User talk:Ttiotsw/Archives/2006

Blank

Oops - serious cleanup required

FWIW read history. Ttiotsw 22:45, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

User Warning Templates wr and wr1 etc

These templates only apply to Removing warnings on own user talk page. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Template_messages/User_talk_namespace If a talk page is vandalised then this obviously doesn't apply. Again see history of my page and more importantly count the warning messages on the counterparty. Ttiotsw 23:28, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Who are you? --Neurophyre^(talk) 00:25, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Well I'm human not a bot. I edited a page http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pope_Benedict_XVI_Islam_controversy&diff=78461820&oldid=78408273 as a cleanup and then along comes someone and starts asking questions about god and stuff on my talk page. I reply and clean up his stuff on my talk page as is my right. He then goes and starts asking you guys about using templates that are used to warn against removing *warnings* with respect to me to help keep his edits visible. It's all in the history. Come on, give me a break. Ttiotsw 00:40, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion

The highest priority for a secular humanist should be the suppression of religious propaganda, most importantly Muslim propaganda, because if Muslims take over the world as they plan to do then there will be no freedom of expression for your kind.

Also you must know that you have no proof in the nonexistence of the supernatural. Your argument that if something supernatural were to appear it would be in the natural world hence natural, and therefore there is nothing supernatural, is either incorrect or a misuse of language. If you use the first definition of supernatural found at, for example, www.m-w.com, then it may be that we simply cannot observe anything supernatural. If you use the second definition, then you are assuming a priori that there are "laws of nature" (and modern science is only descriptive in this regard, it does not prove that there are such laws). So having assumed this, anything which we observe (in the natural world) which violates those laws is by definition supernatural. If you are attempting to disprove the existence of supernatural phenomena according to the latter definition you would have to prove beyond a doubt that A) There are natural laws. B) That it is impossible for them to be violated in any way at any time.

The above opinion posted by some IP address. Please create an account, log-in with that and sign posts. Given the balance of both suggesting that the Muslims are taking over PLUS the allusion to Muslim propaganda PLUS "for your kind" PLUS some illogical polemic about "supernatural" I'd suggest that the person behind this IP is probably a Christian. Following on from their ad hominum attack (the implication of "for your kind"), they base their argument on a classic straw man. The answer for me is easy; I need not prove that there are natural laws nor that they are never violated. The answer for you is hard; simply prove that there is a god or gods. Any evidence will do. Not only do I wait in anticipation, if you did have evidence then you'd be the first since the dawn of time. Must be worth waiting for, not. Ttiotsw 16:12, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

On the matter if censorship. Read my userpage. I don't agree with censorship. Religion is simply culture. I think some pop music is utter crap (others probably think my taste is weird too) but suppress that ?. To me any religious propaganda should get equal air-time. The long-term answer to the problem of Islam is to approach Islam in the same way that secular society solved the problem of pre-Enlightenment Christianity. It was defanged with reason. The same solution applies to Islam. Ttiotsw 16:19, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I am not a Christian. "For your kind" was not an ad hominem (note the spelling) attack, I guess you don't know what that means. The implication of "people like you", was people who share your philosophy of secular humanism. The "polemic" about the supernatural was very clear. You claimed that there is nothing supernatural, and offered a cute but wrong proof of that statement. So there is no "answer" for me, I'm not trying to prove that there is something supernatural, only showing that you can't prove that there isn't. That you choose to respond by making up beliefs for me shows that you didn't really think about what I said.

And if you think you can prove that, say, the Catholic Church's set of core beliefs is inconsistent, I'd like to see you try.

I am not suggesting you censor anything, just that you try to keep the articles on Islam balanced. 24.7.89.173 00:02, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Excellent - at last someone realises that there is little point in arguing about that which can't be falsified (well other than arguing over spelling and stuff - sorry I didn't have Google open at the time). As for not understanding that the ad hominem attack is against the person. Saying things like "For your kind" and "people like you" is classifying me not my argument. It is thus implying something about me as a person. It is the implication that is important to you.

I can invent any theory I like as to what is the supernatural. If some law can deem it to exist as a legal concept with respect to the classification of what is religious then given that it can't be presented as evidence my theories are as good as anyones.

As for trying to prove that "the Catholic Church's set of core beliefs is inconsistent" I have no idea what the heck you are talking about ! What has the Vatican got to do with this argument ? I only mentioned that the anti-humanity form of governance i.e. the theocracy of Christianity, has been controlled by reason and secular humanism. The Holy See is a microstate theocracy that is only an observer to the Council of Europe as they cannot signed up to basic human rights conventions. The Islamic theocracies also place the supernatural higher than humanity. These theocracies have as their basis an antithesis of human rights as they deny the origins of humanity. Given the evidence to date they are inconsistent.

Previously you presented an argument that offered the fallacy of adverse consequences of letting the Muslim propaganda in. I disagree and will certainly make sure that the artiles on Islam and Science are balanced. I am not a Islamic studies person but I know what makes up science. Being a secular humanist helps with this as we get all sorts of shit with people inventing imaginary entities to prove their point. Ttiotsw 04:24, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Science

I've renominated The Quran and science for deletion, could you weigh in? Arrow740 01:01, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

No - I've gone with weak keep but suggested that it be moved to Science and The Quran and reworded to be like Science and The Bible. Plus it's part of their enlightenment to fail, and they will hopelessly fail, to reconcile the two. The devil in me is amused. Ttiotsw 00:09, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Good job finding that faithfreedom article and the Moore article. What we need now are reputable sources discussing the pseudoscience in the Quran. Arrow740 09:33, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I would really like to keep the Saleem stuff; my justification is on the talk page. Let me know if you agree. As regards the evolution of man, if you want to include the fact that the Quran is wrong, it isn't enough to cite some basic biology book. You need to cite a reputable scholar saying "the Quran is wrong about human evolution and here's why." However, this material is so ridiculous that we don't even need to bother with it. I should be able to add in some stuff of my own tomorrow, Monday at the latest. Arrow740 07:52, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm happy it can stay too as long as the quotations are refered to correctly. The error of clay verses dust is telling here. Obviously as an atheist, evolution and all it means e.g. common ancestor and comparative genomics, I feel is just too big for some "non-authority" to discard and be included simply because he presents a representative muslim view ! Unless someone can show me a poll of muslims I'm not buying that reason. There are two approaches and the second is that if a quranic studies person says that "Darwin is wrong" then we need not identify articles that discuss the Quran but simply provide evidence that refutes that point of view in general using some suitable non WP:OR method e.g, "...this places the results of these Quranic studies at odds with..." or "...though modern evolution theory presents a different view..." etc etc. As another example in general I feel we can use any paper that posits a natural approach to anthropic evidence in cosmology as opposed to simply identifying an anti-quranic one. This is why I'm interested in the work of Victor Stenger (who's page I'll start as I feel he is notable enough). You may not like him - he's an atheist !.

