<?xml version="1.0"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/css" href="http://wiki.ironchariots.org/skins/common/feed.css?303"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xml:lang="en">
		<id>http://wiki.ironchariots.org/api.php?action=feedcontributions&amp;user=Dcljr&amp;feedformat=atom</id>
		<title>Iron Chariots Wiki - User contributions [en]</title>
		<link rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://wiki.ironchariots.org/api.php?action=feedcontributions&amp;user=Dcljr&amp;feedformat=atom"/>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Dcljr"/>
		<updated>2013-05-23T09:05:35Z</updated>
		<subtitle>User contributions</subtitle>
		<generator>MediaWiki 1.18.1</generator>

	<entry>
		<id>http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Talk:Belief</id>
		<title>Talk:Belief</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Talk:Belief"/>
				<updated>2012-11-21T00:20:03Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Dcljr: Philosophically confusing&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;I don't understand the [[Belief#Philosophically|&amp;quot;Philosophically&amp;quot; section]]. I don't know whether it's just trying to be too succinct to be understandable to a &amp;quot;layman&amp;quot; (well... me), or whether it's just badly written (there are a couple of grammatical mistakes in there, so that supports the latter hypothesis). Perhaps someone could try their hand at a rewrite? - [[User:Dcljr|dcljr]] 18:20, 20 November 2012 (CST)&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Dcljr</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=User_talk:Kazim</id>
		<title>User talk:Kazim</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=User_talk:Kazim"/>
				<updated>2012-07-16T12:00:31Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Dcljr: /* Junk accounts now creating other junk accounts? */ new section&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;In the [[Special:Logs|Logs]], I see you deleted [[Iron Chariots Wiki:Searching]] on Aug 19th, saying, &amp;quot;''This is the second time this page has popped up as a redirect, and I don't know why''&amp;quot;. I do. It's linked to from the [[Special:Search/fubar|Search results]] page when you do an unsuccessful search (follow last link to see example). - [[User:Dcljr|dcljr]] 02:07, 26 August 2006 (MST)&lt;br /&gt;
: Actually, it shows up on [http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?search=bible&amp;amp;fulltext=Search successful searches], too. - [[User:Dcljr|dcljr]] 02:36, 26 August 2006 (MST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Known issues==&lt;br /&gt;
Since registering a few hours ago, I've made an initial pass through the wiki (main navigation pages, special pages) looking for &amp;quot;obvious&amp;quot; problems. I've collected them at [[User:Dcljr/Sandbox]]. Basically, I wanted to give you (and [[User:Sans Deity|Matt]]) a heads-up before I go in changing everything. &amp;amp;lt;w&amp;gt; - [[User:Dcljr|dcljr]] 03:41, 26 August 2006 (MST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Spaces in URLs ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I've replied on [[User talk:Dcljr#Wow|my talk page]]. - [[User:Dcljr|dcljr]] 03:13, 29 August 2006 (MST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Comment-box ==&lt;br /&gt;
The only extra typing which is required is &amp;quot;text=&amp;quot; (as you could just start the text section with &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;'''Comment:'''&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;). The old comment-box didn't format correctly in every situation (if, for example a picture or menu div or anything else exists to the right or left of it) which required me to make comment-box2 (to adjust the right margin) and might have eventually lead to comment-box3,4,5,6,7,8,9 (to adjust left margin or color or anything else). That could all be replaced with one template, so why not do it? Additionally, templates which use &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;{{{1}}}&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; (unnamed parameters) have additional limitations that prevent some &amp;quot;behind the scenes&amp;quot; stuff from working - unnamed parameters, for example, don't always work well when referencing one template from within another. - [[User:Sans Deity|Sans Deity]] 10:44, 10 September 2006 (CDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Actually, using &amp;quot;text=&amp;quot; AND typing the extra bolded word &amp;quot;comment&amp;quot; is a lot of extra typing, especially considering that it will be repeated many times over throughout the course of an article.&lt;br /&gt;
: Despite the issues you raised, it seems to me that the generic box is shorter and easier for most simple text.  What if I reintroduced Comment-box and made it reference Comment-box1 as a special case?  Then we could still use Comment-box1 any time we need to use a picture or whatever.  -- [[User:Kazim|Kazim]] 11:14, 10 September 2006 (CDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:: I guess that would be ok, the problem is that if people add pictures or sidebars later, without properly understanding the templates it's going to be a bit of work for them to figure out that the need to completely change which template is referenced. Instead of looking at the template in use and simply changing/adding a parameter, they now have to completely switch templates. I'd rather type a little extra now so that the only thing an editor would need to do is add a &amp;quot;width=&amp;quot; (or similar). I suppose it's ok to have a million templates but I just want the templates to be manageable and having one template that had a pretty solid default function while allowing optional parameters to be set. One thing we'll definitely want to do, either way, is categorize templates and make sure that they're well documented - which would include documenting all similar template.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:: Generally, I'm of the opinion that &amp;quot;Comment-box1&amp;quot; shouldn't be considered a &amp;quot;special case&amp;quot; template, it should be the default - because it's the one that doesn't suffer from the problems that &amp;quot;Comment-box&amp;quot; suffers from. But that's just me...add it if you like, I'll be typing the extra few characters. To me, it's not just about which solution requires me to type less, it's about which solution is more useful and simpler. Why learn many templates for comment boxes when you only have to learn one? Maybe we don't want every comment in a given article to have the &amp;quot;Comment:&amp;quot; preface, some should maybe be &amp;quot;See also:&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;Response:&amp;quot;. Maybe we don't want them all to be the same color...if a particular comment is more important or references another article it may deserve another color. Comments where we agree with the apologist might deserve a different color than where we disagree or where their claims represent immoral beliefs. - [[User:Sans Deity|Sans Deity]] 20:33, 10 September 2006 (CDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Doubting Thomas and Kirk Cameron? ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I don't understand how the &amp;quot;[[I used to be an atheist]]&amp;quot; argument has precedent in [[Doubting Thomas]] (see [http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=I_used_to_be_an_atheist&amp;amp;curid=1378&amp;amp;diff=7905&amp;amp;oldid=6269&amp;amp;rcid=6554 this change]). Could you please spell it out? --[[User:Arensb|Arensb]] 10:34, 15 December 2007 (CST)&lt;br /&gt;
:Expanded now; see article. --[[User:Kazim|Kazim]] 18:40, 15 December 2007 (CST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== citations ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Are website citations and references possible on this wiki? I have yet to find a page that uses them, so I Decided it wouldn't be a bad idea to ask.&lt;br /&gt;
--[[User:Enshoku|Enshoku]] 21:12, 29 April 2008 (CDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:I think I know what you're talking about, but you might want to check with dcljr.  He's kind of our resident Wiki technician.&lt;br /&gt;
--[[User:Kazim|Kazim]] 06:50, 30 April 2008 (CDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::Will ask, thanks for the help!&lt;br /&gt;
--[[User:Enshoku|Enshoku]] 17:25, 30 April 2008 (CDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Vandal ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Watch for a Vandal calling himself Yerranos.  He's a fundy Christian doing secular Wikis. [[User:Proxima Centauri|Proxima Centauri]] 13:32, 21 June 2008 (CDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Thanks for the tip.  I have to say I misread your message the first time, and I went through your own recent edits saying to myself, &amp;quot;Hey, Proxima Centauri doesn't sound so much like a vandal...&amp;quot;  :)  --[[User:Kazim|Kazim]] 10:31, 22 June 2008 (CDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Yeah, I've been meaning to talk to you about this. How do you make sure no one is vandalizing the wiki? What if some Christian like Yerranos starts deleting articles. Will our work be wasted?--[[User:Wissam hemadeh|wissam hemadeh]] 15:18, 5 April 2010 (CDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Donations ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hello, Russell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I've been hoping you guys would get an automated donation system going by now, but decided to press the issue.  I demand that you give me a way to send money to this project!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hmm, let's see.  I think there's supposed to be something I do at the end of a wiki edit.  Maybe this is it.  [[User:Beriukay|Beriukay]] 07:41, 13 May 2009 (CDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Hi Beriukay, thanks for your interest.  If you want to donate, I suggest you sent it to the Atheist Community of Austin and mark your donation as earmarked for Iron Chariots.  You can donate at [http://atheist-community.org/donate/ this link].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:: Thanks Kazim.  That was painless. [[User:Beriukay|Beriukay]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Short URL ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
You might've already considered it, or maybe even never thought about it, but having index.php?title= in the sites URLs looks yucky, unprofessional, and somewhat annoying if manually typing out an address. It's relatively easy to get rid of the index.php?title= part so it's like it is on Wikipedia. Instructions can be found [http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:Short_URL#Setup_steps here] - [[User:Aardvark|Aardvark]] 07:26, 17 June 2009 (CDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Wiki Date / Time is off ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The wiki's clock seems to be off by more than a week.... [[User:Jwissick|Jwissick]] 01:38, 5 April 2010 (CDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== A suggestion ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I've been doing some research and found some huge websites related to religious issues. Unfortunately, Christians and Muslims dominate the web. I was thinking of doing some more group projects on this wiki, as in critiques of theistic websites, articles, books, debates, philosopgers (Craig, Plantinga, Swinburne, Behe) etc etc. I don't get the obsession with Ray Comfort- he's the dumbest person I've seen.--[[User:Wissam hemadeh|wissam hemadeh]] 15:27, 5 April 2010 (CDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Also, the wiki seems to have little insight on the religions themselves. What we have is great but take a look at this website for example, www.answering-islam.com   &amp;gt;It's a Christian website which attacks Islam, and it is extraordinary.--[[User:Wissam hemadeh|wissam hemadeh]] 15:27, 5 April 2010 (CDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Feel free to add them!  --[[User:Kazim|Kazim]] 14:28, 15 April 2010 (CDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Activation of LaTeX? ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The UI for this site has a math button, but it doesn't work:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\hat{H}|\psi\rangle = \frac{\partial}{\partial t} |\psi\rangle&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Is it possible to get this enabled? There's a basic guide here:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:Enable_TeX&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I've done stuff kinda like this before; it could be time-consuming or trivial depending on what kind of server you've got set up. Just curious if this could be fixed. It's more than a little weird being on a site that talks about science and logic, and only having HTML to work with, but I know you guys are busy, so it's not a huge deal if that's all we've got.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Christhiru is a Dick ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I've never used wiki software before so I'm not sure if this is the right place to posit this, but every change the user Christhiru has made needs to be undone and his account needs to be banned. He basically deletes entire, valid, well formed, articles and occasionally adds a link to his sh*tty apologist blog. I have no idea how to go about undoing his many changes to the site or how to launch some kind of formal complaint, but Christhiru is a dick and he needs to be stopped ASAP.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== FF searchplugin ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I've been trying to work out how to make an Iron Chariots searchplugin for firefox for the last few hours to no avail. Can you help me or defer to someone who could help me? I think it would also be a good idea to add an autodiscovery feature to the site just so people can 'add' the site to the search bar.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Secularism and Xianity ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sorry for posting this on this talk page, but for some reason I cannot use the forum - I tried numerous times, used different names, but still it never allows me in. Anyway, Im here for some help. Over the years, I have heard from many Christians that their religion is responsible for creating many things (reason, science, democracy, morality, ect.) and I am sure we have heard some form of it once. For this, I recently created the article [[Christianity invented science]] and explained why it is wrong. I chose this one because it is growing in the conservative academia and Christian apologetic literature. However, there is just one more topic I want to address, the delusion that Christianity invented secularism. I would not bother with this unless it was no growing as well, but I see it very frequently. Anyway, I know we already have a article on separation of church and state, but I wanted to know if I should create an entirely new article refuting the stance that secularism is a Christian idea and separation of church and state was invented to keep government out of religion and not the other way around. What should I do? [[User:Feredir28|Wolf]] 15:35, 12 September 2011 (CDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:You probably should have read the instructions in the [http://forum.ironchariots.org/viewtopic.php?t=278 access request forum].  Anyway, I've added Feredir28 to the member group, I'm assuming that's you. [[User:Kazim|Kazim]] 12:52, 13 September 2011 (CDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Thank you, I shall move this topic to the forum. Pardons for not noticing that page. Yes, I'm Feredir. Again, thank you. [[User:Feredir28|Wolf]] 14:08, 13 September 2011 (CDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Ray Comfort ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Have you plans to write a refutation of Ray Comfort’s views?  [[Talk:Ray Comfort#&amp;quot;Favorite arguments&amp;quot; section|Two users are concerned]]. [[User:Proxima Centauri|Proxima Centauri]] 03:08, 4 November 2011 (CDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Yeah, have there been any more advances on that? Oh and Kazim? we need another plug for iron chariots on the Non-Prophets, we havent had one FOREVER!....and congrats on the wedding!I made a [[Rick Perry]] page,and it has something on it about a group called the New Apostolic Reformation you should read...the youtube video I linked to summarizing it was rather good, it would be humorous on the show.....&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:WhatsAGoodUsername?|WhatsAGoodUsername?]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:I've already clearly expressed what I'd like the Ray Comfort page to look like on the associated talk page, and it doesn't include extensive argumentation -- that's for pages about arguments.  I will try to remember to plug IC on Saturday, and I'll also be talking with Matt about what needs to happen next with software upgrades and anti-spam measures. --[[User:Kazim|Kazim]] 17:16, 18 November 2011 (CST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
okay, thanks for the update. [[User:WhatsAGoodUsername?|WhatsAGoodUsername?]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
= SPAM SUCKS! =&lt;br /&gt;
If you need another person to help delete spam, I'm game.I dont have much else to do, other than play xbox.  [[User:WhatsAGoodUsername?|WhatsAGoodUsername?]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I see that a boatload of accounts got created while you were upgrading MediaWiki, before you disabled account creation. Did you manage to delete those accounts in the database, or does someone need to go through them and block them?&lt;br /&gt;
Since most spammer accounts are throwaways, maybe I should just ignore them until they start actively spamming. --[[User:Arensb|Arensb]] 09:49, 26 February 2012 (CST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Your call, If they haven't already spammed by now then maybe they won't. --[[User:Kazim|Kazim]] 10:15, 26 February 2012 (CST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Wiki TLC ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Just wondering if it's possible to upgrade the wiki software to a more recent version. I also noticed you're getting a lot of spambots registering, and there are some extensions that could be installed that would help prevent so many from getting through. Finally, it looks like most of the wiki's administrators haven't been very active recently, which while I'm sure have they good reasons, means you might want to think about adding some trusted active users to the list. I know how much of a pain running a wiki without active patrolling can be, and this seems like a good resource for those questioning their religious beliefs, so I hope it gets the attention it deserves. --[[User:Resplendent|Resplendent]] 00:39, 14 February 2012 (CST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Matt Dillahunty is the only person who has the admin login for the server.  He keeps telling me he'll get around to upgrading it eventually, but hasn't had time to get around to it.  He told me that it could speed up the process if I would back up the server contents on my computer, but he has yet to send me the login info.  I have been reminding him for MONTHS to do this, but he apparently has better things to do.  My hands are tied, I would do something if I could. --[[User:Kazim|Kazim]] 06:15, 14 February 2012 (CST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::FYI the wiki is upgraded, now I just need to work out what are the best steps to take in order to prevent spam.  For now, new account creation is disabled. --[[User:Kazim|Kazim]] 10:15, 26 February 2012 (CST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Trying out the &amp;quot;cite&amp;quot; extension ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The banana is the atheist's worst nightmare! &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Ray Comfort&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Cue Handel's ''Messiah''... ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''[[Special:Version|Thank you!]]'' [bg] Now, if we can just get to work on [[Project:Interwiki map (requests)|expanding the interwiki map]], enabling [//www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:Short_URL#Setup_steps short URLs] and [//www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:ParserFunctions additional parser functions] (and possibly installing the [//www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:Math math] and/or [//www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:FlaggedRevs flagged revisions] extensions)... [w] BTW, regarding spam, see [//www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:Combating_vandalism MediaWiki:Manual:Combating vandalism] and maybe the list of extensions at [[Wikipedia:Special:Version]] for ideas, if you haven't already. Oh, and note that we now have [//wiki.ironchariots.org/api.php an API]. I'm not sure this really changes anything WRT spam/vandalism, but it might. - [[User:Dcljr|dcljr]] 16:16, 13 March 2012 (CDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:Thanks for the list.  I'll get on that as soon as I can.  I had already been reading the Combating Vandalism page, but so far all I did was install the blacklist.  As it turns out, that only blocks people from creating shady URL links, which is nice, but it doesn't stop them from registering hundreds of junk accounts.  I intend to add Captcha to the registration process and then keep reading.  I'll add the other stuff you requested when I have the time, but I've been busy with a move lately.  --[[User:Kazim|Kazim]] 16:09, 14 March 2012 (CDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::The best extension I found to block spam accounts is [http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:ConfirmAccount this one], though it does still require some time/effort due to manual approvals. --[[User:Resplendent|Resplendent]] 01:32, 17 March 2012 (CDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Captcha ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Testing captcha&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I added this link: [http://freethoughtblogs.com Freethought Blogs].  Captcha should challenge me now.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Junk accounts now creating other junk accounts? ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Um, how were [http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Special:Log&amp;amp;user=IDANAEDGERTON534 these] [http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Special:Log&amp;amp;user=MACYNMACAULAY725 &amp;quot;users&amp;quot;] [http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Special:Log&amp;amp;user=HAINESRAFIYA249 able] to create ''other'' user accounts? - [[User:Dcljr|dcljr]] 07:00, 16 July 2012 (CDT)&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Dcljr</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=User_talk:Dhasenan</id>
		<title>User talk:Dhasenan</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=User_talk:Dhasenan"/>
				<updated>2012-07-16T11:27:06Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Dcljr: please sign your comments on talk pages&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;Please [[Project:sign your comments|sign your comments]] on talk pages. - [[User:Dcljr|dcljr]] 06:27, 16 July 2012 (CDT)&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Dcljr</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Implication</id>
		<title>Implication</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Implication"/>
				<updated>2012-07-16T11:12:48Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Dcljr: point to WP article that's about what this article is actually talking about&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{{wikipedia|Material conditional}}&amp;lt;!-- note: lots of stuff in bold because of incoming redirects --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
'''Implication''' is a [[logic]]al operation on two statements, typically represented by the variables P and Q. &amp;quot;P '''implies''' Q&amp;quot; is written symbolically as &amp;quot;P &amp;amp;rarr; Q&amp;quot;. Equivalent statements include:&lt;br /&gt;
* &amp;quot;'''if''' P '''then''' Q&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
* &amp;quot;P is '''sufficient''' for Q&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
* &amp;quot;Q is '''necessary''' for P&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The statement &amp;quot;if P then Q&amp;quot; is called a '''conditional''' statement; P is known as the '''antecedent''' and Q the '''consequent'''.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The statement &amp;quot;P '''if and only if''' Q&amp;quot;, a '''biconditional''' statement, means the same thing as &amp;quot;P implies Q, and Q implies P&amp;quot;. Other equivalent meanings include:&lt;br /&gt;
* &amp;quot;P is '''logically equivalent''' to Q&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
* &amp;quot;P is a necessary and sufficient condition for Q&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The phrase &amp;quot;if and only if&amp;quot; is often abbreviated '''iff''', especially in mathematics.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Other related concepts, discussed below, include:&amp;lt;!-- again, because of incoming redirects --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* [[#Unless and only if|'''unless''' and '''only if''']]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[#Transformations of conditionals|'''contrapositive''', '''inverse''', and '''converse''']]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;!-- not sure what to do with &amp;quot;material implication&amp;quot; incoming redirect... (see Talk) --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Definition==&lt;br /&gt;
Implication, the result of &amp;quot;P &amp;amp;rarr; Q&amp;quot; is defined by the following table:&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| '''P'''&lt;br /&gt;
| '''Q'''&lt;br /&gt;
| '''P&amp;amp;rarr;Q'''&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| True&lt;br /&gt;
| True&lt;br /&gt;
| True&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| True&lt;br /&gt;
| False&lt;br /&gt;
| False&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| False&lt;br /&gt;
| True&lt;br /&gt;
| True&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| False&lt;br /&gt;
| False&lt;br /&gt;
| True&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Note that if P is true, then Q must also be true for the implication to hold (be true). However, if P is false, Q ''may or may not'' be true and the implication still holds.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To illustrate the latter fact, consider a teacher who tells her class that any student who gets 100% on the final exam will pass the class. In other words:&lt;br /&gt;
: '''P''': A student gets 100% on the final.&lt;br /&gt;
: '''Q''': That student passes the class.&lt;br /&gt;
: '''P &amp;amp;rarr; Q''': If a student gets 100% on the final, then that student passes the class.&lt;br /&gt;
Now consider the case in which two students do poorly on the final exam; one of them did well enough on the other exams to pass the course, but the other did not. Did the teacher lie?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
No. She said nothing about students who do ''not'' get 100% on the final (i.e., the case where P is false). Unless there is a student who both got 100% on the final and did not pass the course, the teacher told the truth.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For this reason, &amp;quot;P &amp;amp;rarr; Q&amp;quot; can be restated as &amp;quot;&amp;amp;not;(P &amp;amp;and; &amp;amp;not; Q)&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;not (P and not Q)&amp;quot;, or &amp;quot;it is not the case that P is true and Q is false&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In summary, the following statements are equivalent:&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
! In symbols !! In English&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| P&amp;amp;nbsp;&amp;amp;rarr;&amp;amp;nbsp;Q || P implies Q; if P then Q; P sufficient for Q; Q necessary for P&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| &amp;amp;not;(P&amp;amp;nbsp;&amp;amp;and;&amp;amp;nbsp;&amp;amp;not;Q) || not(P and not Q)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| &amp;amp;not;P&amp;amp;nbsp;&amp;amp;or;&amp;amp;nbsp;Q || (not P) or Q &amp;amp;nbsp; [equivalent by [[De Morgan's laws]]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| &amp;amp;not;Q&amp;amp;nbsp;&amp;amp;rarr;&amp;amp;nbsp;&amp;amp;not;P || not Q implies not P&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Unless and only if==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;!-- this section is linked to from above in this same article --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
The statement &amp;quot;P '''unless''' Q&amp;quot; can be translated using implication as &amp;quot;if not Q, then P&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The statement &amp;quot;P '''only if''' Q&amp;quot; is equivalent to &amp;quot;if not Q, then not P&amp;quot;, or just &amp;quot;if P then Q&amp;quot;. (Note that it is ''not'' equivalent to the superficially similar &amp;quot;P if Q&amp;quot;, which means &amp;quot;if Q then P&amp;quot;.)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Often &amp;quot;unless&amp;quot; is used in statements with the first proposition negated: &amp;quot;not P unless Q&amp;quot; means &amp;quot;if not Q then not P&amp;quot;, or &amp;quot;if P then Q&amp;quot;, and so is equivalent to &amp;quot;P only if Q&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To illustrate how &amp;quot;only if&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;unless&amp;quot; statements work, consider a concrete example:&lt;br /&gt;
: I will pass the class only if I study hard.&lt;br /&gt;
What this means is:&lt;br /&gt;
: If I don't study hard, then I won't pass the class.&lt;br /&gt;
