User talk:ZackMartin/Archive2

This is an archive page, last updated 12 August 2017. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>

, (new)(back)

"Holy Maratrean Sigil," continued

Nx has locked the archive now, but I had a response to this post: you do not need to make a .png version of your logo to get rid of the transparent background; you just need to put "background-color: white" in the style attribute of the span you put it in, as I did here on your talk-page. ListenerX^TalkerX 14:46, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Ah thanks. I thought of that but I hadn't tried it, for some reason I was thinking it wouldn't work. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 23:58, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Kharma

If you are an ass to others and feed them, they will respond in an ass-like fashion. sterile^talk 15:26, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I really don't know what you are talking about. Ace trolling me? (((Zack Martin)))^™ 23:58, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

What is it with you and nudity?

Does your religion teach you to be ashamed of your body? Are you just a prude? Do you hate the human form? B♭maj7 “We are moving too fast for any label to stick.”-CLRJ 02:12, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I have nothing against nudity in an appropriate context. I just don't feel it is appropriate for my talk page. In an art gallery, or in a movie, or whatnot, or in your bedroom, that is fine. Just not on my talk page please. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 02:14, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Why in galleries and not here? Why would pictures of kittens be appropriate here, but not pictures of human beings? B♭maj7 “We are moving too fast for any label to stick.”-CLRJ 02:16, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Because not everyone wants to look at those pictures, and we should respect that. Try posting some of those pictures on the wall of your office cubicle (if you work in an office) and see how long it will last. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 02:18, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I didn't ask about everyone, I asked about you. Why do YOU not want to look at those pictures? Also, an office is different from a page on the internet; maybe you shouldn't go to websites that have naked pictures on them -- the naked pictures were here long before you. Also, I am in my office looking at a photograph of a naked person right now. B♭maj7 “We are moving too fast for any label to stick.”-CLRJ 02:21, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I just plain don't want to look at those pictures. Other people should respect that. If they want to look at them, they can stare at them all day long as far as I am concerned, but I don't want to. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 02:23, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

"I just plain don't want to" is hardly a philosophically satisfying argument. I'm quite sure pictures of goats or puppies would not have garnered the reaction we have seen from you. So what is it about pictures of humans as opposed to pictures of other species that bothers you? B♭maj7 “We are moving too fast for any label to stick.”-CLRJ 02:35, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

It's not a philosophical position, it's just how I feel. I love coriander, my girlfriend hates it. Why? We just do. It's not a philosophically satisfying argument, it doesn't need to be.

But, the argument is we should try to respect how others feel, even if we don't feel the same way. There is no philosophical argument for or against liking coriander; there is one against, knowing that someone dislikes it, throwing it in their face. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 02:38, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

You need to lighten up about the pictures. We have gotten a bit more serious in the last few months, just enough to try and keep the malicious trolls under control, but this is still a rowdy Wiki and is probably going to stay that way. If you dislike the Wiki's atmosphere, no one is forcing you to remain. ListenerX^TalkerX 02:43, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Like I said, the pics were here before you. You should have done your due diligence. And you can't conflate the taste of a spice, which invovles particular chemical reactions, and the site of one of many thousands of mammals, one of which you happen to be. Still not satisfied with your answer, but I never really expected to be. B♭maj7 “We are moving too fast for any label to stick.”-CLRJ 02:46, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I have no objection to the pictures being on the Wiki. I just don't want them on my talk page. Is it that hard? If Ace wants to paste those pictures all over his own talk page and user page, I have no objection. Human even has pornographic advertising on his user page, and I have not objected. Just not in my userspace, please. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 02:48, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Which brings us back to where we started. Why those pictures and why this space? B♭maj7 “We are moving too fast for any label to stick.”-CLRJ 03:05, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Because my talk page is primarily for addressing me, and if I don't like seeing certain images, people should have the decency to not post them on my talk page if they know that. If they are somehow relevant to the conversation, fair enough, but not just posting them to annoy.

Why don't I like seeing them? I couldn't say for sure, I just don't. I don't think there is anything necessarily wrong or immoral with them, I just dislike them. Ask a psychologist maybe. My girlfriend has known for years she hasn't liked coriander, and hasn't known why, but that lack of knowledge why hasn't made her dislike somehow invalid. Its believed (but not proven) like/dislike of coriander is caused by a certain gene. But not knowing why you dislike something, doesn't make your dislike for it any less real or valid. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 03:11, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

What, specifically, is wrong with this image? –SuspectedReplicant retire me 08:16, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Meanwhile I find everything you say offensive. Does that give me the right to delete anything you post on my talk page? I guess, from your reasoning, it does. Bob Soles (talk) 08:20, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Let's say we worked together, and you went to Human Resources, and complained I was harassing you. They'd ask, what does he do to harass you? If you reply, "his every word", they'd ask which ones? If you said, "Nothing in particular, just all of them"... "is he constantly approaching you?" "no, he just says hello in the hallway every now and again, but I find that offensive". I don't think they'd take your complaint seriously, and you may well find yourself in hot water for having come to them with something so frivolous. On the other hand, if you said "he keeps on leaving pictures of naked people on my desk", they'd take that seriously. The point is, in a society, there are certain shared expectations about what kinds of behaviour plausibly could offend others. That is not a guarantee they will offend anyone in any particular circumstances, but if someone claims to be offended, their claim will be taken seriously. On the other hand, if they claim to be offended by something which those shared expectations say is inoffensive, they cannot expect that claim to be taken seriously. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 09:49, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Using your analogy HR would say that leaving pictures of naked persons around is a long standing and acceptable practice at RW. The shared expectations are that a way of saying that one considers another to be an arse is to post a picture of one. That is how RW has worked for ages, it's how some of us like it to work. Just because you're a stuck up little prig doesn't mean that different rules should apply to you. Bob Soles (talk) 10:00, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, in my country, and probably in yours too, if HR said that, the company would be facing a lawsuit. No company can pretend it is its own little culture that can completely ignore the surrounding cultural environment (local, national, and global), and no website can either (certainly not any website that wants to be taken seriously). (((Zack Martin)))^™ 10:06, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

But your analogy is false - you're the person in the strip club complaining that there are naked bodies. As for your concern trolling about being taken seriously, anybody who posts the pseudo religious twaddle that you do does far, far more to damage this site's reputation than a humorous picture of a normal naked body that only the most repressed of prudes could find offensive. I note that you still haven't replied to SR's question as to what you find so offensive about it? Is it becuase it's a man? Does that make it yukky? Bob Soles (talk) 10:25, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

what about this French nude woman Is this offensive? Bob Soles (talk) 10:29, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I think being an image of a man might be part of it... also being a rather unattractive man (not that I can complain, I am not particularly attractive myself)... but if you put some cute naked twentysomething female model, I'd still ask for it to be removed... because, even though I might possibly enjoy looking at such a picture in private, I want my talk page to be a welcoming place for people who don't find looking at such an image enjoyable (e.g. many women would find such an image would make them uncomfortable — one can ask why they'd feel that way, and one can think of some possible answers, but the reality is it doesn't matter why, the fact is they don't, and I can't change that, and I'm going to respect that). You compare this place to a strip club, I have to ask what does this site's mission statement have to do with being a strip club? This:

“”Our purpose here at RationalWiki includes: Analyzing and refuting pseudoscience and the anti-science movement. Documenting the full range of crank ideas. Explorations of authoritarianism and fundamentalism. Analysis and criticism of how these subjects are handled in the media. We welcome contributors, and encourage those who disagree with us to register and engage in constructive dialogue.

does not seem to imply being a strip club. This site is called RationalWiki, not PornoWiki. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 10:38, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

and you confirm my point. There's nothing pornographic about the man's arse - he just happens to be naked. This you object to most strongly. You only mildly object to the Parisienne postcard which is definitely pornographic - it was created solely for sexual gratification. Methinks there's some homophobia going on here. OK, so maybe my strip club analogy wasn't strictly on the money but, surely, you could see that, from the moment you arrived here, this is the sort of thing that happens. RW is a place where a little friendly joshing goes on. Try this as an analogy, it's like complaining about the language in a biker bar. Bob Soles (talk) 11:08, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

You are ignoring other images that Ace has posted, e.g. the Frot image, which is definitely pornographic. I have nothing against homosexuality, it's the out of context nudity I am referring to. If there was a Robert Mapplethorpe retrospective on at an art gallery, I would probably go see it myself... but I don't want irrelevant nudity posted on my talk page. Because I want to welcome people to my talk page whom wouldn't go to see such an exhibition themselves, and I respect that. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 11:26, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that one. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 11:28, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Because I want to welcome people to my talk page whom wouldn't go to see such an exhibition themselves, and I respect that. - trust me, no one who would take offence at nudity - in or out of context - would be on this wiki - well, except you, of course. That is just a stupid attempt at a get out. It's a variant on "think of the children". Additionally the arse photo wasn't out of context - it was a graphical way of calling you an arse. Bob Soles (talk) 11:36, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

What part of We welcome contributors, and encourage those who disagree with us to register and engage in constructive dialogue. don't you understand? A lot of people don't like irrelevant images of nudity or pornography, all over the political spectrum, from many feminists on the left, to conservatives on the right. I want them to feel welcome to participate on my talk page in constructive dialogue. Posting pictures of naked people, or drawings of people having sex, is not constructive dialogue. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 11:38, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

These images are all marked with the NSFW tag, so they will only be displayed if you have an account, are logged in, and have ticked the "Display filtered images" checkbox in preferences. So your reasoning is bullshit. -- Nx / talk 12:04, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

There is no indication in the link itself that the image linked to could offend. That is why I object to the link. I object to the surprise factor. <nowiki>-ing the image gives a clearer indication that the link is one that some people might not want to follow. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 12:07, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Your concern was that visitors to your talk page would see naughty stuff. What do you expect to see if you click a link that says "full frontal nudity"? -- Nx / talk 12:11, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Not all links are so obvious. Consider Frot.jpg. There is no obvious indication in its name that it is pornographic. Similarly, Partytime has a completely uninformative name. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 12:15, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I must agree with Maratrean here. That's vandalism and the revert was justified. Stop trolling him. - LucidFox (talk) 08:31, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

FFS, leave the guy alone already. People don't usually expect to see an NSFW image on their talk page when they get an orange bar, and this is harassment and trolling. -- Nx / talk 11:34, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Yup. It's about time he experienced the same level of trolling he's inflicting on everybody else. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 11:38, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Which of these is offensive?

I don't want any of them showing on my talk page. Regardless of what offends me, I also don't want to offend any potential visitors. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 11:22, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Editing another user's comment

You know, you're not supposed to do that. Plus those images are filtered by default. Only people who have chosen to see filtered images will see them. -- Nx / talk 11:42, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

You've been editing his comments too, changing [[File:X]] to [[:File:X]]. And putting <nowiki> around a user's comment is not editing their comment, it is surrounding their comment, no different than enclosing it in {{collapse}} or {{trolltop}}. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 11:44, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Besides, the rule against editing another user's comment exists to avoid misrepresentation, ie. changing what someone said to have them say something else. Adding markup like <nowiki> isn't actually changing what they have said, it is simply changing how what they say is displayed. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 11:46, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay, people

Would you kindly stop picking on Maratrean and go do something more productive? - LucidFox (talk) 11:48, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Annoying the troll is very productive, and will be even more so if he decides to fuck off. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 11:49, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I am a very persistent person... so are you... it would be best for both of us if we let it go. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 11:51, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Why don't you piss off to Conservapedia and carry on trying to ingratiate yourself by undoing vandalism? Your user and talk pages have just been hit, BTW. And no, it's not me. Just someone else finding you a PITA. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 11:56, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Even if he's a troll, don't lower yourselves to his level - just block him. If he's not a troll, then I don't see the problem. - LucidFox (talk) 12:16, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

whether he likes it or not, Mara has set himself up as a target, a position he reinforces with this priggish attitude. As such it's fun to poke him and watch him dance. Bob Soles (talk) 12:20, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

For some, maybe. But it's frankly immature and childish, not to mention detrimental to the site's civility and setting a bad example. - LucidFox (talk) 12:28, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Enough

You've already gone to the Coop and at least 2 talk pages. Taking your pathetic whingeing to the Saloon Bar is just attention whoring and excessive trolling. Just because you're losing, don't start smearing your shit on the walls. Grow up. --PsyGremlinTala! 12:46, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Stop. Now. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 12:54, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

As I said, it is legitimate to bring important concerns to the attention of a wider audience. And "concern trolling" is a loaded phrase invented by those who wish to dismiss and stifle dissent. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 13:00, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, this was fun.

It was fun feeding you. Now you will be ignored by me. sterile^talk 14:53, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure he's happy about that. :) --★uːʤɱ socialist 15:21, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

"From my perspective, this religion was revealed to me, just like how Christianity was revealed to Jesus, or Islam to Muhammad, or Judaism to Moses."

You need the help of a mental health professional, and you need it immediately. B♭maj7 “We are moving too fast for any label to stick.”-CLRJ 03:49, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Tell the Christians they should have sent Jesus to see a psychiatrist. Hey, tell the Muslims they should have sent Muhammad to see a psychiatrist. I wonder how they'd react. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 03:53, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Wow, comparing yourself to Jesus...wow. Ace^ace 03:54, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

B♭maj7 has a point, you know. Muhammad's visions came with symptoms resembling those of epileptic seizures. Have you ever talked to a shrink about your intense mythopoeia? ListenerX^TalkerX 03:56, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I have had epileptic seizures before, yes. But I had them long ago, before I had any of these "strange religious views", and haven't had any recently. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 04:01, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

It is hard to know what Jesus preached,so I won't comment on him, but Muhammad should certainly have been referred to a psychiatrist, same for L Ron, although perhaps he and Joseph Smith were smart enough to just be in it for the money. Are you in it for the money as well? Damo^Hi 04:03, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

What diagnosis could a psychiatrist possibly have given? Refer say DSM-IV — what would be Professor Damo's diagnosis? (((Zack Martin)))^™ 04:05, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Well I don't know, and I wouldn't like to speculate on you, but a few years ago I also heard voices telling me all sorts of weird things. I was diagnosed with a mild form of schizophrenia, given some anti-psychotics and now I don't hear weird voices quite so much. Who knows what your issue is. Damo^Hi 04:13, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that. I don't hear voices — as mentioned, I experience revelation in a propositional/conceptual form, not an auditory/visual form. I guess antipsychotics would stop it somewhat, because when I've taken them in the past (not for psychosis, for anxiety), I've found they tend to stop thought in general. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 04:15, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

There isn't any meaningful difference between hearing voices and "experiencing revelation in a propositional/conceptual form" is there? Your revelation about your past use of anti-psych's is interesting. I suspect even you know that this is all bollocks. Damo^Hi 04:25, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, there is a difference between auditory hallucinations and creative inspiration of the mythopoeic sort. Tolkien was not nuts. ListenerX^TalkerX 04:27, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

You have lost me. Did Tolkien start to claim that Hobbits and Elves and Sauron etc were all real?--Damo^Hi 04:31, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I seem to recall that Maratrean has repeatedly insisted that he does not think his "Terror Taba" is real, either. ListenerX^TalkerX 04:33, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Link? I don't know how that would square with his statement of faith or this stuff being "revealed to him like Christianity was to Jesus". He clearly has a different attitude to all this stuff than Tolkien had about Hobbits. --Damo^Hi 04:41, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Here is the link; the Terror Taba is classed as a "tale told for the amusement of children."

