User talk:24.57.157.81

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please do not put links in section headings, that is not good style, thanks. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 12:39, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Intelligent Design

Please don't revert reversions of blatantly POV or nonsense content. FeloniousMonk 04:31, 23 October 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Dispute

Anytime someone asks for help with dispute and fails to actually mention the article in dispute will draw some suspicion. You also failedto log in, (assuming youre also Benapgar -this is crossposted See WP:SIG for why to login.), etc, and write in generalities about policy rather than the issues present in the debate. You also have a talk page (assuming youre Ben) thats loaded with comments about your behaviour. I dont care about the talk comments at this point, but all of this adds up to "low interest" - the debate itself is not a problem for me. Please correct the above and I can help you out. As a general rule, and this is really just a basic aspect of NPOV (read it, learn it, love it) is that you dont make separate articles based on a separate POV. While a scientist may claim that for example ID is a POV fork of the whole concept of science, we can at least treat the subject objectively. In that context, all articles must be written objectively (yes this is a contstant battle) and all sides must be represented in balance, in terms which the reader can understand. In the ID context, just for example, its perfectly fair to report the characterizations that ID makes of mainstream science, as well as the vice versae, as long as its framed as opinion. The framework allows for us to deal with POV in an NPOV way. Regards, St|eve 03:10, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:Benapgar

This anonymous user 24.57.157.81 (talk • contribs) generally contributes to Wikipedia as Benapgar (talk • contribs). FeloniousMonk 19:43, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Moved from User:24.57.157.81

Given that the title of the article is Mormonism and that you are attempting to claim Mormons believe, you would have to have a reference from a Mormon source to support the claim. Though I am not completely familiar with all the sects of Mormonism, I find that a very difficult proposition given this situation and the odd allegation. More importantly, given the title, all sects of Mormonism would have to believe your proposition. Given my personal expertise in the area, I know that to be an impossiblity.

I suspect that what you would prefer to quote are people who are not Mormons, but have interpreted what Mormons believe. That is a very different animal. Interpreting what others believe, rather than just quoting what they believe falls in the realm of propaganda. It is a past time of religious zealots that seek to build up their church by tearing down others with lies and wild stories fit for children at bedtime...boogie men and the sort. I have found Evangelicals to be notorious good at spinning yarns about Roman Catholics and Mormons alike. I am sure you have heard them; not Christian, members of a cult, etc. It is wonderful stuff, but hardly the type of material one brings up in educated circles.

Lastly, if you are serious about your allegations, you may want to address the individual church articles rather than the Mormonism article. This specific article necessarily must cover broad subject matter given the diverse beliefs of the different sects. Cheers. --Storm Rider (talk) 05:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I moved my response to your statement on my discussion page here-
Bluntness and frankness is not discouraged on Wikipedia. However, I find the premise of your positiong interesting. You only read anti-Mormon literature...do you think it is not without religious "ornamentation"? Please be serious. ANTI anything is propaganda designed for a specific purpose. If you were really serious you would be studying Mormonism from Mormon sites; there are many of them. Tell me, if you wanted to learn how to make a watch would you go to the butcher to learn? The same is done for virtually everthing. If you want to learn about Buddism, study something that was printed by a Buddist. If you want to learn about Catholicism; study the catechism. This is not a novel principle, but it is certainly telling about who is attempting to learn. --Storm Rider (talk) 08:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Atheism

I'm not out to get you; I'd like to make the clarifications you've suggested, but want to be clear about what you're suggesting. I'll pick a sentence at random: "Theoretical, or contemplative, atheism explicitly posits arguments against belief in gods." I think that here, "belief in gods" means "affirming the existence of gods". How would you suggest the sentence be rewritten? — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-25 18:34Z

[edit] 24.57.157.81 ARE YOU BANNED USER Benapgar  ?.