Or, equivalently (as explained [[#Definition|above]]):&lt;br /&gt;
: I can't both not study hard ''and'' pass the class.&lt;br /&gt;
If the last statement were not equivalent to the original, then I might be able to not study and still pass the class — but this contradicts my original assertion that it was ''only'' by studying hard that I would pass.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Using an &amp;quot;unless&amp;quot; statement to say the same thing:&lt;br /&gt;
: I won't pass the class unless I study hard.&lt;br /&gt;
This means I'll want to study hard to give myself a ''chance'' to pass, but it doesn't ''guarantee'' that I will pass; on the other hand, ''not'' studying will guarantee that I don't pass.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Symbolically, using&lt;br /&gt;
: S = I (do/will) study hard.&lt;br /&gt;
: P = I (do/will) pass the class.&lt;br /&gt;
all of these statements can be written as&lt;br /&gt;
: '''&amp;amp;not; S &amp;amp;rarr; &amp;amp;not; P''': If I don't study hard, then I won't pass the class.&lt;br /&gt;
or, equivalently&lt;br /&gt;
: '''P &amp;amp;rarr; S''': If I do pass the class then I will study hard.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Rephrasing the last statement to make more sense grammatically:&lt;br /&gt;
: If I end up passing the class, then I must have studied hard.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Transformations of conditionals==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;!-- this section is linked to from above in this same article --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Given a conditional statement &amp;quot;if P then Q&amp;quot;, there are many ways of transforming the statement to other conditionals that may or may not be logically equivalent.&lt;br /&gt;
: '''Original''': P &amp;amp;rarr; Q &amp;amp;nbsp; (&amp;quot;P implies Q&amp;quot;)&lt;br /&gt;
: '''Contrapositive''': &amp;amp;not;Q &amp;amp;rarr; &amp;amp;not;P &amp;amp;nbsp; (&amp;quot;not Q implies not P&amp;quot;) — this is logically equivalent&lt;br /&gt;
: '''Inverse''': &amp;amp;not;P &amp;amp;rarr; &amp;amp;not;Q &amp;amp;nbsp; (&amp;quot;not P implies not Q&amp;quot;) — ''not'' equivalent&lt;br /&gt;
: '''Converse''': Q &amp;amp;rarr; P &amp;amp;nbsp; (&amp;quot;Q implies P&amp;quot;) — ''not'' equivalent&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For more information, see [[Wikipedia:Contraposition]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Quantifiers==&lt;br /&gt;
In [[predicate logic]], statements containing &amp;quot;all&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;for all&amp;quot; can be re-expressed as conditional statements in [[propositional logic]] in the following way:&lt;br /&gt;
: ''Statement in predicate logic'': All squares are rectangles.&lt;br /&gt;
: ''Statement in propositional logic'': If a figure is a square, then it is a rectangle.&lt;br /&gt;
Note how the statement in propositional logic refers to a larger context (figures) that is not explicitly stated in the predicate-logic version.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An interesting effect of &amp;quot;all&amp;quot; statements being equivalent to &amp;quot;if&amp;quot; statements is that the following &amp;quot;nonsensical&amp;quot; statement is actually true:&lt;br /&gt;
* All positive numbers that are both even and odd are divisible by 17.&lt;br /&gt;
How can this be? Clearly there are no positive numbers that are both even and odd, so how can they be divisible by 17? Well, the above statement is equivalent to the following:&lt;br /&gt;
* If there is any positive number that is both even and odd, then it will be divisible by 17.&lt;br /&gt;
The antecedent here (the &amp;quot;if&amp;quot; part) is false, but we have seen that a conditional statement is true when its antecedent is false, no matter what the consequent is; so the statement is true.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Formal logic}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Logic]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Dcljr</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Iron_Chariots_Wiki:Interwiki_map_(requests)</id>
		<title>Iron Chariots Wiki:Interwiki map (requests)</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Iron_Chariots_Wiki:Interwiki_map_(requests)"/>
				<updated>2012-03-13T22:02:19Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Dcljr: /* Requested additions/changes */ link 1st column, so we can see when new prefixes go live; add some comments; update one URL&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;This page is for '''requesting changes to our [[Project:Interwiki map|interwiki map]]'''. (See also [[Wikipedia:InterWiki]] for background information.)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''Things to note:''&lt;br /&gt;
* Before requesting that we add a site, please check our [[Project:Interwiki map (full)|''full'' interwiki map]] to make sure we don't already have interwiki linking enabled for it.&lt;br /&gt;
* Websites in the map need not be [[Wikipedia:Wiki|wikis]], but they do need to have a well defined page name structure that lends itself to wiki links. Don't add a site unless its pages can be predictably linked to using a link of the form:&lt;br /&gt;
*: {{l|''SitePrefix'':''PageName''}}&lt;br /&gt;
* ''SitePrefix'' will be replaced by a fixed ''[[Wikipedia:URL|URL]]'', as listed in the table below, with ''PageName'' substituted for &amp;quot;&amp;lt;tt&amp;gt;$1&amp;lt;/tt&amp;gt;&amp;quot; in the URL). ''PageName'' can contain spaces but they will be converted to underscores(&amp;lt;tt&amp;gt;_&amp;lt;/tt&amp;gt;) in the final URL, not plus signs (&amp;lt;tt&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/tt&amp;gt;) nor hex codes (&amp;lt;tt&amp;gt;%20&amp;lt;/tt&amp;gt;). If this won't work properly for your website, then it's probably not worth adding it to the interwiki map.&lt;br /&gt;
* The ''SitePrefix'' codes, which are [[Wiktionary:case insensitive|case insensitive]], must not contain any spaces (&amp;lt;tt&amp;gt;&amp;amp;nbsp;&amp;lt;/tt&amp;gt;), colons (&amp;lt;tt&amp;gt;:&amp;lt;/tt&amp;gt;), ampersands (&amp;lt;tt&amp;gt;&amp;amp;&amp;lt;/tt&amp;gt;), or equal signs (&amp;lt;tt&amp;gt;=&amp;lt;/tt&amp;gt;) &amp;amp;mdash; in fact, we probably should just avoid punctuation completely. They should also not match any of this wiki's [[Project:Namespaces|namespaces]], nor any [[Wikipedia:ISO 639|ISO 639 language codes]] (en, de, fr, ...), just in case we decide to expand [[Iron Chariots]] to separate language wikis in the future (see [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Interlanguage links|Wikipedia:Interlanguage links]] for more information about this).&lt;br /&gt;
* Please keep the ''SitePrefix'' codes '''easily identifiable'''. People should be able to tell what site you're referring to, more or less, even if they're not very familiar with the &amp;quot;wikiverse&amp;quot; (for example, using &amp;quot;wikt&amp;quot; for [[Wiktionary:Main Page|Wiktionary]] is a bad idea, even if it is an acceptable prefix when linking from other [[Wikipedia:Wikimedia|Wikimedia]] sites).&lt;br /&gt;
* If you don't want to suggest a ''SitePrefix'', we can come up with one for you.&lt;br /&gt;
* Please sign your request with three or four tildes (&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;~~~~&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;) if you want a response from us &amp;amp;mdash; or just in case we need to discuss it with you further.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
With the foregoing caveats in mind, feel free to add any wikis or other ''relevant'' websites to the table below.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;big&amp;gt;'''[http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Iron_Chariots_Wiki:Interwiki_map_%28requests%29&amp;amp;action=edit&amp;amp;section=1 Add your request]'''&amp;lt;/big&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Requested additions/changes==&lt;br /&gt;
If you want to discuss potential changes before suggesting them here, please visit the [[Project talk:Interwiki map (requests)|discussion page]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|- &lt;br /&gt;
! SitePrefix !! URL !! Comments&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| [[Example:]] || http://www.example.org/wiki/$1 || This line is only an example. Add your request below. - &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;~~~~&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|- &lt;br /&gt;
| [[Forum:]] || http://forum.ironchariots.org/$1 || I thought it'd be nice to have a interwiki for our discussion forum(s). I know the links won't be able to use regular English phrases, as with links to sites like Wikipedia, but at least this entry would allow &amp;lt;tt&amp;gt;&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;[[:Forum:]]&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tt&amp;gt; to link to the [http://forum.ironchariots.org/ Forum Index]. - [[User:Dcljr|dcljr]] 13:01, 19 September 2006 (CDT)&lt;br /&gt;
|- &lt;br /&gt;
| [[ForumNumber:]] || http://forum.ironchariots.org/viewforum.php?f=$1 || I assume once a forum gets a number, it's &amp;quot;permanent&amp;quot;... For example, &amp;lt;tt&amp;gt;&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;[[ForumNumber:6]]&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tt&amp;gt; would link to the [http://forum.ironchariots.org/viewforum.php?f=6 General Discussion] forum. - [[User:Dcljr|dcljr]] &amp;lt;small&amp;gt;''Note:'' My assumption is correct. - [[User:Dcljr|dcljr]] 17:02, 13 March 2012 (CDT)&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|- &lt;br /&gt;
| [[ForumTopic:]] || http://forum.ironchariots.org/viewtopic.php?t=$1 || Likewise for topics. Example: &amp;lt;tt&amp;gt;&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;[[ForumTopic:95]]&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tt&amp;gt; would link to the [http://forum.ironchariots.org/viewtopic.php?t=95 Jesus Camp] thread. - [[User:Dcljr|dcljr]] &amp;lt;small&amp;gt;''Note:'' This works, too. - [[User:Dcljr|dcljr]] 17:02, 13 March 2012 (CDT)&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| [[Evowiki:]] || &amp;lt;s&amp;gt;http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/$1&amp;lt;/s&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br/&amp;gt;http://evolutionwiki.org/wiki/$1 || Iron Chariots is primarily about atheism, not creationism vs. evolution. It would be nice to have a shortcut with which to refer readers to a specialized evolution wiki. - --[[User:Arensb|Arensb]] 17:48, 1 April 2007 (CDT)&amp;lt;br/&amp;gt; Updated URL to current version. ''Note:'' While this prefix already exists in our interwiki map, it points to an old URL causing all interwiki links to articles at EvoWiki to be redirected to the Main Page. - [[User:Dcljr|dcljr]] 17:02, 13 March 2012 (CDT)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| [[Wikiversity:]] || http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/$1 || Latest Wikimedia project will surely have relevant material soon, if it doesn't already. All other Wikimedia sites already have working prefixes here. - [[User:Dcljr|dcljr]] 22:32, 5 April 2007 (CDT)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| [[AtheismWiki:]] || http://atheism.wikia.com/wiki/$1 || Obviously highly relevant; even though it's a Wikia and therefore ''could'' be linked to using the general {{l|WikiaSite:}} interwiki link (example: {{ll|WikiaSite:Atheism:Christian morality}}, it would be much more convenient to have a special code for it. - [[User:Dcljr|dcljr]] 04:59, 26 March 2009 (CDT)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| [[ReligionWiki:]] || http://religion.wikia.com/wiki/$1 || See previous entry. - [[User:Dcljr|dcljr]] 04:59, 26 March 2009 (CDT)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| [[MediaWiki:]] || http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/$1 || Useful for pointing people to MediaWiki documentation on talk pages, in template documentation, etc. (Note that if this prefix doesn't work when actually added to database, then we could use [[mw:]] or [[MediaWikiWiki:]], both of which are in the current [[WikimediaMeta:Interwiki map|interwiki map of Wikimedia sites]].) - [[User:Dcljr|dcljr]] 17:02, 13 March 2012 (CDT)&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Requested deletions==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
List any sites you feel should be removed from our [[Project:Interwiki map (full)|interwiki map]] (to avoid any possible confusion, refer to them by ''SitePrefix''). '''Please give a reason.'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br style=&amp;quot;clear:all&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Iron Chariots|Interwiki map (requests)]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Dcljr</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Iron_Chariots_Wiki:Interwiki_map_(full)</id>
		<title>Iron Chariots Wiki:Interwiki map (full)</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Iron_Chariots_Wiki:Interwiki_map_(full)"/>
				<updated>2012-03-13T21:59:13Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Dcljr: + warning about changes to this page having no effect&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;The following tables contain the '''full interwiki map''' for this wiki. (See [[Project:Interwiki map]] for an explanation.)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''Please do not edit the tables below.''' (Changes here have no effect on actual links on this wiki, anyway. The list is only reproduced here for reference.) All requests for additions, deletions, or other changes to the list can be made at [[Project:Interwiki map (requests)]].&lt;br /&gt;
__TOC__&lt;br /&gt;
==Our interwiki map==&lt;br /&gt;
These sites are the ones we feel would be most useful for editors of this wiki.&lt;br /&gt;
{{:Project:Interwiki map (custom)}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Default interwiki map with changes noted==&lt;br /&gt;
These interwiki links will also work, but most of the sites are not really relevant to what we're doing here at [[Iron Chariots]]. Any changes from the default interwiki map that comes with the [[Project:MediaWiki|MediaWiki]] software are noted in the '''Comment''' column.&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|- &lt;br /&gt;
! colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot;|Default list (modifications noted)&lt;br /&gt;
|- &lt;br /&gt;
! SitePrefix !! URL !! Comment&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|abbenormal||http://www.ourpla.net/cgi-bin/pikie.cgi?$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|acadwiki||http://xarch.tu-graz.ac.at/autocad/wiki/$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|acronym||http://www.acronymfinder.com/af-query.asp?String=exact&amp;amp;Acronym=$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|advogato||http://www.advogato.org/$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|aiwiki||http://www.ifi.unizh.ch/ailab/aiwiki/aiw.cgi?$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|alife||http://news.alife.org/wiki/index.php?$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|annotation||http://bayle.stanford.edu/crit/nph-med.cgi/$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|annotationwiki||http://www.seedwiki.com/page.cfm?wikiid=368&amp;amp;doc=$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|arxiv||http://www.arxiv.org/abs/$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|aspienetwiki||http://aspie.mela.de/Wiki/index.php?title=$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|bemi||http://bemi.free.fr/vikio/index.php?$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|benefitswiki||http://www.benefitslink.com/cgi-bin/wiki.cgi?$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|brasilwiki||http://rio.ifi.unizh.ch/brasilienwiki/index.php/$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|bridgeswiki||http://c2.com/w2/bridges/$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|c2find||http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?FindPage&amp;amp;value=$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|cache||http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|ciscavate||http://ciscavate.org/index.php/$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|cliki||http://ww.telent.net/cliki/$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|cmwiki||http://www.ourpla.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|codersbase||http://www.codersbase.com/$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|commons||http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|consciousness||http://teadvus.inspiral.org/||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|corpknowpedia||http://corpknowpedia.org/wiki/index.php/$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|creationmatters||http://www.ourpla.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|dejanews||http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|demokraatia||http://wiki.demokraatia.ee/||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|dictionary||http://www.dict.org/bin/Dict?Database=*&amp;amp;Form=Dict1&amp;amp;Strategy=*&amp;amp;Query=$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|disinfopedia||http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|diveintoosx||http://diveintoosx.org/$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|docbook||http://docbook.org/wiki/moin.cgi/$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|dolphinwiki||http://www.object-arts.com/wiki/html/Dolphin/$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|drumcorpswiki||http://www.drumcorpswiki.com/index.php/$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|dwjwiki||http://www.suberic.net/cgi-bin/dwj/wiki.cgi?$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|echei||http://www.ikso.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|ecxei||http://www.ikso.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|efnetceewiki||http://purl.net/wiki/c/$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|efnetcppwiki||http://purl.net/wiki/cpp/$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|efnetpythonwiki||http://purl.net/wiki/python/$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|efnetxmlwiki||http://purl.net/wiki/xml/$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|elibre||http://enciclopedia.us.es/index.php/$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|eljwiki||http://elj.sourceforge.net/phpwiki/index.php/$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|emacswiki||http://www.emacswiki.org/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|eokulturcentro||http://esperanto.toulouse.free.fr/wakka.php?wiki=$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|evowiki||http://www.evowiki.org/index.php/$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|eÄ‰ei||http://www.ikso.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|finalempire||http://final-empire.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|firstwiki||http://firstwiki.org/index.php/$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|foldoc||http://www.foldoc.org/foldoc/foldoc.cgi?$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|foxwiki||http://fox.wikis.com/wc.dll?Wiki~$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|fr.be||http://fr.wikinations.be/$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|fr.ca||http://fr.ca.wikinations.org/$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|fr.fr||http://fr.fr.wikinations.org/$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|fr.org||http://fr.wikinations.org/$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|freebsdman||http://www.FreeBSD.org/cgi/man.cgi?apropos=1&amp;amp;query=$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|gamewiki||http://gamewiki.org/wiki/index.php/$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|gej||http://www.esperanto.de/cgi-bin/aktivikio/wiki.pl?$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|gentoo-wiki||http://gentoo-wiki.com/$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|globalvoices||http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/dyn/globalvoices/wiki/$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|gmailwiki||http://www.gmailwiki.com/index.php/$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|google||http://www.google.com/search?q=$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|googlegroups||http://groups.google.com/groups?q=$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|gotamac||http://www.got-a-mac.org/$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|greencheese||http://www.greencheese.org/$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|hammondwiki||http://www.dairiki.org/HammondWiki/index.php3?$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|haribeau||http://wiki.haribeau.de/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|herzkinderwiki||http://www.herzkinderinfo.de/Mediawiki/index.php/$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|hewikisource||http://he.wikisource.org/wiki/$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|hrwiki||http://www.hrwiki.org/index.php/$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|iawiki||http://www.IAwiki.net/$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|imdb||http://us.imdb.com/Title?$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|infosecpedia||http://www.infosecpedia.org/pedia/index.php/$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|jargonfile||http://sunir.org/apps/meta.pl?wiki=JargonFile&amp;amp;redirect=$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|jefo||http://www.esperanto-jeunes.org/vikio/index.php?$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|jiniwiki||http://www.cdegroot.com/cgi-bin/jini?$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|jspwiki||http://www.ecyrd.com/JSPWiki/Wiki.jsp?page=$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|kerimwiki||http://wiki.oxus.net/$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|kmwiki||http://www.voght.com/cgi-bin/pywiki?$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|knowhow||http://www2.iro.umontreal.ca/~paquetse/cgi-bin/wiki.cgi?$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|lanifexwiki||http://opt.lanifex.com/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|lasvegaswiki||http://wiki.gmnow.com/index.php/$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|linuxwiki||http://www.linuxwiki.de/$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|lojban||http://www.lojban.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|lqwiki||http://wiki.linuxquestions.org/wiki/$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|lugkr||http://lug-kr.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/lugwiki.pl?$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|lutherwiki||http://www.lutheranarchives.com/mw/index.php/$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|mathsongswiki||http://SeedWiki.com/page.cfm?wikiid=237&amp;amp;doc=$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|mbtest||http://www.usemod.com/cgi-bin/mbtest.pl?$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|meatball||http://www.usemod.com/cgi-bin/mb.pl?$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|mediazilla||http://bugzilla.wikipedia.org/$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|memoryalpha||http://www.memory-alpha.org/en/index.php/$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|metaweb||http://www.metaweb.com/wiki/wiki.phtml?title=$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|metawiki||http://sunir.org/apps/meta.pl?$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|metawikipedia||http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|moinmoin||http://purl.net/wiki/moin/$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|mozillawiki||http://wiki.mozilla.org/index.php/$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|muweb||http://www.dunstable.com/scripts/MuWebWeb?$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|netvillage||http://www.netbros.com/?$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|oeis||http://www.research.att.com/cgi-bin/access.cgi/as/njas/sequences/eisA.cgi?Anum=$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|openfacts||http://openfacts.berlios.de/index.phtml?title=$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|openwiki||http://openwiki.com/?$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|opera7wiki||http://nontroppo.org/wiki/$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|orgpatterns||http://www.bell-labs.com/cgi-user/OrgPatterns/OrgPatterns?$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|osi reference model||http://wiki.tigma.ee/||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|pangalacticorg||http://www.pangalactic.org/Wiki/$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|patwiki||http://gauss.ffii.org/$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|personaltelco||http://www.personaltelco.net/index.cgi/$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|phpwiki||http://phpwiki.sourceforge.net/phpwiki/index.php?$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|pikie||http://pikie.darktech.org/cgi/pikie?$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|pmeg||http://www.bertilow.com/pmeg/$1.php||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|ppr||http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|purlnet||http://purl.oclc.org/NET/$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|pythoninfo||http://www.python.org/cgi-bin/moinmoin/$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|pythonwiki||http://www.pythonwiki.de/$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|pywiki||http://www.voght.com/cgi-bin/pywiki?$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|raec||http://www.raec.clacso.edu.ar:8080/raec/Members/raecpedia/$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|revo||http://purl.org/NET/voko/revo/art/$1.html||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|rfc||http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc$1.txt||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|s23wiki||http://is-root.de/wiki/index.php/$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|scoutpedia||http://www.scoutpedia.info/index.php/$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|seapig||http://www.seapig.org/$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|seattlewiki||http://seattlewiki.org/wiki/$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|seattlewireless||http://seattlewireless.net/?$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|seeds||http://www.IslandSeeds.org/wiki/$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|senseislibrary||http://senseis.xmp.net/?$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|shakti||http://cgi.algonet.se/htbin/cgiwrap/pgd/ShaktiWiki/$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|slashdot||http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|smikipedia||http://www.smikipedia.org/$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|sockwiki||http://wiki.socklabs.com/$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|sourceforge||http://sourceforge.net/$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|squeak||http://minnow.cc.gatech.edu/squeak/$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|strikiwiki||http://ch.twi.tudelft.nl/~mostert/striki/teststriki.pl?$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|susning||http://www.susning.nu/$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|svgwiki||http://www.protocol7.com/svg-wiki/default.asp?$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|tavi||http://tavi.sourceforge.net/$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|tejo||http://www.tejo.org/vikio/$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|terrorwiki||http://www.liberalsagainstterrorism.com/wiki/index.php/$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|theopedia||http://www.theopedia.com/$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|tmbw||http://www.tmbw.net/wiki/index.php/$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|tmnet||http://www.technomanifestos.net/?$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|tmwiki||http://www.EasyTopicMaps.com/?page=$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|turismo||http://www.tejo.org/turismo/$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|twiki||http://twiki.org/cgi-bin/view/$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|twistedwiki||http://purl.net/wiki/twisted/$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|uea||http://www.tejo.org/uea/$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|unreal||http://wiki.beyondunreal.com/wiki/$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|ursine||http://ursine.ca/$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|usej||http://www.tejo.org/usej/$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|usemod||http://www.usemod.com/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|visualworks||http://wiki.cs.uiuc.edu/VisualWorks/$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|warpedview||http://www.warpedview.com/index.php/$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|webdevwikinl||http://www.promo-it.nl/WebDevWiki/index.php?page=$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|webisodes||http://www.webisodes.org/$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|webseitzwiki||http://webseitz.fluxent.com/wiki/$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|why||http://clublet.com/c/c/why?$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|wiki||http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|wikia||http://www.wikia.com/wiki/index.php/$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|wikibooks||http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|wikicities||http://www.wikicities.com/index.php/$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|wikif1||http://www.wikif1.org/$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|wikimedia||http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|wikinews||http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|wikinfo||http://www.wikinfo.org/wiki.php?title=$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|wikiquote||http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|wikisource||http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/$1||Modified URL&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|wikispecies||http://species.wikipedia.org/wiki/$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|wikitravel||http://wikitravel.org/en/$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|wikiworld||http://WikiWorld.com/wiki/index.php/$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|wikt||http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|wiktionary||http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|wlug||http://www.wlug.org.nz/$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|wlwiki||http://winslowslair.supremepixels.net/wiki/index.php/$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|ypsieyeball||http://sknkwrks.dyndns.org:1957/writewiki/wiki.pl?$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|zwiki||http://www.zwiki.org/$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|zzz wiki||http://wiki.zzz.ee/||&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Iron Chariots|Interwiki map (full)]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Dcljr</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Iron_Chariots_Wiki:MediaWiki_syntax_explained</id>
