User talk:PassionInfinity

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, PassionInfinity, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  KHM03 14:01, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] It's nice that...

...within your first two or three posts you've mastered virtually all of wiki's markup codes, tags, et al, etc.. whatever.. and it's nice that you've also gravitated towards high profile articles within your first 4 or 5 posts outside your user page, but have you considered the possibility that you're a sock puppet?--172.136.191.115 14:11, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

PassionInfinity, don't worry about the comment above. The user might not have realized that you had been editing without a registered username for a while; and as far as I can tell you haven't done anything disruptive or inappropriate at all. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 20:13, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Anyone can see the messages on your page, by adding your page to their watchlist; or, if they do what I did and looked at "User contributions", they can see what you've been doing. I knew that you had just signed up, and I wanted to see how you were getting on, and to add a welcome if you hadn't received one, yet. (Don't worry about trying to become an administrator. That's not what Wikipedia is about). — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 20:57, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
See Help on tracking changes at: Recent | (enhanced) | Related | Watching pages | Page history | Diff | User contributions | Edit summary | Minor edit — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 21:55, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Atheism and logic

All this conversation is archived at User:Silence/PassionInfinity.

This is a continuation of the conversation from Talk:Atheism#Atheism_and_Logic:

First of all, please don't waste your time if you really think this dicussion is.

Could you please explain to me what this line is in reference to so I can respond?

Secondly, by "Logis is Flawed", I meant that if you stick to logic only, it results in lots of Paradoxes.

First, I'm not sure what you mean by "logic only"; that sounds to me like criticizing a person who eats for "sticking to food only"; there's certainly more than logical discourse that we do, but we make use of logic because it's a valuable tool for helping us understand the world a little better. As for paradoxes, it sounds like you aren't aware that a paradox is not a logical contradiction, it's "A seemingly contradictory statement that may nonetheless be true: the paradox that standing is more tiring than walking." Paradoxes don't defy logic, they defy our initial expectations in ironic, amusing, and interesting ways. But most importantly, the reason we use logic in communication with each other is—what's the alternative? Logic and critical analysis are the only remotely reliable way we have of determining untrue statements. Without it, we're forced to arbitrarily accept and reject statements without any rhyme or reason at all, just blindly following the masses or authority figures or whoever. And blindly following authorities without critically analyzing their actual statements, as history has taught us, is not a good idea at all.

Ec5618 is quite right althogh not perfect. Logic can be used to prove the existence of God as well as the non-existence of God!

Incorrect. Logic can neither be used to prove the existence of God nor to prove the nonexistence of God. Logically speaking, God may either exist or not exist—the nature of human perception and existence renders certainty about almost any subject impossible, so to say "God definitely exists" or "God definitely doesn't exist" is fundamentally irrational. What may be rational, on the other hand, is to say "God almost definitely doesn't exist", depending on how you interpret the evidence in question. But regardless, you seem to be confusing "logic" for "arguments"; that there are arguments for both sides of a dispute does not necessarily mean that each side's (or even either side's) arguments are valid.

Really... what exactly does that mean? Should I blindly trust Logic?

You should not blindly trust anything. You seem to be equating logic with an authority, which makes little sense; logic is just a system of thought, a tool we use to try to cut through the nonsense and improve the lives of mankind by more quickly and easily determining right propositions from wrong ones, an invaluable aid when it comes to things like the fields of medicine, engineering, politics.. Logic has saved lives, and continues to. This gets a bit closer to the real reason logic is so popular these days: it's not because logic supports its own existence, as that would be cyclic (though it is noteworthy that logic is consistent with itself); rather, it's because logic is useful. Logic has proven an effective system of thought and analysis, and if any flaw in logic ever did present itself, we would immediately change some aspect of the field of logic so as to correct this error. To criticize logic is about as silly as criticizing mathematics; we don't "blindly trust" math equations, we just make use of them because they're useful, consistent, and benefit mankind!

You cannot teach Einstein's theory of Relatively to a dog. Can you?

And you can't teach the Bible to a hermit crab. What is your point? We are not dogs.

No matter how logical you are. It is impossible.

Is this supposed to be some sort of criticism of logic? "Because you can't teach logic to dogs, logic is bad." What kind of nonsense is that? You could say the same thing about language, art, science, religion, culture, civilization, or love; why should we have to be able to teach something to a dog for it to be valuable to us? That's just nonsense.

What is so difficult in understanding that there may be somethings even more complicated that our minds just can't grasp?