Ttiotsw 09:46, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Fortunately, on that article we've adopted the standard that we can't make any correlations or show that there is a contradiction ourselves. Otherwise it would be the load of crap it was a couple weeks ago. It's not clear to me if those examples you mentioned would be OR or not. It might depend on how you use it exaclty, but I'm not sure. You may want to check out Qur'an and miracles which is another load of crap. I'm going to focus on the one we've been working on but you might want to tackle this new one. However I could really use your help on the one we've been working on. Arrow740 18:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

PS I have no problem with atheists or even atheism (though I know someone who participated in the Ganesha milk miracle, and based on that and some other things I believe that there is evidence that God exists). I only have a problem when atheists rant without acknowledging that they believe something without having proof. Arrow740 18:24, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

The Quran and Science page edits.

As per the suggestion on the Wikipedia mediation page I'll wait a few days to reconsider the topic before adding or adjusting anything more on The_Quran_and_science page. I think I have clearly stated my position on some things and the page doesn't look like it'll get any better with what I feel is complete nonsense being added back in. Ttiotsw 13:26, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Discussion on Falsifiability here moved from User Page.

(This was on the user page - I've copied it here and adjusted the user page to say that talk needs to only be on this talk page.) Falsifiability is a very good filter to work out what is worth spending time arguing over. When anyone starts an argument about something that can't be falsified then it's kind of a waste of time unless the aim is to highlight that arguing over what can't be falsified is a waste of time. Another good reason to argue this is if the other person is theatening you in some way. Usually religions and politicians will use threats (spot the difference). In that case just go with the flow as any point of view is meaningless in the big picture. Occams razor basically eliminates the extra entities so if they have invented a fiction, you are able to believe that without consequence.

Poeple go into contorted arguments (Just look at what the Pope writes !) on something that should really be quite an easy subject. When this happens then alarm bells should ring; what the person is talking about can't be falsified. It could be an advertising claim, a political statement, an economics statement or some religious dogma. They are all the same if they can't be falsified. Ttiotsw 04:34, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

So I take it to mean that you only believe in things that are falsifiable.DocEss 17:41, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

No (as I said above) only that it is worth spending time arguing on things which can be falsified unless the argument is about highlighting that arguing over what can't be falsified is a waste of time: as you are doing now so happy to respond. What I do not believe in or do believe in is another matter. As with my "European identity", it is usually defined by what it is not. For instance, it is not Monarchy, not Fascism, it is not Communism and it is not Theocracy but a form of centrist democracy. It is not censorship but with that freedom to publish comes responsibility. It is not capitalism nor protectionism as I feel competition is good, global trade is good and yet control of monopolies and use of standards as barriers are good for consumers. My faith is not god-centric but human-centric and hold that ethics are not god given but human defined based on rules congruent to our nature. We are not created but have evolved. It does depend upon what the question is and though I may not always be clear as to what it is, I can usually be clear that it is not something by using various metrics and tools to identify my view. One of those is the idea of what is falsifiable. Coming full circle then what is falsifiable is not my belief but a tool used to identify what my belief may not be. I would hope that my beliefs are have more evidence than simply that one metric. As an example evolution is a concept that is falsifiable and I believe in that as a scientific theory but I make sure that I am aware of what's happening in various fields like comparative genomics. This takes a lot of time but its worthwhile to make sure my beliefs are internally consistent. Creation science fails on the falsifiability hurdle and so is fatally flawed for me to hold that as a belief as I cannot maintain a coherent picture of that belief without unquestionable faith. To me faith is a shortlived hypothesis that you can believe in but you must ruthlessly question why it is true; nothing is sacrosanct, there are no sacred cows nor people. Ttiotsw 18:47, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

You're certainly a deep thinker. I wonder, can we apply this falsifiablitiy tool of which you speak to everything?DocEss 18:50, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Yup in the same way that you can use a spanner/wrench as a hammer. It's just one tool in the box. Carl Sagan refers to the tools in the Baloney Detection Kit in his book The Demon Haunted World (There really probably should be a Wikipedia page on that kit !). Ttiotsw 22:08, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok --- so that I may better understand this belief system, can we do an intellectual experiment? It's just a yes/no question you could answer for me - there's nothing sinistre to it at all.DocEss 15:33, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm describing one aspect of the scientific method. I guess so if it's in good faith as a test of the the scientific method (of which the idea of falsifiability is just one part - kind of thanks to Karl Popper). I'm at a loss though what would be learnt if all we plan to do is re-establish where the the boundaries between science and non-science lie (or rather the demarcation between faith and reason). This is why I'm sort of loathe to want to prove the scientific method as its a methodology that has evolved over centuries. For that matter there is not enough time in the universe to argue this: we can only watch the god of gaps get smaller in scope. Ttiotsw 16:06, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I see. Yes - all in good faith. Here we go. Please answer this simple question: Do you love your parents/brother/sister/family?DocEss 16:16, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh come on give us a fucking break. You started this crap before. I'll SAY IT IN CAPITALS. THAT WAS NOT ASKED IN GOOD FAITH. MY PERSONAL LIFE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WIKIPEDIA. THIS MATTER IS CLOSED. Ttiotsw 16:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

It's not personal - intellectual. Yes/No question!DocEss 16:26, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

NO NO NO. *anything*, any wording or any reference direct or indirect to family or friends is too personal. I have a very clear demarcation here on this. I'm quite happy to discuss the basis of my beliefs as this helps evolve them and very happy to discuss my contributions to wikipedia but thats it. If it's yes of no then why not ask "Do I love beer or do I love hot pepper sauce or coffee - the answer is very much yes for all three.?"

I couldn't care less about your personal life (other than to hope all is well, of course!). I assure you - my question is not one of a personal nature even though it sounds like it is. Just indulge me by answering yes or no and our intellectual pursuit will be rewarding. I promise.DocEss 17:10, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Then it is no.Ttiotsw 17:16, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Ha! Well...you win. I suspect you answered 'no' because you knew what was coming anyway. Ok. I'll leave you alone.DocEss 17:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

He can be annoying. He should spend more time on Islam articles and less time pestering atheists (though I do it too). That's not the way to go about it anyway. If there is no afterlife, then nothing matters because when you're dead, you're dead. That doesn't mean that it is irrational to consider things like love and family important; it is an objective fact that those things make us feel good. Arrow740 18:37, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm quite happy to work through his problems on this BUT it can't involve me talking about anything other than stuff related to wikipedia or, as a stretch, some aspects of me such that I was not able to be personally identified and family isn't that. There is a long history of threats to atheists from both Christians and Muslims (especially given that I do love editing those Islamic apologetics related articles). Jews seem fine with atheists: I guess thats why Hitler had it in for both Jews and Atheists (as well as anyone else who didn't match his nice Christian views). Before people see me as a zionist I don't like Israel but thats another matter. Some of those religious people are basically way too unstable to be let out onto a keyboard. They hit the atheist Forums and Blogs too with the same naive crap. I have no idea what he wants given he stated he wanted to "...better understand this belief system..." and yet poses a near identical question that he's presented before and in which I also told him to fuck off for the same reasons. Looks like evolution missed this one ! Ttiotsw 01:37, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Hitler's views were hardly Christian. Judaism is different from the other two because it's not a proselytizing religion. They think that the stuff in the Hebrew Bible (in large part) only applies to them. That might be part of the reason that they're not so concerned with atheists. I've come across many who are virulently anti-Christian though. Arrow740 21:08, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Wafa Sultan's athiesm

As a matter of fact, I do have proof of Wafa Sultan's athiesm. Rather than assume that I'm making using "claim" "as some kind of derogatory label", you should assume good faith and do your own research. [1]

Several months ago, an obscure 47 year old unemployed psychologist by the name of Wafa Sultan had a debate on Arabic television with Algerian religious studies professor Ibrahim al-Khouli. A "translation service" operated by former members of the Israeli intelligence apparatus called MEMRI posted a five-minute cut of the segment that seemed to show Sultan winning the debate. This was widely dessimated by the right-wing blogsphere and then the mainstream media, including The New York Times. Unfortunately, the cut was questionably translated and showed only a very short segment of the long debate. Here's a link to the translated transcript of the entire show:

Full Transcipt Link - .pdf format

Athiesm quote:

"I am not defending my opinion from a Christian perspective; I want to make this very clear: I am not Christian, I do not believe in any religion. I am a secular human being and do not believe in the supernatural, but I respect the right of all to believe in it."