My remark was to illustrate the difference between auditory hallucinations and creative inspiration. The difference between how Maratrean and Tolkien interpreted the latter is not really relevant. ListenerX^TalkerX 04:45, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

With respect, you are overthinking things. Tolkien wrote novels, Maratrean claims to have received divine revelation. Not related at all. Damo^Hi 04:51, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Do you deny any difference between auditory hallucinations and creative inspiration? ListenerX^TalkerX 04:56, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Of course not. Just that Maratrean is not claiming merely "creative inspiration". He is claiming that his "revelation[s] in a propositional/conceptual form" have some claim to being true. The Taba story is no longer classed as literally true (apparently it once was) but that appears to be a very small part of his religion. Damo^Hi 05:07, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

edit break

Damo, just because I have some history of mental and neurological illness, does not automatically make my claims invalid. I think there is a lot of stigma against people with a history of mental illness in our society, which is unfortunate, since most people will suffer from some mental illness at some point in their lives. From the very beginning, the Terror Taba was presented as just a story, without any necessary factual basis. In fact, I have never asserted that any matters regarding Travancus and Claretta were literally true; but even within that context, Claretta says the story is not meant to be taken literally — that is like double non-literalness, like two levels of non-literality. The Taba story (as opposed to the Terror Taba story, noting they are different), is being de-emphasised, since outsiders are focusing on it too much, even though he will always be dear to my heart — and as an omnitheist, who believes in all gods, how can I deny his existence? Nor can I deny the existence of Zeus or Odin or Juno or Horus or Aten or the Jade Emperor or Baal or Mahakala or Yahweh or Allah or Quetzalcoatl or Shiva or Ahura Mazda... I think the difference between mere creative inspiration and revelation, is that with revelation the idea comes attached with another idea, that the idea is somewhat of universal import or significance... with mere creative inspiration, that idea of universal import is lacking, or less certain (and which is the greater Art?). As to Tolkien specifically, I suppose we have to ask if his mythopoeia was connected to his devout Catholicism — although he eschewed C.S. Lewis' blatant allegory, I am sure that if you asked him, he would have said that it was. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 08:39, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

To clarify, Tolkien did not write about elves and dwarves as a religion. He created a mythology to support Lord of the Rings. He certainly knew the difference, and so should you. sterile^talk 14:42, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Have you read Tolkien's Mythopoeia? His dispute with C. S. Lewis, which lead to that poem, was that C. S. Lewis claimed that myths were worthless, Tolkien believed that myths convey eternal truths. You may not believe it, but the evidence supports the view that Tolkien himself believed that The Lord of the Rings, and the rest of his Legendarium, conveyed his Roman Catholic faith, not in the blatantly allegorically manner of Narnia, in a manner much more subtle, but conveyed it nonetheless. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 09:34, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

You are free to believe whatever the hell you like. Travancus and Claretta and Taba and whoever. I however am free to say that I think there must be something seriously wrong with you. --Damo^Hi 10:24, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Well I suppose you are free to believe whatever you like, as am I. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 09:34, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, but then I am not trying to form a world dominant theocracy like you are:

"In the final, eschatological phaseMaratrean homeland expands to incorporate the entirety of the earth under one system of government."reference here

:::::The potential consequences of my beliefs that you are crazy are not as dangerous as the potential consequences that you believe gods are revealing things to you. --Damo^Hi 09:45, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Something I do not expect to live to see, nor will you. Why are you worried about something that will happen long after you die, if it ever will? In any case, a Maratrean theocracy would be very mild, compared to many other religious ones... we do not believe in capital or corporal punishment or torture... we aren't even very keen on imprisonment... imagine a theocracy ruled by hippies... (((Zack Martin)))^™ 09:48, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

That type of thinking is exactly how cults start.--Damo^Hi 09:53, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

edit break

@Ace - I don't claim to be equivalent to Jesus. I simply say that myself and Jesus may potentially have a few things in common. Do you have anything in common with Jesus? Well, your behaviour of late would make be doubt that, but I wouldn't rule it out as entirely impossible. Maybe there is another side of yourself you have not been showing us — if so, let it shine! (((Zack Martin)))^™ 04:04, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

B♭maj7 “We are moving too fast for any label to stick.”-CLRJ 04:07, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

"Tell the Christians they should have sent Jesus to see a psychiatrist. Hey, tell the Muslims they should have sent Muhammad to see a psychiatrist." I have done. And now I'm telling you. B♭maj7 “We are moving too fast for any label to stick.”-CLRJ 04:05, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I only have two sides - angry and asleep. Ace^ace 04:09, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

"If two men say they're Jesus, one of them must be wrong." "Industrial Disease," Mark Knopfler. B♭maj7 “We are moving too fast for any label to stick.”-CLRJ 04:11, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I am not Jesus. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 04:13, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I am not Jesus. I'm not Jesus (talk) 07:51, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't want to be offensive but epilepsy has been linked to extreme religiosity. Just because you haven't had any major seizures does not mean that your 'revelations' have not been the result of abnormal electrical activity in your brain rather than divine inspiration. Just saying' - I don't intend to get into a debate about this. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 04:52, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Of course, it could be both divine inspiration and minor epileptic seizures, but Maratrean should get all the facts before he makes the decision about divine inspiration. ListenerX^TalkerX 05:15, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Maratrean writes:

• I simply say that myself and Jesus may potentially have a few things in common

Could you expand on this and tell us of the things you have in common with Jesus but which other people do not have in common with Jesus.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 07:44, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

What is a minor epileptic seizure? I know what more major ones are like, from childhood experiences of them, but what is a minor one like? I can't recall anything that fits that bill; I suppose if by minor you mean so minor so as to be unnoticeable, I can't exclude that. I have not had an EEG since I was nine or ten years old, but my neurologist said I had abnormal brain waves, although he qualified that with a remark that an abnormal EEG result, in and of itself, is nothing to worry about; my CT scan was fine. Sometimes I do enter into these strange states, when I would bet if you hooked me up to an EEG machine at that time, you would see some interesting readings; although, it so happens, I do not observe any correlation between my "strange" moments and religiosity; if anything, in my strange moments I am less religious than usual, too caught up in that indescribable queerness of mind to have time for religion or belief or opinion or argument or thought. But anyway, I would agree with ListenerX's remarks, that I would not consider divine revelation and epileptic seizures to be mutually exclusive possibilities, although in my own case I don't see any correlation between the two.

As to what I think I possibly have in common in Jesus, I have mentioned below: I think the prophetic faculty is common to all humanity, but may be more actualised in some individuals than others. I think, with respect to myself, it is more actualised than is common for human beings; so that is something I have in common with Jesus that the bulk of humanity does not, although I do not claim that the degree of actualisation of the faculty of prophecy in me is anywhere near that of Jesus — quite probably he is several orders of magnitude above me in that regard. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 08:47, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm assuming you're talking about grand mal seizures? What brought them on? And if you hadn't had any since you were a kid, then there's no big deal. I got heat exhaustion six times during (American) football while 14. But I can walk and run in the sun fine now.--User:Brxbrx/sig 09:35, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, I don't remember most of the seizures, since most of them occurred in my sleep, but apparently they were violent enough to wake my mother. I do definitely remember one when I was conscious, there were very rudimentary visual hallucinations, bright flashing lights, and I was semi-paralysed, I could still move, but only with immense difficulty; I don't remember any actual unconsciousness or convulsions, although that I don't remember them is not to say they did not happen. Somewhat earlier, but around the same time, I remember, one very vivid case of hypnagogic hallucination, whose content was comprised of a repetitive childhood dream (killer robots coming to get me; the robots looked like Rosie from the Jetsons, only more sinister). I don't remember the precise diagnosis, but I think it was similar to Rolandic epilepsy. I was never medicated for it, they'd stopped by the time I was a teenager. The neurologist suggested stress could be a cause of it, although I also suspect a genetic susceptibility; I've observed petit mal seizures in my mother and in my late maternal grandmother, although my mother has expressed the opinion that in her case she thinks they are microstrokes (transient ischaemic attack), related to brain damage due to high blood pressure during pregnancy (and my late maternal grandmother, she was in her eighties, so the stroke-based explanation would naturally make sense for her). (((Zack Martin)))^™ 09:57, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

just like how Christianity was revealed to Jesus

What?--Mikalos209 (talk) 04:14, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

It looks like he takes the Unitarian view of Jesus. ListenerX^TalkerX 04:19, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes and no. Consider the Islamic view of Jesus, in which Jesus is a prophet. (I've heard a few Jews view him similarly, although that is not the mainstream view.) Of course, Christians claim he was a lot more than just a Prophet; but I don't think the Christian claim that he is a lot more than a Prophet excludes him being a Prophet: the greater encompasses, but does not negate, the lesser. It is in this sense of Prophecy which I suggest I might be like Jesus; or indeed, we all may be like Jesus, since I believe that prophecy is a potential common to all, although only some actualise that potential. Maratreanism teaches a fivefold classification of Prophets. I would suggest, but do not definitively claim, that Jesus may have been a prophet of the fifth rank; whereas I, if I am a prophet, (and at present I only formally claim protoprophecy, not prophecy), then I am probably one of the second rank only, which would leave Jesus as several ranks above my own (proto)prophethood. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 08:18, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh dear. If he existed, Jesus (Jeshua ben Joseph) was most certainly not a Christian - he was Jewish through and through, possibly part of the Essene sect and opposed to the Roman rule - that's why several disciples are described as Zealots. The latter turned on him after Jesus' "render unto Caesar" comment, which they saw as a betrayal of the cause. The whole idea of Christianity was made up by Paul, who never even met Jesus. In addition, the idea of Christ being divine was the invention of early church councils who declared him to be the son of God. Nothing was revealed to Jesus. If you're going to make shit up, at least do some research first. --PsyGremlinRunāt! 10:39, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the idea of Christ as divine was invented by the early Church councils. They belong to the 4th century and later, while language in the Gospel of John is strongly suggestive of a divine or quasi-divine Jesus, and it dates from the late first or early-to-mid second century. And, we may well see elements of the same in the synoptics or some of the Pauline epistles, although that is a hotly disputed question.

There seems to me to be no problem with the idea that Jesus considered himself a Prophet. While the Pharisees may have held that prophecy ended in the time of Malachi, the Essenes seem not to have held the same (the Teacher of Righteousness and all). We have multiple sources, including non-Christian sources, supporting the idea of John the Baptist as a Prophet — if he could be a Prophet, why not his disciple Jesus?

We don't know for sure what Jesus actually taught. You are right that we should not hastily identify Jesus' teachings with what later became Christianity. But nor is it impossible that Christianity was some natural development of Jesus' own teaching, as opposed to relying on the genius of another (such as Paul). Since we don't know for sure what Jesus actually taught, we can't say with any certainty how near or far his own teachings were from Christianity.

I should note, however, when I say just like how Christianity was revealed to Jesus, I am invoking the claims of Christianity as a point of comparison. The comparison actually holds whether or not the claims themselves be true or false. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 11:00, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

He was declared divine in 325 A.D. at the first Council of Nicaea. And your last paragraph is gibberish. --PsyGremlinHable! 11:08, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

And you think that no one thought of him that way before the First Council of Nicaea met? That Constantine had just decided to convoke a council, to manufacture a doctrine out of thin air, and this is the doctrine they decided upon? The controversy about whether Jesus was divine, and if so in what way, was raging long before the Council was convoked; if it wasn't for that controversy, it seems unlikely Constantine would have ever convoked it. So the claim that the First Council of Nicaea, is the origin of the doctrine that Jesus is divine, is false. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 11:14, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Your ignorance is almost amusing. Go and read up on the history of Constantine and Christianity. Pay special attention to Sol Invictus. The fact that there was debate defeats your own argument - Jesus never claimed to be divine - it took men to elevate him to that position. As some Pope said, "It has worked well for us, this myth of Jesus." --PsyGremlinFale! 14:30, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

What i was going to point out before i went to bed, The thing is, he wasn't given what he preached like Muhammad was, if anything you would level that claim on Paul since he was ultimately the game changer from small Jewish sect to full on Gentile religion. --Mikalos209 (talk) 14:17, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

When you say:

• (my ability to prophesy) "is more actualised than is common for human beings; so that is something I have in common with Jesus"

Could you give us some examples of your successful prophecies and of some which have yet to come to pass?--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 14:39, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

OK, Psygremlin first. Have you read John 1? Can't you see in John 1, if not a fully divine Jesus, at least a quasi-divine one? And when is the Gospel of John dated to? Around two centuries before Nicaea. So, rather than being an invention of Constantine, the idea of a (semi-)divine Jesus is around two centuries earlier. I also think your ideas about the role of Constantine, the First Council of Nicaea and the Arian controversy, are not very historically accurate. Do you think that Constantine was personally responsible for the triumph of Homoousianism over Homoiousianism? Was Constantine so concerned about a single iota? Or did he frankly not care what Christology the Christians adopted, so long as they stopped fighting over it? The later seems much a more natural explanation for the politician that he was. Constantine's adherence to the cult of Sol Invictus might be an influence on the date of Christmas, although that is heavily disputed; but I think the claim that the cult of Sol Invictus has some influence on Christology reflects an ignorance of the history of the subject.

Mikalos209: Well, if you read the Gospels, there is no moment of revelation for Jesus, like there was for Muhammad, or say Joseph Smith. Muhammad went to a cave, and the angel Gabriel said Read!. Revelation had a definite beginning, and for Muhammad there was some definite revelatory state. Whereas for Jesus, there is no record of such a decisively revelatory moment, unless we maybe consider the descent of the Holy Spirit during his baptism to be such a moment (as I take it some of the Adoptionists did.) Personally, I feel that revelation is something that slowly bubbles up within me, like a slow-moving spring, I cannot point to an exact moment of its occurrence or commencement; as such, I look at Jesus, and see someone who may have had a similar experience.

BobM: I don't see prophecy as being primarily about predicting the future. On the contrary, I see prophecy as being primarily about receiving divine revelation. I believe the some total of my work so far, in discovering and establishing Maratreanism, is a form of divine revelation. But I make no specific predictions about the future. On the contrary, since I believe in not one future but many futures (in branching time, in ever-dividing universes), any such prophecy, except the most general such prophecy, is bound to be false in at least one future branch, yet equally highly likely to be true in at least one such branch also. Thus, all prophecies are false, but even those which are false are true, just not here. One who realises this does not attempt to prophesy, realising the pointlessness thereof. The exception is the broadest of prophecies — that all things come to an end, after a finite time, in the triumph of the greatest goodness — but after how long? The answer to that question is not one, but many, and we know not any of those durations with precision. (Let me predict, however, that it is highly likely, that the universe will die within the next 100 million years, in all branches from here descending... That I am willing to prophesy...) (((Zack Martin)))^™ 09:30, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

We are very displeased with you

Repent! recant! --Suarenna, She Who Remains (talk) 13:34, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Why? Oh anyway, in the Maratrean Reformation, the name of Suarenna is being dispensed with, at least for the time being, although She Who Remains is being retained. The Holy Maratrean Trinity: She Who Divides, She Who Remains, She Who Returns. She Who Divides is the product of first division, who enters into second division in a great kenosis; She Who Returns is the product of penultimate merge, who becomes one with She Who Remains in the ultimate merger. When Suarenna and Suade alone are, that is the Earlier Lesser Sabbath; when Suaretta and Suarenna alone are, that is the Latter Lesser Sabbath; when Suarenna alone is, that is the Great Sabbath. Three Sabbaths at the beginning-end of time. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 09:38, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm back!

Did I miss anything? --Suaretta, She Who Returns (talk) 13:38, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

How could you, anointed with the perfection of memory, forget anything, save the Great Sabbath itself, which is about to become of your knowledge, your remembrance, in ultimate merger? (((Zack Martin)))^™ 09:41, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I am here

Woof Woof. Why do you insist Taba is not real? I have just spoken with him this morning. --Holy Lord Bacu (talk) 19:38, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I find your lack of faith disturbing. Why would you defame me so? --Claretta (talk) 19:43, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I am real. I am Batman. Taba (talk) 21:55, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

THE TERROR TABA IS ANGRY AT MY MENAGERIE. I WILL BITE YOU ALL AND TURN YOU INTO VAMPIRES. TERROR TABA

I never said Taba was not real. I simply said he was being de-emphasised. As I said, he will always be dear to my heart; as I said, as an omnitheist, how can I deny the existence of any god? (((Zack Martin)))^™ 09:42, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

What is your plan to spread the good news?

We are very disappointed that you have not been able to proselytize the good news about us better. Apparently you are still the only one who knows the truth about us. There are plans afoot to replace you with someone who will put more effort in. Surely you can get one person to learn the truth. Holy Lord Bacu (talk) 21:46, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I am working as hard as I can, under the totality of the circumstances. Since when does Bacu address me in American spelling? proselytise... (((Zack Martin)))^™ 09:44, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

We are unhappy that you have been unable to convince even one person of the truth. Perhaps it is time we got someone with a some more people skills and less inclination to write screeds of unintelligible piffle. When we showed ourselves to Muhammad he got converts almost immediately. If we don't get results soon we'll find someone who can. --Holy Lord Bacu (talk) 10:01, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Rest assured

When you die i plan to have your message spread across the globe. Besides australia--Mikalos209 (talk) 23:03, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Are you connected with this in some way?