		<title>Iron Chariots Wiki:MediaWiki syntax explained</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Iron_Chariots_Wiki:MediaWiki_syntax_explained"/>
				<updated>2012-03-13T21:36:57Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Dcljr: moved MediaWiki syntax explained to Iron Chariots Wiki:MediaWiki syntax explained: doesn't belong in article namespace; no links currently, so leaving no redirect&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;Guide for writing by using wiki syntax will be posted here&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==External link==&lt;br /&gt;
[http://www.mediawiki.com Official Mediawiki Site]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Iron Chariots]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Dcljr</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=User_talk:Kazim</id>
		<title>User talk:Kazim</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=User_talk:Kazim"/>
				<updated>2012-03-13T21:16:31Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Dcljr: /* Cue Handel's Messiah... */ new section&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;In the [[Special:Logs|Logs]], I see you deleted [[Iron Chariots Wiki:Searching]] on Aug 19th, saying, &amp;quot;''This is the second time this page has popped up as a redirect, and I don't know why''&amp;quot;. I do. It's linked to from the [[Special:Search/fubar|Search results]] page when you do an unsuccessful search (follow last link to see example). - [[User:Dcljr|dcljr]] 02:07, 26 August 2006 (MST)&lt;br /&gt;
: Actually, it shows up on [http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?search=bible&amp;amp;fulltext=Search successful searches], too. - [[User:Dcljr|dcljr]] 02:36, 26 August 2006 (MST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Known issues==&lt;br /&gt;
Since registering a few hours ago, I've made an initial pass through the wiki (main navigation pages, special pages) looking for &amp;quot;obvious&amp;quot; problems. I've collected them at [[User:Dcljr/Sandbox]]. Basically, I wanted to give you (and [[User:Sans Deity|Matt]]) a heads-up before I go in changing everything. &amp;amp;lt;w&amp;gt; - [[User:Dcljr|dcljr]] 03:41, 26 August 2006 (MST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Spaces in URLs ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I've replied on [[User talk:Dcljr#Wow|my talk page]]. - [[User:Dcljr|dcljr]] 03:13, 29 August 2006 (MST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Comment-box ==&lt;br /&gt;
The only extra typing which is required is &amp;quot;text=&amp;quot; (as you could just start the text section with &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;'''Comment:'''&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;). The old comment-box didn't format correctly in every situation (if, for example a picture or menu div or anything else exists to the right or left of it) which required me to make comment-box2 (to adjust the right margin) and might have eventually lead to comment-box3,4,5,6,7,8,9 (to adjust left margin or color or anything else). That could all be replaced with one template, so why not do it? Additionally, templates which use &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;{{{1}}}&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; (unnamed parameters) have additional limitations that prevent some &amp;quot;behind the scenes&amp;quot; stuff from working - unnamed parameters, for example, don't always work well when referencing one template from within another. - [[User:Sans Deity|Sans Deity]] 10:44, 10 September 2006 (CDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Actually, using &amp;quot;text=&amp;quot; AND typing the extra bolded word &amp;quot;comment&amp;quot; is a lot of extra typing, especially considering that it will be repeated many times over throughout the course of an article.&lt;br /&gt;
: Despite the issues you raised, it seems to me that the generic box is shorter and easier for most simple text.  What if I reintroduced Comment-box and made it reference Comment-box1 as a special case?  Then we could still use Comment-box1 any time we need to use a picture or whatever.  -- [[User:Kazim|Kazim]] 11:14, 10 September 2006 (CDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:: I guess that would be ok, the problem is that if people add pictures or sidebars later, without properly understanding the templates it's going to be a bit of work for them to figure out that the need to completely change which template is referenced. Instead of looking at the template in use and simply changing/adding a parameter, they now have to completely switch templates. I'd rather type a little extra now so that the only thing an editor would need to do is add a &amp;quot;width=&amp;quot; (or similar). I suppose it's ok to have a million templates but I just want the templates to be manageable and having one template that had a pretty solid default function while allowing optional parameters to be set. One thing we'll definitely want to do, either way, is categorize templates and make sure that they're well documented - which would include documenting all similar template.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:: Generally, I'm of the opinion that &amp;quot;Comment-box1&amp;quot; shouldn't be considered a &amp;quot;special case&amp;quot; template, it should be the default - because it's the one that doesn't suffer from the problems that &amp;quot;Comment-box&amp;quot; suffers from. But that's just me...add it if you like, I'll be typing the extra few characters. To me, it's not just about which solution requires me to type less, it's about which solution is more useful and simpler. Why learn many templates for comment boxes when you only have to learn one? Maybe we don't want every comment in a given article to have the &amp;quot;Comment:&amp;quot; preface, some should maybe be &amp;quot;See also:&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;Response:&amp;quot;. Maybe we don't want them all to be the same color...if a particular comment is more important or references another article it may deserve another color. Comments where we agree with the apologist might deserve a different color than where we disagree or where their claims represent immoral beliefs. - [[User:Sans Deity|Sans Deity]] 20:33, 10 September 2006 (CDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Doubting Thomas and Kirk Cameron? ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I don't understand how the &amp;quot;[[I used to be an atheist]]&amp;quot; argument has precedent in [[Doubting Thomas]] (see [http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=I_used_to_be_an_atheist&amp;amp;curid=1378&amp;amp;diff=7905&amp;amp;oldid=6269&amp;amp;rcid=6554 this change]). Could you please spell it out? --[[User:Arensb|Arensb]] 10:34, 15 December 2007 (CST)&lt;br /&gt;
:Expanded now; see article. --[[User:Kazim|Kazim]] 18:40, 15 December 2007 (CST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== citations ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Are website citations and references possible on this wiki? I have yet to find a page that uses them, so I Decided it wouldn't be a bad idea to ask.&lt;br /&gt;
--[[User:Enshoku|Enshoku]] 21:12, 29 April 2008 (CDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:I think I know what you're talking about, but you might want to check with dcljr.  He's kind of our resident Wiki technician.&lt;br /&gt;
--[[User:Kazim|Kazim]] 06:50, 30 April 2008 (CDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::Will ask, thanks for the help!&lt;br /&gt;
--[[User:Enshoku|Enshoku]] 17:25, 30 April 2008 (CDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Vandal ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Watch for a Vandal calling himself Yerranos.  He's a fundy Christian doing secular Wikis. [[User:Proxima Centauri|Proxima Centauri]] 13:32, 21 June 2008 (CDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Thanks for the tip.  I have to say I misread your message the first time, and I went through your own recent edits saying to myself, &amp;quot;Hey, Proxima Centauri doesn't sound so much like a vandal...&amp;quot;  :)  --[[User:Kazim|Kazim]] 10:31, 22 June 2008 (CDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Yeah, I've been meaning to talk to you about this. How do you make sure no one is vandalizing the wiki? What if some Christian like Yerranos starts deleting articles. Will our work be wasted?--[[User:Wissam hemadeh|wissam hemadeh]] 15:18, 5 April 2010 (CDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Donations ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hello, Russell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I've been hoping you guys would get an automated donation system going by now, but decided to press the issue.  I demand that you give me a way to send money to this project!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hmm, let's see.  I think there's supposed to be something I do at the end of a wiki edit.  Maybe this is it.  [[User:Beriukay|Beriukay]] 07:41, 13 May 2009 (CDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Hi Beriukay, thanks for your interest.  If you want to donate, I suggest you sent it to the Atheist Community of Austin and mark your donation as earmarked for Iron Chariots.  You can donate at [http://atheist-community.org/donate/ this link].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:: Thanks Kazim.  That was painless. [[User:Beriukay|Beriukay]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Short URL ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
You might've already considered it, or maybe even never thought about it, but having index.php?title= in the sites URLs looks yucky, unprofessional, and somewhat annoying if manually typing out an address. It's relatively easy to get rid of the index.php?title= part so it's like it is on Wikipedia. Instructions can be found [http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:Short_URL#Setup_steps here] - [[User:Aardvark|Aardvark]] 07:26, 17 June 2009 (CDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Wiki Date / Time is off ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The wiki's clock seems to be off by more than a week.... [[User:Jwissick|Jwissick]] 01:38, 5 April 2010 (CDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== A suggestion ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I've been doing some research and found some huge websites related to religious issues. Unfortunately, Christians and Muslims dominate the web. I was thinking of doing some more group projects on this wiki, as in critiques of theistic websites, articles, books, debates, philosopgers (Craig, Plantinga, Swinburne, Behe) etc etc. I don't get the obsession with Ray Comfort- he's the dumbest person I've seen.--[[User:Wissam hemadeh|wissam hemadeh]] 15:27, 5 April 2010 (CDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Also, the wiki seems to have little insight on the religions themselves. What we have is great but take a look at this website for example, www.answering-islam.com   &amp;gt;It's a Christian website which attacks Islam, and it is extraordinary.--[[User:Wissam hemadeh|wissam hemadeh]] 15:27, 5 April 2010 (CDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Feel free to add them!  --[[User:Kazim|Kazim]] 14:28, 15 April 2010 (CDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Activation of LaTeX? ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The UI for this site has a math button, but it doesn't work:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\hat{H}|\psi\rangle = \frac{\partial}{\partial t} |\psi\rangle&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Is it possible to get this enabled? There's a basic guide here:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:Enable_TeX&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I've done stuff kinda like this before; it could be time-consuming or trivial depending on what kind of server you've got set up. Just curious if this could be fixed. It's more than a little weird being on a site that talks about science and logic, and only having HTML to work with, but I know you guys are busy, so it's not a huge deal if that's all we've got.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Christhiru is a Dick ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I've never used wiki software before so I'm not sure if this is the right place to posit this, but every change the user Christhiru has made needs to be undone and his account needs to be banned. He basically deletes entire, valid, well formed, articles and occasionally adds a link to his sh*tty apologist blog. I have no idea how to go about undoing his many changes to the site or how to launch some kind of formal complaint, but Christhiru is a dick and he needs to be stopped ASAP.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== FF searchplugin ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I've been trying to work out how to make an Iron Chariots searchplugin for firefox for the last few hours to no avail. Can you help me or defer to someone who could help me? I think it would also be a good idea to add an autodiscovery feature to the site just so people can 'add' the site to the search bar.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Secularism and Xianity ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sorry for posting this on this talk page, but for some reason I cannot use the forum - I tried numerous times, used different names, but still it never allows me in. Anyway, Im here for some help. Over the years, I have heard from many Christians that their religion is responsible for creating many things (reason, science, democracy, morality, ect.) and I am sure we have heard some form of it once. For this, I recently created the article [[Christianity invented science]] and explained why it is wrong. I chose this one because it is growing in the conservative academia and Christian apologetic literature. However, there is just one more topic I want to address, the delusion that Christianity invented secularism. I would not bother with this unless it was no growing as well, but I see it very frequently. Anyway, I know we already have a article on separation of church and state, but I wanted to know if I should create an entirely new article refuting the stance that secularism is a Christian idea and separation of church and state was invented to keep government out of religion and not the other way around. What should I do? [[User:Feredir28|Wolf]] 15:35, 12 September 2011 (CDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:You probably should have read the instructions in the [http://forum.ironchariots.org/viewtopic.php?t=278 access request forum].  Anyway, I've added Feredir28 to the member group, I'm assuming that's you. [[User:Kazim|Kazim]] 12:52, 13 September 2011 (CDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Thank you, I shall move this topic to the forum. Pardons for not noticing that page. Yes, I'm Feredir. Again, thank you. [[User:Feredir28|Wolf]] 14:08, 13 September 2011 (CDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Ray Comfort ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Have you plans to write a refutation of Ray Comfort’s views?  [[Talk:Ray Comfort#&amp;quot;Favorite arguments&amp;quot; section|Two users are concerned]]. [[User:Proxima Centauri|Proxima Centauri]] 03:08, 4 November 2011 (CDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Yeah, have there been any more advances on that? Oh and Kazim? we need another plug for iron chariots on the Non-Prophets, we havent had one FOREVER!....and congrats on the wedding!I made a [[Rick Perry]] page,and it has something on it about a group called the New Apostolic Reformation you should read...the youtube video I linked to summarizing it was rather good, it would be humorous on the show.....&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:WhatsAGoodUsername?|WhatsAGoodUsername?]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:I've already clearly expressed what I'd like the Ray Comfort page to look like on the associated talk page, and it doesn't include extensive argumentation -- that's for pages about arguments.  I will try to remember to plug IC on Saturday, and I'll also be talking with Matt about what needs to happen next with software upgrades and anti-spam measures. --[[User:Kazim|Kazim]] 17:16, 18 November 2011 (CST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
okay, thanks for the update. [[User:WhatsAGoodUsername?|WhatsAGoodUsername?]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
= SPAM SUCKS! =&lt;br /&gt;
If you need another person to help delete spam, I'm game.I dont have much else to do, other than play xbox.  [[User:WhatsAGoodUsername?|WhatsAGoodUsername?]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I see that a boatload of accounts got created while you were upgrading MediaWiki, before you disabled account creation. Did you manage to delete those accounts in the database, or does someone need to go through them and block them?&lt;br /&gt;
Since most spammer accounts are throwaways, maybe I should just ignore them until they start actively spamming. --[[User:Arensb|Arensb]] 09:49, 26 February 2012 (CST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Your call, If they haven't already spammed by now then maybe they won't. --[[User:Kazim|Kazim]] 10:15, 26 February 2012 (CST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Wiki TLC ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Just wondering if it's possible to upgrade the wiki software to a more recent version. I also noticed you're getting a lot of spambots registering, and there are some extensions that could be installed that would help prevent so many from getting through. Finally, it looks like most of the wiki's administrators haven't been very active recently, which while I'm sure have they good reasons, means you might want to think about adding some trusted active users to the list. I know how much of a pain running a wiki without active patrolling can be, and this seems like a good resource for those questioning their religious beliefs, so I hope it gets the attention it deserves. --[[User:Resplendent|Resplendent]] 00:39, 14 February 2012 (CST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Matt Dillahunty is the only person who has the admin login for the server.  He keeps telling me he'll get around to upgrading it eventually, but hasn't had time to get around to it.  He told me that it could speed up the process if I would back up the server contents on my computer, but he has yet to send me the login info.  I have been reminding him for MONTHS to do this, but he apparently has better things to do.  My hands are tied, I would do something if I could. --[[User:Kazim|Kazim]] 06:15, 14 February 2012 (CST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::FYI the wiki is upgraded, now I just need to work out what are the best steps to take in order to prevent spam.  For now, new account creation is disabled. --[[User:Kazim|Kazim]] 10:15, 26 February 2012 (CST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Trying out the &amp;quot;cite&amp;quot; extension ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The banana is the atheist's worst nightmare! &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Ray Comfort&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Cue Handel's ''Messiah''... ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''[[Special:Version|Thank you!]]'' [bg] Now, if we can just get to work on [[Project:Interwiki map (requests)|expanding the interwiki map]], enabling [//www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:Short_URL#Setup_steps short URLs] and [//www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:ParserFunctions additional parser functions] (and possibly installing the [//www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:Math math] and/or [//www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:FlaggedRevs flagged revisions] extensions)... [w] BTW, regarding spam, see [//www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:Combating_vandalism MediaWiki:Manual:Combating vandalism] and maybe the list of extensions at [[Wikipedia:Special:Version]] for ideas, if you haven't already. Oh, and note that we now have [//wiki.ironchariots.org/api.php an API]. I'm not sure this really changes anything WRT spam/vandalism, but it might. - [[User:Dcljr|dcljr]] 16:16, 13 March 2012 (CDT)&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Dcljr</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Iron_Chariots_Wiki:Interwiki_map_(full)</id>
		<title>Iron Chariots Wiki:Interwiki map (full)</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Iron_Chariots_Wiki:Interwiki_map_(full)"/>
				<updated>2012-03-13T21:04:14Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Dcljr: rv to previous version -- changing this page doesn't actually change the interwiki map itself; &amp;quot;evowiki:&amp;quot; still links to evowiki.org&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;The following tables contain the '''full interwiki map''' for this wiki. (See [[Project:Interwiki map]] for an explanation.)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''Please do not edit the tables below.''' All requests for additions, deletions, or other changes to the list can be made at [[Project:Interwiki map (requests)]].&lt;br /&gt;
__TOC__&lt;br /&gt;
==Our interwiki map==&lt;br /&gt;
These sites are the ones we feel would be most useful for editors of this wiki.&lt;br /&gt;
{{:Project:Interwiki map (custom)}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Default interwiki map with changes noted==&lt;br /&gt;
These interwiki links will also work, but most of the sites are not really relevant to what we're doing here at [[Iron Chariots]]. Any changes from the default interwiki map that comes with the [[Project:MediaWiki|MediaWiki]] software are noted in the '''Comment''' column.&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|- &lt;br /&gt;
! colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot;|Default list (modifications noted)&lt;br /&gt;
|- &lt;br /&gt;
! SitePrefix !! URL !! Comment&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|abbenormal||http://www.ourpla.net/cgi-bin/pikie.cgi?$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|acadwiki||http://xarch.tu-graz.ac.at/autocad/wiki/$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|acronym||http://www.acronymfinder.com/af-query.asp?String=exact&amp;amp;Acronym=$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|advogato||http://www.advogato.org/$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|aiwiki||http://www.ifi.unizh.ch/ailab/aiwiki/aiw.cgi?$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|alife||http://news.alife.org/wiki/index.php?$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|annotation||http://bayle.stanford.edu/crit/nph-med.cgi/$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|annotationwiki||http://www.seedwiki.com/page.cfm?wikiid=368&amp;amp;doc=$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|arxiv||http://www.arxiv.org/abs/$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|aspienetwiki||http://aspie.mela.de/Wiki/index.php?title=$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|bemi||http://bemi.free.fr/vikio/index.php?$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|benefitswiki||http://www.benefitslink.com/cgi-bin/wiki.cgi?$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|brasilwiki||http://rio.ifi.unizh.ch/brasilienwiki/index.php/$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|bridgeswiki||http://c2.com/w2/bridges/$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|c2find||http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?FindPage&amp;amp;value=$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|cache||http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|ciscavate||http://ciscavate.org/index.php/$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|cliki||http://ww.telent.net/cliki/$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|cmwiki||http://www.ourpla.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|codersbase||http://www.codersbase.com/$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|commons||http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|consciousness||http://teadvus.inspiral.org/||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|corpknowpedia||http://corpknowpedia.org/wiki/index.php/$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|creationmatters||http://www.ourpla.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|dejanews||http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|demokraatia||http://wiki.demokraatia.ee/||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|dictionary||http://www.dict.org/bin/Dict?Database=*&amp;amp;Form=Dict1&amp;amp;Strategy=*&amp;amp;Query=$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|disinfopedia||http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|diveintoosx||http://diveintoosx.org/$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|docbook||http://docbook.org/wiki/moin.cgi/$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|dolphinwiki||http://www.object-arts.com/wiki/html/Dolphin/$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|drumcorpswiki||http://www.drumcorpswiki.com/index.php/$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|dwjwiki||http://www.suberic.net/cgi-bin/dwj/wiki.cgi?$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|echei||http://www.ikso.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|ecxei||http://www.ikso.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|efnetceewiki||http://purl.net/wiki/c/$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|efnetcppwiki||http://purl.net/wiki/cpp/$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|efnetpythonwiki||http://purl.net/wiki/python/$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|efnetxmlwiki||http://purl.net/wiki/xml/$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|elibre||http://enciclopedia.us.es/index.php/$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|eljwiki||http://elj.sourceforge.net/phpwiki/index.php/$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|emacswiki||http://www.emacswiki.org/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|eokulturcentro||http://esperanto.toulouse.free.fr/wakka.php?wiki=$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|evowiki||http://www.evowiki.org/index.php/$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|eÄ‰ei||http://www.ikso.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|finalempire||http://final-empire.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|firstwiki||http://firstwiki.org/index.php/$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|foldoc||http://www.foldoc.org/foldoc/foldoc.cgi?$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|foxwiki||http://fox.wikis.com/wc.dll?Wiki~$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|fr.be||http://fr.wikinations.be/$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|fr.ca||http://fr.ca.wikinations.org/$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|fr.fr||http://fr.fr.wikinations.org/$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|fr.org||http://fr.wikinations.org/$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|freebsdman||http://www.FreeBSD.org/cgi/man.cgi?apropos=1&amp;amp;query=$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|gamewiki||http://gamewiki.org/wiki/index.php/$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|gej||http://www.esperanto.de/cgi-bin/aktivikio/wiki.pl?$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|gentoo-wiki||http://gentoo-wiki.com/$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|globalvoices||http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/dyn/globalvoices/wiki/$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|gmailwiki||http://www.gmailwiki.com/index.php/$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|google||http://www.google.com/search?q=$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|googlegroups||http://groups.google.com/groups?q=$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|gotamac||http://www.got-a-mac.org/$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|greencheese||http://www.greencheese.org/$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|hammondwiki||http://www.dairiki.org/HammondWiki/index.php3?$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|haribeau||http://wiki.haribeau.de/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|herzkinderwiki||http://www.herzkinderinfo.de/Mediawiki/index.php/$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|hewikisource||http://he.wikisource.org/wiki/$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|hrwiki||http://www.hrwiki.org/index.php/$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|iawiki||http://www.IAwiki.net/$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|imdb||http://us.imdb.com/Title?