OK - I know about that interview. I was hoping that you had NEW information !. So in other words she has NOT said that she is an atheist. I've re-read the transcript just in case and yup its the SAME interview and I cannot see where she has said that she is an atheist. She was asked very precisely and did not say yes to that question. This seems very clear to me that "secular" is the correct word and means more to her as a designation that "atheist". So unless there are things lost in the "questionably translated" text she has said that she is a secular human being. There are differences between calling yourself "secular" and "atheist". Paraphrasing you - "you should assume good faith and do your own research.". I do love how you describe her as a "47 year old unemployed psychologist" and you seem to want to use this evidence from the "Israeli intelligence apparatus". Can we add that to her article as it sounds quite neutral to me ? Ttiotsw 18:51, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

The transcript very clearly quotes her as saying: "I do not believe in any religion. I am a secular human being and do not believe in the supernatural..." Thus, it is a fact that she is an athiest. I don't see why their remains any argumentation about this...

I'm very well aware of the difference between being an athiest and believing in secularism. Why do you assume that I don't?

"Paraphrasing you - "you should assume good faith and do your own research.". I do love how you describe her as a "47 year old unemployed psychologist" and you seem to want to use this evidence from the "Israeli intelligence apparatus". Can we add that to her article as it sounds quite neutral to me ?"

You're response in general is muddled. You're confused. I read about her career life on a seperate website. The comment about the "former members of the Israeli intelligence apparatus" seems to have confused you as well. What I was referring to was MEMRI, a group run by several former members of the Israeli intelligence apparatus (they admit this). This group was the reason the otherwise obscure Wafa Sultan was brought into the public spotlight.--Kitrus 03:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Please read the definition of an atheist (even on Wikipedia) - it is specifically used with reference to not believing in or having no belief in god/gods as opposed to not believing in the supernatural. Thus it is WP:OR on your part if that is all she has stated. Though they do usually follow it may be that she is unable to state that she is an atheist due to the arguments against atheism. I'm quite happy that she is described as an atheist if she has said she is and not through your interpretation of what she has said about the supernatural. If I remember correctly she mentioned she was looking for another god anyway. Funny kind of atheist who looks for god !. Ttiotsw 23:52, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Again, you're repsonse is incoherent, though this is probably due to your poor grasp of English. Please reread the statement:

Quote: "I am not defending my opinion from a Christian perspective; I want to make this very clear: I am not Christian, I do not believe in any religion. I am a secular human being and do not believe in the supernatural, but I respect the right of all to believe in it."Full Transcipt Link - .pdf format

So, in summary she states that 1) She doesn't believe in any religion 2) She is a secular human being and 3) She doesn't believe in the supernatural.

If at this point it is not clear to you that she fits the dictionary definition of an athiest, perhaps you shouldn't be editing on English Wikipedia.--Kitrus 07:05, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but I was almost spilt my coffee in an embarrassed reaction when I saw you had decided to try and win this concensus by discussing my language skills. It is a pity you didn't spend more time on the response. Please be mindful of WP:No Personal Attacks especially if it causes me to spill the drink-of-the-gods, which in this case is my coffee. The dictionary definition of an atheist is usually quite specific to mention no belief/non belief in god. In case my worldview as an atheist has been in error for the past zillion years I just googled for this to double-check and sure enough; Encarta, Dictionary.com, OED, Websters etc etc all just mention gods/gods or lack of. Try it yourself sometime. This is a seperate issue from belief in or not of the supernatural. Technically you could argue that she is areligious or even antireligious for saying that though that again is WP:OR so it just stays as Secular as that is all that I can see that she has said. Please also be mindful of WP:LIVING as it is very clear on what to add. Please also READ our own WIKIPEDIA article on Atheism especially the first line. If you feel that this is not right then start some sort of arbitration else stop this circular argument. Ttiotsw 07:49, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Dawkins

Don't waste your time with that stuff. Work on the Islam and science article. I've seen Dawkins in a debate against a Protestant guy and he certainly didn't win. How can you say that atheism is a life-affirming philosophy? Under atheism, your life only has the meaning you give it. And what are you? A biological machine. Your views don't matter. So your life doesn't matter. I am also expecting a cosmological equivalent to Darwinism. So what? Darwinism doesn't disprove intelligent design and neither will that. Arrow740 22:23, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

"Don't waste your time with that stuff. Work on the Islam and science article." Classic. --Kitrus 02:55, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

To Arrow740, I usually refer to myself as a secular humanist, though I may use the term atheist to summarise just the specific area related to belief in the supernatural. Atheism usually only is related to the stand taken regarding god or gods but it's a convenient shortcut to also take a stand regarding belief or no belief in any supernatural being). So now that we have addressed the supernatural then where does that leave us ? - Your purpose in life. I believe that as a very minimum the purpose of a persons life is the sum of the purposes of the individual parts of a person. This includes all the parts of your brain as well as the body. I have not found anyone (be they religious of not) who can clearly identify any part of the human body that has no purpose. Even your tonsils which people can get removed have a purpose in childhood (though not as much as adults), even your appendix probably has some vestigial purpose though it may probably only come into it's own if we choose different diets. As for our evolved brain then that intelligence and it's problem solving skills and methods of learning that we use to adapt our environment also has a purpose too. For humans to have even left Africa so many millenia ago (and this is reasonably true theory based on human genome research) we needed our intelligence to adapt to environments. Humans can only live on a very small part of the world without clothes and clothes are the byproducts of technology. Technology needs thinkers and problem solvers. Our thoughts are thus adaptions that have evolved to meet the challenges of the environment. I do feel that the approach of religions is to be "anti-human" as it denies the origins of humanity. It also denies the long and hard road travelled by many generations of the ancestors who have added small parts to each of our genetic structures. This extends to not just are immediate parents and family but back in time to the common ancestor of all of humanity and then back further to the common ancestors of all of animal kingdom and then back through to the first self-assembling organisms. Religion is so short term. Ttiotsw 07:27, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

The components of our bodies serve biological purposes. Our minds serve the purpose of helping us survive. Why should I think that survival is important? Why should I think that living is important? Isn't it an arbitrary decision, taken by a mind which only exists to help us survive? Good thing there are miracles so we don't all have to get depressed. Arrow740 01:35, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Miracles ? I think you've been spun a few lies there !. The has never been proof of any miracles taking place. Religions use their claims of miracle like advertisers claims for product endorcements on day-time TV. Some people are convinced but then fools and their money are soon parted. What you say about survival is illogical. If an organism doesn't think that survival is relevant then that organism dies out. It's a self-fulfilling that such a trait would die out. That some people do kill themselves e.g. suicides or sacrifice in times of war show that the issue of survival of the organism and how the mind manages this is more complex than the black and white scenario you paint. Ttiotsw 07:09, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