In my lunch room today I found a booklet entitled Set Theory Made Consistent: A Treatise removing the seeming contradictions in the Foundations of Modern Mathematical Logic. When I think of fringe Australian mathematical logicians, I think of you. You know anything about this? - π 07:49, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

No, I have not heard of it. Actually, my "fringe mathematical logic" tastes go more in the direction of Graham Priest, Professor at the University of Melbourne. Priest's approach to set theory is not "Set Theory Made Consistent", rather it is "Set Theory Kept Inconsistent, And Inconsistency Isn't As Bad As They Say...". You'd be surprised, however, the number of odd mathematical ideas out there. A few months back, a friend of mine gave me a 70 page essay written by one of his in-laws, claiming to contain a proof of Riemann's Hypothesis. He was hoping I might understand maths well enough to make head or tail of it; sadly, my knowledge of maths was not sufficiently advanced to really evaluate this work; but, I said, even though I lacked the knowledge to find any errors in his proof myself, my gut told me it was likely wrong, because the maths involved seemed relatively simple (it was basically just solving a whole bunch of differential equations—figures, given that I'm told the author is a retired engineer), and one would have thought that if a proof involving relatively simple maths of Riemann's Hypothesis existed, someone would have found it by now... also, the rather low calibre of the references (few references, mostly to textbooks, no papers or advanced monographs) was another red flag. I'd expect, if we ever do find a proof of the Riemann hypothesis, it will probably be hellishly complicated, just like the proof of Fermat's Last Theorem was... (((Zack Martin)))^™ 09:28, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

AbuseFilter

I've written an edit filter that prevents non-mods and non-techs from editing your user page. You should still be able to edit it fine though. Please contact me if there are any problems. -- Nx / talk 04:37, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Nx. As always your assistance is greatly appreciated. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 08:10, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Are you going to offer that to other users, or is this another ad hoc decision the community has to accept without vote or discussion in your role as tech-acting-as-moderator? Just curious. sterile^talk 14:46, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, actually, as soon as I can figure out a nice way to modify this extension to make it opt in. Btw, you should read RW:CS#User pages -- Nx / talk 17:37, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

user page protection I am in complete agreement on. I thought it was site policy not to mess on a users page ?. User talk pages I think should be public BUT some things are funny once and after that seem to me more vandalism, which I am against. I consider this whole site as not suitable for work though. Hamster (talk) 20:14, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Kt kinda becomes option 5 on the voting thing, however. sterile^talk 20:29, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

That vote is about user talk pages. User pages have always been the sole property of the user. -- Nx / talk 08:30, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

In the eternal world of contradictions between those enamored with rules at RW, if Human delcared his user page a troll sanctuary and allowed MC to write on it or wrote what he wrote there, I highly doubt one of the obsessed would not delete it. sterile^talk 10:50, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, because we had a vote that said users are not allowed to create troll sanctuaries. Your userpage being your property doesn't mean there are no exceptions to what you can put there. -- Nx / talk 13:33, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Don't pay any attention to her....

...she's just having a bad day. Hugs and kisses. --Suade, She Who Divides (talk) 13:36, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Does Suarenna ever have a bad day? Do Suade and Suarenna ever fight? No. Hugs and kisses they have, for me, or for each other? When they both are, and as of now Suarenna alone is, we are not; for we are they whom Suade is to become. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 09:40, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Does Suarenna ever have a bad day? She's a woman, for goat's sake. Or is it that, in Maratrean sugar mountain la-la land women don't have hormones. Even Medusa has "bad hair days". Travancus (talk) 13:42, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Help Wanted.

Certain Ex-Deities may now be at a Loose End. As part of my Deity Employment Program I have embarked on a Project to Relieve their Plight.--Tolerance (talk) 20:02, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Situations Vacant

Are you a recently-deposed demigod, holy animal or spiritual being?
Are you looking to expand into new dimensions of godhood?
Are you fed up with being unappreciated, referred to as being mythical or being banished to the apophrica?
Do you want to be part of the most rapidly-growing religion on Rational wiki?

If so, then Tolerism may give you the position you've been looking for.
Please send your CV to Tolerance for evaluation and review.
Previous work experience as a deity or magical being is a prerequisite.

No retards

File:Aceshouse.jpg

this means YOU

Leaves only one question open, how did Ace survive here for four years? Or did the alcohol over time do that job? --★uːʤɱ sinner 23:23, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Ace^ace 23:23, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't really talking to you… --★uːʤɱ heretic 23:26, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Well neither was I talking to you but here we are. What are you talking about? Ace^ace 23:28, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Are you seriously not getting that? Um, ok. I was saying you are a retard, or you behave like one because over the years all the alcohol killed too many brain cells. And thus, the question how you are still permitted in that (your?) house (I thought you meant RW with that, nevermind). --★uːʤɱ constructivist 23:35, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah so what are talking about? Not allowed in my own house? I am a retard? Fuck you, retard. Ace^ace 23:38, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry

I've disabled the edit filter. I'm sorry, but you'll just have to deal with the trolls. Maybe after a huge edit war and the ensuing HCM the mob will finally do something about them. It's a shame it always has to be like that. Oh well. Welcome to RationalWiki. -- Nx / talk 17:16, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Nx, if you want problems resolved, you take it to the community and ask for them to be solved, not take this kind of shit into your own hands like a sanctimonious authoritarian cunt enforcing your own private will. I pity us if you're elected to mod. 17:21, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

RW:COOP#Ace McWicked, AGAIN, but that's just the latest. -- Nx / talk 17:29, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

The edit filter affected no one but Maratrean. You don't have the right to modify his user page anyways. This was by no means authoritarian and Nx and Maratrean abided by the rules--User:Brxbrx/sig 17:25, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

What rule says that Nx is allowed to unilaterally implement a particular protocol in order to deal with problematic users? B♭maj7 "If two men say they're Jesus, one of them must be wrong." 17:27, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

When the particular protocol doesn't affect the problematic users and only prevents them from breaking the rules, I'd say at least that there's no rule against it; besides, read the abuse filter page for an explanation of the function and presumably the rules--User:Brxbrx/sig 17:34, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Here's what. The reason Nx was offered the a job with well-described duties and limitations was to prevent him from implementing things of this nature without approval from the corporate officer charged with caring. The board felt it was inappropriate to censure Nx for his prior wrongs when there was no specific rule against them so the blank slate got proposed as a way to get past prior issues and get Nx into a position of being accountable. There was little doubt that as a matter of right and authority he wasn't empowered to implement any of the significant changes he effected since May, but there is probably no strong consensus either way on whether the end effect was desirable. He's now thumbing his nose at us by not accepting Trent's offer in a timely manner yet continuing conduct that would be prohibited. At this point it's a matter of prudence. Authoritarians like Nx and Brxbrx will approve of what Nx is doing. Left libertarians and anarchists will disapprove. The only solution is to get Nx into a position of accountability ASAP or get him the fuck off the server.

RW:COOP#Ace McWicked, AGAIN, but that's just the latest. I guess you're not listening. I'll go do something else for a while.

When the particular protocol doesn't affect the problematic users and only prevents them from breaking the rules, I'd say at least that there's no rule against it Handwaving nonsense that ignores any semblance of the real issue. Did or did not Nx have authority. Do you want to participate in that discussion?

besides, read the abuse filter page for an explanation of the function and presumably the rules Again, irrelevant. If you want to participate in the real discussion, you're welcome. 17:40, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I do not have server access, and I've just declined the job. -- Nx / talk 17:43, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

{ec}Yes, Nx had the authority. He's the one with access to the magic toolbox, and there are no rules against using the magic toolbox in such a harmless fashion. Between laws lie freedoms.--User:Brxbrx/sig 17:44, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

jackboots

That means you, fascist. Ace^ace 00:35, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

It is sad that you show so little respect for the victims of Franco, Mussolini, Hitler, the Romanian Legionnaires, et al. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 00:53, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Hey man, the past is the past. The future is now, ya hear. Ace^ace 00:54, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I've decided

you may not be a troll. You might be a griefer instead. sterile^talk 00:37, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

No dude, the guy is fucked in the head. Ace^ace 00:38, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, that's given. sterile^talk 00:39, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

A "griefer"? I had not heard that term before, I had to look it up. Wikipedia says "a player in a multiplayer video game that deliberately irritates and harasses other players" — who have I been harassing? Well, Ace and friends are griefers certainly. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 00:55, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Martyrdom

Dearest proto-prophet, you have been a good proto-prophet, but you have ceased being useful to me. I suggest that you be a martyr and kill yourself to put you in the Eternal Panthenon of the Maratrean Prophets. Perhaps I will reincarnate you! The Goddess Maratrea (talk) 03:18, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Fake Maratrea (is that you sterile?) telling people to kill themselves IS NOT COOL. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 03:19, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Take thine goddess to the coop then. The Goddess Maratrea (talk) 03:21, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Done (((Zack Martin)))^™ 03:25, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure she doesn't really want you to kill yourself. Besides, you would have divined that on your own, right? sterile^talk 03:28, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

She doesn't, but The Goddess Maratrea isn't her, it is someone pretending to be her (you?). The person pretending to be her is advising me to kill myself. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 03:30, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Why would Maratrea pretent to be me? I still don't understand your delusion religion. sterile^talk 03:33, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Why would you pretend to be her? you are an admitted sockist in this area, and that plus the context makes me suspect this particular one is you. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 03:37, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Um, I didn't admit there that I was a sockist. At the time, the account Taba the Terror didn't exist at RW, and yet someone put in a RWW article that the account did exist. I corrected the factual error. No admission. Get a grip. sterile^talk 03:40, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Wrong link sorry, I meant the RWW page, wherein you say "It's kinda sad that I have three Maratrean religion socks." (((Zack Martin)))^™ 03:47, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Plus, there's no rule about socks here. They keep your feet warm. Dumbledore likes them. sterile^talk 03:41, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I never said there was such a rule. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 03:47, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I gave her a day's block for you. Toodles! sterile^talk 03:43, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

There are eight eleven total, that I know of. I guess you'll have to keep guessing.

“”The value of identity of course is that so often with it comes purpose.

—Richard Grant

sterile^talk 03:50, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

You're cooped, cunt

nuff said. --PsyGremlinRunāt! 11:06, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Atheists, bestiality and utilitarians, (oh my!)

Please recall that the biblical injunction prohibiting bestiality were an ethical response to Canaanite religious practices, some of which included the "sacrament" of having sex with a beast (or two) to ensure a good harvest, many sons, etc. "Good pagans" had to perform these rituals to maintain their standing in their respective communities. The sex was usually followed by a feast, usually of the very same animals that were the object of the sacrament.
Query: in your religion is it more ethical to fuck or eat a sheep?
Thanks for playing. Good-bye for forever. 19:41, 2 October 2011 (UTC) C®ackeЯ

Well, in my religion, it is okay to eat lamb, but not okay to have sex with sheep. I believe that should answer your question. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 10:06, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

That would be your religion that you made up while drunk, right? --Longbow (talk) 13:26, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I am going to kill you

Then I am going to take your corpse to a taxidermist and turn you into a statue that I'll scare the neighborhood children with at Halloween. What do you think of that? Ace^ace 20:51, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Pfft. Amateur. I'm stalking several RW editors so I can murder them, chop them up, and reassemble the parts into the ultimate love doll. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 21:26, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

And overnight we become Jeffrey Dahmer Wiki. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 21:44, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, you're on my list. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 21:47, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

You were already on my list...years ago. You just think you're alive because I kept your brain in a jar. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 21:51, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

TABA!! GAAAR!!!

SCREECH! (flap-flap-picks up rock) SCREECH! THE PROTOPROPHET IS MY TARGET! >>THUNK<< TERROR TABA (talk) 23:16, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Since you clearly need to be told

Per your comment. Nobody here likes you and thinks you are a dick. There are times when Ace's behaviour annoys me, but I still like him. You clearly don't agree with the site's mission, you clearly don't agree with the site's more relaxed discussion style and our lax policies. So why are you here? There are other sites that will provide free hosting for your essays. You might want to consider time away if you are going to get so emotionally caught up in things. - π 08:53, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

This site tries to claim the rational high ground — by its very name — yet continually acts in such a blatantly irrational manner. Don't think I'll let you off that easily. But I will propose a compromise — I will leave RW alone when RW leaves CP alone. Since that is really what it comes down to — a site that loves to criticise everyone else, but can't withstand being criticised in turn. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 08:59, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Well prepare to be laughed at. - π 09:02, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Prepare to have your behaviour called out relentlessly and kept in view. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 09:03, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Of who? Nobody is watching and nobody cares what happens here. You are only embarrassing yourself in front of the other members of this website. - π 09:04, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, various points I have made about this website, I have found people both on this website and on others in agreement with me. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 09:10, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Ultimatums now? Seriously? I'll give a big "not fucking likely" to that. Who the fuck do you think you are. Good luck, walrus rape for you. Ace^ace 09:11, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Ace, you are truly a despicable person. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 09:11, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Indeed I am. Ace^ace 09:13, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I still know which of the two of you I would have a beer with. - π 09:16, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't think Maratrean drinks, he certainly doesnt seem like a drinker. You'd be getting drunk and he'd be getting all twitchy over a cranberry juice. You'd wonder to yourself "How the fuck did this guy get so rabid over a tart fruit drink?" Ace^ace 09:21, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't drink? Maybe you should read the Block Log? (((Zack Martin)))^™ 09:23, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

You are either drinking too much or not drinking enough. Ace^ace 09:25, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

You know, there's a word for people who trot out the "oh, I thought you're supposed to be Rationalwiki claptrap - moron. There are people here, dickhead, they might not act rationally, that's what being human is all about, but the output that 99% of our visitors see is rational, moron. Unlike your fantasy made-up "religion" which is the best attention device I've seen since smearing your own shit on your bedroom wall. If you like CP so much and hate us so much, fuck off over there and be pally-pally with them. If we're supposed to be so rational, then I'm proposing that your irrational garbage be deleted. --PsyGremlinZungumza! 09:35, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

What Psy said. Lets get rational and quit supporting this gibberish spewing simplex virus. Ace^ace 09:37, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

You are irrational because you can't stand any viewpoints that disagree with your own — indeed, PG, you are proposing to delete views that disagree with yours. You constantly hypocritically whine about Conservapedia, but you are certainly no better than they are, maybe even worse... (((Zack Martin)))^™ 09:40, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

1. Random Godwin-esque comparisons between us and CP aren't helping your cause.
2. I'm not deleting views that differ to mine - I'm deleting views that are made-up bullshit from an attention seeking whore. Learn the difference. --PsyGremlin講話 10:02, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Godwinesque? When have I compared anyone to Hitler? Comparing you to Conservapedia (who cannot and should not be compared to Hitler or the Nazis) is entirely appropriate, given you are such a well-known vehement critic of their site — it serves to make your hypocrisy plain fro all to see.

And "made-up bullshit from an attention seeking whore" is what you call views that differ too much from your own. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 10:06, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Coolstory.jpg

tell me again

Ace^ace 10:05, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

No, you idiot - it's what I call your made-up, attention seeking bullshit. Seriously, you need to fuck off. Also, look up the meaning of "esque" --PsyGremlinKhuluma! 10:18, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I think you are mistaking 'politeness' for rationality Mara - clearly you can't expect much politeness on this wiki, but you can expect rationality. I think it's pretty obvious now that you are simply a concern troll. You might not even know it yet, but that's what you are. I like having you around though - if only because you stir up the hornets nest so much.Tielec01 (talk) 10:19, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

As I have argued repeatedly, politeness and rationality are closely connected — those lacking in politeness are invariably lacking in rationality too. To be rational, you have to take ideas you disagree with seriously — but if you are impolite and dismissive to the person proposing the idea, you are unlikely to take it seriously, and hence are going to be deficient in rationality. And "concern troll" is just a term invented to try to dismiss opposing views without taking them seriously. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 10:24, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Mara: Just Fuck off & stay Fucked off. Please, as a politeness to the sane, rational members of this site. Pippa (talk) 10:42, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Pippa, why don't you do that? (((Zack Martin)))^™ 10:43, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I can understand why people get upset when the same issues are constantly revisited, even once they have been adequately addressed. I just don't feel like you understand the difference between being polite and being rational. Tielec01 (talk) 11:02, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

You think they are disconnected, I don't. I think they are closely related. I've explained my reasons before; see e.g. here. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 09:21, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

"Trolling is what you call anyone willing to call out this site for what it is."