Nothing. What is so difficult in understanding that there may not be some things even more complicated than our minds can ever grasp? Either is possible, so to assume that there is definitely information beyond our ken is silly and pointless until we have some evidence to suggest that. What's most important is to keep our minds open and to analyze each new likely possibility critically and thoroughly so as to determine to the best of our abilities whether it's probably true or not. If you're rejecting logic, then you're failing to keep your mind open, and likely succumbing to dogmatism (which would be unfortunate), though you haven't specified what alternatives you'd propose to logic thus far, making your arguments largely rhetorical exercises, if not outright preaching. That's the unfortunate thing about arguing with someone who refuses to even attempt to be logical; nothing can ever go anywhere unless one party blindly accepts the other's proposition for no reason. Not gonna happen.

This universe is even more complicated than any of us have ever imagined!

Quite possibly. Does that mean we shoulds top trying to understand it altogether? The goal of science and logic isn't to get a perfect understanding of the universe, it's to get a better one; so far, it's succeeded quite admirably.

I will talk about Darwinism and other things later. Those arguments come afterwards. Thanks!

I can hardly wait. OK. Let's do this. -Silence 15:10, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Now that we've started talking on User talk:Silence, in the interest of centralization and avoiding redundancies, would you mind if we just continue the conversation on that page, and I'll type a little something here whenever I've responded to you on that page (as I did just now) so you get a bright orange notice but we don't get both of our talk pages flooded with the debate. -Silence 22:42, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Responded. -Silence 19:34, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Responded. I also re-merged Part 2 into Part 1, because you seemed to be having trouble keeping track of the conversation after it was split. Your next response will be with four asterisks (****) at the start of each line, and my most recent responses have three. -Silence 18:46, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Responded. -Silence 03:44, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Muslim Guild

I thought you might be interested in joining The Muslim Guild.--JuanMuslim 03:03, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Take a look at the various articles about Islam and see how you can contribute to make them better. --JuanMuslim 04:59, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Reference desk question

Hi, there was a question on the reference desk about a coin that may be in Urdu. I saw that you are an Urdu speaker and wondered if you might be able to confirm it is in Urdu and perhaps have more information on the coin. Thanks - Taxman Talk 16:49, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sure

hope you will look closely at this [[1]] BrandonYusufToropov 15:41, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Eid Mubarak

Eid Mubarak to you and best wishes. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 02:48, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Eid Mubarak

Best wishes to you and yours, BrandonYusufToropov 17:21, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Eid Mubarak

Eid Mubarak and best wishes from my side . F.a.y.تبادله خيال /c 18:58, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hello

Just want to say I got your message. What aspect of the Semitic religions do you want to talk about? I'm not exactly a theologian or anything, but I did take a few classes on Islam and have read some of the Doctors of the Catholic Church. I'm more up on the history then the theology. As Zoroastrianism is Persian I'm guess it doesn't count, yes or no?--T. Anthony 14:11, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] All done

I added myself to the list of Muslim Wikipedians as well as Shia Wikipedians. Thanks for the heads up. Salma 18:44, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hello

Sorry I'm later in replying to your message. The main reasons were I was learning about Islam for a while before and I found it interesting especially that it made a lot of sense, so I converted after a few months of study. That is all I can tell you without going into detail. :) Salaam --a.n.o.n.y.m t 00:27, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. I already know a lot about Islam, but I will ask you if I have questions. Also many of my questions before converting were answered by Muslims in my neighborhood. :) Thank you and salaam. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 20:18, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Help

Please vote to merge and redirect Islamofascism to Neofascism and religion...

... which is where it belongs. Vote here: [2] BrandonYusufToropov 21:24, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Urdu Wikipedia

Asalam-o-Alikum

I request you to please contribute to Urdu wikipedia. We are trying hard to build this wiki. Current article count is 617. Your help in any way would be appreciated.Wisesabre 06:35, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 2006 bin Laden video

I recently started 2006 bin Laden video. Please improve it in any way you see fit. Thanks. KI 14:01, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Wikiethics

Hi,

We started a proposal Wikipedia:Wikiethics to state the existing policies coherently and make suggestions on improving the editorial standards in Wiki. I thought you might be interested in contributing to that proposal.

Unfortunately, a pro-porn and pro-offense lobby is trying to make this proposal a failure. They unilaterally started an approval poll although almost no one including me believe that it is time for a vote, simply because the policy is not ready. It is not even written completely.

Editors who thinks that the policy needs to be improved rather than killed by an unfair poll at the beginning of the proposal, started another poll ('Do we really need a poll at this stage?') at the same time. The poll is vandalized for a while but it is stable now. A NO vote on this ('Do we really need a poll now?') poll will strengthen the position of the editors who are willing to improve the ethics policy further.

If you have concerns about the ethics and editorial standards in Wiki, please visit the page Wikipedia:Wikiethics with your suggestions on the policy. We have two subpages: Arguments and Sections. You might want to consider reviewing these pages as well...