My point is that if you're just the result of a physical process and nothing else then nothing you do is important. There is no reason to think that you matter. As regards miracles, one very intelligent person I know personally experienced one, and a very close friend of mine who is something of a skeptic fed a ganesha idol milk on the one day when hindu idols all around the world were drinking milk a few years ago. As regards other supernatural events, some close relatives of mine experienced a ghost, and only discussed it with each other after they had all experienced the same thing individually. How do you explain that? Arrow740 00:39, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

If you view any persons purpose from the point of view of being an insurance policy as opposed to an actual mechanism of survival then this will help you get around the problem that you see with the apparent purposelessness of it all. The future is unknown and as with, say, fire insurance where it is good to have but you never want to actually claim on the policy, our purpose is quite flexible in what we choose it to be as no one knows the future and therefore no one can say what is useful, what matters, or what is important or not. That said many religions say they know the future and use this to try and control peoples purpose. Some religions are even so cruel to humanity as to manage the future so it matches their predictions by killing others or by promoting an eschatology with a believe in the parousia for their prophets or simply helping their apocalyptic end of days become reality. This is why I believe that any religion that promotes any predictions of the future must be managed very closely as it is against the nature of our universe. If our future was predictable then religions would have a basis for believe; until that time our purpose can be anything that is congruent to our human nature, society and culture and no one can honestly say what is ultimately important or what truely matters. Ttiotsw 01:39, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

The future is unknown. Yes. As regards religions, I'm not arguing for them. I don't believe in any of them currently. You're the one assuming that God, the supernatural, and an afterlife don't exist. Having assumed these things, we have no purpose. Society, culture, and even our existence have no purpose. Arrow740 05:12, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

These might interest you: Miracles_at_Lourdes#The_Lourdes_Medical_Bureau and look at the videos linked from here. Also I know for a fact that this really happened. Arrow740 00:54, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

The events of the miracle (and others you mention) quite possibly have happened but the science behind them is very real and very natural. This shouldn't make it any less amazing and that I think is the problem with some people. The real world around us is amazing and it is there to be discovered for what it is and not attribute the cause to some other thing which by it's very definition in many cases can never be known. For any Lourdes stuff - this is a mixture of observer-expectancy effect and that truely amazing placebo effect, but we need not attribute that as a supernatural. In fact the desire to look towards the supernatural diverts us from studying the placebo effect in more detail. Imagine if we all had more control over this effect right down to directing T-cells even based on our scientific knowledge of our bodies invaders ? It is for these reasons we have invented double-blind experiments. The human desire to look towards a supernatural origin is a dead end, though an easier path to take. So far there has been no evidence which could be considered to be remotely scientific of any supernatural entity at work in any of the cases you mentioned. As for the evidence that you present of a witness to a miracle, I'm afraid to say that it just didn't happened as it has been presented to you, though that's not to say it hasn't happened or why. Ttiotsw 01:39, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

One of the Lourdes miracles involved a woman who lacked an optic nerve in one of her eyes. After visiting the spring, she was able to see. She was examined by Christian, agnostic, and atheist doctors, and they all concluded that she still lacked an optic nerve. As regards the Hindu milk miracle, idols all over the world were sucking up milk on one day. I know for a fact that this happened; a close friend of mine who doesn't believe in Hinduism fed such an idol milk himself. How can you say that you know that that didn't happen?! You're being quite dogmatic. I find the existence of God to be the simplest and most plausible explanation for these things. Arrow740 05:12, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

We are on Wikipedia - please provide a link to where this "woman who lacked an optic nerve" is so I can see the MRI study of her seeing the images. It would be amazing if the optic nerve grew back but that wasn't what you said but that she could see. She already had a working eye I assume so it's really of she could see out of the bad eye. She said she can I presume BUT I'm assuming that there is some notable reference to the tests that they performed on her. On the issue of knowledge of the eye - it was only recently (I think in 2004) that a study showed that the eye is a extension of the brain in that the study would indicate it evolved from neural cells. I'll have to track down the cite reference for this. Given so recent knowledge why is it that people presume a more complex cause when in fact a more natural cause may be the more wonderous event ?

As for the Hindi god thing, no contrary to what you said I said, I can you say that it did happen BUT that doesn't mean that Lord Ganesh is living (nor whatever god you are into) - I'm not questioning a natural event only your (and others') presumption of a supernatural cause. And I can be dogmatic in presuming a natural cause as there is a reason: Whilst you mention one case of a 1/2 blind woman seeing you miss the millions who remain fully blind and many millions who go blind through various "god" given illnesses such as diabetes, blood pressure, parasites, genetic problems or just plain old age. Whilst you mention people feeding milk to a idol of a god (of a pantheoen which many don't subscribe to anyway) many millions go hungry and die prematurely of malnutritian. People who promote god demote humanity and the results are not the far and few between claims of miracles but in the more mundane daily statistics of infant death and blindness figure. Ttiotsw 05:48, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

You said "I'm afraid to say that it just didn't happened as it has been presented to you" as you can see. I'm not advancing a particular conception of God, other than that I see convincing evidence that God exists. It is also a practical assumption because if there's no God then life is meaningless. By the way you are doing more than questioning my presumption of a supernatural cause. You are presuming a natural cause as well. Based on our common intuition of nature, IF one is to presume either way, I think the presumption of a supernatural cause for this particular event is more reasonable. Arrow740 06:05, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Come on - when I said "I'm afraid to say that it just didn't happened as it has been presented to you" I imagine that it was presented with a presumption that god made this happen. Did the person say "hey - check out this capillary action, cool isn't it ?" - I don't think so. It was probably presented with the hypothesis that some supernatural event was happening. Presuming a natural cause is core to the scientific method i.e. The starting point for me is the scientific method for all I do. I'm not alone here. I'm guessing that apart from the odd religious scientists - the whole scientific world starts of not presuming spirits, gods or ghosts in the machine are the cause. Presuming nature is at work and presuming a supernature is at work are not equivalent. The supernature demands more entities which are not only unnecessary but to date no one has shown any evidence of any supernatural. Absolutely no one, no where, no when since ever.

Don't start on the meaninglessness of life bullshit again - I've already asked you to show me any bit of you that is meaningless and so far I haven't heard a bit out of you. I've already presented that all the parts of you have a purpose and have a meaning especially as no one knows the future. That you can't see what the whole means is because you have been blinded by others for their own purpose. Think for yourself and choose your own purpose but keep this rule in mind, Choose a purpose which still allows others to choose their purpose. i.e. you can't just say that my purpose is to kill people (like some god-driven suicide bomber) as that stops others from choosing their purpose. Ttiotsw 06:26, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Looks like you're making lots of assumptions. He said, when that miracle was happening, I fed some milk to my parents' Ganesha idol, and it drank it. "Presuming nature is at work and presuming a supernature is at work are not equivalent." It depends on what you're talking about. I believe in reason and it's use in science. But saying "when we're investigating the natural world, let's keep our assumptions to a minimum" and "the natural world is all that exists" are completely different. A large percentage of scientists are religious, by the way. You said no one has shown any evidence for the supernatural. I think most people would agree that I've given you plenty. It's not ironclad proof, but it is evidence. On the other hand, you have provided no evidence for your claim that there is no God.