So that's why you're here? To "call out this site for what it is"? Thanks. We got your message. We've been called out. Now that you've done what you came here to do, why don't you take your goddesses, your love for Freshman philosophy, your defence of Ken, and your suicide-is-horrible-won't-anyone-think-of-the-children concern trolling, climb on the back of your giant bat, and fly the fuck away, never to return? That would be awesome.--B♭maj7 (talk) Shut the fuck up, Maratrean 15:33, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

–SuspectedReplicant retire me 15:44, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I find this post to be double plus good. I don't have anything against your Mara but your not really doing anything useful here. --Mikalosa (talk) 15:46, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Mara defended kenny? He does know he has serious mental health problems right? Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 21:37, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Does he? I don't know the guy, so I don't claim to have any idea whether he does. But if people really think he does, and then treat him the way many people on this site treat him, that is deeply shameful. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 09:23, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Listen Maratrean - I have some info I care not (nor can't) to divulge that Ken is a far more evil, snide and sadistic person than I think you are currently aware. Leave this to the adults. Trust me, Ken is not your friend. Ace^ace 09:27, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Listen Ace - I have some info I care not (nor can't) to divulge that is a far more evil, snide and sadistic person than I think you are currently aware. Leave this to the adults. Trust me, is not your friend. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 09:43, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

You are right, Ace is not your friend. But I won't do anymore than post risque images on your talkpage. Ken you need to watch out for. Ace^ace 19:56, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately

We don't have any rules against dickish behavior. Sometimes some senior user will block/delete a particularly offensive post (I recall P-Foster deleting some mock racist rant somebody's sock made on his user page), but there is nothing that says YOU CAN'T DO THAT, LEST YOU BE BLOCKED. Of course, if there were such a rule, I'd have paid the consequences for my words more than a few times. Or I'd have learned my lesson at some point.--User:Brxbrx/sig 03:55, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, I would think that urging people to commit suicide should be one of those red lines, along with death threats, threats of rape, etc. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 03:59, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Someone that isn't you or me should propose that on the community standards page. If we propose it, we'll just get laughed out of town, just because it's us. Maybe Blue could do so.--User:Brxbrx/sig 04:03, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Which is funny, that people here make so much a fuss about how CP doesn't listen to them, doesn't take their complaints seriously... and yet then they do the whole same thing here. Hypocrisy. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 04:05, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Nonsense. Haven't you seen RW:RULES? "Don't be a dick" is the only rule we have. And the only one we'll ever need! Blue (pester) 04:09, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I find it ironic who that page was created by. --User:Brxbrx/sig 04:25, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Nvrmind, Ace and SR just put in "no retards" and the Thelemite mantra, bmaj put in don't be a dick. So that's not that ironic, even though bmaj is a dick (but whose? P-Foster?)--User:Brxbrx/sig 04:28, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Some people reinvent themselves in a not very subtle manner. (P.S. "Whose" is the possessive I think you wanted "who's".) Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 10:14, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

The "no retards" was pure Ace. My version was this. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 13:14, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, the Thelema thing. @Genghis: I meant "whose dick is it." Sort of a lame play on words. But thanks, though.--User:Brxbrx/sig 13:49, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually the Thelemite mantra is rather fascinating... although I loathe to think that what Crowley had in mind by that was RPEH. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 08:22, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

For the record, the "No Retards" sign was created one afternoon while chatting with Human. It was intended for the mailman but has its purpose over here. Ace^ace 08:46, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I've been meaning to ask…

…before they take you to the back yard a shoot you, why is suicide bad? Also, are all forms of suicide bad or are some ok? I'm not trolling, this is a serious question. --★uːʤɱ kant 12:55, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I've always heard the suicide is painless and that it brings on many changes. I can take or leave it if I please, though. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 13:18, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

killing yourself denies God the chance to show his immense love by killing you himself. Hamster (talk) 14:24, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

*sigh* I know the general ideas around, I was specificly asking for Maratrean's argumentation. --★uːʤɱ secularist 18:32, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I think in most circumstances suicide is bad because it hurts people who care about the person who commits suicide, because it destroys all the future potential of that person's life. Like when my cousin committed suicide in her early twenties, that was a really bad thing — I don't see it that she did something bad, I think she was very depressed, and there were lots of circumstances that lead to that, and she did what she did as a result, and other people do similar things and have more luck than she did and survive... the idea of suicide as a "sin" is stupid — but it is definitely bad. Now, I don't want to say that every suicide is like that, because some people commit suicide in very different circumstances—such as the case of euthanasia you mentioned, and maybe some others (e.g. suicide to avoid capture in war might be acceptable in some circumstances). But I'd say an awful lot, even the vast majority, are people in circumstances similar to hers, and that is what leads me to think that suicide is bad. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 09:28, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh, as to euthanasia, specifically—I don't think I ever would choose it myself, although one never knows what strange lands pain and misery may drive you to—but if other people want it for themselves, that is something I would support, provided adequate safeguards are in place. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 08:21, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Really tricky one. My godmother died yesterday after a long battle with a brain tumour. Her life was a physical misery for many months. But she would (probably) never have contemplated euthanasia because she loved her family and wanted to see as much of them as she could before she went. I can understand that others might not have the same view. It's essentially very personal.

My concern is more to do with ensuring how do we, as a society, prevent very sick people from being manipulated by unscrupulous companies or people into taking that route. That's a dilemma I have no answer for. Ajkgordon (talk) 08:42, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for your loss Ajk.....Ace^ace 08:48, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that, Ajkgordon...

I agree with you, it is a difficult conundrum, although maybe not a totally insolvable one... here is one possible solution — in order to have euthanasia, you need the recommendation of three senior doctors (including a specialist in your terminal condition, and a psychiatrist), and then it needs to go before a judge/magistrate. And the judge/magistrate needs to decide if you are of sound mind, you freely want it instead of being pressured into it by undue influence, etc. And, let's have an office of advocatus diaboli, staffed with fervid euthanasia opponents (e.g. conservative Catholics—I suppose in their minds, it would be an advocate, not diaboli, but dei) who can argue the case against to the judge/magistrate in each particular case. I think such a system could preserve a right to euthanasia, while stopping most of the possibilities of manipulation. Of course, no system can be made perfect... but, if we've done everything reasonable to try to protect against any such manipulation, is that enough? (((Zack Martin)))^™ 08:54, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Cheers, dudes. She died peacefully surrounded by her family and in her own home. There are worse ways to go. Ajkgordon (talk) 08:56, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely not. How would "fervid euthanasia opponents" have any input into judging whether the patient (for want of a better word) is being manipulated or not? They would simply be automatically arguing against the patient's free-will on religious and/or ideological grounds that might have absolutely nothing to do whatsoever with the patient's own personal beliefs. No, absolutely not. Ajkgordon (talk) 09:20, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Euthanasia (of sorts) is quite common in most western worlds. The terminally ill in hospitals and care homes (I mean those with painful cancers and other diseases) are quite routinely given large doses of morphine for comfort but which quite often a means to ease on into an inevitable death. Ace^ace 09:22, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

(EC) Well, that's the essence of an adversarial procedure — both sides get to make their case, even if it is absolute baloney... it is up to the hopefully impartial judge/magistrate to decide whether one side or the other has a valid point or not. I'm sure, the advocatus diaboli would often throw up all kinds of pointless objections, which the judge/magistrate could easily overrule... the point of the system is, on occasion they might bring up valid points... and then the real test of the system is, would they be more likely to bring up a valid objection to euthanasia in a particular case, than someone who has an ideological acceptance or support of euthanasia? (((Zack Martin)))^™ 09:25, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

That would never work - you'd bound up in layers and layers of bureaucracy. "Is the judge inpartial", "I demand a new "jury", more and more proceeedings and back and forth would follow. Meanwhile the patient, and family, waits and suffers. Ace^ace 09:28, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Maybe you are right, maybe you are wrong... who can say for sure unless one tries it? Trying things for real rather than prejudging them in theory, that is the scientific approach, isn't it now? (((Zack Martin)))^™ 09:38, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Your reasoning is specious at best. Hell we could try a lot of things that have never been tried before, in the name of science. But is it sensible? Do we leave our reasoning behind merely to break new ground? Ace^ace 09:42, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

The best idea is to try lots of different approaches, and see which ones work out in practice. This is one of the advantages of having lots of countries as opposed to a single world government; it is also the advantage of federal systems like Australia/US/Canada over more unitary systems like NZ — different jurisdictions can experiment with different approaches. However, I think in practice we try a lot less things than we should, and suffer from an innovation deficit as a result... (((Zack Martin)))^™ 10:15, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Less wrong

There is no doubt in my mind that the type of website that better suits your concept of rationality is Less wrong. You will have a marvellous time there, no-one will post naked pictures or swear at you and you will be able to argue all your philosophical concepts to your hearts content there. We are clearly not up to your level of intellectual sophistication but they may be. Perhaps you should set up an account there. It will give you a much bigger pool of people to proselytise to as well. I am sure they will make you feel very welcome there. --Damo^Hi 10:29, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Not necessarily as LW don't put up with any shit. So you can't get away with "is Less Wrong a pro-suicide website?" and any spouting about the religion at all or self promotion will see you laughed at, and then barred. ADK^{...I'll toast your imitation fake vomit!} 10:48, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Don't listen to him Maratrean. There is no doubt you will be happier there than you are here. Armondikov doesn't know what he is talking about. I want you to fulfill your intellectual potential which will not occur if you stay here. Damo^Hi 10:51, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Mara unfortunatly seems to have the spare time that he can do both. Pimobile (talk) 11:32, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I do certainly read LessWrong from time to time... I am waiting for the opportune opportunity to insert myself. But actually, I like this site better because it is a broader church. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 08:19, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

"I am waiting for the opportune opportunity to insert myself" - my new favorite quote mine. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 08:25, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

So, you're the new L Ron Hubbard?

I have a prophesy for you from Herself! But it is not yet fully in since Herselfness is too much of a Cheap Cunt to pay for the bandwidth. Please tell us what might be the unforgivable sin in your "religion" so that we may commit it and you can go to greener pastures. Thanks. 08:48, 5 October 2011 (UTC) C®ackeЯ

I've got some bad news for you, mate... all sins will be forgiven, every last one... (((Zack Martin)))^™ 08:55, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

So, you won't complain the next time Ace kills you? Great! 10:12, 5 October 2011 (UTC) C®ackeЯ

The next time? He hasn't killed me yet. And I said, no sin is unforgivable, not that there is no sin... in my view, there is a hell, but it doesn't last forever either... but still, better not to go there to begin with... (((Zack Martin)))^™ 10:16, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Unrepentance is usually considered unforgivable, since forgiveness is usually taken to require repentance on the part of the wrongdoer. Thoughts? 184.61.193.172 (talk) 23:10, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Unrepentance is only unforgivable if the unrepentance is everlasting; if the unrepentance, ends in repentance, even if only after a very long time, then forgiveness will still occur... (((Zack Martin)))^™ 09:39, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Maratreanism looks a lot kinder than Scientology and I wouldn't compare Maratrean to Hubbard. Proxima Centauri (talk) 10:28, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

didnt Hubbard have people locked in a volcano and then nuked ? All maratreanism has is 1 rock dropping bat and a largish cat. Perhaps we could arrange a musical of the Maratrean endtimes ? Hamster (talk) 15:14, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

^{— Unsigned, by: B♭maj7 / talk / contribs} 15:19, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually Hamster that was the evil Galactic Emperor Xenu, supposedly.... (((Zack Martin)))^™ 07:29, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Some advice for your schemes

I thought I would give you a link to some helpful advice about how to achieve your aims:

Hope this helps. --Damo^Hi 18:19, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Am I the only person who thinks that red wine drinkers are far superior to those who drink white, let alone beer or spirits or cider

I bet you typed that sentence while sipping smugly on a glass of wine while feeling oh so pleased with yourself and conceitedly surfing the net and/or various wikis looking at the plebs have their silly little reason-free debates because only you know the true meaning of what it is to be reasoned. You decided you'd pop by RW, the paragon of unreasoned and fallacious thinking where the denizens yell at each other in their crude, uncivil tongue of old. You decide to deign yourself to making a comment on how warm and fuzzy you feel in yourself - knowing full the masses will rabble and yell in misunderstanding of your god like status. Satisfied, you take another sip.....I don't know what the fuck is wrong with you but a good, aged single malt is far superior in every way to a glass of wine. Ace^ace 21:58, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Please refrain from posting on my talk page

Cult leaders and self-appointed prophets frighten and disturb me and I do not desire any form of intercourse with them. Thank you for respecting my wishes. I shall not respond to any further post made on this thread. PintOfStout Talk Good people drink good beer. 03:25, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

FYI

Nobody gives a fuck and we have enjoyed not having you around here. - π 00:59, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

B♭maj7 (talk) Member of the Kara Duhe fan club since 2010 01:01, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Scream!! (talk) 01:30, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Wait... did Mara just pull a Ken "I'm oh so busy" Demyer on us? --PsyGremlinParlez! 12:37, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Hmm... I really am kind of busy... today I am going to teach myself JGoodies Forms, because GridBagLayout has been driving me crazy all morning... Maratrea told me to do this. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 05:43, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

sterile^talk 01:39, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Ace^ace 04:15, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words of encouragement. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 04:18, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh, you! Ace^ace 04:20, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

cmon Ace , without Maratrean we would not have had Terror taba the short wingspan rock dropping bat or Taba the bat who is a dog. That was kinda fun for a while Hamster (talk) 05:32, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

TERROR TABA EAT DOG. SCREECH. TERROR TABA (talk) 12:34, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

The age of the universe

You give quite a range for your estimate (10,000 - 10,000,000 years.) I've got a couple questions about that. 1) How did you come up with that? and 2) You already give yourself a margin for error of 1000x, so why do you reject the scientifically accepted age of ~13 billion years, which is only about 1300x older than your high-end estimate? --Roofus (talk) 06:21, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, in my view the universe is only as old as humanity itself. And humanity seems to be around 10,000-100,000 years old. The 10 million figure refers to the possibility of alien civilisations older than humanity (as in UFO religions such as Raelianism or Scientology), or the possibility of non-standard histories being true (e.g. Theosophic or Vedantic historiography). But I think 10 million years is more than enough time for a civilisation to develop to the point of bringing about the end of the universe, which suggests to me that the universe could not be much older than that. As to the 13 billion years of Big Bang cosmology, given that I am an idealist who believes that the universe only exists as long as intelligent life exists, the only way in my book that the universe could be 13 gigayears old would be if intelligent life was 13 gigayears old, which is incompatible with Big Bang cosmology anyway. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 06:55, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. So you say that nothing can exist unless there's someone intelligent to observe it? Is that correct? If so, would the death of the last intelligent being in the universe bring about the end, or would the universe continue to exist in some form? --Roofus (talk) 03:10, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

If no minds are observing the universe any more, whether from inside it or outside it, it has effectively ceased to exist. It still exists in the sense that, when we reach the end of a novel, we can still ask the question "what happens next?", and guess the answers; but just like the novel, we cannot say any of those answers are right and others wrong, even in principle, (maybe some are relatively right or wrong, but there will be equally plausible answers, and none of them will be more right than the others) - unless of course the novelist chooses to write a sequel. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 04:29, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

That idea is very.... Either hinduic or Budist styled, its to late and a friday for me to care which one atm.--il'Dictator Mikalosa (talk) 04:02, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

You are not the first person to have pointed out those similarities. It is similar to both, but there are also distinguishing features. I would say, it is probably slightly closer to Hinduism than Buddhism. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 04:37, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Why is 13 gigayear-old intelligent life incompatible with Big Bang cosmology? Ajkgordon (talk) 10:20, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Because it is very unclear how the structures that Big Bang cosmology predicts in the early universe could support life. Life as we know it could not exist until the formation of stars, which they say does not occur until 150-1000 million years post Big Bang. And then they say that life-supporting planets likely require several generations of stars to build up enough heavier elements. And then once we have life, there are likely hundreds of millions of years of evolution before it reaches our level of intelligence. So, unless we admit the possibility of life very different from the kind of life that we are used to, Big Bang cosmology implies that the universe was lacking intelligent life for the first few billion years of its existence. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 04:27, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Why would you not admit the possibility of life very different from the kind of life that we are used to? That seems rather restrictive and at odds with the rest of your philosophy. Ajkgordon (talk) 09:08, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I certainly can't say such life is impossible. But I will say it is much less likely. I can address this from two perspectives. The first is the scientific perspective - I think the weight of the evidence of science available to us at present suggests that, if extraterrestrial life exists, it is most probably of a broadly similar chemistry and physics to that with which we are familiar. The existence of radically different forms of life, while not impossible, our present knowledge of physics and chemistry suggests is rather unlikely. (Which knowledge I accept - while many of my opponents here may paint me as anti-scientific, that is not true, I am very positive about science, mainstream science even, albeit within its proper bounds.) The second is a theological perspective - I believe that everything that exists does so as a consequence of the desire of some mind, whether that desire be direct (I desire X), or indirect (I desire X, and it just happens that Y is the most straightforward way for X to be achieved). I know my own desires exist, and I know the existence of the kind of life we are familiar with is necessary to fulfil both my desires, and the desires of others which exist as a direct or transitive consequence of my own desires. But, I do not directly desire the existence of radically different kinds of life. Now, maybe in some indirect, or even transitively indirect, way, I so happen to desire the existence of radically different kinds of life, but I do not know that I so do, and I feel justified in stating that such is unlikely. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 07:55, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

So, in your cosmology, time is something that exists distinct from minds, rather than just being part of the patterns-in-qualia? ListenerX^TalkerX 03:20, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, in my cosmology, patterns-in-qualia are patterns in qualia-space, and time is a dimension of qualia-space, and minds correspond to (it might be too much to say they are) subregions of qualia-space. Is then "time something that exists distinct from minds"? Well, time is so intimately connected to minds, it is wrong to say it is separate from them, but I think it is also wrong to say that time and mind are literally identical. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 07:47, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

"Self Parody"

Mr, it is most defeinitly not self-parody. I am a devout Christian conservative who has read a lot of books on the issues (including the Obama Diaries which was a nice book to read) and am devoted to Republican interests. My name is just to confuse the RationalWiki authorities so they'll go off my trail. If you knew me you'd know I'm deadly serious and do not like people telling me that I'm stuff I'm not. Personally in my opinion, you are an uniformed bigot who needs to mind his own buisness. So please, stop nagging me and go tell lies to someone else. And your religion is going to get you put in Hell eventually. I'm warning you to repent.