$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|infosecpedia||http://www.infosecpedia.org/pedia/index.php/$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|jargonfile||http://sunir.org/apps/meta.pl?wiki=JargonFile&amp;amp;redirect=$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|jefo||http://www.esperanto-jeunes.org/vikio/index.php?$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|jiniwiki||http://www.cdegroot.com/cgi-bin/jini?$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|jspwiki||http://www.ecyrd.com/JSPWiki/Wiki.jsp?page=$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|kerimwiki||http://wiki.oxus.net/$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|kmwiki||http://www.voght.com/cgi-bin/pywiki?$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|knowhow||http://www2.iro.umontreal.ca/~paquetse/cgi-bin/wiki.cgi?$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|lanifexwiki||http://opt.lanifex.com/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|lasvegaswiki||http://wiki.gmnow.com/index.php/$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|linuxwiki||http://www.linuxwiki.de/$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|lojban||http://www.lojban.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|lqwiki||http://wiki.linuxquestions.org/wiki/$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|lugkr||http://lug-kr.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/lugwiki.pl?$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|lutherwiki||http://www.lutheranarchives.com/mw/index.php/$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|mathsongswiki||http://SeedWiki.com/page.cfm?wikiid=237&amp;amp;doc=$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|mbtest||http://www.usemod.com/cgi-bin/mbtest.pl?$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|meatball||http://www.usemod.com/cgi-bin/mb.pl?$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|mediazilla||http://bugzilla.wikipedia.org/$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|memoryalpha||http://www.memory-alpha.org/en/index.php/$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|metaweb||http://www.metaweb.com/wiki/wiki.phtml?title=$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|metawiki||http://sunir.org/apps/meta.pl?$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|metawikipedia||http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|moinmoin||http://purl.net/wiki/moin/$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|mozillawiki||http://wiki.mozilla.org/index.php/$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|muweb||http://www.dunstable.com/scripts/MuWebWeb?$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|netvillage||http://www.netbros.com/?$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|oeis||http://www.research.att.com/cgi-bin/access.cgi/as/njas/sequences/eisA.cgi?Anum=$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|openfacts||http://openfacts.berlios.de/index.phtml?title=$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|openwiki||http://openwiki.com/?$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|opera7wiki||http://nontroppo.org/wiki/$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|orgpatterns||http://www.bell-labs.com/cgi-user/OrgPatterns/OrgPatterns?$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|osi reference model||http://wiki.tigma.ee/||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|pangalacticorg||http://www.pangalactic.org/Wiki/$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|patwiki||http://gauss.ffii.org/$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|personaltelco||http://www.personaltelco.net/index.cgi/$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|phpwiki||http://phpwiki.sourceforge.net/phpwiki/index.php?$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|pikie||http://pikie.darktech.org/cgi/pikie?$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|pmeg||http://www.bertilow.com/pmeg/$1.php||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|ppr||http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|purlnet||http://purl.oclc.org/NET/$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|pythoninfo||http://www.python.org/cgi-bin/moinmoin/$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|pythonwiki||http://www.pythonwiki.de/$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|pywiki||http://www.voght.com/cgi-bin/pywiki?$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|raec||http://www.raec.clacso.edu.ar:8080/raec/Members/raecpedia/$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|revo||http://purl.org/NET/voko/revo/art/$1.html||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|rfc||http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc$1.txt||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|s23wiki||http://is-root.de/wiki/index.php/$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|scoutpedia||http://www.scoutpedia.info/index.php/$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|seapig||http://www.seapig.org/$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|seattlewiki||http://seattlewiki.org/wiki/$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|seattlewireless||http://seattlewireless.net/?$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|seeds||http://www.IslandSeeds.org/wiki/$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|senseislibrary||http://senseis.xmp.net/?$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|shakti||http://cgi.algonet.se/htbin/cgiwrap/pgd/ShaktiWiki/$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|slashdot||http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|smikipedia||http://www.smikipedia.org/$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|sockwiki||http://wiki.socklabs.com/$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|sourceforge||http://sourceforge.net/$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|squeak||http://minnow.cc.gatech.edu/squeak/$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|strikiwiki||http://ch.twi.tudelft.nl/~mostert/striki/teststriki.pl?$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|susning||http://www.susning.nu/$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|svgwiki||http://www.protocol7.com/svg-wiki/default.asp?$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|tavi||http://tavi.sourceforge.net/$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|tejo||http://www.tejo.org/vikio/$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|terrorwiki||http://www.liberalsagainstterrorism.com/wiki/index.php/$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|theopedia||http://www.theopedia.com/$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|tmbw||http://www.tmbw.net/wiki/index.php/$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|tmnet||http://www.technomanifestos.net/?$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|tmwiki||http://www.EasyTopicMaps.com/?page=$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|turismo||http://www.tejo.org/turismo/$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|twiki||http://twiki.org/cgi-bin/view/$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|twistedwiki||http://purl.net/wiki/twisted/$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|uea||http://www.tejo.org/uea/$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|unreal||http://wiki.beyondunreal.com/wiki/$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|ursine||http://ursine.ca/$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|usej||http://www.tejo.org/usej/$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|usemod||http://www.usemod.com/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|visualworks||http://wiki.cs.uiuc.edu/VisualWorks/$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|warpedview||http://www.warpedview.com/index.php/$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|webdevwikinl||http://www.promo-it.nl/WebDevWiki/index.php?page=$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|webisodes||http://www.webisodes.org/$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|webseitzwiki||http://webseitz.fluxent.com/wiki/$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|why||http://clublet.com/c/c/why?$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|wiki||http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|wikia||http://www.wikia.com/wiki/index.php/$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|wikibooks||http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|wikicities||http://www.wikicities.com/index.php/$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|wikif1||http://www.wikif1.org/$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|wikimedia||http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|wikinews||http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|wikinfo||http://www.wikinfo.org/wiki.php?title=$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|wikiquote||http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|wikisource||http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/$1||Modified URL&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|wikispecies||http://species.wikipedia.org/wiki/$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|wikitravel||http://wikitravel.org/en/$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|wikiworld||http://WikiWorld.com/wiki/index.php/$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|wikt||http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|wiktionary||http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|wlug||http://www.wlug.org.nz/$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|wlwiki||http://winslowslair.supremepixels.net/wiki/index.php/$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|ypsieyeball||http://sknkwrks.dyndns.org:1957/writewiki/wiki.pl?$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|zwiki||http://www.zwiki.org/$1||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|zzz wiki||http://wiki.zzz.ee/||&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Iron Chariots|Interwiki map (full)]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Dcljr</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Iron_Chariots_Wiki:Interwiki_map_(requests)</id>
		<title>Iron Chariots Wiki:Interwiki map (requests)</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Iron_Chariots_Wiki:Interwiki_map_(requests)"/>
				<updated>2012-03-13T20:52:51Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Dcljr: /* Requested additions/changes */ + MediaWiki&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;This page is for '''requesting changes to our [[Project:Interwiki map|interwiki map]]'''. (See also [[Wikipedia:InterWiki]] for background information.)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''Things to note:''&lt;br /&gt;
* Before requesting that we add a site, please check our [[Project:Interwiki map (full)|''full'' interwiki map]] to make sure we don't already have interwiki linking enabled for it.&lt;br /&gt;
* Websites in the map need not be [[Wikipedia:Wiki|wikis]], but they do need to have a well defined page name structure that lends itself to wiki links. Don't add a site unless its pages can be predictably linked to using a link of the form:&lt;br /&gt;
*: {{l|''SitePrefix'':''PageName''}}&lt;br /&gt;
* ''SitePrefix'' will be replaced by a fixed ''[[Wikipedia:URL|URL]]'', as listed in the table below, with ''PageName'' substituted for &amp;quot;&amp;lt;tt&amp;gt;$1&amp;lt;/tt&amp;gt;&amp;quot; in the URL). ''PageName'' can contain spaces but they will be converted to underscores(&amp;lt;tt&amp;gt;_&amp;lt;/tt&amp;gt;) in the final URL, not plus signs (&amp;lt;tt&amp;gt;+&amp;lt;/tt&amp;gt;) nor hex codes (&amp;lt;tt&amp;gt;%20&amp;lt;/tt&amp;gt;). If this won't work properly for your website, then it's probably not worth adding it to the interwiki map.&lt;br /&gt;
* The ''SitePrefix'' codes, which are [[Wiktionary:case insensitive|case insensitive]], must not contain any spaces (&amp;lt;tt&amp;gt;&amp;amp;nbsp;&amp;lt;/tt&amp;gt;), colons (&amp;lt;tt&amp;gt;:&amp;lt;/tt&amp;gt;), ampersands (&amp;lt;tt&amp;gt;&amp;amp;&amp;lt;/tt&amp;gt;), or equal signs (&amp;lt;tt&amp;gt;=&amp;lt;/tt&amp;gt;) &amp;amp;mdash; in fact, we probably should just avoid punctuation completely. They should also not match any of this wiki's [[Project:Namespaces|namespaces]], nor any [[Wikipedia:ISO 639|ISO 639 language codes]] (en, de, fr, ...), just in case we decide to expand [[Iron Chariots]] to separate language wikis in the future (see [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Interlanguage links|Wikipedia:Interlanguage links]] for more information about this).&lt;br /&gt;
* Please keep the ''SitePrefix'' codes '''easily identifiable'''. People should be able to tell what site you're referring to, more or less, even if they're not very familiar with the &amp;quot;wikiverse&amp;quot; (for example, using &amp;quot;wikt&amp;quot; for [[Wiktionary:Main Page|Wiktionary]] is a bad idea, even if it is an acceptable prefix when linking from other [[Wikipedia:Wikimedia|Wikimedia]] sites).&lt;br /&gt;
* If you don't want to suggest a ''SitePrefix'', we can come up with one for you.&lt;br /&gt;
* Please sign your request with three or four tildes (&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;~~~~&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;) if you want a response from us &amp;amp;mdash; or just in case we need to discuss it with you further.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
With the foregoing caveats in mind, feel free to add any wikis or other ''relevant'' websites to the table below.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;big&amp;gt;'''[http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Iron_Chariots_Wiki:Interwiki_map_%28requests%29&amp;amp;action=edit&amp;amp;section=1 Add your request]'''&amp;lt;/big&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Requested additions/changes==&lt;br /&gt;
If you want to discuss potential changes before suggesting them here, please visit the [[Project talk:Interwiki map (requests)|discussion page]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|- &lt;br /&gt;
! SitePrefix !! URL !! Comments&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| Example || http://www.example.org/wiki/$1 || This line is only an example. Add your request below. - &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;~~~~&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|- &lt;br /&gt;
| Forum || http://forum.ironchariots.org/$1 || I thought it'd be nice to have a interwiki for our discussion forum(s). I know the links won't be able to use regular English phrases, as with links to sites like Wikipedia, but at least this entry would allow &amp;lt;tt&amp;gt;&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;[[:Forum:]]&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tt&amp;gt; for linking to the [http://forum.ironchariots.org/ Forum Index]. - [[User:Dcljr|dcljr]] 13:01, 19 September 2006 (CDT)&lt;br /&gt;
|- &lt;br /&gt;
| ForumNumber || http://forum.ironchariots.org/viewforum.php?f=$1 || I assume once a forum gets a number, it's &amp;quot;permanent&amp;quot;... For example, &amp;lt;tt&amp;gt;&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;[[ForumNumber:6]]&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tt&amp;gt; would link to the [http://forum.ironchariots.org/viewforum.php?f=6 General Discussion] forum. - [[User:Dcljr|dcljr]]&lt;br /&gt;
|- &lt;br /&gt;
| ForumTopic || http://forum.ironchariots.org/viewtopic.php?t=$1 || Likewise for topics. Example: &amp;lt;tt&amp;gt;&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;[[ForumTopic:95]]&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tt&amp;gt; would link to the [http://forum.ironchariots.org/viewtopic.php?t=95 Jesus Camp] thread. - [[User:Dcljr|dcljr]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| Evowiki || http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/$1 || Iron Chariots is primarily about atheism, not creationism vs. evolution. It would be nice to have a shortcut with which to refer readers to a specialized evolution wiki. - --[[User:Arensb|Arensb]] 17:48, 1 April 2007 (CDT)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| Wikiversity || http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/$1 || Latest Wikimedia project will surely have relevant material soon, if it doesn't already. All other Wikimedia sites already have working prefixes here. - [[User:Dcljr|dcljr]] 22:32, 5 April 2007 (CDT)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| AtheismWiki || http://atheism.wikia.com/wiki/$1 || Obviously highly relevant; even though it's a Wikia and therefore ''could'' be linked to using the general {{l|WikiaSite:}} interwiki link (example: {{ll|WikiaSite:Atheism:Christian morality}}, it would be much more convenient to have a special code for it. - [[User:Dcljr|dcljr]] 04:59, 26 March 2009 (CDT)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| ReligionWiki || http://religion.wikia.com/wiki/$1 || See previous entry. - [[User:Dcljr|dcljr]] 04:59, 26 March 2009 (CDT)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| MediaWiki || http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/$1 || Useful for pointing people to MediaWiki documentation on talk pages, in template documentation, etc. - [[User:Dcljr|dcljr]] 15:52, 13 March 2012 (CDT)&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Requested deletions==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
List any sites you feel should be removed from our [[Project:Interwiki map (full)|interwiki map]] (to avoid any possible confusion, refer to them by ''SitePrefix''). '''Please give a reason.'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br style=&amp;quot;clear:all&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Iron Chariots|Interwiki map (requests)]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Dcljr</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Template:Site_news</id>
		<title>Template:Site news</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Template:Site_news"/>
				<updated>2012-03-13T19:39:20Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Dcljr: cue Handel's &amp;quot;Messiah&amp;quot;...&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;* 2012-02-26: Our [[Project:MediaWiki|MediaWiki]] software has been upgraded to [[Special:Version|version 1.18.1]], including an extension adding the ability to use [http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:Cite/Cite.php &amp;amp;lt;ref&amp;amp;gt; tags]. You can now easily cite sources in articles — but note that we don't have all the fancy {{tl|cite}} templates that Wikipedia does.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;noinclude&amp;gt;&amp;lt;!-- ADD ENTRIES as bare list items above; keep entries very short with link to more info --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Usage==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{t|Site news}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Note==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This template is for brief announcements that would be of interest to the '''Iron Chariots''' community of readers and editors. It should only be used at our [[Project:Community Portal|Community Portal]] and, if desired, on user pages (in particular, it should ''never'' appear in the main article [[Project:namespace|namespace]]).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==See also==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Template:Site news box]] (right-floated box version of this information, suitable for use on user pages)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Informational templates|Site news]]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/noinclude&amp;gt;&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Dcljr</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Talk:Atheism_is_based_on_faith</id>
		<title>Talk:Atheism is based on faith</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Talk:Atheism_is_based_on_faith"/>
				<updated>2012-02-15T14:09:04Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Dcljr: /* Rewrite */ more accurate&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Rewrite ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I've just rewritten large portions of this and rearranged almost all of the bullet points (and added and removed some). There are still several points that are hitting essentially the same weakness from slightly different angles, but I couldn't figure out how to effectively merge them into fewer bullet points. (IOW, I didn't have time to [re]write a short article.) - [[User:Dcljr|dcljr]] 08:08, 15 February 2012 (CST)&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Dcljr</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Talk:Atheism_is_based_on_faith</id>
		<title>Talk:Atheism is based on faith</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Talk:Atheism_is_based_on_faith"/>
				<updated>2012-02-15T14:08:17Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Dcljr: Rewrite&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Rewrite ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I've just rewritten large portions of this and rearranged almost all of the bullet points (and added a few new ones). There are still several points that are hitting essentially the same weakness from slightly different angles, but I couldn't figure out how to effectively merge them into fewer bullet points. (IOW, I didn't have time to [re]write a short article.) - [[User:Dcljr|dcljr]] 08:08, 15 February 2012 (CST)&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Dcljr</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Atheism_is_based_on_faith</id>
		<title>Atheism is based on faith</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Atheism_is_based_on_faith"/>
				<updated>2012-02-15T14:03:18Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Dcljr: massive rearranging/rewriting&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;[[Apologists]] often claim that '''atheism is based on faith''' &amp;amp;mdash; that is, not believing in a [[god]] requires just as much [[faith]] as belief does, if not more.  [[Norman Geisler]] expressed this argument in the title of his book, ''[[I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist]]''.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Apologetics==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Let Us Reason Ministries]] offers this expression of the argument:[http://www.letusreason.org/Apolo7.htm]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;To be an Atheist one would have to be omniscient knowing all things having a perfect knowledge of the universe, to say they absolutely know God does not exist. For one to do this they would have to personally inspected all places in the present known universe and in all time, having explored everywhere seen and unseen.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Counter-apologetics==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* The definition of &amp;quot;Atheist&amp;quot; in the argument above is an overly broad [[straw man]]: an atheist is one who either [[weak atheism|lacks positive belief in a god]] or who [[strong atheism|believes that no gods exist]], not one who claims to know absolutely that no gods exist (see [[Atheist vs. agnostic]]).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* While a person would need perfect knowledge of the universe to be [[absolute certainty|absolutely certain]] that no gods exist, such knowledge is not required for ''disbelief''. And, in fact, individual theists disbelieve all kinds of claims (that various [[mythical beings]] exist, or that Earth is being regularly visited by aliens from space) without having complete knowledge even of the relevant subject areas.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* The use of the word &amp;quot;faith&amp;quot; is often an attempt to mislead based on the [[equivocation]] fallacy. As the article on [[faith]] discusses, the two primary meanings of the word are: (1) ''confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing''; and (2) ''belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.'' One may reasonably claim that certain forms of atheism are based on &amp;quot;faith&amp;quot; using the first definition. However, the way this claim is often made implies that the second definition is being used, which is usually incorrect.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Disbelief based on lack of evidence does not require faith. In fact, disbelief does not require evidence of any kind. Someone who has never heard of the concept of &amp;quot;gods&amp;quot; would not believe in them. Under the broader definition of atheism, they would be an atheist and yet not have faith that no gods exist. Similarly, someone who has been given evidence and simply finds it lacking (the classic narrower definition of ''atheist'') would also not be relying on faith for their lack of belief.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Actually, it is quite possible to obtain evidence discouraging belief in the existence of specific gods (i.e., &amp;quot;evidence-based atheism&amp;quot;). For example, if the god is defined sufficiently well, one may examine the definition for logical contradications. If the god is [[Omnipotence paradox|not logically consistent]], then disbelief is justified. If a god is invoked to explain a certain phenomenon, then that explanation can be compared to the best scientific explanation of the same phenomenon. If [[science]] leads to a better explanation or a deeper understanding of the mechanisms involved, then [[Occam's Razor|why is belief in the god necessary]]?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* The argument equates non-belief due to a [[Evidentiary argument|complete lack of evidence for something and good reasons to suppose otherwise]] to the (literal) leap of faith needed to believe such a thing.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Theists tend to treat belief in their particular god as the default position, and they will often back this up with some variation of the [[argument from design]]. But since theists make a positive claim of their god's existence, they have the [[burden of proof]]. In fact, their claim is [[extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence|quite extraordinary]] (e.g., a being that can create whole universes), so their burden of proof is all the greater for that.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* There is often an unspoken premise in this kind of argument that being an atheist is dangerous and therefore should not be entered into lightly. This is a classic [[appeal to emotion]]. (Not to mention the ironic implication that faith might not be a good enough reason to disbelieve something. If that's true, then why should it be a good reason to ''believe'' something?)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Theists commonly consider faith to be a virtue. It seems odd, then, that they would criticize atheism for being based on faith. Moreover, the argument implies that the more faith a proposition needs, the less one should accept it as true, a position that many counter-apologists would welcome.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Tu quoque]]! This argument attempts to defend religious faith claims by claiming that the atheist position falls into the same category. It also often serves as a [[non sequitur]], and tends to derail the argument from focusing on the lack of evidence to support religious faith.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Theists often [[backslide]] and have trouble maintaining faith in their god. Atheists occasionally convert to theism, but do not tend to slip into various god-beliefs due to the &amp;quot;strain&amp;quot; required to maintain no belief in any gods. If atheists were a faith group, they should share the same difficulties the religious have in maintaining their faith.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==See also==&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Atheism is a religion]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==External link==&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://atheism.about.com/od/atheismmyths/a/omniscience.htm Myths About Atheism: Must Real Atheist Know Everything to Deny God?] at [[atheism.about.com]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Common objections}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Arguments]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Criticisms of atheism]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Dcljr</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Talk:Mythical_being</id>
		<title>Talk:Mythical being</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Talk:Mythical_being"/>
				<updated>2012-02-15T13:55:02Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Dcljr: point to new article title, so link brings up correct list&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;==Comments from Talk:Unicorn==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think this article should be deleted and the red links rebounded to wikipedia, as there aren't too many serious apologists using unicorns as proof of god's existence. [[User:Enshoku|Enshoku]] 17:40, 11 January 2009 (CST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Either that, or redirect to some page listing canonical examples and comparisons. --[[User:Arensb|Arensb]] 00:07, 13 January 2009 (CST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:: I've merged and redirected [[Special:Whatlinkshere/Mythical being|all the various mythical creature articles]] to here. - [[User:Dcljr|dcljr]] 19:20, 27 December 2009 (CST)&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Dcljr</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Mythical_being</id>
		<title>Mythical being</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Mythical_being"/>
				<updated>2012-02-15T13:53:26Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Dcljr: more conversions of &amp;quot;creature&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{{wikipedia|Legendary creature}}&lt;br /&gt;