About the meaning of life. I thought I'd made it clear that if there is no God, then nothing has any meaning, all my parts included. If there is no God, the future doesn't matter either, unless you're leaving open the possibility that God will exist in the future. If you're not going to believe in God, why "choose your own purpose?" Choosing a purpose for yourself is an unnecessary assumption about the universe. Arrow740 06:56, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

On the supernatural stuff I have to make some assumptions as you have given me nothing !. Some capillary action, hearsay on 1 case of blindness (with no link to the reports by any scientists). Even the Lourdes Medical Bureau article filters the 7000 claimed down to just 67 which is fairly well statistical noise for human biology especially over so many years. The whole Lourdes thing is a excellent money earner for the local town and if people want to believe it to be true then in Lourdes who am I to say it isn't ? Here though, I can point out the Emperors Clothes.

Though many scientists may be religious very few will add the supernatural into the scientific method. A few do e.g. with Intelligent Design - but when they do then it is regarded as pseudoscience - e.g. that Islamic stuff. I don't make these rules: the scientific method specifically only covers nature and to date that is all that has been needed. As for meaninglessness - So you say that nothing has meaning yet all your parts have a purpose and then you invent god and then suddenly all life has meaning. I'm happy that you do invent the god to give your life meaning but why is it that so many who invent these gods spend so much time killing the rest of us who don't believe in your invention ? It's a retorical question. Humans can visualise time in that we can record the past and imagine the future. This capability isn't in all animals or if it is then it is probably less refined. Our language has these tenses in it (though some e.g. spoken Chinese, have other ways of anchoring temporal events). Once we can see the future then we see ourselves in it. Our individual circumstances, nature, ethics, culture and morals determine how we see ourselves in that future time. This sets your goals and it is what drives both what you see as your meaning and your purpose. Going beyond the selfish individual you visualise what society will be and moderate your goals to help that end (in humans we also help society as it helps us as it is our nature to be gregarious. Other animals are not "herd" animals so the same social rules don't apply). I would contend that we would not be the humans we are today in that we would not have been able to leave Africa so many millenia ago without our ability to predict future events. It is intrinsic to us to see the future, set goals and it is from that we can derive the terms "purpose" and "meaning". This is why I feel that to invent god as the source of meaning once again is anti-human as it short circuits our origins. Remove our ability to see the future and plan for that and then civilisation stops. You only need to look at "political expediency" to see some of this in action. Setting future goals - choosing purpose and thus giving meaning to yourself is more advantagous than not doing this. Ask anyone you know - "are goals important ?" - any I'd say that most, if not all will say yes. Ask - "how do you set those ?" - and then it gets a bit less clear but if you said that "does defining a purpose for yourself a way of choosing the goals" then the question will probably be answered as "yes". Why bother with purpose and goals and meaning ? Quite simply because those that do bother are at an advantage when the future arrives. As to which goals are better ? I wouldn't know for sure as we are at the mercy of the uncertainty of the future but I do know that natural selection will choose in the end and we evolve. The future is just as much a niche in which we evolve goals though natural selection of the goal setters as the ecological niches are. Ttiotsw 03:41, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

You just shifted the discussion from meaning to goals. OK, now I just say, if there's no god, there's no point in having goals. Or if you like, there's no point in being at an advantage when the future arrives. Arrow740 22:25, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

...so as to show that goals have meaning and give purpose to life if you look beyond the short-term (especially the short-termism of typical religions). We have billions of years ahead of us. You can maintain a denial of our natural origins by worship of a fleeting cultural artifact or help society in the longterm. This is a fairly clear dichotomy. If the advantage of goals in a society mean cleaner water, more efficient power generation, more or tastier food or never-ending soul destroying worship of the fabricated other well I know which goal I'd go for. We have many billions of years ahead of us; so much time and so cruel that some in society profess a fleeting daliance with a cultural artifact that causes so much pain and suffering to society. The meaning of our souls - that which makes us sentient - have been stolen, repurposed by religions and it is this I feel is wrong. Our intelligence should not be held hostage. Ttiotsw 23:08, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not arguing for religion. "We have billions of years ahead of us." No, you have maybe fifty years ahead of you, whatever "you" are (what do you think you are?). I'm not denying any natural origins science can demonstrate to be beyond a reasonable doubt. Why do you give a damn about society in the long-run? It's a completely arbitrary decision to do so. You will be annihilated at the end of your life. I'm not saying pick between power plants and worship (though it's a strange choice you seem to think you have to make), I'm saying, realize that there is no objective reason to think anything if you deny the existence of the supernatural. What is the point of sentience if there is no god? Arrow740 00:59, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Tttiotsw. Thanks for the clean-up of the Williams review. I'm sorry I was (innocently) misinformed that this was subscription-only, I was sent a paper copy and didn't check. I think my (a,b,c) was a fair summary of what Williams argued, but since the review is online it's not necessary 'cos people can see for themselves. NBeale 08:00, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Your changes in Turkey article

Please do not delete / change existing text by removing sound information from there in without discussing first in advance in the article's talk page. Contribution means adding rather then changing what is right. Thank you for your attention to this in your future "contributions".

The above was added by a IP address. Please sign your contributions. You reverted my contributions which were correct and taken from the Turkish goverment web site. Please do not revert accurrate data without using talk page. Ttiotsw 00:01, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I also corrected a misspelt wikilink to Croesus and they reverted that too in a pile of other edits so that it is now back as a red link !. !. Holy shit batman talk about good faith editing ! Ttiotsw 00:24, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I have added back some of my changes that they reverted back to my version as they are talking nonsense. I have added the others up for consensus on the talk pages. Ttiotsw 01:47, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

07:25, 29 October 2006 Ttiotsw (Talk | contribs) m (Signed in 1963 not 1964 - it was a customs union but intent was to full EEC membership so associate member is OK to stay. The last bit about October 2005 stuff was too simplistic.)

No one said the Association Agreement was signed in 1964. The agreement got in force on December 1, 1964 the date the Association begun. "Europe agreements and other agreements 1.5.1. Draft additional protocol to the agreement establishing an association between the European Economic Community and Turkey following the enlargement of the European Union. Turkey’s association came into force on December 1, 1964 (the month of publication to enforce it) Reference: Agreement establishing an association between the European Economic Community and Turkey, known as the 'Ankara Agreement': OJ 217, 29.12.1964, http://europa.eu/bulletin/en/200505/p105001.htm" Please stop messing the text and saying you would revert if the info is incorrect. Please enter what you KNOW is correct. Thanks.

I see in your reverts that you did that you also reverted my spelling correction to Croesus so that it is now as a red link !. I'm really confused how my correcting a mispelt name can be misrepresentations, deletions and vandalism. This leads me to suspect that you are not accepting changes in good faith. Ttiotsw 00:20, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Personal attack by IP address here removed as per Wikipedia:Remove_personal_attacks

I removed the personal attack above which came from. I'm guessing good faith not relevant here as they hid behind some IP addresses. Ttiotsw 04:38, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Why do I have to prove something someone else invents e.g. god.