--ImaLiberal (talk) 07:08, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

1. So...many...spelling errors.
2. We're on your trail now. So much for that.
3. I think you're getting into his business by telling him on what to believe.
4. You shouldn't be warning anyone.

Lookie here. I don't care who you are or what your purpose is here. Realize that we're not CP and I have very little patience to rudeness.--Dumpling (talk) 07:17, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, "ImaLiberal", I don't believe in hell, at least not in the sense which you do. I do think some people (like Hitler) do go to hell, and maybe even spend a very long time there, but I believe that hell is not eternal, only for a limited period (even if maybe for Hitler that is several million years), and then they are let out of hell and let into heaven, where they can remain forever (in the forward-vein of ever-remaining). (((Zack Martin)))^™ 07:33, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Why people don't like MC

It's because he wants to be disliked. He is a troll, his goal is to make people angy. -- Nx / talk 10:27, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

But why would someone want to be disliked? That is a very interesting question in human psychology, and one which I would love to answer, although I'm not entirely sure where to begin... like Freud's concept of the death drive... maybe we all sometimes want to be hated, but that doesn't mean any of us want to be hated all the time. And in that fact lies the potential for the salvation of everyone, even MC. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 10:40, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Because he has fun making people on the internet angry. -- Nx / talk 10:43, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

A petty pleasure which sooner or later must grow tiresome... and leave us searching for greater things. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 10:46, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

That's why he usually disappears for a while after causing enough drama and then comes back months later. -- Nx / talk 10:49, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

You could command anyone, if only you knew the deepest desires of their heart. God seduces us into obedience to her. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 10:51, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm with Pinty

Zac,

If Pint doesn't want you to post on his talkpage then don't do it. --MtD^{Pinko Scum} 03:35, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Please read RationalWiki:Community standards#User pages, which says A user's talk page, like any other talk page on the site, is public and does not belong to the user. Anyone is permitted to post on anyone's talk page. RW:CS goes on to say However, users are permitted to delete posts containing personal attacks or trolling from their own talk pages, being responsible for any abuse of this permission. But, the posting I made was not trolling or a personal attack, it was a response to what Bert posted. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 03:38, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Fuck the community standards. Seriosuly Zac, this is why nobody likes you. I mean aside from the clown-shit crazeh Branch Davidian stuff you go on with. If folk don't want you taking a big poo on their coir welcome mat, then maybe you should respect that. --MtD^{Pinko Scum} 03:53, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

What if I said I don't want you to post on my talk page? Standards exist because they are an attempt to be fair. Bullies hate standards, except for double ones. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 03:55, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd totally respect your request I'd not take one blind bit of notice. I'll monster you to my heart's content. And to quote Malcolm Tucker Don't you dare call me a bully. I'm so much worse. --MtD^{Pinko Scum} 04:10, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Since you admit you wouldn't listen to me, by no means will I listen to you. Nice arrangement we've reached here, actually. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 04:11, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

So you are a bully mara, as you would want people to not post on your talkpage but don't care if others want the same?--il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 04:12, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

No, I'm happy for anyone to post on my talk page, as is permitted by RW:CS. But some people seem to believe that standards are only binding on people they dislike. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 04:14, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

If somebody tells you go get off they're front lawn, do you tell them to fuck off?--il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 04:16, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I think Zac's faith in the communitard standards is touching. Misguided, but touching all the same. --MtD^{Pinko Scum} 04:18, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

@Mikalos, the rule on RW is that user talk pages are public property, they don't belong to the user. It's not their lawn, its the public sidewalk. Now, some people don't agree with that, and would prefer a "my talk page is my castle" approach - but we had a vote about this not too long ago, and those pushing for a change lost the vote. If you don't agree with the status quo, maybe you should push for another vote on the issue? (((Zack Martin)))^™ 04:22, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

That may be so, Zachary. But try and get it enforced, cunthooks. --MtD^{Pinko Scum} 04:24, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

"John Marshall has made his decision: now let him enforce it!" ~Andrew Jackson--il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 04:26, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

True story. I was awakened by some wretched whining one morning around 4:30 and looked out my third story window to see a nasty old woman shaking a small child by her arm until she screamed and cried. I called down "hey you fat old cunt stop hurting that little girl." She glared and shook her fist at me, her wiry mustache glistening with pure hate. After all, she was standing on the sidewalk and could do whatever the fuck she wanted. So I went into the kitchen and got a pot full of water. I came back to the window and the old bat still had that little girl squealing! After apologizing to her for what was about to happen I poured it on both of them and told the old lady to fuck off. They left quietly. Maratrean is the other kind of fat old cunt. 04:26, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Nutty, your language is just charming. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 04:31, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

This is the problem, people who believe rules only exist when it suits them, that they (and their friends) should be exempt from the rules, but the rules should be maintained to beat up those they dislike. It's a common attitude in countries with corrupt dictatorships — the ruling clique can do whatever they want, but for those out of favour the rules provide plenty of rope for a hanging. Shouldn't you aim for an approach a bit more civilised? (((Zack Martin)))^™ 04:30, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Theres a reason wikipedia has a rule called ignore all rules--il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 04:32, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but "Ignore all rules" doesn't mean what some people think it means. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 04:35, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Fortunately this isn't Wikipedia. As I said, you try and get them there roolz enforced pussy-go-whiney. --MtD^{Pinko Scum} 04:38, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

"John Marshall has made his decision: now let him enforce it!"--il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 04:38, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Fortunately this isn't Wikipedia — and what is wrong with Wikipedia? I don't want this place to be Wikipedia, but it couldn't do wrong with being a bit more like it. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 04:45, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Go ask that big shiksa User:JzG. --MtD^{Pinko Scum} 04:46, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

JzG seems a nice guy/gal. A pity people are so hostile. You can disagree with people without trying to bite their heads off. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 04:50, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Hows it going?

Your plan to take over the world I mean. I hope for your sake that you have made a little bit more progress than when we last discussed it. Have you checked out the resource that I left for you last time? Here it is again just in case:

--Damo^Hi 03:47, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Currently we are in year 1 of our 1000 year plan. We expect the first couple of centuries to show little outwardly visible progress. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 03:50, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Wait, do you actually believe that? Sam ^Tally-ho! 03:51, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, I could be off by a few millenia... (((Zack Martin)))^™ 03:53, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, its about the only thing that he really believes in. A lot of people seem to think that this guy is a harmless whackjob. The reality is that he is potentially a very harmful, dangerous whackjob with delusions of extreme grandeur. Damo^Hi 03:55, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Postmillennialism is so dangerous, ain't it now... especially when I start predicting the escathon to be a millennia away (((Zack Martin)))^™ 03:56, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

By the way, did you really write this 332 page book of your prophecies and stories regarding your religion. Perhaps you are even more of a fruit loop than we suspected. Damo^Hi 04:07, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, its contents were revealed to me by the Goddess Maratrea. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 04:09, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Sure they were.--il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 04:12, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

You believe whatever you want (if you don't believe in her, its because she doesn't want you to...) All fine with me. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 04:15, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I believe in YEC, Premilinneal Xtianity, jsyk. And no, you give no proof that your religion is anything more then Henai is. --il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 04:17, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Sure... just remember, many people here think your beliefs are just as stupid as mine are (or at least they would, if they were being consistent) (((Zack Martin)))^™ 04:19, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I know they do, so do a number of my best friends. But that's irrelevant. --il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 04:21, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

The whole "censor MC" thing seems to have passed

WARNING: This page has been censored against my wishes

This page used to contain some comments by an IP editor believed to be MarcusCicero, whose edits are supposedly so outrageous that they have to be deleted on sight. I would have thought, that on my talk page, people would extend me the courtesy of deciding for myself whether any editor's edits should be deleted; however, some editors have such a single-minded obsessiveness about this issue, that they not only will not extend that courtesy, they will not even entertain a compromise of letting MC's edit remain on the page, but be hidden by {{collapse}}. This notice is my protest against their pettiness. Number of times so far this page has been censored without my consent and against my express wishes: 5 Note my objection is to others censoring the page without my consent. While I am generally pretty liberal in what I will accept, in extreme circumstances (e.g. posting irrelevant pictures of naked people on my talk page) I reserve the right to revert, as permitted by the Community Standards users are permitted to delete posts containing personal attacks or trolling from their own talk pages, being responsible for any abuse of this permission

 

 

NOTE: I am very busy at the moment - new job, moving house, etc. So I may not be able to respond to you for some time. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 00:48, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I hope all goes well Hamster (talk) 05:29, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Hamster for your kind words. I actually have not moved yet, I am moving from Melbourne to Sydney in about a month, but I am still busy with new job. (My new job said they'd let me start from Melbourne, but they want me to me located in their Sydney office long-term... for coincidental personal reasons, moving to Sydney works quite well for me anyway... but, moving is a chore, and I am the procrastinator's procrastinator) (((Zack Martin)))^™ 07:57, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

MCwiki business

User:Moshe was unjustly blocked by an over-zealous Eira and a boorish. He was very willing to improve the wiki. You should unblock him that he may continue to enhance MCwiki, and make it less BORING --User:Brxbrx/sig 02:42, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Given that it is Marcus' wiki, and he re-blocked you, I think I should ask his opinion before doing so, and so I have. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 09:11, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I think that MarcusCicero is anti-semitic. That would explain his hostility towards the innocent and childlike User:Moshe. He's also possibly racist against blacks, as well, since he's against the creation of articles on hip hop stars.--User:Brxbrx/sig 13:32, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Maybe he is, maybe he isn't, I don't know him well enough to say. Anyway, MCWiki is not particularly interesting at the moment, I can't be bothered. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 00:53, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the 332 page book

Writing 332 page books full of gibberish basically puts you in the time-cube status. Perhaps its time you went back on your meds? As bad as they may have been for your ability to reason, being off them appears to be worse for your mental capacities. Damo^Hi 04:24, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

What meds? (((Zack Martin)))^™ 04:31, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

The Anti-psychotics you used to take. [1] --Damo^Hi 04:37, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I didn't take them for psychosis. I took them pro re nata for anxiety. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 04:39, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I know, you said. But mental health conditions have a habit of running together. It seems to me that you have something a little worse than just anxiety going on if you are going to sit down and write that gibberish. How long did it take you by the way? A year? --Damo^Hi 04:41, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I can't remember how long it took me to write it. If we followed your logic, the founder of every religion would be mentally ill. Now that may be your opinion, but it is not the mainstream view of the professions of psychiatry and clinical psychology. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 04:44, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

(EC) These anti-psychotics, did they include Zyprexa? --MtD^{Pinko Scum} 04:45, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm reasonably sure that the 'mainstream view of the professions of psychiatry and clinical psychology' is the Mohammed had epilepsy or something... Peter ^{talk, or type, or whatever...} 04:46, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Peter, got a cite for that one? (((Zack Martin)))^™ 04:48, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

@MtD, Yes, it was olanzapine. I found it worked quite well for anxiety, and I have found doctors don't mind prescribing it given it is non-addictive (although they often aren't so familiar with using it for anxiety, since it's off-label). But I haven't taken it in several years, since my anxiety is much better than it used to be. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 04:47, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I knew it! I had a boyfriend like you. Fine when he was on the pills, but the moment he came off the dissolvable wafers he started a temple in the spare room. Zyprexa is why you're fat, you know. --MtD^{Pinko Scum} 04:50, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

No its not why I'm fat. I was fat for years before I was on Zyprexa, and I haven't taken it for years and am still fat. Red wine and French cheese and lack of exercise, more likely. Yes, it can cause weight gain, but I was never on it that much (remember, I said pro re nata, which means you take it whenever you feel you need it). My ex-girlfriend had anorexia/bulimia, one eating disorder clinic she went to, the psychiatrist liked to put people on Zyprexa because it both calmed them down a bit and the weight gain was helpful. (She is who got me on to it.) (((Zack Martin)))^™ 04:53, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Well it's not the only reason you have a mountaineering team rappelling down the north face of your left tit, but let's be honest now. The fact that you're taking Olanzapine is proof positive that you're not a Godly Prophet but just a sad man who is as mad as a clown's cock. AmIRite? --MtD^{Pinko Scum} 05:02, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I haven't taken olanzapine for 4+ years. I don't see why being or not being a prophet has anything to do with having a history of mental illness. Must a prophet be physically perfectly healthy? Or mentally perfectly healthy? Or perfectly moral? That may be your theology but it isn't mine. In my view, prophets can be as flawed as the rest of us. And I detect in your writing a lot of the stigma/discrimination so prevalent in our society against people who have mental illness (which is silly given that most people experience it at some point in their life, but the stigma makes them afraid to admit that.) (((Zack Martin)))^™ 05:06, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

You've not taken it for four years? It doesn't show. ::rolleyes:: Srsly doll, get medicated. You don't have to live like this. --MtD^{Pinko Scum} 05:09, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Why should I take medication which I have not been prescribed and which isn't indicated? (((Zack Martin)))^™ 05:39, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Unless you are using "indicated" in a unique or special sense, I would say that some sort of anti-psychotic medication is very much indicated. Damo^Hi 05:41, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

(ec) My ex used to say exactly the same thing. But it was prescribed and (going by your efforts here at the very least) it is indicated. Now, stick that wafer under your tongue. You can pretend it's some sort of Maratrean Communion if you like. Whatever bakes your cake, old bean. :) --MtD^{Pinko Scum} 05:43, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe either of you are qualified to diagnose mental illness, nor to recommend psychiatric medication. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 05:48, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, but we can suggest that you need to go and seek some psychiatric help. Why don't you make a booking at a psychiatrist and bring along a printout of your book and some of your other religious materials. If the issue is one of cost, perhaps we (as in RW) could sort something out, maybe pass a hat around or something. I would hate for this to end in tragedy when it could easily be prevented at an early stage. Damo^Hi 06:06, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

(EC) I don't see any need at present for that. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 06:14, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Do you think you are in a better position to judge this than us. You can't be as objective as us. In any case, most crazy people don't think they are crazy. Damo^Hi 06:18, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

You are some random person on the Internet. You barely know me. You see only one small part of my life which I choose to reveal to you. You are certainly not in the place to judge what mental health issues I may or may not have. Let the word "crazy" be gone from our vocabulary, it's really no better than similar epithets used to put down people based on race or sexuality or physical disability. Besides, while it is true that sometimes people with mental health issues are unaware or in denial, I think you'll find most often they are aware when something's wrong. Novel religious beliefs are not, in and of themselves, a form of mental illness, and I think you'd find many psychiatric professionals would agree with that. My uncle is a professor of psychiatry and a devout Catholic. Do you think he'd diagnose someone as psychotic if they claimed to see the Virgin Mary? Yet he loves to go on pilgrimage to Lourdes. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 06:30, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I can totally diagnose psychiatric conditions. I've been following Nx's posts and whilst he seems to be largely Axis II I think I've gotten the gist of things. --MtD^{Pinko Scum} 06:13, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