Thanks in advance. Resid Gulerdem 21:18, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Administrator

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

[edit] Salman01

Final (1/11/5) Ended 05:45, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Salman01 (talk • contribs) – Hello everyone, How are you? My name is Salman and I have been editing articles in wikipedia for a while. I have been through all different kinds of things at wikipedia; see my talk page for more details. Others wikipedians and I also believe that I have improved a lot since the first time I started editing at wikipedia. I would like an opportunity to become an administrator at wikipedia because even though I have posted “I am willing to help whoever is looking for help in their work”, I haven’t been offered for help. So I would like to become an administrator so I can help others wikipedians. Thank you SalmanSallu 21:45, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
Support
  1. Moral Support Might I suggest withdrawing from this RfA, for if the oppose votes pile up, I'd hate to have you become jaded with the project and leave, as you seem to be a valuable contributor. Perhaps take a look at some recent RfA candidates who have succeeded in becoming admins to get a feel of what the community is looking for in a potential administrator. If you wait a while and get a better handle on what an admin is all about, I'm sure you'll see most of the oppose votes turn into supporting votes at a later date. hoopydinkConas tá tú? 02:26, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Cuñado - Talk 02:18, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  2. Ian Cairns 00:23, 5 July 2006 (UTC) (I took time to read Salman01's talk page and viewed the issues with his edits. I am also struggling with the relevance of Salman01's answer to Q2 below.)
  3. Oppose. Not sure if this RfA is open for voting yet according to policy, which is one of the reasons for this vote. -lethe talk + 00:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  4. Oppose per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship#Salman01_RfA -- Avi 01:47, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  5. Oppose none of the tasks listed are admin tasks, removing opinions is not the reason to get admin Alphachimp talk 01:49, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  6. Oppose per above. --WinHunter (talk) 01:50, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  7. Oppose malformed unlisted RfA (see WP:RfA talk). Answer to question one shows that candidate doesn't seem to understand what admin tools are for - you can ensure "Islamic pages contain only Islamic information in a neutral way" without the tools and quite frankly, if that is your only need for them, then you don't need them. --james // bornhj (talk) 01:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  8. Oppose per RfA talk. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 01:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  9. digital_me(TalkˑContribs) 02:01, 5 July 2006 (UTC) — per above
  10. Oppose. Suggest withdrawal. —Quarl (talk) 2006-07-05 02:27Z
  11. Oppose per block log. You got blocked on July 1 and you nominated yourself for adminship on July 2? I haven't checked the allegations to see if they're true, but a potential admin should have a clean record. --Elkman 04:13, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Neutral
  1. --Street Scholar 11:52, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  2. Avoid pile on. Strongly suggest withdrawal. Roy A.A. 02:57, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  3. Merovingian {T C @} 03:15, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  4. Voting neutral only to not pile on to the oppose votes. A withdraw would be a wise choice. --WillMak050389 03:42, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  5. Neutral to avoid pile on and possible :('edness on behalf of Salman. I strongly suggest withdrawal mate. ShaunES 05:40, 5 July 2006 (UTC).
Comments
  • Comment This user has less than 1000 edits, and most are to the same articles. Alphachimp talk 01:52, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: I highly contributed to the Islamic pages at wikipedia, since they are very likely read these days by everyone. I wanted to make sure that the Islamic pages contain only Islamic information in a neutral way. I am going to continue editing at wikipedia for as long as possible.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: Well, I am really pleased with all most each and every article that had been written in detail by wikipedians. Whenever I need help with school work I always come to wikipedia for guidance and information about my project. I am very pleased with most of the articles written fully in wikipedia. The only thing I don’t like about wikipedia is that there are so many wikipedians around and there are still some articles that are incomplete so I am willing to contribute to the articles that are incomplete.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: Yes I have been, not a lot of times though. Recently I have been accused by our friend Grenavitar for violating the copyright rules of wikipedia and he blocked me from editing articles on wikipedia. But now I am back and I am going to try my best to solve the issue in a nice and professional way. I am innocent as far as this accusation is concerned.
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.

[edit] Calling programmers

We need coders for the WikiProject Disambigation fixer. We need to make a program to make faster and easier the fixing of links. We will be happy if you could check the project. You can Help! --Neo139 09:11, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Islamic Barnstar Award

Please offer your opinion, vote, or whatever about your choice for the image to be used with the Islamic Barnstar Award at the Barnstar proposals page. Although there is consensus for the concept of an Islamic Barnstar Award, some editors would like to change the image for the award. I was just thinking you should be aware of this discussion because you have contributed to Islamic-related articles, received the Islamic Barnstar Award, or have contributed to the Islam-related Wikiprojects, etc.--72.48.104.52 16:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../p/a/s/User_talk%7EPassionInfinity_fdd5.html"