OK it seems that subtle isn't working - 24.57.157.81 ARE YOU BANNED USER Benapgar ?. Simple question - just yes or no in a reply here. You've added what must be a couple of hundred edits to this talk page over the past few weeks or so. To me the subtle nuance of your argument appears lost in the noise and I'm not exactly thick. There seems to be a divide here both (potentially) in your rights to contribute to the community and the form in which you contribute. If we're mistaken here then fine and I'll happily delete my posts related to this on this page and be first to say sorry but you're being rather sly with your reply. Ttiotsw 19:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I asked him the same question, and instead of giving a straight answer, he taunted me instead. MFNickster 20:47, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] To whom it may concern from Talk:Atheism

Apparently what he would call my barking was keeping administrator JoshuaZ up at night. I would just like to say it's rationalism vs. empiricism which is the problem, simply. Empiricists use material language and such so it looks like it is just materialists, but it is broader than materialism (empiricists are not necessarily materialists). So empiricism is crowding out what has always tradiationally been rationalist (the philosophy--Descartes and such) territory, since empiricism can't speak to it (no evidence). The problem is that empiricists have adopted rationalist "isms" to use empirically and these divisions don't not jive with rationalism. It's a very old conflict. Good luck with the article. --24.57.157.81 07:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] To JoshuaZ

And a note to you too of course. You have impeccable timing! Right as I was about to leave too. Tsk tsk. Just finishing up. Well, you could at least do the courtesy of informing the other editors on Talk:Atheism that I have left. I'm sure at least some of them will appreciate knowing that you're always watching out for them. --24.57.157.81 08:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] To Tiotsw

Ah. So you are the one who complained on the administrator's noticeboard. I would just like to record, for postertity, this comment of yours against of the type of thing you complained to the administrator's was my "original research." (I in fact came up with my own opinions on the conflict in the article, who knew this was not allowed?). Anyhoo, just so everyone, including JoshuaZ can read it, here's what you said in response to the logical argument I was putting forward on the Talk:Atheism page a while back, one of the only times during the entire time I was posting in the article that you even spoke up about anything:

"The problem I feel is that you express this as a dichotomy of just true and false. Science has shades of grey (it's not maths after all) in that there is a probability of hypothesis being proven true or false (which over time can migrate from one to the other). If we consider a hypothesis of god entities (one or many, take your pick) then my feeling is that it is unlikely. This doesn't make me an agnostic but a tick under a strong atheist (along with Dawkins). Using true and false unreasonably fills the agnostic camp. Ttiotsw 07:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)"

Let me just re-iterate, I was making a logical argument and Ttiotsw's problem with that was that I was expressing it as a dichotomy of true and false. Apparently I was too logical, since science is basically "shades of grey" and "not maths after all." And "unreasonably fills the agnostic camp?" That's the reason? Whoever accepts this as a good argument is politician and an activist not a philosopher.

The company you keep...--24.57.157.81 19:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah whatever. Ttiotsw 10:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
You said something I found completely ridiculous, it blew my mind quite frankly, but I still tried to respect you as a person in my response. I even tried to clarify it for you, for you in particular, so you knew what I was talking about. I was trying to give you an out just in case for whatever reason you totally missed the point, so you wouldn't look like an idiot for saying something so ridiculous, and I posted a message to your talk page asking you, with respect to my clarification, to comment again and you didn't respond. Then--what was it, a week later?--out of the blue you decided I need to be banned and you go and inform the Wikipedia KGB who of course ban me with pleasure. But hey, apparently no one else on that page could make sense of logical arguments either. They couldn't even follow it, so they didn't respond. At least you essentially admitted why you couldn't follow it, not everyone is good with logic--this is true therefore this is false and so this is true or false and this is like this et cetera, it can get very complicated for someone not used to this. Not good at logic? Fine. Some people are better at other things--political activism for instance. Activists, and especially activists who don't even respect logic, let alone understand it very well are, of course, exactly the wrong type of people that should be editing an encyclopedia.--24.57.157.81 17:51, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Don't you understand how online communities work ?. We DECIDE to belong to this community and abide by it's rules. That's what keeps it sane. Time is precious. More so for us atheists as we have no afterlife to mull of where we fucked up. 21:27, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] February 2008

Hi, the recent edit you made to Dreamcatcher has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thanks. Party!Talk to me! 22:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)