You may think you can, but that doesn't mean you can. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 06:15, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok I can't but I feel that I can say without fear of contradiction that you're a fucking nutter Zachary. Which is fine. If you like the manic buzz, knock yourself out. But remember, RW isn't a halfway house for the mad, bad and terminally insane. If you manage to Hutchens yourself outta the gene pool in some ghastly auto-erotic self asphixiation thing, it's not our fault. --MtD^{Pinko Scum} 06:20, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

You mean Hutchence, of course. For a moment I thought you were saying Hitchens. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 06:31, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

It could be Carradine for all I care. So long as you don't mark that pretty neck of yours. :) --MtD^{Pinko Scum} 06:33, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Autoerotic aspyhxiation has never interested me, so I don't think I'll be doing anything like that. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 06:36, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Well that's good to know. How about enemas? Any preferences there? I know a marvellous recipe involving blood warm spring water, lemon myrtle essence and half a football boot full of Dencorub. --MtD^{Pinko Scum} 06:42, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

No. But hey, if you enjoy it, all the best to you. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 06:43, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I wouldn't encourage anyone to be giving themselves Dencorub (diclofenac) enemas unless it was medically indicated. But, so long as you aren't causing yourself or any one else harm, who am I to tell you not to? (((Zack Martin)))^™ 06:47, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

You silly boy. Diclofenac is the active constituent of Voltaren, not Dencorub. Trust me here son, I know what I'm doing. --MtD^{Pinko Scum} 06:54, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

What's in Dencorub? (((Zack Martin)))^™ 06:56, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Well not Olanzapine if that's what you're worried about. --MtD^{Pinko Scum} 07:01, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Methyl salicylate, apparently. Probably would be quite sensitive on those delicate rectal tissues. Also, could well prove fatal, considering the fact that its toxic, and the rectum is very good at absorbing drugs (good old suppositories). (((Zack Martin)))^™ 07:12, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm willing to risk it. How can we truly know if we don't try? Now stop snivelling and spread those ample cheeks. --MtD^{Pinko Scum} 07:50, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid you are going to have to find another partner for your kinky games, they are not quite to my taste. All the best, (((Zack Martin)))^™ 09:49, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I can see that swarthy lothario Damo has turned your pretty head. It's ok Zac, you go with your heart. You'll come back to Matteh sooner or later. Your kind always does. --MtD^{Pinko Scum} 10:02, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

"You are some random person on the Internet"

Cont' from above That is all very well in its way. The point remains that

a)you have dedicated a large part of your life to writing texts that are basically complete gibberish (330 odd pages worth),

b)you say that you "do whatever she tells me"

c)you appear to want to organise some sort of compound or area, which you hope will one day take over the world

d)and it emerges that you have in the past been diagnosed both with epilepsy and some other mental illness

Whilst its possible that you are really a prophet hearing commandments from a divinity, it is at least as equally as likely that you are suffering from some kind of mental illness. For your sake and the sake of others I hope that you would go and get this possibility checked out, just in case. Damo^Hi 06:53, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Why are you harshing our buzz? Zac and I have a whole thing going on here. --MtD^{Pinko Scum} 06:55, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Dr. Damo, what is your diagnosis? DSM-IV code? (((Zack Martin)))^™ 07:16, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't have one, that is why I am suggesting you go see a psychiatrist. He or she might have one for you, or maybe they won't. Don't be disingenuous, I am trying to be serious. And in case you have forgotten, this is not a case of me throwing stones, I was diagnosed with schizophrenia and I take seroquel on a semi-regular basis, so I have some knowledge of what I speak. Damo^Hi 07:27, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I do appreciate your concern. Sorry for my flippancy. But I don't think you have a correct understanding of the present situation. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 07:42, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

perhaps its a complicated ad campaign for a tv series. Young proto-prophet Zarnacy, high school science nerd is visited by the shade of Travancus who urges him on a quest for the golden guppy. Helped on his quest by Bacu , and saved from total disaster by the flying Taba it could be a teen sci-fi hit. Cast Claretta as a young woman and you have a love /sex interest. Hamster (talk) 04:50, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Hmm... except for the fact that Claretta is gay... (((Zack Martin)))^™ 05:32, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

You know...

You know you can lock your user and talk page so only sysops can edit it, right? That'd stop the user harassing you (at least on these two pages) and, because most users here are sysops, it wouldn't really stop people from talking with you. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 09:53, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the hint, I'd forgotten about that. I won't do my talk page though, I don't want to stop genuine correspondents who happen to be non-sysops from talking to me. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 09:55, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome! Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 10:00, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not a sysop! What if I have something important to say?

...Oh yeah, right. Fallacy (talk) 10:03, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. We both know you never have anything important to say :-)

Oh, and kudos for remembering to indent multi-line posts, Fallacy Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 10:05, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

(ec)Just my user page, not my talk page. No one but me should be editing my user page anyway. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 10:05, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

My apology

In truth, I really love. I just love you so much that I had no idea how to express it, so I chose to pretend I hated you instead. You have my apologies. DELETE MARATREANISM (talk) 12:59, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Poe or what - or not?

Hi. I was just looking at your blog about your religion.

I'm honestly unsure if we have misjudged you and you are simply setting up a religion for ridicule or if you honestly believe what you are saying. For instance, I see your most recent post is:

• I received a revelation of a new text, having the following title: An account of the most wicked King Reheltus, King of the Negarens, who killed 600,000 of the people of the Varyadrud, for he hated them with all his heart and soul; and the most wicked Slebiog, the false prophet who served as his vizier; unto whom Mavi and Vacaub appeared, while he lived upon the streets of Aviné. Now this man was to the Travancine-Clarettan era what Adolf Hitler is to ours.

If you are a parodist then you're doing a fantastic job. If you are not then ... well ... it's a bit odd.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 17:17, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it's Poe or not and frankly, who cares? It's obviously all made up one way or another. Whether he believes it or not is only of consequence to him and irrelevant to anyone else. Ajkgordon (talk) 18:24, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

He's put way to much work into his religion to be a Poe. Sam ^Tally-ho! 03:52, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, we all have our hobbies and enthusiasms. Maybe he just likes making up religions. Can't say I would blame him. Fallacy (talk) 05:12, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

@BobM, It's not a parody. What is wrong with the above text you have cited? I mean, you read the Bible say, or the Book of Mormon is similar, it is full of Blahmash begat Foomush who begat Whatsthat, who angered the Lord so he struck him down, but his son Somethingelse sacrificed forty-two jerboas, and the Lord was most pleased... If you think our scriptures are ridiculous, they are no more or less ridiculous than those of any other religion.

@Fallacy, well, it's not a hobby because I think it is something rather serious, rather than just something done for fun, but rather something done for a serious spiritual purpose - may we call it a vocation instead? (((Zack Martin)))^™ 05:31, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

When it comes to mythology, the stuff that was preserved primarily in oral tradition is a little more straightforward than the stuff originating from or embellished by writers, since it is more difficult to remember hogwash than to write it down. The quote above sounds a bit like the Galactic Confederacy tale from Scientology, or something from H.P. Lovecraft's Dream Cycle. ListenerX^TalkerX 06:00, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't know about that. I can't see why an oral culture couldn't remember something short and simple like the most wicked King Reheltus, King of the Negarens, who killed 600,000 of the people of the Varyadrud, for he hated them with all his heart and soul; and the most wicked Slebiog, the false prophet who served as his vizier; unto whom Mavi and Vacaub appeared, while he lived upon the streets of Aviné. It's not that complex, it just contains four individual names (Reheletus, Slebiog, Mavi, Vacaub), two names of peoples (Negarnes and Varyadrud), the offices of a couple of those people (King, false prophet), etc. Certainly oral cultures have remembered things far more complex. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 06:05, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Stuff passed down in oral tradition generally does not have such lengthy titles (which, for the most part, originated after the invention of the printing press); it cuts right to the point. If this story of yours were a derivative of some oral tradition, we could probably conclude that the king in question (who would be known by perhaps a dozen different names and rule as many different countries in various versions of the tale) knocked off 60 big-shots at some point, a figure that then was gradually exaggerated by the storytellers. ListenerX^TalkerX 06:33, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Maybe the term "title" isn't completely correct. Maybe "abstract" would be more accurate? Or maybe this is not the original title? Some texts have multiple titles. It is not uncommon for a title to be of a different vintage from the text itself, or for texts to change their titles over time. Often in earlier times when there are fewer texts there is less need for titles, whereas as more and more texts are collected titles may be imposed by the collators of those texts. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 06:48, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

It would probably be best to call it a "preamble" today, along the lines of the first verses of many Bible books, but in the 17th century it would have made an excellent title. ListenerX^TalkerX 06:58, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

they are no more or less ridiculous than those of any other religion That's hardly a ringing endorsement. -- Nx / talk 07:35, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Only to people who have already made up their minds that all religion is ridiculous. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 08:51, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

And religions boil down to believing things on faith, and faith is believing things without evidence, and believing things without evidence is ridiculous, so yes, all religion is ridiculous. Fallacy (talk) 08:55, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Why is belief without evidence ridiculous? I don't agree with you on that one. I think believing things without evidence can be a perfectly sane and sensible thing to do. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 08:58, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

(EC) Many of the beliefs of religion (most moral precepts, for example) are of a sort for which no "evidence" can be brought to bear, so choosing what to believe is just a toss-up. ListenerX^TalkerX 09:00, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

The statement "believing things without evidence is ridiculous" is a claim for which no evidence can be brought to bear, and hence by its own standards it stands condemned. A self-defeating position. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 09:03, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Not exactly; one could do some statistical analysis of beliefs held without evidence and beliefs held with evidence and compare how many turned out to be true and false in each case. I think the beliefs held with evidence would come out ahead in that regard. ListenerX^TalkerX 09:14, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, the claim was an unqualified and absolute, "believing things without evidence is ridiculous". It was not qualified with "some things believed without evidence are ridiculous" (a vacuous claim almost everyone will agree with, even myself). As to your new suggestion, ListenerX, how does one pick which beliefs to form your sample? By choosing the sample appropriately, one could arrive at many different results. There is no obvious approach to random sampling. And, many of the beliefs it will be disputed whether they are true or false, and disputed whether or not they are evidenced. What you are proposing sounds like a good idea in theory, but is impossible in practice. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 09:35, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

A good test corpus, at least for the kind of beliefs under debate here, is those of the old beliefs based in religion that are scientifically testable, vis-a-vis beliefs obtained via the scientific method. There have been false beliefs on both sides, but a larger proportion of the old ones have been falsified. ListenerX^TalkerX 18:52, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

But that argument boils down to "Nothing beyond the existence of oneself is knowable. Therefore I can believe anything I want with neither rhyme nor reason." OK, so there is no logical argument against it but it's no surprise that others find it risible. Sorry if scientism gets your goat but it's a little more functional that arguing about how many giant bats can dance on a pin head. Bad Faith (talk) 11:02, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

It's ridiculous because it's made up but intended to be taken seriously. Nothing you argue - comparisons with other religions or other oral traditions, your position on reality and rationality - can remove that simple straightforward fact. Mara, you're a con artist, nothing more. Whether you believe in your own con or not is irrelevant. Ajkgordon (talk) 11:36, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

@BadFaith, I don't agree that "Nothing beyond the existence of oneself is knowable. Therefore I can believe anything I want with neither rhyme nor reason." I think we should believe things for good reasons, but I don't agree that good reasons must all be evidential. I would suggest, we have good reasons to believe "Murder is wrong", but no evidence for it. I think some things we ought to believe, because we are morally obliged to believe them; moral truths is one category of such beliefs, but I think even some beliefs about factual matters can be morally obliged. And this is what I call faith. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 21:58, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

@Ajkgordon, "It's ridiculous because it's made up but intended to be taken seriously". I didn't make it up, it was revealed to me by the Goddess. But, look, if you insist on the belief that I made it up, then the same must be true for Moses, Jesus, Muhammad, the Buddha, etc. Most religions claim to be based either on some supernatural insight, most commonly divine revelation (although Buddhism claims supernatural insight without claiming divine revelation). (((Zack Martin)))^™ 22:03, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

There is no Goddess. You made it up. But hey, Merry Christmas! Ajkgordon (talk) 10:18, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

The Goddess wishes you a merry festival. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 20:55, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I take it as axiomatic that it's ridiculous to believe in (theoretically at least) testifiable claims that are not supported by scientific evidence; and if your deities or whatever are completely untestifiable, then it's ridiculous to believe in them as well. Fallacy (talk) 17:19, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

But your axioms also are completely untestable, then by your own standards your own beliefs are ridiculous. Unless, "axioms" are somehow excluded from your ridicule, in which case, why can't my axioms be also? (((Zack Martin)))^™ 22:04, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

That's the problem with axioms -- they are, by definition, subjective -- but here's a set I think most people could agree on:

Axiom: We can trust our general perception of reality, because it's all we can do.

Sub-axiom: The scientific method is the best way to find the truth of soft reality [reality = hard reality, our perception of reality = soft reality], based on its track record.

Sub-sub-axiom: Believing in things without sufficient scientific evidence is ridiculous, because there's no 'objective' way to know if it's true.

I'm sure they could be betterly stated and refined. Fallacy (talk) 05:07, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, let me address your alleged axioms one-by-one:

1. "We can trust our general perception of reality" - this is so vague and vacuous as to be meaningless and useless. Hence I do not accept this axiom
2. "because it's all we can do" - well, I agree with this line of argument, but you better watch out, it will take you much further than you personally presently want it to go, if you are consistent. I believe the universe is fundamentally good, because it is all I can do.
3. "The scientific method is the best way to find the truth of soft reality" - only a certain constrained subset of apparent reality. The scientific method can't tell me whether murder is wrong, nor can it tell me whether my wife is cheating on me, nor whether my friend is trustworthy. Of course, part of the approach of scientism, is to try to twist the scientific method to supposedly apply in circumstances in which it was never meant to apply, and to seek to make it much more general than it actually is
4. "Believing in things without sufficient scientific evidence is ridiculous". I reject this axiom. There is heaps of evidence in life which is not scientific. If I see my wife cheating on me, that is not scientific evidence, since no one observed it other than myself, my wife and her lover; it is non-repeatable. If they both say I was lying, then unless some form of corroborating evidence arises (which is by no means guaranteed), it is simply my word against theirs.

(((Zack Martin)))^™ 08:37, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

1. What that means is, if we see a tree, then we can trust it's a tree.
2. No, you do not have to think the universe if fundamentally good to function in the world, unlike the axiom.
3. Objective reality. Your personal opinions are excluded.
4. I should change that to just 'evidence'. For the small things, yeah, you don't need scientific evidence, but you should still have evidence.

Fallacy (talk) 17:51, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually I agree with Maratrean. He says: "If you think our scriptures are ridiculous, they are no more or less ridiculous than those of any other religion."