A '''mythical being''' is a fictional living thing, usually an animal or animal-like organism, that exists only in [[mythology]] or [[folklore]]. Sometimes these beings have [[magical]] powers, sometimes not.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Well known examples==&lt;br /&gt;
Some examples of (mostly) non-religious mythical beings include the following.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===From older mythologies===&lt;br /&gt;
; [[Wikipedia:Fairy|Fairies]]&lt;br /&gt;
: Having taken on many different forms in the popular imagination throughout history, the most common modern conception, which became very popular in the early 20th century, is somewhat like a more elegant (usually somewhat [[angel]]ic) version of the ''[[Wikipedia:Peter Pan|Peter Pan]]'' character [[Wikipedia:Tinkerbell|Tinkerbell]] &amp;amp;mdash; a small, flying, female humanoid.&lt;br /&gt;
; [[Wikipedia:Troll|Trolls]]&lt;br /&gt;
: A large, fearsome type of fairy from [[Wikipedia:Norse mythology|Norse mythology]], originally similar to the [[Wikipedia:Ogre|ogres]] of England.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll]&lt;br /&gt;
; [[Wikipedia:Leprechaun|Leprechaun]]&lt;br /&gt;
: A kind of fairy from [[Wikipedia:Irish mythology|Irish folklore]], usually taking the form of a very short man, often clad in a red or green coats, who enjoys partaking in mischief.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leprechaun]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===In modern times===&lt;br /&gt;
; [[Wikipedia:Loch Ness Monster|Loch Ness Monster]]&lt;br /&gt;
: Sometimes affectionately called ''Nessie'', this purported dinosaur- or serpent-like animal is currently thought by some to reside within [[Wikipedia:Loch Ness|Loch Ness]], a narrow yet deep body of water near Inverness in Scotland, UK. Nessie and Loch Ness are popular attractions, with thousands of tourists arriving each year in the hope of catching a glimpse of the creature. Many examples of purported photographic and video evidence (much of it mutually contradictory) have been offered by amateurs, but systematic investigations of Loch Ness have failed to provide conclusive evidence of any such creature. The peak of interest to this creature was in the middle of the 20th century. It was then when several witnesses said they saw some creature in the lake. Then the famous black-and-white photograph of some unknown creature appeared. Though, later this photograph was examined and proved to be a fake, since it was not a [http://overnightessay.com/blog/2010/05/20/the-mystery-of-the-loch-ness-monster-is-absolutely-exposed/ monstrous creature], but a small submarine decorated to resemble Nessie. Finally, in the 21th century scientists proved that there can be no such a creature in Drumnadrochit Lochs.&lt;br /&gt;
; [[Wikipedia:Bigfoot|Bigfoot]]&lt;br /&gt;
: Also known as Sasquatch, this is an ape-like beast allegedly inhabiting the forests of the [[Wikipedia:Pacific Northwest|Pacific Northwest]] region of North America.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigfoot]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Mentioned in the Bible===&lt;br /&gt;
; [[Wikipedia:Unicorn|Unicorns]]&lt;br /&gt;
: Typically depicted (in modern times) as a white horse with a single, spiral horn growing out of its forehead. The unicorn appears in eight different places in the [[King James Bible]]: {{bible|Job 39:9-11}}, {{bible|Deut. 33:17}}, {{bible|Numbers 23:22}}, {{bible|Numbers 24:8}}, {{bible|Psalms 22:21}}, {{bible|Psalms 29:6}}, {{bible|Psalms 92:10}}, and {{bible|Isaiah 34:7}}.&lt;br /&gt;
; [[Wikipedia:Dragon|Dragons]]&lt;br /&gt;
: Usually reptilian creatures that are similar to large lizards or dinosaurs (mainly in the European tradition), or snake-like serpents (mainly in oriental traditions). Although the King James Bible uses the words &amp;quot;serpent&amp;quot;, &amp;quot;dragon&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;Devil&amp;quot; in a fairly interchangeable manner, the first mentions of a dragon-like creature is in {{bible|Job 26:13}} and {{bible|Isaiah 27:1}}, where it is called Nachash Bare'ach, or &amp;quot;Pole Serpent&amp;quot;.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragon]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Use in counter-apologetics==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Because most [[theist]]s agree that non-religious mythical beings do not really exist, they often serve as good substitutes for [[God]] (or [[angel]]s, etc.) in [[counter-apologetics]], either to show the weakness of a theist's argument, or to show the reasonableness of a corresponding counter-argument &amp;amp;mdash; especially in the context of the reasonableness of belief without evidence, or the nature of burden of proof when applied to issues of existence.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''Example'''&lt;br /&gt;
* ''Atheist:'' &amp;quot;Do you believe in leprechauns?&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
* ''Theist:'' &amp;quot;No.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
* ''Atheist:'' &amp;quot;Why not?&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
* ''Theist:'' &amp;quot;Because they obviously don't exist.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
* ''Atheist:'' &amp;quot;[[You can't prove God doesn't exist|Prove it]].&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
* ''Theist:'' &amp;quot;I don't have to! No one really believes in leprechauns.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
* ''Atheist:'' &amp;quot;Do you have ''evidence'' that they don't exist?&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
* ''Theist:'' &amp;quot;No, but you don't have evidence that they do.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
* ''Atheist:'' &amp;quot;You're right. But why not believe in them anyway, since we don't have good evidence either way?&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
* (and so forth...)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Mythology]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Dcljr</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Mythical_being</id>
		<title>Mythical being</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Mythical_being"/>
				<updated>2012-02-15T13:49:47Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Dcljr: creature -&amp;gt; being in several places (per new page title)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{{wikipedia|Legendary creature}}&lt;br /&gt;
A '''mythical being''' is a fictional living thing, usually an animal or animal-like organism, that exists only in [[mythology]] or [[folklore]]. Sometimes these creatures have [[magical]] powers, sometimes not.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Well known examples==&lt;br /&gt;
Some examples of (mostly) non-religious mythical beings include the following.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===From older mythologies===&lt;br /&gt;
; [[Wikipedia:Fairy|Fairies]]&lt;br /&gt;
: Having taken on many different forms in the popular imagination throughout history, the most common modern conception, which became very popular in the early 20th century, is somewhat like a more elegant (usually somewhat [[angel]]ic) version of the ''[[Wikipedia:Peter Pan|Peter Pan]]'' character [[Wikipedia:Tinkerbell|Tinkerbell]] &amp;amp;mdash; a small, flying, female humanoid.&lt;br /&gt;
; [[Wikipedia:Troll|Trolls]]&lt;br /&gt;
: A large, fearsome type of fairy from [[Wikipedia:Norse mythology|Norse mythology]], originally similar to the [[Wikipedia:Ogre|ogres]] of England.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll]&lt;br /&gt;
; [[Wikipedia:Leprechaun|Leprechaun]]&lt;br /&gt;
: A kind of fairy from [[Wikipedia:Irish mythology|Irish folklore]], usually taking the form of a very short man, often clad in a red or green coats, who enjoys partaking in mischief.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leprechaun]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===In modern times===&lt;br /&gt;
; [[Wikipedia:Loch Ness Monster|Loch Ness Monster]]&lt;br /&gt;
: Sometimes affectionately called ''Nessie'', this dinosaur- or serpent-like creature is currently thought by some to reside within [[Wikipedia:Loch Ness|Loch Ness]], a narrow yet deep body of water near Inverness in Scotland, UK. Nessie and Loch Ness are popular attractions, with thousands of tourists arriving each year in the hope of catching a glimpse of the creature. Many examples of purported photographic and video evidence (much of it mutually contradictory) have been offered by amateurs, but systematic investigations of Loch Ness have failed to provide conclusive evidence of any such creature. The peak of interest to this creature was in the middle of the 20th century. It was then when several witnesses said they saw some creature in the lake. Then the famous black-and-white photograph of some unknown creature appeared. Though, later this photograph was examined and proved to be a fake, since it was not a [http://overnightessay.com/blog/2010/05/20/the-mystery-of-the-loch-ness-monster-is-absolutely-exposed/ monstrous creature], but a small submarine decorated to resemble Nessie. Finally, in the 21th century scientists proved that there can be no such a creature in Drumnadrochit Lochs.&lt;br /&gt;
; [[Wikipedia:Bigfoot|Bigfoot]]&lt;br /&gt;
: Also known as Sasquatch, this is an ape-like creature allegedly inhabiting the forests of the [[Wikipedia:Pacific Northwest|Pacific Northwest]] region of North America.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigfoot]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Mentioned in the Bible===&lt;br /&gt;
; [[Wikipedia:Unicorn|Unicorns]]&lt;br /&gt;
: Typically depicted (in modern times) as a white horse with a single, spiral horn growing out of its forehead. The unicorn appears in eight different places in the [[King James Bible]]: {{bible|Job 39:9-11}}, {{bible|Deut. 33:17}}, {{bible|Numbers 23:22}}, {{bible|Numbers 24:8}}, {{bible|Psalms 22:21}}, {{bible|Psalms 29:6}}, {{bible|Psalms 92:10}}, and {{bible|Isaiah 34:7}}.&lt;br /&gt;
; [[Wikipedia:Dragon|Dragons]]&lt;br /&gt;
: Usually reptilian creatures that are similar to large lizards or dinosaurs (mainly in the European tradition), or snake-like serpents (mainly in oriental traditions). Although the King James Bible uses the words &amp;quot;serpent&amp;quot;, &amp;quot;dragon&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;Devil&amp;quot; in a fairly interchangeable manner, the first mentions of a dragon-like creature is in {{bible|Job 26:13}} and {{bible|Isaiah 27:1}}, where it is called Nachash Bare'ach, or &amp;quot;Pole Serpent&amp;quot;.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragon]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Use in counter-apologetics==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Because most [[theist]]s agree that non-religious mythical beings do not really exist, they often serve as good substitutes for [[God]] (or [[angel]]s, etc.) in [[counter-apologetics]], either to show the weakness of a theist's argument, or to show the reasonableness of a corresponding counter-argument &amp;amp;mdash; especially in the context of the reasonableness of belief without evidence, or the nature of burden of proof when applied to issues of existence.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''Example'''&lt;br /&gt;
* ''Atheist:'' &amp;quot;Do you believe in leprechauns?&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
* ''Theist:'' &amp;quot;No.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
* ''Atheist:'' &amp;quot;Why not?&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
* ''Theist:'' &amp;quot;Because they obviously don't exist.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
* ''Atheist:'' &amp;quot;[[You can't prove God doesn't exist|Prove it]].&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
* ''Theist:'' &amp;quot;I don't have to! No one really believes in leprechauns.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
* ''Atheist:'' &amp;quot;Do you have ''evidence'' that they don't exist?&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
* ''Theist:'' &amp;quot;No, but you don't have evidence that they do.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
* ''Atheist:'' &amp;quot;You're right. But why not believe in them anyway, since we don't have good evidence either way?&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
* (and so forth...)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Mythology]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Dcljr</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Loch_Ness_Monster</id>
		<title>Loch Ness Monster</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Loch_Ness_Monster"/>
				<updated>2012-02-15T13:47:14Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Dcljr: REDIRECT Mythical being&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;#REDIRECT [[Mythical being]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Dcljr</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Troll</id>
		<title>Troll</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Troll"/>
				<updated>2012-02-15T13:47:13Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Dcljr: REDIRECT Mythical being&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;#REDIRECT [[Mythical being]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Dcljr</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Imaginary_animal</id>
		<title>Imaginary animal</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Imaginary_animal"/>
				<updated>2012-02-15T13:47:12Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Dcljr: REDIRECT Mythical being&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;#REDIRECT [[Mythical being]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Dcljr</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Dragon</id>
		<title>Dragon</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Dragon"/>
				<updated>2012-02-15T13:47:11Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Dcljr: REDIRECT Mythical being&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;#REDIRECT [[Mythical being]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Dcljr</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Fairy</id>
		<title>Fairy</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Fairy"/>
				<updated>2012-02-15T13:47:11Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Dcljr: REDIRECT Mythical being&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;#REDIRECT [[Mythical being]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Dcljr</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Fairies</id>
		<title>Fairies</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Fairies"/>
				<updated>2012-02-15T13:47:10Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Dcljr: REDIRECT Mythical being&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;#REDIRECT [[Mythical being]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Dcljr</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Loch_Ness_monster</id>
		<title>Loch Ness monster</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Loch_Ness_monster"/>
				<updated>2012-02-15T13:47:09Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Dcljr: REDIRECT Mythical being&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;#REDIRECT [[Mythical being]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Dcljr</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Unicorn</id>
		<title>Unicorn</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Unicorn"/>
				<updated>2012-02-15T13:47:07Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Dcljr: REDIRECT Mythical being&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;#REDIRECT [[Mythical being]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Dcljr</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Leprechaun</id>
		<title>Leprechaun</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Leprechaun"/>
				<updated>2012-02-15T13:47:06Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Dcljr: REDIRECT Mythical being&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;#REDIRECT [[Mythical being]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Dcljr</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Talk:Mythical_creature</id>
		<title>Talk:Mythical creature</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Talk:Mythical_creature"/>
				<updated>2012-02-15T13:45:39Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Dcljr: Talk:Mythical creature moved to Talk:Mythical being: removes problematic word &amp;quot;creature&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;#REDIRECT [[Talk:Mythical being]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Dcljr</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Mythical_creature</id>
		<title>Mythical creature</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Mythical_creature"/>
				<updated>2012-02-15T13:45:39Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Dcljr: Mythical creature moved to Mythical being: removes problematic word &amp;quot;creature&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;#REDIRECT [[Mythical being]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Dcljr</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Talk:Mythical_being</id>
		<title>Talk:Mythical being</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Talk:Mythical_being"/>
				<updated>2012-02-15T13:45:39Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Dcljr: Talk:Mythical creature moved to Talk:Mythical being: removes problematic word &amp;quot;creature&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;==Comments from Talk:Unicorn==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think this article should be deleted and the red links rebounded to wikipedia, as there aren't too many serious apologists using unicorns as proof of god's existence. [[User:Enshoku|Enshoku]] 17:40, 11 January 2009 (CST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Either that, or redirect to some page listing canonical examples and comparisons. --[[User:Arensb|Arensb]] 00:07, 13 January 2009 (CST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:: I've merged and redirected [[Special:Whatlinkshere/Mythical creature|all the various mythical creature articles]] to here. - [[User:Dcljr|dcljr]] 19:20, 27 December 2009 (CST)&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Dcljr</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Mythical_being</id>
		<title>Mythical being</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Mythical_being"/>
				<updated>2012-02-15T13:45:39Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Dcljr: Mythical creature moved to Mythical being: removes problematic word &amp;quot;creature&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{{wikipedia|Legendary creature}}&lt;br /&gt;
A '''mythical creature''' is a fictional living thing, usually an animal or animal-like organism, that exists only in [[mythology]] or [[folklore]]. Sometimes these creatures have [[magical]] powers, sometimes not.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Well known examples==&lt;br /&gt;
Some examples of (mostly) non-religious mythical creatures include the following.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===From older mythologies===&lt;br /&gt;
; [[Wikipedia:Fairy|Fairies]]&lt;br /&gt;
: Having taken on many different forms in the popular imagination throughout history, the most common modern conception, which became very popular in the early 20th century, is somewhat like a more elegant (usually somewhat [[angel]]ic) version of the ''[[Wikipedia:Peter Pan|Peter Pan]]'' character [[Wikipedia:Tinkerbell|Tinkerbell]] &amp;amp;mdash; a small, flying, female humanoid.&lt;br /&gt;
; [[Wikipedia:Troll|Trolls]]&lt;br /&gt;
: A large, fearsome type of fairy from [[Wikipedia:Norse mythology|Norse mythology]], originally similar to the [[Wikipedia:Ogre|ogres]] of England.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll]&lt;br /&gt;
; [[Wikipedia:Leprechaun|Leprechaun]]&lt;br /&gt;
: A kind of fairy from [[Wikipedia:Irish mythology|Irish folklore]], usually taking the form of a very short man, often clad in a red or green coats, who enjoys partaking in mischief.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leprechaun]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===In modern times===&lt;br /&gt;
; [[Wikipedia:Loch Ness Monster|Loch Ness Monster]]&lt;br /&gt;
: Sometimes affectionately called ''Nessie'', this dinosaur- or serpent-like creature is currently thought by some to reside within [[Wikipedia:Loch Ness|Loch Ness]], a narrow yet deep body of water near Inverness in Scotland, UK. Nessie and Loch Ness are popular attractions, with thousands of tourists arriving each year in the hope of catching a glimpse of the creature. Many examples of purported photographic and video evidence (much of it mutually contradictory) have been offered by amateurs, but systematic investigations of Loch Ness have failed to provide conclusive evidence of any such creature. The peak of interest to this creature was in the middle of the 20th century. It was then when several witnesses said they saw some creature in the lake. Then the famous black-and-white photograph of some unknown creature appeared. Though, later this photograph was examined and proved to be a fake, since it was not a [http://overnightessay.com/blog/2010/05/20/the-mystery-of-the-loch-ness-monster-is-absolutely-exposed/ monstrous creature], but a small submarine decorated to resemble Nessie. Finally, in the 21th century scientists proved that there can be no such a creature in Drumnadrochit Lochs.&lt;br /&gt;
; [[Wikipedia:Bigfoot|Bigfoot]]&lt;br /&gt;
: Also known as Sasquatch, this is an ape-like creature allegedly inhabiting the forests of the [[Wikipedia:Pacific Northwest|Pacific Northwest]] region of North America.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigfoot]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Mentioned in the Bible===&lt;br /&gt;
; [[Wikipedia:Unicorn|Unicorns]]&lt;br /&gt;
: Typically depicted (in modern times) as a white horse with a single, spiral horn growing out of its forehead. The unicorn appears in eight different places in the [[King James Bible]]: {{bible|Job 39:9-11}}, {{bible|Deut. 33:17}}, {{bible|Numbers 23:22}}, {{bible|Numbers 24:8}}, {{bible|Psalms 22:21}}, {{bible|Psalms 29:6}}, {{bible|Psalms 92:10}}, and {{bible|Isaiah 34:7}}.&lt;br /&gt;
; [[Wikipedia:Dragon|Dragons]]&lt;br /&gt;
: Usually reptilian creatures that are similar to large lizards or dinosaurs (mainly in the European tradition), or snake-like serpents (mainly in oriental traditions). Although the King James Bible uses the words &amp;quot;serpent&amp;quot;, &amp;quot;dragon&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;Devil&amp;quot; in a fairly interchangeable manner, the first mentions of a dragon-like creature is in {{bible|Job 26:13}} and {{bible|Isaiah 27:1}}, where it is called Nachash Bare'ach, or &amp;quot;Pole Serpent&amp;quot;.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragon]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Use in counter-apologetics==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Because most [[theist]]s agree that non-religious mythical creatures do not really exist, they often serve as good substitutes for [[God]] (or [[angel]]s, etc.) in [[counter-apologetics]], either to show the weakness of a theist's argument, or to show the reasonableness of a corresponding counter-argument &amp;amp;mdash; especially in the context of the reasonableness of belief without evidence, or the nature of burden of proof when applied to issues of existence.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''Example'''&lt;br /&gt;
* ''Atheist:'' &amp;quot;Do you believe in leprechauns?&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
* ''Theist:'' &amp;quot;No.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
* ''Atheist:'' &amp;quot;Why not?&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
* ''Theist:'' &amp;quot;Because they obviously don't exist.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
* ''Atheist:'' &amp;quot;[[You can't prove God doesn't exist|Prove it]].&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
* ''Theist:'' &amp;quot;I don't have to! No one really believes in leprechauns.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
* ''Atheist:'' &amp;quot;Do you have ''evidence'' that they don't exist?&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
* ''Theist:'' &amp;quot;No, but you don't have evidence that they do.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
* ''Atheist:'' &amp;quot;You're right. But why not believe in them anyway, since we don't have good evidence either way?&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
* (and so forth...)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Mythology]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Dcljr</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Pascal%27s_Wager</id>
		<title>Pascal's Wager</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Pascal%27s_Wager"/>
				<updated>2012-02-15T13:28:55Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Dcljr: /* Non-zero payoff on non-belief */ more precisely&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{{Wikipedia|color=#EEDDEE;}}&lt;br /&gt;
'''Pascal's Wager''' is the [[argument]] that states that you should [[believe]] in [[God]] even if there's a strong chance that he might not be real, because the penalty for not believing, namely going to [[hell]], is so undesirable that it is more prudent to take our chances with belief. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Background information==&lt;br /&gt;
Based on simple [[probability]] theory, the argument was first formally put forth by [[Blaise Pascal]], a 17th-century philosopher and mathematician. The concept of the wager derives from the ''Pensées'', a collection of Pascal’s thought forged into a literary work. This line of argument forms a response to another proof of God known as Cartesian Thought. Pascal believed that Descartes's argument created a false notion of absolute certainty, which contradicts the concept of faith or belief. Pascal critiques the Cartesian doubt, by implementing no absolute certainty in God’s existence. Rather one must believe in God from a point of faith, without assurance. Thus why the term &amp;quot;Wager&amp;quot; was coined.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This is one of the most common arguments presented for god which atheists commonly encounter in the form of the question, &amp;quot;What if you're wrong?&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;What if you're wrong?&amp;quot; referring to the possibility that the god(s) the person is referring to is not real, but rather some other god (or gods) is real. For instance, should you then choose Christianity or Islam, etc.? How would you know which is the true religion? You have a lot to lose if you choose Christianity over Islam, so why not become a Muslim? And so on and so forth for all religions out there.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There might even be a God who values it if we use our reasoning ability and punishes blind faith.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Apologetics==&lt;br /&gt;
===Overview===&lt;br /&gt;
God might or might not exist.  It is a gamble whether you believe in him or not. As with any gamble, we should consider the [[odds]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Pascal described the payoff of this gamble as follows: If God does not exist, then you neither gain nor lose anything from belief or disbelief. In either case, you just die and that's the end. However, if you choose to believe in God, and you are right, then the reward is infinite: Eternal bliss in heaven.  On the other hand, if you choose not to believe in God, and you're wrong, your pay off is negative infinity: Eternal suffering in hell.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To summarize:&lt;br /&gt;
{| border=&amp;quot;1&amp;quot; cellpadding=&amp;quot;8&amp;quot; cellspacing=&amp;quot;0&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;margin:1em 2em;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
! Table of Payoffs&lt;br /&gt;
! Believe in God&lt;br /&gt;
! Don't believe in God&lt;br /&gt;
|- align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
! align=&amp;quot;left&amp;quot; | God doesn't exist&lt;br /&gt;
| 0&lt;br /&gt;
| 0&lt;br /&gt;
|- align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
! align=&amp;quot;left&amp;quot; | God exists&lt;br /&gt;
| +&amp;amp;infin; (heaven)&lt;br /&gt;
| &amp;amp;minus;&amp;amp;infin; (hell)&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Since the chance of God existing is unknown, but the payoff/punishment scheme is infinitely in favor of believing in God, you should believe just in case he exists. It's the safe bet.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Syllogism===&lt;br /&gt;
::p1. Believers and non believers alike, agree that payoff is good, punishment is bad.&lt;br /&gt;
::p2. if god is real you receive infinite punishment for disbelief or infinite payoff for belief&lt;br /&gt;
::::a. if you believe you go to heaven for eternity.&lt;br /&gt;
::::b. if you do not believe you go to hell for eternity.&lt;br /&gt;
::p3. if god is not real you don't really lose or gain anything either way.&lt;br /&gt;
::::a. if you believe falsely that god does exist you haven't really lost anything.&lt;br /&gt;
::::b. if you don't believe and it turns out god doesn't exist then you don't really gain anything.&lt;br /&gt;
::c1. Therefore even if there is strong evidence against god it is still better to believe.&lt;br /&gt;
::::a. the payoff for believing if there is a god, is infinitely better than the benefit for not believing if there's no god.&lt;br /&gt;
::::b. the punishment for not believing if there is a god, is infinitely worse than the loss caused by believing falsely that there is a god.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Counter-arguments==&lt;br /&gt;
===Begging the question===&lt;br /&gt;