It has been said that "On the other hand, you have provided no evidence for your claim that there is no God.". I may have said that though in context the statement is that "you have provided no evidence for god." I didn't invent the stupid concept so why the heck do I have to spend time proving something you invented ? If anyone wants to add anything supernatural to an argument then fine - but don't expect me to have to prove your invention doesn't exist when you can't even prove it does. Ttiotsw 03:51, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Well it looks like you're coming around to agnosticism. If we view the god question as a scientific question about the universe (though I'm not saying it is), it is you who have been unscientific, because you A) made an assumption with no evidence, and B) refused to consider convincing evidence (idols all around the world sucking up milk (by whatever mechanism) in concert, on one day) which contradicts your assumption. Arrow740 22:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes I suppose agnosticism is a happy medium if someone was holding a gun to my head but in Western Europe we have the freedoms to not sit on the fence but state what we are and with me that is clearly Secular Humanist and if anyone asks specifically is there a god then I first try and narrow that down to exactly which god they are talking about (after all we name 1/2 of the days of the typical week in many countries after old gods) and if they are just fixated in the Jew/Christian/Islamic on ethen I say nope- neither that one exists too. So - nice try. So far A) assumptions with no evidence is correct: you have provided no evidence and B) NO evidence from anyone creditable. Many people make a lot of money from sucker bets. Typical gambling hall filled with those suckers. The milk sucking idols are an apt analogy. Ttiotsw 22:41, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I have provided evidence, and shown why it is philosophically and existentially far superior to believe in the supernatural than to disbelieve it. The milk sucking idol thing really happened, I have discussed this with an eyewitness. However, I believe that there are certain things which are true but cannot be proven by science. This is a fact, and questions about the supernatural may fall into this category. In any case you can't prove, for example, that God in the Abrahamic sense doesn't exist. You can make a very compelling case against Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity, and (to a greater degree) Islam though. My main point all along has been that the scientific method cannot be used to disprove the existence of the supernatural. So if you want to cleave to the scientific method you should be agnostic. Arrow740 01:13, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

But you can't have it both ways: i.e. you say you have provided evidence and yet refer to the divide between science and faith i.e. falsifiability. The issue is that I do not have to prove that 'x' doesn't exist if 'x' is not falseifiable ! That is up to you or whoever has invented the fictional character. I can't prove that Harry Potter doesn't exist if someone says he does except by simply saying that Harry Potter was presented as a fictional character in a Book and so it unlikely to exist. Thats not being agnostic that's being practical. No, in the end you, and others, invent these fictional characters (and it's been going on for years as various gods go in and out of fashion), and then wrap these fictional characters in semantics. No matter how much you argue, how many people your religions kill and main and the damage to society, in the end you have simply invented a fictional character to further your own ends be it for profit or power. It is time this stupidity stopped. As for the "The milk sucking idol thing really happened, I have discussed this with an eyewitness." the issue isn't that capillary action sucked up milk but that you prefer to invent some god or supernature event to explain this. It just doesn't make sense why you go with the fantasy when reality provides the simpler and more logical explaination. Ttiotsw 02:29, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

So what is the simpler and more logical explanation provided by reality? If it is one idol, yes, I would dismiss it too. When it is thousands all across the world all at the same time, I have to admit that that is evidence of the supernatural. And I can have it both ways. If god exists it may be possible for science to prove it. However, if god doesn't exist, science will not be able to prove that. The existence of Harry Potter does not give our otherwise pointless lives meaning, and does not explain why anything exists, much less why thousands of idols would suck up milk all across the world at the same time.

By the way, when I saw Dawkins debating a Christian guy, Dawkins couldn't answer the other guy's points about what happened after Jesus died. You have to come up with an experience Jesus' apostles and some other disciples went through after he died that made them think he had risen from the dead, to the point where they were willing to devote the rest of their lives to spreading the word about him, even though they got no worldly benefit from it whatsoever, and most of them were executed in horrible ways. Arrow740 03:34, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll always remember the Time magazine cover of the Reverend Jim Jones. I think that about answers the gullibility side of things about religious leaders and follows. People can be stupid - hundred and hundreds of them. Obviously Dawkins would be unclear about what happened after Jesus death. Even I'm unclear. In fact I don't even know if there was a Jesus guy at all. There is little, if any, contemporaneous records even on the Roman side (and they usually recorded quite a lot). Given simply some book written quite a few years AFTER things happened how the heck can a scientist or even the common man honestly comment on these matters. It's fictional accounts and conjecture at best. This juice your selling just ain't good for the common people at all. And your still talking crap about the hindi idols. Gullability and Capillary action works EVERYWHERE in the world. Funny that. Ttiotsw 03:49, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Most reasonable people (who examine the evidence you haven't) admit that Jesus existed, and even the Jesus Seminar admitted that Peter, Paul and Mary Magdalene had some kind of experience after his death. It's clear that you know little about religions (down to the spelling of Hindu), and respond to every discussion of them with mindless cliches. Dogmatism and closed-mindedness manifest themselves in people of all unsubstantiated belief systems. Now, that is something to laugh about. Arrow740 08:05, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

There is a high probability that Jesus existed, though obviously with completely different details that are traditionally sold to us. As to what he said ?. Well thats undecided at best. Even look at the Wikipedia article you referenced Jesus Seminar, "In the end, the Seminar determined that of the various statements in the Gospels attributed to Jesus, only about 18% of them were likely uttered by Jesus himself. The gospel of John fared worse than the synoptic gospels, with nearly all its passages attributed to Jesus being judged inauthentic..." (my bolding). Then for what he did, well, quoting third-hand Wikipedia..."Through rigorous research and debate, they have combed the gospels for evidence of the man behind the myths. The figure they have discovered is very different from the icon of traditional Christianity." (again my bold). I must admit it's been a few months since I visited a mosque but have recently visited churches from as far apart as Uppsala to Chartres. You should checkout Temple_at_Uppsala - ask me why you destroy so much of the competition ?. Have also recently visted Russian Orthodox (very pretty!), and pre-Christian temples including what I consider an incredible tribute to Roman construction in Périgueux (that article really needs more padding on the Roman side of things as it's got some great stuff there). I was actually brought up by Marists but from a very early age started to work around the problems of existance which you so careful plaster over (maybe my earlyish membership of Mensa_International probably made me that close-minded ?, though truthfully I joined to get to meet smarter girls. I've visited temples and mosques around the globe. I can quite happily say I am a religious pluralist and I mean it as I feel it would be a great loss to supress any cultural artifacts. There is a difference though between allowing popular culture to thrive and imposing it on others or not allowing the flaws of such culture to be discussed. This is where it seems you resort to personal attacks (in Wikipedia parlance) and so it is with regret that this conversation is probably ended. No doubt we will meet in the battle to balance Islam in Wikipedia (which may actually regretably reflect poorly on efforts to balance "Islam On Earth" where I feel that the balance must be from the people of Islam itself). But hey - according to you I'm a dogmatic closed minded something or other. Anyway today is Wodens Day - tomorrow is Thors Day; to us atheists it's another day. Ttiotsw 17:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes you are. My ancestors are from India and I was raised Hindu so I don't think you can pin the destruction of Norse temple on me in any way. Yes I agree that the New Testament is not accurate regarding Jesus' life. You failed to address the issue I raised regarding what happened after his death. I'm not plastering over anything. I respond to every point you make while you ignore mine because you have no response. It's pretty funny that when I bring up the issue of what happened after Jesus death you start talking about Norse temples and your Mensa membership. Arrow740 02:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