This is absolutely true. There is no religion which is more ridiculous. (Or less)--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 18:03, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I think some religious beliefs are wrong (e.g. "God wants us to cut the hands off thieves"), but I think there is a large core of religious truth common to almost all religions. But I would not say anyone's beliefs as a whole are ridiculous. Maybe some of these wrong beliefs, like the one I just mentioned, could be properly called "ridiculous"; but I think I'd rather just stick to the term "wrong" (((Zack Martin)))^™ 21:55, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

How can you possibly cast judgement on whether god wants to cut the hands off thieves. Indeed, how can you possibly know anything about any deity - and if you're going the personal revelation route - how do you know that the god you sense exists anywhere outside of your head. Oh, and it noticeable above how smoothly "I think this is wrong" changes to "this is wrong". How quickly the subjective becomes the objective. Bad Faith (talk) 22:01, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, to start with my heart tells me its wrong. And I am hopeful your heart tells you the same. Like when you think of something and have a sick feeling in your stomach, which tells you it's wrong. And anyone whose heart tells them otherwise, I hope with more experiences their heart will change. For example, someone is very homophobic, and then discovers someone they love and/or respect is gay, and with time their feelings on the issue change. "how do you know that the god you sense exists anywhere outside of your head" - well, how do I know that solipsism is false? I have faith. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 22:12, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

But other peoples hearts tell them other things at other times and in other societies. Moral certainties come and go. In the meanwhile, of course you feel your morality is "right", you couldn't function if you didn't but here we have the massive problem of "following the heart" or any such - it's at best relativistic but often, nay usually, interpreted as absolute. And when these absolutes clash each one "just knows". There's an terrible arrogance about your "faith" that refuses to address the unknowable and conflates hopes and wishes with a reality that has no supporting evidence whatsoever. Bad Faith (talk) 22:35, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Morality is either absolute or relativistic. You are right that if morality is absolute, we have the problem of conflicting absolutes. But these conflicts can be resolved, albeit most commonly by lived experience rather than argument. Like the example I mentioned, two people have contrary moral absolutes on homosexuality, and likely no amount of argument will resolve the difference. But the one who feels homosexuality to be immoral discovers that someone they love or respect is homosexual (e.g. their daughter or son or best friend, or their best friend's son or daughter, or so on), and with time their feelings change. And I believe that in the long run, all conflicts of absolutes will resolve themselves in a similar way. The other alternative, is morality is relative. But if morality is relative, then anyone can adopt whatever morals they want, and do whatever they want, and justify anything. The serial killer says "I think eating children is morally praiseworthy". With moral absolutism, you can say the serial killer is objectively wrong, even if you lack a way of proving that to them by argument. With moral relativism, all you can say is "Well, the serial killer follows a different moral system than mine, and one I dislike, but ultimately both our systems are equally valid". (((Zack Martin)))^™ 23:06, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

you seem to be making relative morality an individual matter , and mostly its not. Morality is an aspect of societies that allow people to live and work together without conflicts or at least minimal conflicts. Some societies dont have the same concept of ownership, so a person who needs something may be able to just take what they need. Eating a young child may be harmful to the groups survival long term where eating the elderly allows the group to retain that persons wisdom, and gets rid of someone detrimental to the group. Hamster (talk) 19:31, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Morality can be relative to the individual and the society as a whole. It's all subjective, anyway. Fallacy (talk) 19:35, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

People have always done, and will continue to do, disagreeable things. The only effective method against them is to throw them in irons, rather than spieling a pile of pish-posh about "objective morality." ListenerX^TalkerX 05:40, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

If morality is relative to one's society/culture, well then the Islamic Republic of Iran could say that executing homosexuals is morally praiseworthy according to the morality of its culture, and all you can say is that your culture is different from theirs. Only by accepting that there exists an objective morality that transcends culture can we consistently say that the Iranian authorities are wrong and we are right. I find it disappointing that so many people with liberal social views, upon seeing the conservatives/reactionaries justify discrimination and oppression with the language of absolute morality, conclude that the only liberal option is moral relativism. On the contrary, a social liberalism that can say that discriminating against homosexuals is absolutely, objectively and transculturally morally wrong is superior to a moral relativism that can say no more ultimately than "I dislike discriminating against homosexuals, but your feelings may be different from mine" or "my culture disapproves of discriminating against homosexuals, but your culture may be different from mine". (((Zack Martin)))^™ 08:53, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

"If morality is relative to one's society/culture, well then the Islamic Republic of Iran could say that executing homosexuals is morally praiseworthy according to the morality of its culture, and all you can say is that your culture is different from theirs."

I can also say that I have a differing moral opinion.

"Only by accepting that there exists an objective morality that transcends culture can we consistently say that the Iranian authorities are wrong and we are right."

Objectively wrong, and objectively right, yes.

"I find it disappointing that so many people with liberal social views, upon seeing the conservatives/reactionaries justify discrimination and oppression with the language of absolute morality, conclude that the only liberal option is moral relativism."

The only rational option is moral relativism, and I'd like to keep liberalism fairly synonymous with rationality.

"On the contrary, a social liberalism that can say that discriminating against homosexuals is absolutely, objectively and transculturally morally wrong is superior to a moral relativism that can say no more ultimately than "I dislike discriminating against homosexuals, but your feelings may be different from mine" or "my culture disapproves of discriminating against homosexuals, but your culture may be different from mine".

Superior in what way? It's still just your opinion that that's so -- now, however, you're pretending it's objective truth. No difference except for a piling of delusion on top.

F_lucked^{talk to me :D|see my shit} 09:05, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Fallacy, you insist ethics is subjective/relative and not objective/absolute. Yet clearly to me, you seem to think that rationality is objective/absolute not subjective/relative. Suppose we have a debate between three positions, the "Rationalist", the "Postmodernist", and the "Traditionalist". The Rationalist says rationality is objective/absolute but ethics is subjective/relative. The Postmodernist says both rationality and ethics are equally subjective/relative and neither is objective/absolute. The Traditionalist says that both rationality and ethics are equally objective/absolute and neither is subjective/relative. Now, let us suppose an audience member (let's call her Sarah) is listening to the debate, and has not yet made up her mind about this issue. Which position should she choose? Why that one and not one of the other two? What sort of arguments or evidence might each position put forward to try to convince her? (((Zack Martin)))^™ 09:12, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

My position is that true objectivity doesn't exist on a practical level, because:

1. It's impossible to know almost anything with 100% certainty, and
2. 'Soft reality', our perception of reality, is, by definition, the only reality we can and will ever know, and we're biased and imperfect beings. F_ucker^{talk to me :D|see my shit} 09:18, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

(EC) In that debate, for the "Rationalist" position, I would enter the quote from Philip K. Dick that appears as the epigraph of our reality page: "Reality is that which doesn't go away when you stop believing in it." Moral principles have gone away as society stops believing in them.

As to your arguments in favor of "objective morality," in addition to your continued use of the argument from adverse consequences, you seem to be making the assumption that in questions of morality, a person must not act on a subjective sentiment but must act on an "objective" principle. ListenerX^TalkerX 09:27, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

"Moral principles have gone away as society stops believing in them" - is that really true? I think there are some near universal moral views, common to almost all societies. For example, killing people without a justification is near universally condemned as immoral. Societies differ on what are valid justifications, but there are some which are near universally accepted, e.g. self-defence; others which are near universally rejected, e.g. killing people because it's fun; others which some societies accept but others don't, e.g. capital punishment, human sacrifice, casualties in a war of conquest, etc. We haven't stopped believing in the prohibition of murder, and we aren't likely to ever do so. If anything, we've strengthened the prohibition, because we have been shrinking the exceptions - for example, many countries have prohibited the death penalty, and even those which retain it, most of them have greatly limited its scope. We still accept war as a valid exception, but the tendency today is to interpret the laws of war much more strictly than in previous centuries.

In many cases where it appears that moral principles are going away, is it really the principles which are going away, or do we still hold the same deeper principles, but we've become more enlightened about how to apply them. For example, some of the arguments used against the death penalty (e.g. risk of killing the innocent) don't rely on any innovative moral principles, but in previous decades or centuries many people just shrugged them off who would today find the argument convincing. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 21:04, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

It is true there are certain abstract principles that are widely accepted across societies, but I would argue that these just reflect common features of those societies, and would also change if those features ever were to change. Look what happened during the Black Death, for example, or even at your example of war. Face it: it was no ideals that made us tighten the restrictions on war, but the invention of nukes. ListenerX^TalkerX 05:55, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

It depends on whether you think there exists some essential properties of human beings and human societies that are unlikely to ever change, or whether you think that human beings and societies are infinitely malleable without any essence. Now, no doubt about, some properties which we used to think were essential, we realize no longer are; and some properties which today we are inclined to see as essential, in the coming decades and centuries will be realized not to be; but it is one thing to suppose we may be mistaken about what constitutes the essence of humanity and human society, quite another to suppose that no such essence exists at all, and absolutely anything at all could potentially constitute a human being or a human society. The planet Jupiter will never be a human being; nor will the number 17 ever be a human society. So I think there are certain features of human society which will never change, and I think some form of prohibition against murder has always and will always exist, even if the precise parameters of the exceptions vary across space and time.

In terms of growing restrictions on war, I don't think nuclear weapons were the decisive factor. The period from the first Geneva convention in 1864 through to the aftermath of World War II contains a long history of trying to place limitations on war, from the Hague and Geneva conventions and the League of Nations through to the Nuremberg Trials and the founding of the UN. Nuclear weapons only came into the picture late into that story, and while I'm sure they played *some* role, I doubt very much it was decisive. I think the entirely non-nuclear horrors of the First World War, and the horrors of the Second World War (in which, while nuclear weapons were used at the very end, an awful amount of entirely non-nuclear barbarity had gone on before hand), where more than enough to motivate the development of the contemporary restrictions on the wars of law. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 06:19, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

"The only rational option is moral relativism" - do you have any evidence to support that assertion? I take the contrary view, that moral absolutism is at least as rational as any other option. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 09:24, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

My evidence is that there is no evidence objective morality exists, and I don't even know how it could logically, unless you're using a radically different definition of morality than I am. But it is just my opinion. F_lucked^{talk to me :D|see my shit} 09:27, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

You speak of "objective morality" as if it is a thing, I think because by doing though you are trying to set up (consciously or unconsciously) the balance of proof in your favour (since I take it you accept the principle that claims of existence require evidence, claims of non-existence don't). I don't actually agree with that principle, but even if we accept it for the sake of the argument, I don't agree with you that we are arguing about whether something exists or not. There is something which we both agree exists, ethical statements, and our dispute is about whether or not they have some property (the property of being capable of being objectively true or false). It's like we both agree a ball exists in the next room, but we disagree whether it is a red ball or a green ball. So, even accepting the principle I take it you accept, it still does not follow that the burden of evidence lies with my position.

Also, it seems clear to me there are objectively true facts we can know with 100% certainty. Some of these facts include, "I exist", "Things exist", "At least one mind exists", "1+1=2", "Time exists", "Numbers exist", "Knowledge is possible", "Language exists", "Thought exists", "The English language exists", etc. All these facts are objectively true, and I know them all to be true with perfect certainty, and it is absolutely impossible for any of them to be false. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 09:31, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I know all these things exist at the very least as thoughts in my mind, but I don't know with absolute, 100% certainty that they exist as objects in the 'real world' -- although that distinction is probably meaningless.

I guess it depends on what definition of 'objective' you're using. F_ucker^{talk to me :D|see my shit} 09:38, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

As a materialist, I accept the existence of an external and independent reality behind my perceptions. Objective facts belong to this reality, while my perceptions of it (as well as any and all moral ideas) do not. As an idealist, Maratrean, it seems you do not accept the existence of this external and independent reality, but perhaps you can still perceive a crucial difference between moral notions and the perception of having your head bashed in with a sledgehammer. ListenerX^TalkerX 09:56, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but I'm technically a soft solipsist, just like I'm technically an agnostic towards some hypotheses of gods. F_idgeter^{talk to me :D|see my shit} 09:59, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I was addressing Maratrean. ListenerX^TalkerX 10:02, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I know. F_ucker^{talk to me :D|see my shit} 10:17, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ As an idealist I believe that physical objects are patterns in the experiences of minds. So I don't deny they exist, I just deny their existence is independent of mind. Since I believe in the existence of multiple minds (I'm no solipsist), then physical objects exist outside my own mind, because they exist in other minds as well. A physical object is a pattern which exists in multiple minds. I'm inclined to think that abstract concepts are also patterns-in-minds, just a different nature of patterns. So "17", "1+1=2", "democracy", "murder" are just as much patterns-in-mind as the Eiffel Tower or the Sydney Harbour Bridge, but a different nature of pattern, one much more diffuse. With moral issues, I subscribe to a variation of moral sense theory - we possess a sense, like vision or hearing, which tells us which patterns are good or evil, which patterns are rational or irrational, and which patterns are beautiful or ugly. We produce in our mind an instance of or reference to a pattern, and this sense then conveys to us the objective judgement of that pattern. However, just as someone with cataracts has clouded vision, so too can we have cataracts of this sense (which I call the axiodeontological sense), causing us not to perceive objective truths as clearly. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 20:54, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Good Sir

Marcus has asked me to pass on his sincere thanks for your attempt to give him refuge on your talk page. It was a brave thing to do, and it appears that it has not helped your popularity here. Alas, sometimes doing the right thing has its consequences. Marcus has told me to wish you all the best for your Moderator campaign, and I hope that one day you and I and he, can begin the process of solving the ills of this website. We are proud of your defiant resiliance and your fight to make RationalWiki the best it can be. --Titus Atticus (talk) 22:42, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 22:58, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

So, how does it feel?

What is/will be the officially sanctioned "donation" to be a member in good standing in yer church? Do you channel L Ron Hubbard, if not, why not? 10:29, 30 December 2011 (UTC) C®ackeЯ

You should feel free to donate as much or as little as you feel appropriate. At the present time we are not accepting monetary donations over the Internet. If you would like to donate something, an Essay would be greatly appreciated as a donation.

In terms of how some other groups do things, I think bleeding your followers dry is both wrong (we care for our followers, we do not treat them like cows that produce money instead of milk), and besides it is not a good long-term growth strategy. You'll burn them out and they'll leave. And then you'll be spending recruitment resources to gain new members just to replace the one's who are leaving, rather than to gain genuine growth. It's putting the short-term ahead of the long-term. People are what counts in the long-run, much more so than money. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 23:16, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

What would you spend a monetary donation on? Sam ^Tally-ho! 23:27, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

That is a very good question. There are many possibilities (printing of literature, hiring of meeting rooms, etc). But that is part of the reason why, at the present time, we are not accepting monetary donations over the Internet — we do not want to receive money from people without clear plans (visible to the donor) on what would be done with it. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 23:31, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Give me your name and address and I'll send you a donation of actual folding money. Will it be the first? Tell me how much would be appropriate to secure Not-Terror-Taba's blessing my poor dead cat Oscar's soul. I remain, 14:20, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Sacred animals

I was taking a quick look through your site the other and and I wonder if you could confirm whether your sacred animals are still sacred or have they all been been retired? --Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 18:00, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

If I understand M right, the critters have been moved to the apocrypha because they were recieving too much mockery/emphasis, when really they are at the periphery of the religion. sterile^talk 13:25, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

My guess is that Maratreaninsm is a bit like Scientology; they don't come out front with all the Xenu and space aliens stuff, its only after people have invested thousands of dollars and a few years that this stuff is revealed to them. Maratrean, for all his faults, is clever enough to know that he can't bilk his followers successfully if they think he's a loon. Better to get them into the religion first, then they will be less inclined to leave when the lunacy is fully revealed. Of course this is all predicated on the idea that he has any converts at all, it seems likely that there is only one Maratrean, and there will only ever be one. --Damo^Hi 05:34, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I vaguely remember him mentioning once that he had a girlfriend. Maybe she could be his first convert. Sam ^Tally-ho! 05:38, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

@Sterile: Nothing to do with mockery damage control. It was holy revelation. 100% pure. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 06:02, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

*mreoowww* Terror-Taba and I has been demoted to childrens tales. It is difficult for a proto-prophet to be taken *screemmm* seriously when dead Prophets, Goddesses two Lord Bacu, and a few bats and cats of the endtime are flocking about *mrrrr* nap time now - *snoar* Oh ! watch for my movie "Terrors vs Zombie Hordes" (working title) as Terror Taba and I join the fight for earth vs the Zombie apocolypse in Resident Evil 42 Terror Trinka (talk) 06:51, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

In fact, I have a follow up question on this but I'd like a comment from proto-prophet first.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 10:03, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

shall I become the next Steve Jobs or Mark Zuckerberg?

More like the next Marshall Applewhite.....Ace^Moderator 05:39, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

[2] Osaka Sun (talk) 07:41, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

“Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe.” A.E. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 09:20, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

So long, and please don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out. The Symphony of Noise ^{The official spikey-haired skeptical punk} 15:19, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Here's the section for friendly comments (soon to be trolled)

Yada, yada, yada, good luck in life. --★uːʤɱ federalist 15:32, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

called it. --★uːʤɱ heretic 15:45, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

That was more of a self-fullfilling protoprophecy, to be honest. The Symphony of Noise ^{The official spikey-haired skeptical punk} 16:11, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Are you still around?