Pascal's wager commits the fallacy of begging the question, by assuming in its premises, certain characteristics about the very god the argument is intended to prove.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Rather than the typical Christian god, what if we hypothesize the possibility of [http://www.dresdencodak.com/cartoons/dc_019.htm a god who rewards skeptical thinking unbelievers] and punishes credulous believers? Such a god would be consistent with the fall-back response of theologians, &amp;quot;We cannot understand the ways of God,&amp;quot; so it is conceivable that such a god would want to reward atheists. This god would not need to be malevolent, merely inactive (e.g., Eru Ilúvatar of J. R. R. Tolkien's legendarium or Ao of the Forgotten Realms Pantheon). This also mirrors deism with regards to creation, and wanting to reward those who take a rational, logical, reasonable, and or skeptical approach to their beliefs.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The new table including a [[Maltheist]] god may look like this:&lt;br /&gt;
{| border=&amp;quot;1&amp;quot; cellpadding=&amp;quot;8&amp;quot; cellspacing=&amp;quot;0&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;margin:1em 2em;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
! Table of Payoffs&lt;br /&gt;
! Believe in God&lt;br /&gt;
! Don't believe in God&lt;br /&gt;
|- align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
! align=&amp;quot;left&amp;quot; | God doesn't exist&lt;br /&gt;
| 0&lt;br /&gt;
| 0&lt;br /&gt;
|- align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
! align=&amp;quot;left&amp;quot; | Legalistic religious god exists&lt;br /&gt;
| +&amp;amp;infin; (heaven)&lt;br /&gt;
| &amp;amp;minus;&amp;amp;infin; (hell)&lt;br /&gt;
|- align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
! align=&amp;quot;left&amp;quot; | Anti-conventional god exists&lt;br /&gt;
| &amp;amp;minus;&amp;amp;infin; (hell)&lt;br /&gt;
| +&amp;amp;infin; (heaven)&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
The mere possibility of such a god makes the expected outcomes for each column undefined, but more importantly, equal.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If you can accept Pascal's Wager as a realistic reason to believe, that leads you to a point where you have no choice but to believe just about everything on the same grounds. Lacking specific evidence about the nature of the true religious faith, there are an infinite number of possible requirements for going to heaven and avoiding hell. Maybe only those who collect stamps go to heaven. Maybe you have to [[Iron Chariots Wiki:Site support|donate]] $10 a week to Iron Chariots for life. Why quibble about a few measly dollars if it will save you from eternal hellfire?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Non-zero cost of belief===&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Cectic-Without Hesitation.jpg|thumb|[http://cectic.com/ Cectic] strip illustrating some problems with Pascal's Wager.]]&lt;br /&gt;
One flaw with Pascal's wager is that it makes the false assumption that belief costs nothing, and lack of belief provides no benefit. This is not the case.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For one thing, if you go through life believing a lie, that is a bad thing in itself. Besides that, there is more to being a believer than just saying, &amp;quot;Okay, I believe now,&amp;quot; and getting on with your life. Serious believers spend a lot of their time in church, and contribute a lot of money as well. There's a reason why some towns have very affluent looking buildings for churches, and why large and elaborate cathedrals are possible: they're funded by folks who donate a tenth of their income throughout their lives to tithing. This is surely quite a waste if the object of worship isn't real.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That's to say nothing of the persecution of other groups that's been instigated in the name of God throughout the ages. Also, in the US, churches don't have to pay taxes, which includes property tax. Property tax is what goes to schools, so all the land that churches own is sucking money out of schools.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When &amp;quot;God Did It&amp;quot; becomes an acceptable answer, there is little incentive to continue exploring the question. More damaging, the &amp;quot;success&amp;quot; of this theory encourages one to apply it to other areas of human understanding. Practiced in this manner, theism can actively discourage human knowledge by compelling people to follow an arbitrary code of conduct, rather than one based on logic and reason.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And by the way, you don't lose pork.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Non-zero payoff on non-belief===&lt;br /&gt;
The Wager also invokes the assertion that non-belief will not be rewarded in any way. For specific religions such as some Christian sects, it is frowned upon to use alcohol or drugs, or to engage in sex outside of marriage. Now, a non-believer who participates in these events might be seen to be getting rewarded for their disbelief.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Special pleading===&lt;br /&gt;
{{main article|Which god?}}&lt;br /&gt;
Another flaw is that Pascal's Wager makes the assumption that the dichotomy of belief vs. disbelief with respect to one particular god is the only relevant one to consider. In particular, it invokes '''special pleading''' to apply the argument only to a specific religion's god.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Belief in one god often excludes belief in another. The Wager can be invoked by any religion which claims to reward belief and/or punish disbelief. One is not left with a choice only between belief and disbelief, but a choice between hundreds of different gods. In using the argument, one asks that it be applied only to his particular god, not all the others. This is special pleading.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The conclusion that belief is the safe wager also invokes special pleading in that it relies on the assertion that belief will be rewarded. The Wager could be used, equally validly, by a religion with an unconventional god who punishes faith and rewards conclusions drawn from evidence (the [[Atheist's Wager]]).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===False Dichotomy===&lt;br /&gt;
The main flaw in this entire argument is assuming that Atheism and Christianity (or whatever religion you choose, for that matter) are the only two options. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In reality, there is Hinduism, Islam, Christianity, Buddhism, etc. so what if the person asking the question of, &amp;quot;What do you have to lose?&amp;quot; is, in fact, wrong in their assessment that the religion they chose is the true religion? You have quite a lot to lose if you are Christian and it turns out that Hinduism is the truth. How do we determine which religion to believe in?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Other counter arguments==&lt;br /&gt;
===Atheist's Wager===&lt;br /&gt;
The [[Atheist's Wager]] is a variant of Pascal's Wager which divides the gods who reward faith and the gods who reward works, finding that it is better to not believe and do good works, for maximum benefit. If one takes into account that rewarding and punishing based on [[faith]] in a deity without [[Argument from nonbelief|reasonable evidence to believe]] that god is evil, then spending your time sucking up to a such a deity is a waste of time. If one discounts the possibility of a God who sends good people to hell for bad reasons, we are left with a completely different payoff table.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Summary:&lt;br /&gt;
*If '''one does not believe in God'''.&lt;br /&gt;
{| border=&amp;quot;1&amp;quot; cellpadding=&amp;quot;8&amp;quot; cellspacing=&amp;quot;0&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;margin:1em 2em;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
! Table of Payoffs&lt;br /&gt;
! Good Life&lt;br /&gt;
! Evil Life&lt;br /&gt;
|- align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
! align=&amp;quot;left&amp;quot; | Benevolent God Exists&lt;br /&gt;
| +&amp;amp;infin; (heaven)&lt;br /&gt;
| &amp;amp;minus;&amp;amp;infin; (hell)&lt;br /&gt;
|- align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
! align=&amp;quot;left&amp;quot; | No God Exists&lt;br /&gt;
| +finite&lt;br /&gt;
| -finite&lt;br /&gt;
|- align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*If '''one believes in God'''.&lt;br /&gt;
{| border=&amp;quot;1&amp;quot; cellpadding=&amp;quot;8&amp;quot; cellspacing=&amp;quot;0&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;margin:1em 2em;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
! Table of Payoffs&lt;br /&gt;
! Good Life&lt;br /&gt;
! Evil Life&lt;br /&gt;
|- align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
! align=&amp;quot;left&amp;quot; | Benevolent God Exists&lt;br /&gt;
| +&amp;amp;infin; (heaven)&lt;br /&gt;
| &amp;amp;minus;&amp;amp;infin; (hell)&lt;br /&gt;
|- align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
! align=&amp;quot;left&amp;quot; | No God Exists&lt;br /&gt;
| +finite&lt;br /&gt;
| -finite&lt;br /&gt;
|- align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Regardless of one's belief about a benevolent God, the results still favor a Good Life. Pascal's wager relies on the judgments of an evil God who sends good people to hell for not believing in him. Moreover, because there are an infinite number of possible such Gods, the odds of getting the right answer are 1 in &amp;amp;infin;. Even if a faith rewarding God existed, believing in an incorrect faith-rewarding God might anger such a god more than not believing in any gods with [[Evidentiary argument|good reasons]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Definitions: Belief===&lt;br /&gt;
Even if one assumes that the wager applies to the Christian god, would he really accept the kind of faith it promotes?  The wager doesn't promote true, deep faith; it promotes a fake faith.  The person simply pretends to be convinced because they're afraid of the punishment for not believing.  The wager is simply an attempt to force the person to believe (see [[argumentum ad baculum]]). (Or, perhaps more accurately, it attempts to force the person to ''act as if'' he or she believes—that is, it serves as an instrument of [[social control]].)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An analogy to this would be a child that professes belief in [[Santa Claus argument|Santa Claus]] out of fear that they will not otherwise receive presents, knowing full well that the presents left under the tree are really from his or her parents. Moreover, can we truly choose what we believe?... If the reward for believing in the existence of unicorns was a ton of gold, would you believe? Or would you simply say you believe.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Moral implications===&lt;br /&gt;
There are deep moral implications to Pascal's wager if the argument is taken to its logical conclusion. It promotes the idea that beliefs are more important than actions — or, more precisely, that [[apostasy]] is the only unforgivable sin. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The central tenet of substitutionary atonement in Christianity, means that you can spend your life murdering, raping, killing, waging genocide, etc., and as long as you accept Jesus Christ as lord and savior before you die, you are entitled to an eternity of pleasure in heaven.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, on the other hand, a non believer who spends a good honest life helping others, is damned to spend an eternity being tortured in hell despite their good deeds.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This is illustrated in the ''[[Gun Slinger (Chick tract)]]''.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Links==&lt;br /&gt;
===See Also===&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Begging the question]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Special pleading]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Belief]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Apostasy]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===External links===&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.jhuger.com/pascal Pascal's Sucker Bet] by [[Jim Huber]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.strongatheism.net/library/atheology/reverse_pascals_wager/ Reverse Pascal's Wager] at strongatheism.net&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://gretachristina.typepad.com/greta_christinas_weblog/2011/02/why-pascals-wager-sucks.html Why It's Not a &amp;quot;Safer Bet&amp;quot; to Believe In God, or, Why Pascal's Wager Sucks] by [[Greta Christina]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Reference===&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Wikipedia:Pascal's Wager]] – Wikipedia article on Pascals wager&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Wikipedia:Blaise Pascal]] – Wikipedia article on Blaise Pascal&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Arguments for god}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Arguments]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Criticisms of atheism]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Arguments for belief]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Dcljr</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Atheist_vs._agnostic</id>
		<title>Atheist vs. agnostic</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Atheist_vs._agnostic"/>
				<updated>2012-02-15T12:03:06Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Dcljr: /* Belief */ more rewriting&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;Many people are confused about the meaning and usage of the terms '''atheist vs. agnostic'''. A frequent claim made by [[theist]]s is that being an '''[[atheist]]''' implies certainty about the non-existence of [[God]]. At the other extreme, many people apply the term '''[[agnostic]]''' as if it simply means waffling on the issue of whether or not God exists. The following explanation is presented as an attempt to clarify these terms.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Belief==&lt;br /&gt;
''Theism'' addresses the issue of [[belief]]. For any claim asserting the existence of a god, a ''theist'' is an individual who accepts (or positively believes) that the claim is true and an ''atheist'' (literally, &amp;quot;one without theism&amp;quot;) is someone who does not.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Note that this doesn't mean that theists must accept ''any'' existence claim about any god. One can be a theist with respect to some claims and an atheist with respect to others. In particular, followers of one [[religion]] are typically atheists with respect to the gods of all other religions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To be more precise about the issue of belief, consider the '''two possible claims''' one can make regarding the existence of a god:&lt;br /&gt;
# The god exists.&lt;br /&gt;
# The god does not exist.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There are '''two positions''' one can take with respect to ''either'' claim:&lt;br /&gt;
# Belief or acceptance of the claim.&lt;br /&gt;
# Disbelief or rejection of the claim.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For claim number 1 (the god exists), the theist takes the first position (belief), while the atheist takes the second (disbelief).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For claim number 2 (the god does not exist), the theist takes the second position (disbelief), while the atheist can hold ''either position'' (belief or disbelief).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Note that one may wish to consider a &amp;quot;third option&amp;quot; of simply reserving judgment. This is actually consistent with position number 2. &amp;quot;Disbelief&amp;quot; means lack of belief. If someone reserves judgment, then clearly they ''don't believe'' — and thus they ''disbelieve'', which is position 2. In light of this, one must interpret the term &amp;quot;rejection of a claim&amp;quot; as meaning &amp;quot;lack of acceptance&amp;quot; (and thus, in a sense, only a rejection &amp;quot;if forced to choose right now&amp;quot;). In particular, the term &amp;quot;rejection&amp;quot; should '''not''' be interpreted as being based in any way on an acceptance of the opposite claim.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Therefore, atheists ''need not'' positively believe that no gods exist. Some do, and this position is often known as [[strong atheism]]. By contrast, other atheists hold that ''neither'' claim is sufficiently supported by evidence to justify acceptance, a position known as [[weak atheism]]. (The weak atheism position is often confused with agnosticism, which is discussed below.)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While [[logic]] dictates that exactly one of the two claims above must be true (assuming the concept of &amp;quot;god&amp;quot; is sufficiently well-defined in the first place) — and so if one claim is not true the other ''must'' be true — there is no such implication in the case of ''belief''. Just because someone doesn't believe something, that doesn't mean they believe the opposite. (For example, not believing the claim that the inventor of the [[Wikipedia:Slinky|Slinky]] died in a spring-related accident doesn't mean one positively believes that he ''didn't'' die that way.) This is one reason why the theist's accusation that atheism requires &amp;quot;just as much faith&amp;quot; as theism is unfounded (except possibly in the case of particularly strong forms of strong atheism, as discussed below).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Knowledge==&lt;br /&gt;
''Gnosticism'' (in the general sense being discussed here) addresses the issue of what one knows or claims to know. For any claim regarding the existence of a god, a ''gnostic'' is an individual who claims [[knowledge]] that the assertion is [[true]] and an ''agnostic'' (literally, &amp;quot;one who lacks knowledge&amp;quot;) is someone who makes no such claim.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Obviously, based on these definitions, the terms atheist and agnostic are not mutually exclusive. One can be an ''agnostic atheist'', meaning someone who doesn't claim to know whether or not a god exists (agnostic) but doesn't find belief to be justified by evidence or argument (atheist). Other ways in which the terms agnostic, gnostic, atheist and theist can be combined are discussed below.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Typically, the gnostic's assertion of knowledge is [[esoteric]] and may well be attributed to divine [[revelation]]. In some cases, the gnostic will assert that the knowledge of a god's existence is available to anyone, although rarely through [[empirical]], [[scientific]] evidence.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Many people assume that atheists believe that gods can be ''proved'' not to exist, but this isn't strictly true. In fact, there is no term commonly used to describe such an atheist, since their position would be even more extreme than strong atheism. Such a person might be called an &amp;quot;untheist&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;antitheist&amp;quot;, perhaps. According to our definitions, they would simply be called a ''gnostic atheist'' who happens to think that his or her belief can be proven.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While many atheists would probably agree that given any sufficiently detailed description of a god, that particular god could be convincingly argued against, that is very different from constructing an airtight proof of universal non-existence. (See also [[Proving a universal negative]] and [[You can't prove God doesn't exist]].)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Combining terms==&lt;br /&gt;
As the terms we have been discussing concerning belief and knowledge aren't mutually exclusive, it is possible to combine them into four different descriptions:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{| cellpadding=&amp;quot;8&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
!&lt;br /&gt;
! style=&amp;quot;background:#ffc&amp;quot; | Agnostic&lt;br /&gt;
! style=&amp;quot;background:#dfd&amp;quot; | Gnostic&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
! style=&amp;quot;background:#fdd&amp;quot; | Atheist&lt;br /&gt;
| &amp;lt;big&amp;gt;1. '''Agnostic atheist'''&amp;lt;/big&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
:does not believe any god exists, but doesn't claim to know that no god exists&lt;br /&gt;
| &amp;lt;big&amp;gt;2. '''Gnostic atheist'''&amp;lt;/big&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
:believes that no god exists and claims to know that this belief is true&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
! style=&amp;quot;background:#edf&amp;quot; | Theist&lt;br /&gt;
| &amp;lt;big&amp;gt;3. '''Agnostic theist'''&amp;lt;/big&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
:believes a god exists, but doesn't claim to know that this belief is true&lt;br /&gt;
| &amp;lt;big&amp;gt;4. '''Gnostic theist'''&amp;lt;/big&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
:believes a god exists and claims to know that this belief is true&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Note that case 1 describes weak atheism, but case 2, as stated, is actually stronger than strong atheism, since it includes a claim of ''knowledge''.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Clearly the distinction between belief and knowledge is an important one, and it is this distinction that is often misunderstood, or simply ignored, by self-identified &amp;quot;believers&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Other epistemological issues==&lt;br /&gt;
A common usage of the term ''agnostic'' denotes a philosophical position invented by [[Thomas Huxley]]. This type of agnostic would claim that the answers to questions about the existence of gods are both unknown and fundamentally ''unknowable''. In addition, many agnostics believe that such questions are essentially meaningless, as the concept of &amp;quot;god&amp;quot; is ill-defined.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It's important to note, when discussing the complicated issues of knowledge and [[epistemology]], that these claims of knowledge do not necessarily require absolute [[omniscience]]. It can be argued that we can never truly &amp;quot;know&amp;quot; anything (see [[Wikipedia:Agnosticism]]), yet we constantly make claims of knowledge. You may &amp;quot;know&amp;quot; who your (birth) mother is, for example &amp;amp;mdash; but you could be wrong. For many gnostic atheists, their claim of knowledge stems from practical considerations. The positive assertion that &amp;quot;gods don't exist&amp;quot; can be made, and said to be &amp;quot;known&amp;quot;, in the same spirit as the statement that &amp;quot;[[leprechaun]]s don't exist&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Atheism}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Atheism]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Dcljr</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Moral_argument</id>
		<title>Moral argument</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Moral_argument"/>
				<updated>2012-02-15T11:48:29Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Dcljr: /* If God does not exist, humans are just animals */ on 2nd reading, I think this needs paring down&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;[[Image:Jesus_and_Mo_-_sense.jpg|thumb|''Jesus and Mo'' lampoons one of the problems with the moral argument.]]&lt;br /&gt;
The simplest form of the '''moral argument''' is as follows:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# If [[God]] does not exist, [[morality]] does not exist.&lt;br /&gt;
# Morality exists.&lt;br /&gt;
# Therefore, God exists.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This is a deductively valid argument, which is to say if its premises are true its conclusion cannot be false. The key question is whether or not the premises are true.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The first premise is by far the most often-disputed premise in the argument. While many religious believers take the first premise for granted, the reasons for thinking it true are not clear, and there are some serious objections to it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Arguments for the first premise==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Famous atheists rejected morality===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Though this line of argumentation is popular among religious apologists, it clearly commits the fallacy of appealing to authority, and that is not its only problem. Many nontheists who have rejected conventional views of morality have done so on grounds independent of their views on the existence of God. Also, it requires selectively quoting authorities, because many nontheists--indeed, many theists--have rejected the first premise of the moral argument. Finally, it is trivially easy to construct a similar argument against theism, for example: &amp;quot;John Calvin did not believe in free will, therefore 'If God exists, free will does not exist,' but free will does exist, therefore God does not exist.&amp;quot; Even if Calvin had good arguments for his stance on free will being entailed by theism, non-Calvinistic theists will not be swayed by the mere citation of Calvin's authority, nor should they be.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Hitler and Stalin were atheists===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''Main article: [[20th century atrocities]]''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The basic fallacy of this argument is similar to the one in the first, though it could be considered an example of guilt by association rather than an appeal to authority. Furthermore, the historical accuracy of the argument can be questioned. [[Hitler]]'s theistic proclamations are well documented,[http://nobeliefs.com/Hitler1.htm] and anti-religious quotes attributed to him are apparently inauthentic. He seems to have held to basic doctrines of Christianity, in spite of rather unorthodox changes, such as his belief that Jesus was an Aryan and Paul corrupted Christianity with proto-Bolshevism. Stalin was an atheist, but given that this is one of many beliefs he held, it is unclear why his actions should be attributed to his atheism. For example, though many would be surprised by this, Stalin opposed mainstream theories of evolution on the grounds that they were too capitalistic. Stalin's rejection of evolution could just as easily be named the source of his crimes as his rejection of God, and indeed his rejection of evolution arguably sheds more light on the ideological dogmatism at the heart of the Soviet regime.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===If God does not exist, humans are just animals===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One snappy response to this argument is &amp;quot;Humans are animals whether or not God exists,&amp;quot; which has indeed been the consensus view among taxonomists since Aristotle. Though this point may seem trivial, beneath it is the deeper point that it is hard to see how God's existing or not existing changes the status of humans. If the theist insists on claiming that human beings are worthless on their innate attributes alone, it is hard to see how God could change this situation; see [[Appeal to emotion]].&amp;lt;!-- how is this pertinent? --&amp;gt; It also rests on the assumption that animals do (or would) not have any sort of relationship with or ability to worship a god. While this may be the case, we do not and can not know this for certain.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Moral law requires a Lawgiver===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Though we sometimes use the same words to talk about moral principles and human legislation, closer inspection calls into doubt the claim that there is a strong analogy between them. Human laws can be changed if the government wills it and follows correct procedures, but moral principles are typically thought to be unchanging. Also, it is possible to have a bad human law, but it is impossible to have a bad moral principle. In response to this second argument, it could be claimed that amoral laws are analogous to acts of a lower body that violate acts of a higher body which the lower body is responsible. This seems intuitively wrong, however: the wrong in a national law relegating part of the population to sub-human status seems very different, and more serious, than the wrong in a local law that contradicts a state. This argument is built on an [[equivocation]], and is fallacious on those grounds.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===God's rewards and punishments needed to make morality in one's own self interest===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Usually, this argument is not stated so baldly. A more typical statement is &amp;quot;we admire people who sacrifice their lives for others, but if there is no God who rewards self-sacrifice, then such people are being stupid.&amp;quot; When the underlying assumption is stated explicitly, most people recoil. Most people do not believe that the ultimate maxim by which we should act is &amp;quot;look out only for your own self interest.&amp;quot; Though such a view is technically an ethical theory (known to philosophers as ethical egoism), it is not what most people mean when they talk about morality. It seems that if ethical egoism is true, then the second premise of the moral argument is false, at least in the normally understood sense.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Absolute morality requires an absolute standard===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Statements of this argument are often unclear, but it seems to rest on an equivocation of the term &amp;quot;absolute,&amp;quot; in much the same way that the Lawgiver argument rests on an equivocation of the term &amp;quot;law.