User talk:172GAL

I made all of his comments smaller so as to make it easier to see who said what. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 22:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah thats OK don't worry about me on this block - actually he is probably a girl as a previous contribution to the Turkey page was signed manually as signed "172.blah blah girl." Ttiotsw 22:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Younus Shaikh

See the talk page for my reply to your Islamophobic comment. Please don't ask me if I plan to kill so and so again. BhaiSaab ^talk 03:32, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

It isn't Islamophobia but a grammatical misunderstanding on your part, or English in general regarding the concept of generic you verses specific you. I don't make the rules - apostacy, in general, will cause your death. Not you 'your but you your collectively. This is an unfortunate side-effect of English. Ttiotsw 21:25, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Islamophobic : Silence of the Critics or ...?

It took a while but finally someone accused me of "Islamophobic comment". This really did take a while and I'm truthfully uncertain if the contributor meant to use the word in the sense that Kenan Malik has highlighted that it is quite quickly used where "...there is criticism of Islam, and is used to silence critics of the religion, including Muslims who want to reform it...". I feel that this is the use as previous edits have been more technical Wikipedia stuff rather than specific to application of the religion to real-life. This is why I will go out on a limb here and say that it was used as some magic pixie-dust to an argument as opposed to trying to forward the content. If so then WP:NPA obviously applies but then it's a fairly innocuous accusation so I'll keep it up here until I'm bored and then stick it in some kind of archive. Ttiotsw 22:12, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. It's not like they have any arguments. All they have are quotes from flabby brained western scholars. In any case, if Islamophobia means fear of Islam as the etymology suggests, then it is something that should be acknowledged with pride. Arrow740 01:17, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I have a suggestion that might interest you. About half of the relation between islam and science article is currently a list of quotes and ideas from one Iranian physicist. It would be better if there were a short summary of his arguments, then a bunch of things about how modern Islam is inimical to scientific thinking, and how the Islamic science thing flamed out really early, and why that was, and so forth. Syed Nomanul Haq has edited about book about this. That's the kind of stuff you like to talk about so I thought you might like to think about it. Arrow740 07:40, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Logic

You might want to read this [2] article, and also this. Arrow740 08:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the links ...Not ignoring this - just having time issues. Ttiotsw 16:56, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

At last some excitement with the William_A._Dembski article.

This is great !. I'm a atheist and I'm helping clean up an ID advocate page. I love this stuff. Hopefully people will realise that the ID pseudoscience falls flat on it's face on its own without having "biased" Wikipedia articles. Ttiotsw 16:55, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Please refrain from calling your fellow editors liars

How is it that you claim that I made a personal attack when I characterised your actions accurately, but that it's somehow acceptable for you to call me a liar? How is it that when I characterise a print magazine that claims that it reaches 600,000 readers as a magazine, you feel that you have the right to call me a liar?

Please try to keep your discourse civil. Read what other people write. Reply to what they write. And try not to call your fellow editors liars - especially when they are the ones who are accurate, and you are the one making unfounded accusations. Guettarda 07:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Bescause you have never mentioned the print magazine. Now please refrain from saying that I said that you are a liar. I have never said that. Ttiotsw 03:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Wow. You are really something else. First you call me a liar. And now you are saying that accusing you of calling me a liar (which you did) amounts to calling you a liar? So, by your definition, you are calling me a liar again? You said I think you guys have an inflated perception of what "State-level" and "magazine" means when viewed globally and truthfully - in other words, you are saying that I was untruthful to call Seed (magazine) a magazine. In plain English, calling someone untruthful is calling them a liar.

And now you add more false accusations "Because you have never mentioned the print magazine". I said "Isn't a journalist employed by a reputable magazine to do Op-Ed pieces notable with respect to the area upon which he specialises".

Please stop ignoring Wikipedia policy. It isn't acceptable for you to call your fellow editors liars. So please stop. You can't cite NPA and follow it up with a personal attack. You can't say that I am calling you a liar when I say that you should stop calling me a liar...especially when it's true. You can't say "I never mentioned the magazine" when in fact I mentioned the magazine. You can't tell me that I didn't provide a reason that I thought Brayton was notable when I provided a reason why I thought Brayton was notable.

This is bizarre. Please stop. Guettarda 04:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

It certainly is. Facts are you had not mentioned the magazine by name until I dug up which one it was. You had not also established if he has written for the magazine. He doesn't mention this on say, http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/ where it just says "...has written for such publications as The Bard, Skeptic and Reports of the National Center for Science Education." - if it was important wouldn't you have throught he'd mention it. So basically get your facts right before you start accusing people of being liars: thats not in good faith. If you have a problem with this interpretation then start some kind of proceedures. Ttiotsw 05:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Prod warning on Temple Moor High School Science College

I cleaned up the article (basically by removing half of it), but as far as I know, prodding is a little iffy for school articles (especially considering all the furore over them lately). If you believe it should be deleted - and let's face it, I've removed half of it once before, so I know it's just a target for vandalism and speculation - you should probably take it to AfD. Cheers, riana_dzasta 12:38, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

OK - I guess you're right but felt to try a PROD first as a low-impact. I followed a vandal who dropped a nasty photo into another article and saw this gem that they had worked on too. I initially felt a cleanup was needed BUT I looked at the pattern of other edits PLUS how the article had developed over time and my first call was bloody heck! and felt all it did was attract utter nonsense. The last straw was the school web site being at odds with the Wikipedia content so couldn't even guess as to what was verifiable (other than looking at the HMI reports which are from experience tedious). So yes, though I could have gutted the article back to the shell (as you have done quite well) I feel that all it'll do is attract poor edits which need constant watching and reverting. I obviously would hope to be proven wrong and that the new "stub" can be filled out sanely. I guess we'll see. Ttiotsw 12:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Gutting hasn't worked before, so I can't see how it will work this time (said the eternal pessimist). Let's see how it goes this time, and if it's completely ruined, I'll think about AfD. Cheers, riana_dzasta 12:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry

Oh my, that was most definitely a mistake, i am really sorry that it resulted in offending you, i know the feeling. Sorry! --Striver 16:38, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

hmmm

I noticed your comment at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Islam-related articles)/Partisan and extremist websites. It's basically a kangaroo court and in my opinion it will only gain a pretense of validity if it stands up to non-Muslims. In order for it to stand up to non-Muslims, non-Muslims have to touch it. So I'm not touching it. Maybe I'm wrong but I think this is the better course, to emphasize that they are making up their own rules as they go along, it's special pleading, and not worthy of attention. I'm just running this by you because I'm really bothered by it and I'm not sure that my approach is correct rather than yours. Please let me know your thoughts. — coelacan talk — 17:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not too worried about any discussion with web sites: my main concern was them listing a living person which obviously isn't a web site. They can list sites until the end of days but each would be evaluated by the WP:RS bit for non-scholarly sources and that is quite flexible i.e. Quoting from WP:RS in the "Non-scholarly sources" section "Common sense is required to determine what sources to use; this guideline cannot be applied robotically. If you have questions about a source's reliability, discuss with other editors on the article's talk page, or if the source is already used in the article, you can draw attention to it with the {{unreliable}} template." Each reference is thus discussed on it's merits. That the opposition is already disclosing how they will oppose a site makes it so much easier for others like me. Ttiotsw 17:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Note

You mentioned when I asked people if they think there shoulb be a link to the earlyhistory site and said that there should not because that site does not add anything that is already in Wikipedia. That would be because if they did put information from Wikipedia that would be called PLAGIARISM which is against the law. Are you saying you want the law broken? WOW. Also it kind of cracks me up a little that you have a link to Don't let grumpy users scare you off. This is really funny because you are being a complete jerk to a new user as we speek.