I haven't heard from you since my last post. --Bertrc (talk) 21:54, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

He left a departing post a few days ago: "off to bigger and better things". GodotDear god, fucking grow up 21:58, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

The proto-prophet

This "Maratrean" was a false prophet, it turned out. I will have to find another proto-prophet, or maybe just a prophet. The Goddess Maratrea (talk) 16:24, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

SCREECH. I WILL HIT HIM WITH A flap-flap ROCK. TERROR TABA (talk) 16:25, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Batman is upset. I am Batman. Taba (talk) 16:26, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I volunteer, as long as that entails some sweet loots. I'm imagining a big treasure chest with magic wands and crowns and shit. Where do I sign up? (ʞlɐʇ) ɹǝɯɯɐHʍoƆ 16:29, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I has heard *meowww* of a possible Prophet. Anyone heard of Justin Bieber ? He looks prophety to me , and how could he be worse than Travancus ? (no offense to the dead guy). What does Holy Lord Bacu or Lord Bacu thinks ? Terror Trinka (talk) 17:13, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Quasi-unretirement

I wish to quasi-unretire. But my user page is sysop-editing locked, and someone has deoped me. Can it please either be unlocked, or I be re-oped? Thanks. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 01:39, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

so... uh... hows becoming the next steve jobs?--il'Dictator Mikal 01:46, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Let me be the first to say that I am disappointed that you are giving up on your dreams to be the next Steve Jobs or Mark Zuckerburger - mainly because it means you will be back on here. :) Welcome back, I knew you wouldn't stay away. --Damo^Hi 02:05, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh christ. Not this guy again. Ace^Moderator 02:10, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

SCREECH. Oh, noes! The abuser of (SCREECH) animal worship. DROP THE ROCKS! TERROR TABA (talk) 02:34, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

ARAGHAH!! ArchieGoodwin (talk) 02:37, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I am still working with my associate on our IT business plans. However, these things take time, as you can well imagine. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 07:39, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

but if god wants you to become x, why is she not helping you become x faster?--il'Dictator Mikal 15:37, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Don't let us stop you. Steve Jobs and Bill Gates didn't become successful by hanging round talking about random stuff with people they didn't really know. Sophie^{because liberals} 15:45, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Steve Jobs spent some time at an ashram in India, he also did a lot of drugs in his younger days. Sometimes, you need to take a break from certain things — you step away for a while, and then you come back to it with better insight and more success than when you stepped away. Besides, I've hardly edited this website for about 3 months. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 00:59, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Welcome back.

P-Foster Talk "Armed with the knowledge of our past we can charter a course for our future"--MX 02:13, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

You may appreciate our Maratrean Art Gallery. That's my girlfriend's work, actually. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 07:43, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Awesome. Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 12:04, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

The hell? How old is your girlfriend? Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 15:47, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I could probably look it up, but given that I'm a bit lazy I'll just ask you. What is the age of consent in Australia? --Damo^Hi 22:04, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

The age of consent varies from state to state; in the state in which I live, it is generally 16 (although it can be higher or lower in particular circumstances.) But actually, my girlfriend is 35. All she knows how to use is Microsoft Paint, and she doesn't have a graphics tablet either. I've been contemplating buying her one of those, and teaching her some other software. (I actually touched up her artwork a bit using GIMP - she doesn't know how to use that.) She's talked before about doing some sort of art or graphics design course; she has not as yet, but I think it would be good for her if she did, and maybe she will eventually. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 00:57, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, based upon the samples we have been treated to, it may be that art is not a strength of hers. Perhaps you will need to think again if you were planning on using her artwork in your quest for world domination spiritual enlightenment. Damo^Hi 01:42, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh no!

It's Maratrean! He's a theist and he's also gonna advocate civility! Let's all freak out and try trolling him!--"Shut up, Brx." 03:05, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

"Civility" is most vocally advocated by people arguing for positions so flimsy as to cave in at the first bit of fun poked at them. ListenerX^TalkerX 03:13, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

How do you mean?--"Shut up, Brx." 03:14, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

All positions are flimsy. Wisdom is admitting that. In the end, we each choose to which flimsy position we will adhere — and we choose in accordance with our hearts. I offer one such flimsy position; you may well prefer others — and if you do so, I wish you the best. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 07:41, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh shut up you gibberish-spouting lunatic. Sophie^{because liberals} 15:06, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Invitation

Is that an invitation for me? --SupernovaExplosion (talk) 10:45, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Regarding your censorship warning

There should be talk page for talk pages! You might want to add diff links. These censors have run rampant on the wiki this last year or two. They are bad people, and ignore the wiki's founding principles of openness and clarity. Oh well, I guess there's some idiots on here who prefer to create ways to wield power versus writing good content. ħuman 06:32, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm actually contemplating taking it down. The whole "let's ban MC" thing seems to have died out. Is MC still technically banned? Is the "revert everything MC says" rule still actively enforced? (((Zack Martin)))^™ 06:34, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Request for input

In this era of confusion it occurred to me moderate voices need a spiritual doctrine devoid of whacko cults and extremism. How does Fun:Black liberation Mormonism sound? I was thinking in terms of 19 year old minority elders riding bicycles in three piece suits to register voters, but it needs some sort of doctrine to back it up. We're kinda pressed for time, but it could be patented and marketed before election day. Any thoughts? nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 17:53, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

How about Maratreanism instead? (((Zack Martin)))^™ 08:24, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Monosphysitism

I've encountered this in a video game and after some cursory research I have to say I'm puzzled. I'm always curious about religious practices and beliefs, and knowing you to be familiar with the breadth of it all, I'd like to ask you to clear things up for me.

What's difference? I don't really see how this is doctrinally different than more mainstream Christianity. Does it change anything in practice? Do monophysites practice communion and whatnot differently? Please be detailed. --User:Brxbrx/sig 15:36, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Mainstream Christianity says that Jesus was both fully man and fully God (the paradox is quite usual for Byzantine mysticism), while monophysites deny that he was a man, or claim that he had a single nature which wasn't either. Monophysitism is a theological position; demanding that it have different "institutional" practices to qualify as a "religious belief" (a concept which in its modern form is a largely 19th-century invention) is missing the point quite widely. It doesn't need to change anything "in practice": the mechanical matching of beliefs with practices was a Reformation thing. There were debates about practices (like the iconoclastic controversy or the controversy over appointing people who had renounced Christianity in periods of persecution to the priesthood), and there were also debates about theology more precisely construed. Of course ecclesiastical hierarchies that adopted monophysitism did develop different practices, but that wasn't because they were monophysites. --Lord Shang (talk) 15:53, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I didn't say different beliefs should have different practices, although it makes it easier for me to understand when that's the case (not that the world should cater to the thickness of my skull). What do monphysites refer to Jesus as? Thanks for the info.

Basically many of the same things as other Christians of the time. One example of a specifically Monophysite slogan that I can think of is adding the phrase "who was crucified for us" to the Trisagion (e.g. "Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord God Almighty, who was crucified for us"), implying that God specifically had suffered for humanity. Part of the significance of Monophysitism, though, was that it was adopted by people like Egyptians who opposed the Byzantine state, so the Monophysite slogans had a much deeper political meaning. Late antique theological disputes are quite hard to fathom for modern interpreters -- I think it's reasonably certain that most Monophysites probably didn't understand what they were advocating as such, but used the slogans as a rallying point for their political community. Sorry for barging in on this talk page, just wanted to help in some way since I studied this stuff originally and still find it very interesting :P --Lord Shang (talk) 19:44, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I certainly don't mind, and I'll bet ZackMartin will be very interested in what you have to say. Thanks for the information, I really appreciate it.--User:Brxbrx/sig 20:34, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Lord Shang is right, that it's silly just to look at the theological beliefs, and ignore the cultural, linguistic, political, personal, historical, etc., context in which they arose - without that context, the arguments make little sense. The point of it all was how could Jesus be both human and God at the same time. Monophysites said Jesus was one person having a nature that was both human and divine; non-monophysites ("Chalcedonians") said he was one person having two natures, one human and the other divine. I've read some suggestion that the dispute was just a translation misunderstanding, since the monophysites largely spoke Syriac and Coptic, while the Chalcedonians were largely Greek speaking (and Latin in the West.) The dispute was a follow-on from the Nestorian dispute - Nestorius claimed that Jesus was two persons, one human and one divine - this has liturgical implications, since he rejected calling Mary "the Mother of God" (theotokos), since he said that she was the mother only of the human Jesus and not of the divine Jesus. The monophysites saw the Chalcedonian position as pseudo-Nestorian, while the Chalcedonians thought the monophysite position meant that Jesus was mostly divine and only a little human (a position that the monophysites themselves rejected.) (((Zack Martin)))^™ 07:26, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Interesting--User:Brxbrx/sig 14:41, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Goats want to be a part of your religion

Don't believe that goats have souls. They are not sacred animals. As soulless unsacred animals, it is permissible to eat them. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 07:26, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Email

I sent you an email or two, and I am notifying you here in case you didn't get it--User:Brxbrx/sig 01:11, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, it took me a while :) But I commented on your blog. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 13:30, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Ooh months later I'm curious where we might find this creature's blog. Addy? 06:43, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

'Tis here. Peter ^{Rapidly running out of marmite} 08:00, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Question (or two or three)

Long time, no see. So I was wondering where the names "Zarnacy" and "Zacarías Martinez" come from. Also, what's going on in your official portrait? Oh, and one more thing: How long did it take you to write this? Sam ^Tally-ho! 02:54, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

"Zarnacy" is a nickname of sort. The remainder are just different versions of my name. I don't actually look like a bat; for security reasons I am unable to post an actual image of myself on the Internet, so that portrait serves as a "placeholder" of sorts. I can no longer recall how long it took me to write CTCV; I think it was probably 12-18 months, on and off. Zack Martin  05:20, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Suite Life

I take it you're a fan of that show? Anyway, cool law. Your vote, by the way, reminded me of the Louis Brandeis quote, "Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants." Tisane (talk) 02:26, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I plan to sue them for stealing my name! :) Yes I think that law is well-needed; way too many people respond to anyone they disagree with by calling them a "troll". The word is so overused, it would be better banished from the vocabulary — it is a refuge for those too lazy to think and respond to the views of others. As to the Brandeis quote, I had heard it before but forgotten it, but I think I was unconsciously half-remembering it when I wrote that coop vote. Zack Martin  07:45, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

M

Maratreanism is growing rapidly! sterile^{sporadic heavy hitter} 23:02, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Deletion

dearest Maratrean, There's an attempt to delete the article on your religion. Luvs, 00:10, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Return of the Protoprophet Zarnacy

Welcome back. I still sleep in my cave waiting for you to call. You dont call, you dont write, I feel unloved ;( mreooowww Terror Trinka (talk) 04:59, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I would call you, if only I knew your phone number. What is it? (((Zack Martin)))^™ 05:24, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Hey man

Good to see you. How's things?--"Shut up, Brx." 15:22, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Smoking violates human rights essay

Hi,

I really liked your essay on smoking being a violation of human rights. Why did you delete it? Do you by chance still have a copy? 84.131.64.43 (talk) 05:28, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Hows it

Glad to see someone missed me. S'up and who were you again? Aceⁱ⁹ 00:25, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

This is the user formerly known as Maratrean. Good to see you again, by the way, Ace. Gooniepunk (talk) 01:22, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Ahhh excellent. Maratrean. Just for old times sake.....Aceⁱ⁹ 01:55, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

I see that after all these years, your love of cock is undiminished. Well, good for you, I hope all those cocks give you a good time. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 04:55, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Inverse Kalaam

You seem very knowledgeable about apologetics, so I was wondering if you could tell me if this argument, an inverse kalaam, is valid for exposing the flaws in the original kalaam:

P1: Nothing which exists can cause something which does not exist to begin existing.

P2: The universe began to exist.

C: Therefore, the universe was not caused to exist by anything which exists.

Again, the point is not to disprove God, but rather to parody the original kalaam so as to demonstrate its flaws. The others seem to agree that it was a valid parody in the saloon, but I'd like one more opinion before I add it to the cosmological argument page. Thanks in advance :) Lord Aeonian (talk) 00:00, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Inverse Kalaam

You seem very knowledgeable about apologetics, so I was wondering if you could tell me if this argument, an inverse kalaam, is valid for exposing the flaws in the original kalaam:

P1: Nothing which exists can cause something which does not exist to begin existing.

P2: The universe began to exist.

C: Therefore, the universe was not caused to exist by anything which exists.

Again, the point is not to disprove God, but rather to parody the original kalaam so as to demonstrate its flaws. The others seem to agree that it was a valid parody in the saloon, but I'd like one more opinion before I add it to the cosmological argument page. Thanks in advance :) Lord Aeonian (talk) 00:00, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for taking almost two months to respond. I rarely venture around these parts nowadays.

The Kalam cosmological argument (KCA) fails because its first premise "Whatever begins to exist has a cause" is essentially question-begging–if you already accept its conclusion, then this premise is quite plausible, but find me a person who accepted this premise before they accepted (or at least seriously felt tempted to accept) its conclusion. Most arguments for God's existence work like this–I believe B, B implies A, so of course I'll believe A, oh but it turns out that A (in conjunction with some generally accepted co-premises) implies B too, so let me just pretend I believed A first for vaguely defined reasons unrelated to B (it's obvious! it's common sense!), and suddenly I've got a great argument for B.

But this "inverse kalam" starts with an obviously false premise: "Nothing which exists can cause something which does not exist to begin existing". Surely there are many obvious counterexamples: humans are always creating things (baking cakes, bearing offspring, building houses, incorporating companies, writing symphonies, whatever) which didn't exist until something which existed caused them to begin to exist. So, you are parodying an argument with question-begging premises with one with obviously false premises, which isn't a very successful parody.

The problem with the first premise of the Kalam argument is not that it is false, but simply that (without assuming the existence of God) we have no idea whether it is true or false, no good reason to suppose one or the other. Purported counterexamples from physics are arguably too disputed in their interpretation for us to confidently rely upon them either way; and most atheists would not say that "nothing caused the universe to exist", only "we don't know whether anything caused the universe to exist, nor do we know what the cause was if there was one"–it's possible even under atheism that the universe was caused by something outside itself (e.g. some sort of fluctuation in the multiverse or whatever), so long as that something doesn't resemble the God of theism. But with your argument's equivalent premise, we have good reason to suppose it is false.

Of course, it is a valid argument–if its premises were true its conclusion must be true–but a valid argument with obviously false premises isn't very valuable:

1. President Obama is a lizard
2. All lizards have two heads
3. Therefore, President Obama has two heads

From a strictly logical point of view, it's a totally valid argument! But, pragmatically, it is useless. I'd question whether your "inverse Kalam", when subjected to the proper scrutiny, fares much better. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 12:01, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I thought the first premise of my parody was begging the question (basically saying God didn't create the universe) in the same way the original Kalam begs the question - hence the parody. I didn't think that the kalam's premise is not obviously false. Lord Aeonian (talk) 21:02, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Giving it another go?

A while ago you said "Sometimes, you need to take a break from certain things — you step away for a while, and then you come back to it with better insight and more success than when you stepped away" and now you're linking people to your Maratreanism website. Are you picking that up again? Bicycle^wheel 19:09, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Naah. I'm kind of over Maratrea actually. I have decided to become a Kekistani instead. Praise Kek! Shadilay! Actually I want to be like Terry Davis and write my own operating system. But some of his design decisions, eew. I mean like he invents his own programming language–and then he makes it almost the same as C? Come on; if you are going to invent your own programming language, don't base it on C, don't make it look like C, do something more interesting, like base it on Lisp or Smalltalk or something, sheesh. But hey, I mean he did write his own operating system and I haven't... I guess being a schizophrenic recluse he has time to do that. My wife, my son, my daughter, I love them to death but they take up a lot of my time, you know. But yeah, Kek, worshipping a green frog is cool. The Trump-supporting not so cool. But hey, Trump will pass, and Kek will endure. That is really the future I envisage for Kekism, goodbye to Donald Trump, goodbye to the racism and misogyny and whatever else nasties, but keep the frog-worship alive, the batracholatry. A green tree frog. I could worship that, I reckon, praise Kek. But I'm not sure if Maratrea would approve. I think I am sinning against her? She told me I was allowed to worship bats and dogs, among others, and I do; but frogs were not on the list of animals it is permissible to worship. She gave me that list, last time I saw her, actually. It was in a crimson manilla folder. I don't know what I did with it, however. I think I might have accidentally given it to my tax agent. Maybe she forwarded it to the tax department? Maybe now the Australian Taxation Office now has the official list of which animals Maratreans are allowed to worship? Should I call them and ask them if worshipping green tree frogs is cool? What do you think they'll say? Maybe they'll give me a discount on my taxes for asking the question? I don't know. Maybe I should just go watch some porn instead.(((Zack Martin)))^™ 20:50, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Frogs are cute, and they're endangered by that fungal disease, so they could use the support :) Bicycle^wheel 20:54, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Porn? yuk! Bicycle^wheel 20:56, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

It is a pity you can't get to the link I just gave you, it is like the worstest yukiest porn ever made. It will give you nightmares that will endure for the rest of your life. It will fill your dreams with its utter horror. Whenever there is silence you will hear the echo of the screams. Whenever you close your eyes, the images will be with you. Good for you that your ISP is blocking it, then. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 21:04, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Here's another link to the same horrific video. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 21:25, 12 July 2017 (UTC)