&amp;quot; The two relevant senses here are &amp;quot;applicable in all cases&amp;quot; (a characteristic typically applied to moral principles) and &amp;quot;omnipotent, omniscient, etc.&amp;quot; (a characteristic typically assigned to God). There is no reason to think that the first sense entails the second sense.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Arguments against the first premise==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===The Euthyphro dilemma===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This is perhaps the most famous objection to the second premise. The [[Euthyphro dilemma]] is found in Plato's ''Euthyphro'', in which Socrates asks the question, &amp;quot;Is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?&amp;quot;  In layman's terms this would be, &amp;quot;Is that which is good commanded by God ''because'' it's good, or is it good because God commands it?&amp;quot; Both options are problematic for those who would claim morality is dependent upon God.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If God is free to decide what is good, and it is good by virtue of his decree, then God has no higher standard to answer to. Therefore his will may be seen as genuinely arbitrary.  Although God once decreed that murder and theft are morally wrong, he might have declared the opposite just as easily, so then murder and theft would be right. This makes morality arbitrary, not what most theists mean to say in articulating the second premise of the moral argument.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If right and wrong are inherent to the action, regardless of God's decree, then God has nothing to do with the process.  God doesn't set moral standards; he follows them, and is therefore irrelevant to morality (except to the extent that he can tell us things which we could not figure out for ourselves.)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If goodness is not something that a god ''exhibits'', but something of which the god is the ''source'', the statement &amp;quot;god is good&amp;quot; becomes a meaningless tautology. Consider the property &amp;quot;tastes like an apple&amp;quot;. Many things that aren't apples exhibit this quality, but what does it mean to say that an ''apple'' tastes like an apple? Nothing; it simply cannot be any other way. Similarly, defining god as the source of the property &amp;quot;goodness&amp;quot;, then applying that property back to god, is equivalent to saying &amp;quot;god is consistent with his own nature&amp;quot;, which tells us nothing.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An effective summary of the argument was given by [[Bertrand Russell]]:&lt;br /&gt;
{{quote-source|The point I am concerned with is that, if you are quite sure there is a difference between right and wrong, then you are then in this situation: is that difference due to God's fiat or is it not? If it is due to God's fiat, then for God himself there is no difference between right and wrong, and it is no longer a significant statement to say that God is good.|''[[Why I Am Not a Christian]]''}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One perceived way to get out of the dilemma is to say that, although God has the freedom to command immoral acts such as rape, he would never do such a thing because it goes against his character or nature.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In response, Michael Martin has argued that this doesn't solve anything because the dilemma can be reformulated in terms of God's character: &amp;quot;Is God's character the way it is because it is good or is God's character good simply because it is God's character?&amp;quot;[http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/michael_martin/rape.html] The structure of this modified dilemma is exactly the same as before, and it appears to be if anything harder to escape.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Moral truths as necessary truths===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Richard Swinburne, a theistic philosopher, has argued that moral truths cannot depend on God because moral truths are necessary truths, existing in all possible worlds, including ones where God does not exist. This objection of Swinburne's was cited by Jeffery Jay Lowder in Lowder's debate with Phil Fernandes.[http://video.google.pl/videoplay?docid=7385355182363346492] Keith Yandell, another theistic philosopher, raised a similar objection in his comments on the Craig-Flew debate.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Which God? ===&lt;br /&gt;
{{main article|Which God?}}&lt;br /&gt;
This argument does not specify a particular God which is the source of a true objective moral standard. Even if one accepted the argument, one would be forced to decide which religion to follow by some other means. If one can determine which God is the &amp;quot;true&amp;quot; God without using this argument, how is the argument necessary in the first place?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Alternatively, if one cannot rationally find the correct religion, the argument undermines its own respect towards objective morality, by suggesting that morality comes from a source we cannot recognize. While this does not mean that the argument is false, it does imply that human beings can never legitimately understand whether they are acting rightly or wrongly.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Incidentally we can also ask, Which morality?  [[Christian morality]] changes with history and varies according to which Christian individual or which Christian sect is interpreting Christianity.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Argument is self-refuting===&lt;br /&gt;
One can argue that if God does not exist, an objectively provable existence of objective morality does not exist, and an objective need for objective morality to exist does not exist. Hence, the atheistic situation is no longer problematic.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Heaven precludes genuine charity===&lt;br /&gt;
If there is an omnipotent and perfectly just God and an everlasting reward, there is no reason to act morally except to secure one's own well-being in the afterlife, i.e. loving your brother can only be a rational means to one's own ends not the well-being of one's brother.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Premises====&lt;br /&gt;
# If all else being equal my actions cause you to forego a good I have wronged you.&lt;br /&gt;
# Heaven is a good that outweighs all Earthly goods.&lt;br /&gt;
# In a perfectly just world, any wrong done to a person that can be compensated will be compensated.&lt;br /&gt;
# God desires a perfectly just world.&lt;br /&gt;
# God is omnipotent, therefore capable of compensating any wrong.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Argument====&lt;br /&gt;
# If my actions caused you to forego Heaven (for example by convincing you to reject God or seeing that you die before repenting) you would be wronged.  (Premises 1, 2)&lt;br /&gt;
# God desires to compensate any wrong.  (Premises 3, 4)&lt;br /&gt;
# God would compensate you for that wrong.  (Premise 5, Argument 2)&lt;br /&gt;
# No action of mine can deny you a good that makes all others trivial or otherwise affect your ultimate well-being.  (Arguments 1, 3)&lt;br /&gt;
# No action of mine can deny you Heaven or otherwise affect your ultimate well-being.  (Permise 2, Argument 4)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Therefore====&lt;br /&gt;
My actions are irrelevant to your ultimate well-being (Argument 5) assuming a just God and an eternal reward (Premises 1-5).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Secular morality===&lt;br /&gt;
: ''Main article: [[Secular morality]]''&lt;br /&gt;
Finally, it can in general be claimed that there is a specific, well-founded theory of morality that leaves God out of the picture. This is a complex topic and is dealt with in full by the above-linked article. One thing is worth noting here: some theists appear to think that it constitutes a valid link in the moral argument to simply demand a secular theory of morality without giving any reason to think that theistic theories are more likely to be successful. This is clearly fallacious, and debaters should not fall into this trap. Meta-ethics, like most areas of philosophy, has unresolved debates, but pointing to an unresolved philosophical debate is no argument for the existence of God. To show that the moral argument is unsuccessful, one need only show that we should not accept the second premise. Full development of secular theory of morality may be helpful here, but it is not necessary.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Other formulations of the moral argument==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Normativity of morality===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This formulation of the moral argument relies on the assumption of normativity, that is to say, that the awareness of morality is a more or less universal experience among humans.  Most people recognize that, for example, murder is wrong.  From there, a theist claims that this universal awareness must come from some ultimate source, which is God.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To put it concisely:&lt;br /&gt;
# It appears to human beings that moral normativity exists.&lt;br /&gt;
# The best explanation of moral normativity is that it is grounded in God.&lt;br /&gt;
# Therefore God exists.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This version of the moral argument may sometimes be used by theists as [[red herring]] when responding to arguments about the moral nature of God.  For instance, a person who points out the inherent cruelty of exterminating 99% of the earth's population, as in the story of [[Noah's ark]], or takes issue with the apparent Biblical support of [[slavery]] and [[rape]], may quickly expect to be countered with this claim:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;You recognize mass murder/slavery/rape as a '''bad''' thing, so you must have some standard to judge that against.  If there was no God, then you'd have no rational reason to say that those things aren't good.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Counter-apologetic responses to normativity===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Although the awareness of SOME sort of right and wrong is apparently universal, many specific details differ across cultures and time periods.  In the case of slavery, for example, the practice was once universally accepted in the southern United States, and many anti-abolitionists even quoted the Bible to justify the practice.  (See the main [[slavery]] article for more details.)  This indicates that morality has a strong cultural component to it, and is tied up in evolving notions of [[secular morality]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In fact, this serves as an argument against the existence of God.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Moral-Knowledge Argument&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A recently proposed atheological argument is the Moral-Knowledge Argument, which can be expressed as follows: If the theists' version of god exists, then he is a being who is omnipotent, omniscient, and benevolent. Since this god is benevolent and his ethics are supposedly morally good for humanity, he would want all human beings to know his ethics perfectly. And since this god is omnipotent, it would be within his capacity to make sure that all human beings know his ethics perfectly. However, all human beings do not know his ethics perfectly, which is shown by their disagreeing about many moral values. Therefore, this version of god does not exist. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Other human perceptions also have the appearance of being normative.  For instance, most people agree that chocolate is &amp;quot;delicious,&amp;quot; while dirt is &amp;quot;not delicious.&amp;quot;  By the same reasoning as the argument from normative morality, it could be said that there must be some ultimate standard for deliciousness, and that standard must be God, the ultimate tasty treat.  We could use a similar argument to prove that God is the definition of the perfect homosexual lover.&lt;br /&gt;
# The fact that there may be an abstract standard of perfect goodness that an individual strives to achieve, does not indicate that this standard represents an existing object.  For example, bowling a perfect game would yield a score of 300.  However, even if no one in history had ever bowled a 300, this would still be the highest attainable score according to the rules of the game.  It is quite possible to have a theoretical ideal, yet not have any concrete instance of that ideal.  Therefore, we could say: &amp;quot;Yes, this thing that you call 'God' could be our standard for morality.  However, ''this tells us nothing about whether or not God exists.''&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===The Immoral Imperative===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
#Christians are called to evangelize and share the gospel as a command from God. The mercy of God is shared for the purpose of conversion which treats people as a means. According to Kant, treating anyone as a means rather than an end in themselves is immoral, therefore, Christians are immoral as is the command.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A possible solution to this dilemma is in reassessing the command from God. If the gospel of Christianity is not specifically for the sake of the gospel itself, nor is it a means to God's end, but rather is the means by which a person's life is improved, the individual becomes the end, thus making it moral under the Kantian mindset. The person &amp;quot;receiving&amp;quot; the evangelism (i.e. the gospel) is treated justly insofar as her personal improvement is the goal. This solution can only be upheld if the reality of &amp;quot;salvation&amp;quot; is in fact the reality of a better life.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==References==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*Stan W. Wallace, ed. ''Does God Exist?: The Craig-Flew Debate.'' Ashgate, 2003.&lt;br /&gt;
*Richard Swinburne. ''The Existence of God.'' Oxford University Press, 2004.&lt;br /&gt;
*Richard C. Carrier. 'Hitler's Table Talk: Troubling Finds.' ''German Studies Review'' 26.3 (Oct 2003): 561-76.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==External Link==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/euthyfro.html Full text of the ''Euthyphro'' dialogue] by Plato&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-arguments-god/ Moral Arguments for the Existence of God]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Arguments for god}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Arguments for the existence of God]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Deductive arguments]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Moral arguments]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Dcljr</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Argument_from_design</id>
		<title>Argument from design</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Argument_from_design"/>
				<updated>2012-02-15T11:41:55Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Dcljr: /* Special pleading: Intelligent designer */ rem problematic paragraph (counter-counter-apologetics?)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;The '''argument from design''' is an attempt to prove the existence of [[God]] based on the [[natural]] order of the [[universe]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Background information==&lt;br /&gt;
The argument from design is one of the most common arguments for god. It ranges in complexity from Paley's watchmaker to the laughable plea of the average Christian to '''Just look at the trees!'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Despite being one of the most popular arguments for god, and more or less providing the underpinning for the entire [[intelligent design]] movement, the argument is deeply flawed on almost every level. Logically it goes so far as to commit not one, but ''two separate cases'' of [[special pleading]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Example ==&lt;br /&gt;
{{Quote-source|I see and think about God every time I look around and see birds in air, trees, flowers, grass, sun and raindrops. I am thankful to be alive because God made me, the world and all that's in it.|[http://www.dailypress.com/news/opinion/dp-nws-edt-wedltrs-0630-20100629,0,5809589.story Letter to the Editor, Hampton Roads Daily Press]}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Argument==&lt;br /&gt;
===Paley's watchmaker===&lt;br /&gt;
This is the '''watchmaker argument''', one of the earliest formal expressions of the argument from design.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''[[William Paley]] in Natural Theology c.1802'':&lt;br /&gt;
{{Quote|In crossing a heath, suppose I pitched my foot against a stone and were asked how the stone came to be there, I might possibly answer that for anything I knew to the contrary it had lain there forever; nor would it, perhaps, be very easy to show the absurdity of this answer. But suppose I had found a watch upon the ground, and it should be inquired how the watch happened to be in that place, I should hardly think of the answer which I had before given, that for anything I knew the watch might have always been there.}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''[[William Paley]] in Natural Theology (Ch. XXIII, Pg. 441)'':&lt;br /&gt;
{{Quote|Upon the whole; after all the schemes and struggles of a reluctant philosophy, the necessary resort is to a Deity. The marks of design are too strong to be gotten over. Design must have had a designer. That designer must have been a person. That person is GOD.]}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Ray Comfort's divine painter===&lt;br /&gt;
This version of the argument is commonly presented by apologist [[Ray Comfort]] or his many followers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''[[Ray Comfort]] on [http://raycomfortfood.blogspot.com/2008/07/potential-law-suit.html Atheist Central / Ray Comfort Food blog]'':&lt;br /&gt;
{{Quote|First, I would say that I can prove that anyone who looks at a building and says that he doesn't believe that there was a builder, is a fool. This is because a building is absolute proof that there was a builder. Buildings don't build themselves, from nothing. Only a fool would believe that.}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Quote|Second, I would say that anyone who looks at a painting and believes that there was no painter, is a fool. The painting is absolute proof that there as [sic] a painter. Paintings don't paint themselves, from nothing. Only a fool would believe that.}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Quote|Then I would say that creation is absolute 100% scientific proof that there is a Creator. A creation cannot create itself, from nothing. But that's what the atheist believes--that nothing created everything from nothing. That's a scientific impossibility, and only a fool would believe that.}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Syllogism===&lt;br /&gt;
::p1. We appear to observe features in nature too complex to have happened by chance&lt;br /&gt;
::p2. These features exhibit the hallmark appearance of design&lt;br /&gt;
::p3. Design implies that there must be a designer&lt;br /&gt;
::c1. [[Non sequitur|Therefore]] nature must be the result of an intelligent designer&lt;br /&gt;
::c2. This designer is God&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(note: The [[Intelligent Design]] movement ends their version of the syllogism at c1. in a feeble attempt to shoe horn creationism into science classrooms. They believe that by not naming this ''intelligent designer'' God, the argument by fiat, is not religious. This is analogous to a child's game of [[Kitzmiller v. Dover|peek-a-boo]]. When small children cover their eyes and can't see you, they assume you also can't see them)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Incidentally even if it were possible to prove design that would not prove a single designer, people from Monotheist cultures are frequently so used to [[monotheism]] that the possibility of a [[polytheism|design team]] is overlooked.  Indeed if a design is complex and requires intelligence a design team appears more plausible because each individual of the team would need less intelligence than a single unaided designer.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Counter arguments==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Manipulating is not Creating===&lt;br /&gt;
To say that the existence of manipulators manipulating pre-existing matter proves the existence of an intelligent being creating ex nihilo, is a non-sequitur.  	&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Making consists of manipulation of pre-existing matter and energy.   It is true that the existence of a building or car presupposes a maker.  But it also presupposes something else: pre-existing matter and energy that the maker manipulates. The maker of a building does not “make” it by saying:  “Let there be a house.  And let it be of brick and have shingles of asphalt.  And let the brick be yellow in color and the window trim be of almond coloring.”  A “maker” makes something by starting with something that already exists.  She then manipulates it by changing its shape or size or even applying energy to change its attributes and then assembles the modified pre-existing matter into the building.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
	A log cabin maker first finds existing trees, chops them down, removes the branches, shapes them and then piles them in a particular way to “make” the cabin walls.  The raw materials of glass are subjected to heat until the heat manipulates it into a transparent substance that is then molded or cut to fit holes in the walls to make windows.  A sand castle maker does not make the sand, he merely shapes existing sand into a shape we call a castle.  Making is not “creating.”  It is merely manipulating.  And, of course, existing matter and energy can only be manipulated by a manipulator.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
	Creation ex nihilo or speaking something into existence  is a completely different category of event.  Where making presupposes the previous existence of matter and energy, creating presupposes the opposite – that nothing exists previously.   &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
	Noticing that existing matter and energy can be manipulated tells us absolutely nothing about how the matter and energy came to exist in the first place.   Finding  a piece of clay and noticing  that it can be manipulated it the shape of a horse tells me nothing about how the clay got there to begin with.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===False premise p1: Complexity===&lt;br /&gt;
The idea that aspects of nature are ''too complex'' to have happened by [[Atheists believe that everything is an accident|''chance'']] (or more aptly ''natural processes'' if we wish to avoid [[straw men]]) is a fallacy of [[argument from ignorance]], or even [[willful ignorance]], in the case where the theist also has to reject what we already know about the facts of Darwinian evolution. It is essentially tantamount to the statement “I can't think how it could have happened, therefore '''God did it!'''” It's also [[begging the question]] as to whether something ''can'' be too complex for evolution, at all. How would we know whether something is ''too complex'' without a sampling of confirmed examples contrasting natural low-complexity cases versus supernatural high-complexity cases?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This has led to the formulation of such theories as [[Michael Behe|Michael Behe's]] theory of [[irreducible complexity]], which was laughed out of court during the [[Kitzmiller v. Dover]] court case, who when presented with counterpoints, &amp;quot;Professor Behe’s only response to these seemingly insurmountable points of disanalogy was that the inference still works in science fiction movies. (23:73 (Behe))”. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ray Comfort's version of the argument (in classic Ray Comfort &amp;quot;[[slap your knees]]&amp;quot; fashion) bypasses this entire premise by committing a fallacy of begging the question and simply assuming a priori in the premises that nature is a “creation”.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===False premise p2: Definition of design===&lt;br /&gt;
As taken from [http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/design Wiktionary]:&lt;br /&gt;
:'''Noun'''&lt;br /&gt;
::'''design (plural designs)'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::1. A plan (with more or less detail) for the structure and functions of an artifact, building or system. &lt;br /&gt;
::::2. A pattern, as an element of a work of art or architecture. &lt;br /&gt;
::::3. The composition of a work of art. &lt;br /&gt;
::::4. Intention or plot. &lt;br /&gt;
::::::M. Le Page Du Pratz, History of Louisisana (PG), p. 40 &lt;br /&gt;
::::::::''I give it you without any other design than to shew you that I reckon nothing dear to me, when I want to do you a pleasure.''&lt;br /&gt;
::::5. The shape or appearance given to an object, especially one that is intended to make it more attractive. &lt;br /&gt;
::::6. The art of designing &lt;br /&gt;
::::::''Danish design of furniture is world-famous.''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We know that man-made objects are designed [[a posteriori]]. We have heard of designers. We know of companies that make such things. They are made out of plastic which doesn't occur in nature or finely polished purified silver which doesn't appear in nature. We know such things are designed because of our knowledge of the world we can logically conclude that they are designed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Seeing design in nature involves confusing the direction of causality. Humans are the product of a long [[evolution|evolutionary]] process that has adapted us to the environments where we live. That our surroundings seem well suited to us (to the extent that they are) is not surprising, but is not evidence that [[Anthropic principle|it was ''designed'' for our benefit]]; rather it is a testament to the power of evolution to produce ''well-adapted organisms''. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Continuing in the evolutionary vein, one of the beneficial adaptations of humans is the ability to infer intent. This allows us to anticipate behavior on the part of other organisms that might be detrimental (or beneficial) to our survival. However, this ability can be overgeneralized; we can see intent and purpose where there is none. Seeing design in nature is an example, since the religious view is usually that the universe was designed ''for our benefit''. Thus, inference of design is really a kind of fallacious inference of intent.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Paley compares the watch to a stone, noting that it's perfectly reasonable to presume that the stone occurred naturally, while the watch must be the result of intelligent design. This is entirely reasonable and consistent with science, yet Paley fails to clearly identify the precise reasons we're able to make such a distinction. Additionally, proponents of this argument often portray this as an argument that complexity, order and beauty are, on their own, evidence for design.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Special pleading p2: Recognition of design===&lt;br /&gt;
The truth that Paley only hinted at, and many creationists reject, is that we recognized ''design'' by contrast to the ''naturally occurring''. The very fact that Paley singles out the watch in the argument as an apparently designed object, implies that the natural environment around it does not appear designed, which seems to refute the whole point of the designer argument. On some level Paley knows there is an intrinsic difference between the watch and the rock.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The appearance of design is subjective. What features denote design? Complexity? Order? Beauty? Suitability to a purpose? Any of these can be lacking in objects we ''know'' to be designed (i.e., manufactured by humans). We recognize designed objects by comparison with previously known designed objects and by contrasting them with ''naturally occurring'' objects. &lt;br /&gt;
Also, in a universe that was actually designed, it would not be possible to compare, for there wouldn't be anything that would be naturally occurring. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* In the case of the watch, we have knowledge about how watches are designed, we can identify specific designers and manufacturers. We even teach these skills to new designers and manufacturers. Thus, we know the watch had a designer because there is no evidence that watches occur naturally and a mountain of evidence that they are designed and manufactured. Furthermore, &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Where the rock is concerned, the opposite is true. We have no evidence to support the idea that the rock was designed and overwhelming evidence that it is the result of natural processes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* In the case of the tree theists sometimes instruct us to “just look at”, we also observe the proses of self replication and genetic variation. We do not observe this in any ''designed'' human artifacts.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===False premise p2: Definitional paradox===&lt;br /&gt;