That nonsense. Anyone can re-use Wikipedia content (and many do). Read the Wikipedia license http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyrights. Hey normally I would sort of give new users a break but you've wasted a lot of people's time. Please also read WP:NPA. I'll leave this here even though I can remove it. Ttiotsw 19:11, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

user Rickyrab/Ali_Sina

As a wikipedia user he should respect that it has been deleted with consensus on it. if he puts his views and articles on his page. people will start to do the same on their pages. will u agree with me if i put lot of islamic articles on my user page? its just exploiting wikipedia for our point of view and bias. Mak82hyd 19:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

That was yesterday - now is today. Wikipedia moves on and every day is a new day with new data to include. Put what you like on your userpage - it means nothing as far as Wikipedia (or me) is concerned. Why only today I had an draft on my userpages which I then turned into a article today. It is legitimate to stage article on userpages pending collection of cites etc. You're flogging a dead horse here it you think you can blank userpages based on Wikipedia space deletes. Wikipedia article deletes are obsolete the day they are agreed. Ttiotsw 19:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Have you looked at Mak's history? I'm considering an RfC in the hopes that they can get through to him on what is appropriate behavior for Wikipedia. — coelacan talk — 21:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I always look at people's edits as it gives me a meta-view of where to go next but Mak82hyd is mostly harmless as he's slowly getting stuck into the tarpit of reason. I wouldn't RfC him yet as he hasn't gone off the deep end and I always assume good faith until thats proven to not be the case. Ttiotsw 00:33, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

About Ibn Warraq article

You are refering to the article becoming non-neutral. Can you give even a 'single' , Yes I mean even a single link which is showing the opposite view also? What kind of neutrality it is where 1001 links are given to throw filth on Islam and not even a single link giving the chance to people who own that religion. It this you call neutral? The links: 'Criticism of Islam' and 'Criticism of the Qur'an' seem to be very appropriate to you but links of 'Debunking Lies about Islam' 'A Debate of examinethetruth.org owner challengin Ibn Warraq and Robert Spencer.' look biased to you? I would respectfully say, this is rediculous.

VirtualEye 11:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Quite simply please read WP:WEB. The issue isn't truth but what is verifiable. None of those links you spammed in are verifiable as to who said it. I also use the case that an excess of so-called opposition view links were added and had an undue weight. This made the article NPOV. Ttiotsw 03:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Ibn Warraq

Ttiotsw we cant remove every link that comes with a different opinion about this guys's work . It isnt about working to make him look perfect. BTW IW is not verifiable eitherF.a.y.^{تبادله خيال /c} 04:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes we can and we will unless it is notable or used in referencing. Spamming a zillion non-notable links as if the truth was through sheer weight of numbers adds undue weight and simply turns wikipages into a quality that is just a little above porn banner sites. It is not the right way to do this. Will you READ the talk page. Please add each site and we dicuss their. Ttiotsw 04:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

As for IW - discuss this on the talk page. Thats where it belongs. Ttiotsw 04:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

West wikipedia

FYI, I see you dealt with West wikipedia (talk · contribs). He has apparently returned as Extreme outdoors (talk · contribs). -Will Beback · † · 23:09, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Yup I agree that the pattern of additions and the edit summaries which accuse others of spamming as the links are added back in again is similar enough to User:West wikipedia. I see the new user has been blocked indefinitely. Excellent as Bill and Ted would say. Ttiotsw 05:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Most recent revert on origin of species

Why did you revert. It made the sentence more clear the way it was, and also was in harmony with other statements in the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by VacuousPoet (talk • contribs) 03:55, 24 December 2006 (UTC).

I'm guessing [3] is what you are refering to ?. This sentence is describing that the book was controversial. You have shown just one possible reason why and have not show any cites to reviews that say this is the reason why. Your edit is thus original research as it is your synthesis of the controversy. Reading Darwins last paragraph obviously shows he felt new kinds could form as he was proposing a common ancestor but its still WP:OR to for you to say this (and especially on an article which is the subject of much contentious editing). Ttiotsw 08:49, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Falsifiability

First of all, I apologize for writing in your User page. I got confused. But I do suggestion you go here Talk:Evolution/falsifiabilitydraft and see what you can addOrangeMarlin 00:06, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

No worries - I've cleaned that up as you've posted here and so far what has been written on that article draft is excellent. I hold falsifiability to be key to seperating the wheat from the chaff on certain matters but it is a very hard concept to clearly nail down so that the man-in-the-street can understand it (or woman): I say this wholeheartedly. Ttiotsw 00:35, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Republic of China

The information about the ROC not just being comprised of Taiwan is verifiable. It is stated in the ROC Constitution. It is also fact. Chinese Taipei and Taiwan are misleading, since the ROC has more than just Taiwan province. -Nationalist 07:16, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

That still doesn't make sense. The Irish constitution refers to Northern Ireland currently held as part of the United Kingdom as part of its territory. That the reality is that Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom means that there is the wishful thinking of the few and the reality of the many. Wikipedia does not reflect the truth but what is verifiable and what is consensus and consensus need not reflect the wishes of one. Ttiotsw 07:37, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, it doesn't really matter if you don't recognize the territorial claims of the ROC. The Republic of China states that in the Constitution. Also, the ROC administers more than just the island of Taiwan. It also administers the offshore islands governed as part of Fujian province. Also, it administers some South China Sea Islands. Do you think these islands are part of Taiwan Province? No, they are not. So ROC is still not equal to Taiwan, even if you do not want to include what you called as "non-existent" territorial claims of Mongolia, Mainland China, etc. -Nationalist 05:34, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

It is not what I want to include but identifying a consensus view. There must be a map of this area i.e. the Taiwan main island plus the relevant Islands, that you can provide. Ttiotsw 07:53, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to me

Welcome! (We can't say that loudly enough!)

Here are a few links you might find helpful:

• Be Bold!
• Don't let grumpy users scare you off.
• Meet other new users
• Learn from others
• Play nicely with others
• Contribute, Contribute, Contribute!
• Tell us about you

You can sign your name on talk pages and votes by typing ~~~~; our software automatically converts it to your username and the date.

If you have any questions or problems, no matter what they are, leave me a message on my talk page. Or, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

We're so glad you're here! Kimchi.sg 23:49, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Made this a topic entry as some (now banned) user thought this was advice from me ! Ttiotsw 00:37, 25 December 2006 (UTC)