "then it should be highlighted," pinhead. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 21:38, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Asshole-wise, you're way, way ahead of me. You continually harass and bully a member of this site who wants nothing more than to add content. The fact that you claim people like me bully Ken while ignoring your own behaviour towards Proxima would be amusing if it wasn't so disgusting. rpeh •T•C•E• 21:50, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

According to Alexa our popularity in the USA is falling. Should we work to make the site more popular?

Yes. Launch Operation Flying Fortresses post haste. Gentlemen, the rebirth of Rationalwiki on the internet is imminent! Waterloo! Ole! Ole! Ole! Theory of Practice "...and we do love you madly." 17:58, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Edits on Alvin P

You have to be careful in challenging Alvin's position about god, with a guy who is attacking Abrahamic positions about God. Alvin isn't really a Traditional abrahamic dude, if you can even call him one at all. Though he is nominally a christian, in practice he is a theist. He believes in a God, but not the literal god of teh bible. I'm not changing what you wrote, cause you're on the right track, i just think you could/should be more careful to show that Blackford isn't really challenging Alvin's main points. Godot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 19:08, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Also, you might mention that Alvin's god is a god by definition in no small way. That is, along the line of (but not exactly) "god is nature, nature existss, therefore god exists" or "god is a thing that must exist, therefore god exists". As I said, he's "lurpy" (a word i just made up) cuase his god really is whatever he wants/needs it to be in any given argument. Have you read him? I think you would enjoy his writing style, and would equally enjoy writing "this line is bunk", "this line is ok, but it requires you to believe in taht line" etc., in the margins.Godot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 19:15, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Are you familiar with this?

You might find it useful. Theory of Practice "...and we do love you madly." 19:59, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Editing articles about yourself

Please read RationalWiki:Guide for individuals or companies we cover. This applies to everyone, regardless of whether they have an account here. You don't get to control what people say about you in a mainspace article. No doubt Kirk Cameron & Ray Comfort wouldn't like some of what we write about them, but if they came here & started rewriting the content about them, we wouldn't just let it happen. Same goes for you. Take it up on the talk page & stop edit warring. Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:20, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I took it up on the talk page. A kid started Secular Wiki, it's not mine the article was wrong. Gastornisguy. Proxima Centauri (talk) 20:27, 21 February 2013 (UTC)