Following the implied definition of design to its logical conclusions, this view is logically flawed and raises problems which transcend Paley's original argument. If complexity and order are, on their own, evidence for design then everything must have been designed, as all things are complex and ordered at various scales, thus everything must serve as evidence for this designer. Essentially, that rock which Paley dismisses can also be considered complex and ordered and must also serve as evidence for a designer. Indeed this is precisely what many [[Christian]]s claim, utilizing verses from the [[Bible]] to support it:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, if we consider the stone, the watch, the tree and all things as evidence of a designer, Paley's original argument is completely destroyed. The logical contrast between the ''designed'' and the ''naturally'' occurring, which forms the basic definitions of the argument is thereby eliminated, along with the argument.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===False unstated premise===&lt;br /&gt;
Implicit in the argument is the unstated premise that such design cannot be done by the organism or the system itself, or rather that self-design is impossible. This premise however is false as self-design is both possible and real and there are multiple examples of it. Evolution, which is the scientific explanation for the complexity and design of life, is an algorithmic description of a process of self-design. Also, to some degree the human brain is capable of self-design. One can, simply by thinking about a problem come to a coherent answer to the question without outside influence, resulting in a more complex system. [[http://www.eskimo.com/~msharlow/philos/argument_from_design.pdf]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Special pleading: Intelligent designer===&lt;br /&gt;
The conclusion of this argument is also self refuting. The entire premise for the argument is based on notion that there are aspects of nature ''too complex'' to have simply sprung into existence by chance (once again for the sake of the argument, ignoring the obvious [[Evolution is not a theory of chance|evolutionary straw man]]).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Though as [[Richard Dawkins]] points out in his [[Tornado argument#Ultimate 747 Gambit|Ultimate 747 Gambit]], the idea of solving this problem of complexity by invoking an infinitely complex, and thus by their own argument, an infinitely improbable deity, doesn't really make sense at all.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Which religion===&lt;br /&gt;
{{main article|Which god?}}&lt;br /&gt;
Even if we grant all the false premises, it does not follow that that god is the one the apologist has in mind, or even that there is only one god involved. It could just as likely be the [[Flying Spaghetti Monster]], purple space pixies, [[Santa Claus argument|Santa Claus]], or invisible pink unicorns, as it could be [[Yahweh]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
During an interview conducted under false pretenses for the creationist propaganda film [[Expelled]], [[Ben Stein]] posed [[Richard Dawkins]] with a leading hypothetical question as to what Dawkins thinks about “the possibility that Intelligent Design might turn out to be the answer to some issues in genetics or in Darwinian evolution.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''[[Richard Dawkins]] in [[Expelled]]'':&lt;br /&gt;
{{Quote|Well, it could come about in the following way. It could be that at some earlier time, somewhere in the universe, '''a civilization evolved, probably by some kind of Darwinian means''', probably to a very high level of technology, and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet. Um, now that is a possibility, and an intriguing possibility. And '''I suppose it’s possible that you might find evidence for that''' if you look at the details of biochemistry, molecular biology, '''you might find a signature of some sort of designer'''.}}&lt;br /&gt;
This is the point were Stein attempts to use “creative editing” by pausing in the middle of the interview to call “Shock! Horror! Richard Dawkins accepts intelligent design!”&lt;br /&gt;
{{Quote|And that Designer could well be a higher intelligence from elsewhere in the universe. '''But that higher intelligence would itself have had to have come about by some explicable, or ultimately explicable process. It couldn't have just jumped into existence spontaneously.''' That's the point.}}&lt;br /&gt;
Stein then continues with the tirade that “Richard Dawkins believes in space aliens.” and that “He doesn't have a problem with intelligent design, just when the designer is called 'God'.” Not withstanding Dawkins response was a hypothetical based on the premise that we actually had some ''evidence'' of design, Stein didn't actually bother to address the issue that an argument for intelligent design supports space aliens just as well as his God, and without breaking any of the known laws of physics to boot.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Other counter arguments==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*Some proponents of Intelligent Design claim sightings of the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_ratio Golden Ratio]in nature as evidence that life was designed. The chambered nautilus in particular is often cited as an example. These claims have been discredited, however, because much variation in proportions has been observed in these cases.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Argument from poor design ===&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
See the article [[Argument from poor design]] which seeks to display the imperfections of the natural world as a powerful atheistic argument against the existence of God.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Bertrand Russell and Design ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Really I am not much impressed with the people who say: &amp;quot;Look at me: I am such a splendid product that there must have been design in the universe.&amp;quot; I am not very much impressed by the splendor of those people. Moreover, if you accept the ordinary laws of science, you have to suppose that human life and life in general on this planet will die out in due course: it is merely a flash in the pan; it is a stage in the decay of the solar system; at a certain stage of decay you get the sort of conditions and temperature and so forth which are suitable to protoplasm, and there is life for a short time in the life of the whole solar system. You see in the moon the sort of thing to which the earth is tending -- something dead, cold, and lifeless&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Links==&lt;br /&gt;
===See also===&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Anthropic principle]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Intelligent design]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Irreducible complexity]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Tornado argument]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Special pleading]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Evolution is not a theory of chance]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Ray Comfort]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Michael Behe]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===External links===&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://skepdic.com/design.html Argument from design] - Skeptic's dictionary entry&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.uncommondescent.com/ Uncommon Descent] – William Dembski's intelligent design blog&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://gretachristina.typepad.com/greta_christinas_weblog/2010/05/argument-from-design.html Why &amp;quot;Life Has To Have Been Designed&amp;quot; Is a Terrible Argument for God's Existence] by [[Greta Christina]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Reference===&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Wikipedia:Teleological argument]] – Wikipedia article on ''argument from design''&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Wikipedia:Intelligent design]] – Wikipedia article on intelligent design&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Wikipedia:Irreducible complexity]] – Wikipedia article on Behe's theory of irreducible complexity&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Arguments for god}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Arguments]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Arguments for the existence of God]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Arguments from design]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Dcljr</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Pascal%27s_Wager</id>
		<title>Pascal's Wager</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Pascal%27s_Wager"/>
				<updated>2012-02-15T11:20:19Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Dcljr: /* Counter-arguments */ some general copyediting&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{{Wikipedia|color=#EEDDEE;}}&lt;br /&gt;
'''Pascal's Wager''' is the [[argument]] that states that you should [[believe]] in [[God]] even if there's a strong chance that he might not be real, because the penalty for not believing, namely going to [[hell]], is so undesirable that it is more prudent to take our chances with belief. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Background information==&lt;br /&gt;
Based on simple [[probability]] theory, the argument was first formally put forth by [[Blaise Pascal]], a 17th-century philosopher and mathematician. The concept of the wager derives from the ''Pensées'', a collection of Pascal’s thought forged into a literary work. This line of argument forms a response to another proof of God known as Cartesian Thought. Pascal believed that Descartes's argument created a false notion of absolute certainty, which contradicts the concept of faith or belief. Pascal critiques the Cartesian doubt, by implementing no absolute certainty in God’s existence. Rather one must believe in God from a point of faith, without assurance. Thus why the term &amp;quot;Wager&amp;quot; was coined.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This is one of the most common arguments presented for god which atheists commonly encounter in the form of the question, &amp;quot;What if you're wrong?&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;What if you're wrong?&amp;quot; referring to the possibility that the god(s) the person is referring to is not real, but rather some other god (or gods) is real. For instance, should you then choose Christianity or Islam, etc.? How would you know which is the true religion? You have a lot to lose if you choose Christianity over Islam, so why not become a Muslim? And so on and so forth for all religions out there.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There might even be a God who values it if we use our reasoning ability and punishes blind faith.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Apologetics==&lt;br /&gt;
===Overview===&lt;br /&gt;
God might or might not exist.  It is a gamble whether you believe in him or not. As with any gamble, we should consider the [[odds]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Pascal described the payoff of this gamble as follows: If God does not exist, then you neither gain nor lose anything from belief or disbelief. In either case, you just die and that's the end. However, if you choose to believe in God, and you are right, then the reward is infinite: Eternal bliss in heaven.  On the other hand, if you choose not to believe in God, and you're wrong, your pay off is negative infinity: Eternal suffering in hell.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To summarize:&lt;br /&gt;
{| border=&amp;quot;1&amp;quot; cellpadding=&amp;quot;8&amp;quot; cellspacing=&amp;quot;0&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;margin:1em 2em;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
! Table of Payoffs&lt;br /&gt;
! Believe in God&lt;br /&gt;
! Don't believe in God&lt;br /&gt;
|- align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
! align=&amp;quot;left&amp;quot; | God doesn't exist&lt;br /&gt;
| 0&lt;br /&gt;
| 0&lt;br /&gt;
|- align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
! align=&amp;quot;left&amp;quot; | God exists&lt;br /&gt;
| +&amp;amp;infin; (heaven)&lt;br /&gt;
| &amp;amp;minus;&amp;amp;infin; (hell)&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Since the chance of God existing is unknown, but the payoff/punishment scheme is infinitely in favor of believing in God, you should believe just in case he exists. It's the safe bet.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Syllogism===&lt;br /&gt;
::p1. Believers and non believers alike, agree that payoff is good, punishment is bad.&lt;br /&gt;
::p2. if god is real you receive infinite punishment for disbelief or infinite payoff for belief&lt;br /&gt;
::::a. if you believe you go to heaven for eternity.&lt;br /&gt;
::::b. if you do not believe you go to hell for eternity.&lt;br /&gt;
::p3. if god is not real you don't really lose or gain anything either way.&lt;br /&gt;
::::a. if you believe falsely that god does exist you haven't really lost anything.&lt;br /&gt;
::::b. if you don't believe and it turns out god doesn't exist then you don't really gain anything.&lt;br /&gt;
::c1. Therefore even if there is strong evidence against god it is still better to believe.&lt;br /&gt;
::::a. the payoff for believing if there is a god, is infinitely better than the benefit for not believing if there's no god.&lt;br /&gt;
::::b. the punishment for not believing if there is a god, is infinitely worse than the loss caused by believing falsely that there is a god.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Counter-arguments==&lt;br /&gt;
===Begging the question===&lt;br /&gt;
Pascal's wager commits the fallacy of begging the question, by assuming in its premises, certain characteristics about the very god the argument is intended to prove.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Rather than the typical Christian god, what if we hypothesize the possibility of [http://www.dresdencodak.com/cartoons/dc_019.htm a god who rewards skeptical thinking unbelievers] and punishes credulous believers? Such a god would be consistent with the fall-back response of theologians, &amp;quot;We cannot understand the ways of God,&amp;quot; so it is conceivable that such a god would want to reward atheists. This god would not need to be malevolent, merely inactive (e.g., Eru Ilúvatar of J. R. R. Tolkien's legendarium or Ao of the Forgotten Realms Pantheon). This also mirrors deism with regards to creation, and wanting to reward those who take a rational, logical, reasonable, and or skeptical approach to their beliefs.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The new table including a [[Maltheist]] god may look like this:&lt;br /&gt;
{| border=&amp;quot;1&amp;quot; cellpadding=&amp;quot;8&amp;quot; cellspacing=&amp;quot;0&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;margin:1em 2em;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
! Table of Payoffs&lt;br /&gt;
! Believe in God&lt;br /&gt;
! Don't believe in God&lt;br /&gt;
|- align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
! align=&amp;quot;left&amp;quot; | God doesn't exist&lt;br /&gt;
| 0&lt;br /&gt;
| 0&lt;br /&gt;
|- align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
! align=&amp;quot;left&amp;quot; | Legalistic religious god exists&lt;br /&gt;
| +&amp;amp;infin; (heaven)&lt;br /&gt;
| &amp;amp;minus;&amp;amp;infin; (hell)&lt;br /&gt;
|- align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
! align=&amp;quot;left&amp;quot; | Anti-conventional god exists&lt;br /&gt;
| &amp;amp;minus;&amp;amp;infin; (hell)&lt;br /&gt;
| +&amp;amp;infin; (heaven)&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
The mere possibility of such a god makes the expected outcomes for each column undefined, but more importantly, equal.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If you can accept Pascal's Wager as a realistic reason to believe, that leads you to a point where you have no choice but to believe just about everything on the same grounds. Lacking specific evidence about the nature of the true religious faith, there are an infinite number of possible requirements for going to heaven and avoiding hell. Maybe only those who collect stamps go to heaven. Maybe you have to [[Iron Chariots Wiki:Site support|donate]] $10 a week to Iron Chariots for life. Why quibble about a few measly dollars if it will save you from eternal hellfire?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Non-zero cost of belief===&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Cectic-Without Hesitation.jpg|thumb|[http://cectic.com/ Cectic] strip illustrating some problems with Pascal's Wager.]]&lt;br /&gt;
One flaw with Pascal's wager is that it makes the false assumption that belief costs nothing, and lack of belief provides no benefit. This is not the case.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For one thing, if you go through life believing a lie, that is a bad thing in itself. Besides that, there is more to being a believer than just saying, &amp;quot;Okay, I believe now,&amp;quot; and getting on with your life. Serious believers spend a lot of their time in church, and contribute a lot of money as well. There's a reason why some towns have very affluent looking buildings for churches, and why large and elaborate cathedrals are possible: they're funded by folks who donate a tenth of their income throughout their lives to tithing. This is surely quite a waste if the object of worship isn't real.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That's to say nothing of the persecution of other groups that's been instigated in the name of God throughout the ages. Also, in the US, churches don't have to pay taxes, which includes property tax. Property tax is what goes to schools, so all the land that churches own is sucking money out of schools.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When &amp;quot;God Did It&amp;quot; becomes an acceptable answer, there is little incentive to continue exploring the question. More damaging, the &amp;quot;success&amp;quot; of this theory encourages one to apply it to other areas of human understanding. Practiced in this manner, theism can actively discourage human knowledge by compelling people to follow an arbitrary code of conduct, rather than one based on logic and reason.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And by the way, you don't lose pork.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Non-zero payoff on non-belief===&lt;br /&gt;
The Wager also invokes the assertion that non-belief will not be rewarded in any way. For specific religions such as Christianity, it is frowned upon to use alcohol or drugs, or to engage in sex outside of marriage. Now, a non-believer who participates in these events might be seen to be getting rewarded for their disbelief.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Special pleading===&lt;br /&gt;
{{main article|Which god?}}&lt;br /&gt;
Another flaw is that Pascal's Wager makes the assumption that the dichotomy of belief vs. disbelief with respect to one particular god is the only relevant one to consider. In particular, it invokes '''special pleading''' to apply the argument only to a specific religion's god.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Belief in one god often excludes belief in another. The Wager can be invoked by any religion which claims to reward belief and/or punish disbelief. One is not left with a choice only between belief and disbelief, but a choice between hundreds of different gods. In using the argument, one asks that it be applied only to his particular god, not all the others. This is special pleading.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The conclusion that belief is the safe wager also invokes special pleading in that it relies on the assertion that belief will be rewarded. The Wager could be used, equally validly, by a religion with an unconventional god who punishes faith and rewards conclusions drawn from evidence (the [[Atheist's Wager]]).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===False Dichotomy===&lt;br /&gt;
The main flaw in this entire argument is assuming that Atheism and Christianity (or whatever religion you choose, for that matter) are the only two options. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In reality, there is Hinduism, Islam, Christianity, Buddhism, etc. so what if the person asking the question of, &amp;quot;What do you have to lose?&amp;quot; is, in fact, wrong in their assessment that the religion they chose is the true religion? You have quite a lot to lose if you are Christian and it turns out that Hinduism is the truth. How do we determine which religion to believe in?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Other counter arguments==&lt;br /&gt;
===Atheist's Wager===&lt;br /&gt;
The [[Atheist's Wager]] is a variant of Pascal's Wager which divides the gods who reward faith and the gods who reward works, finding that it is better to not believe and do good works, for maximum benefit. If one takes into account that rewarding and punishing based on [[faith]] in a deity without [[Argument from nonbelief|reasonable evidence to believe]] that god is evil, then spending your time sucking up to a such a deity is a waste of time. If one discounts the possibility of a God who sends good people to hell for bad reasons, we are left with a completely different payoff table.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Summary:&lt;br /&gt;
*If '''one does not believe in God'''.&lt;br /&gt;
{| border=&amp;quot;1&amp;quot; cellpadding=&amp;quot;8&amp;quot; cellspacing=&amp;quot;0&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;margin:1em 2em;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
! Table of Payoffs&lt;br /&gt;
! Good Life&lt;br /&gt;
! Evil Life&lt;br /&gt;
|- align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
! align=&amp;quot;left&amp;quot; | Benevolent God Exists&lt;br /&gt;
| +&amp;amp;infin; (heaven)&lt;br /&gt;
| &amp;amp;minus;&amp;amp;infin; (hell)&lt;br /&gt;
|- align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
! align=&amp;quot;left&amp;quot; | No God Exists&lt;br /&gt;
| +finite&lt;br /&gt;
| -finite&lt;br /&gt;
|- align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*If '''one believes in God'''.&lt;br /&gt;
{| border=&amp;quot;1&amp;quot; cellpadding=&amp;quot;8&amp;quot; cellspacing=&amp;quot;0&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;margin:1em 2em;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
! Table of Payoffs&lt;br /&gt;
! Good Life&lt;br /&gt;
! Evil Life&lt;br /&gt;
|- align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
! align=&amp;quot;left&amp;quot; | Benevolent God Exists&lt;br /&gt;
| +&amp;amp;infin; (heaven)&lt;br /&gt;
| &amp;amp;minus;&amp;amp;infin; (hell)&lt;br /&gt;
|- align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
! align=&amp;quot;left&amp;quot; | No God Exists&lt;br /&gt;
| +finite&lt;br /&gt;
| -finite&lt;br /&gt;
|- align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Regardless of one's belief about a benevolent God, the results still favor a Good Life. Pascal's wager relies on the judgments of an evil God who sends good people to hell for not believing in him. Moreover, because there are an infinite number of possible such Gods, the odds of getting the right answer are 1 in &amp;amp;infin;. Even if a faith rewarding God existed, believing in an incorrect faith-rewarding God might anger such a god more than not believing in any gods with [[Evidentiary argument|good reasons]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Definitions: Belief===&lt;br /&gt;
Even if one assumes that the wager applies to the Christian god, would he really accept the kind of faith it promotes?  The wager doesn't promote true, deep faith; it promotes a fake faith.  The person simply pretends to be convinced because they're afraid of the punishment for not believing.  The wager is simply an attempt to force the person to believe (see [[argumentum ad baculum]]). (Or, perhaps more accurately, it attempts to force the person to ''act as if'' he or she believes—that is, it serves as an instrument of [[social control]].)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An analogy to this would be a child that professes belief in [[Santa Claus argument|Santa Claus]] out of fear that they will not otherwise receive presents, knowing full well that the presents left under the tree are really from his or her parents. Moreover, can we truly choose what we believe?... If the reward for believing in the existence of unicorns was a ton of gold, would you believe? Or would you simply say you believe.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Moral implications===&lt;br /&gt;
There are deep moral implications to Pascal's wager if the argument is taken to its logical conclusion. It promotes the idea that beliefs are more important than actions — or, more precisely, that [[apostasy]] is the only unforgivable sin. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The central tenet of substitutionary atonement in Christianity, means that you can spend your life murdering, raping, killing, waging genocide, etc., and as long as you accept Jesus Christ as lord and savior before you die, you are entitled to an eternity of pleasure in heaven.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, on the other hand, a non believer who spends a good honest life helping others, is damned to spend an eternity being tortured in hell despite their good deeds.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This is illustrated in the ''[[Gun Slinger (Chick tract)]]''.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Links==&lt;br /&gt;
===See Also===&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Begging the question]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Special pleading]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Belief]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Apostasy]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===External links===&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.jhuger.com/pascal Pascal's Sucker Bet] by [[Jim Huber]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.strongatheism.net/library/atheology/reverse_pascals_wager/ Reverse Pascal's Wager] at strongatheism.net&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://gretachristina.typepad.com/greta_christinas_weblog/2011/02/why-pascals-wager-sucks.html Why It's Not a &amp;quot;Safer Bet&amp;quot; to Believe In God, or, Why Pascal's Wager Sucks] by [[Greta Christina]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Reference===&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Wikipedia:Pascal's Wager]] – Wikipedia article on Pascals wager&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Wikipedia:Blaise Pascal]] – Wikipedia article on Blaise Pascal&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Arguments for god}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Arguments]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Criticisms of atheism]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Arguments for belief]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Dcljr</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Pascal%27s_Wager</id>
		<title>Pascal's Wager</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Pascal%27s_Wager"/>
				<updated>2012-02-15T11:11:05Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Dcljr: /* Other counter arguments */ minor punct.; also, removing redundant material (see Def:Belief section)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{{Wikipedia|color=#EEDDEE;}}&lt;br /&gt;
'''Pascal's Wager''' is the [[argument]] that states that you should [[believe]] in [[God]] even if there's a strong chance that he might not be real, because the penalty for not believing, namely going to [[hell]], is so undesirable that it is more prudent to take our chances with belief. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Background information==&lt;br /&gt;
Based on simple [[probability]] theory, the argument was first formally put forth by [[Blaise Pascal]], a 17th-century philosopher and mathematician. The concept of the wager derives from the ''Pensées'', a collection of Pascal’s thought forged into a literary work. This line of argument forms a response to another proof of God known as Cartesian Thought. Pascal believed that Descartes's argument created a false notion of absolute certainty, which contradicts the concept of faith or belief. Pascal critiques the Cartesian doubt, by implementing no absolute certainty in God’s existence. Rather one must believe in God from a point of faith, without assurance. Thus why the term &amp;quot;Wager&amp;quot; was coined.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This is one of the most common arguments presented for god which atheists commonly encounter in the form of the question, &amp;quot;What if you're wrong?&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;What if you're wrong?&amp;quot; referring to the possibility that the god(s) the person is referring to is not real, but rather some other god (or gods) is real. For instance, should you then choose Christianity or Islam, etc.? How would you know which is the true religion? You have a lot to lose if you choose Christianity over Islam, so why not become a Muslim? And so on and so forth for all religions out there.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There might even be a God who values it if we use our reasoning ability and punishes blind faith.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Apologetics==&lt;br /&gt;
===Overview===&lt;br /&gt;
God might or might not exist.  It is a gamble whether you believe in him or not. As with any gamble, we should consider the [[odds]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Pascal described the payoff of this gamble as follows: If God does not exist, then you neither gain nor lose anything from belief or disbelief. In either case, you just die and that's the end. However, if you choose to believe in God, and you are right, then the reward is infinite: Eternal bliss in heaven.  On the other hand, if you choose not to believe in God, and you're wrong, your pay off is negative infinity: Eternal suffering in hell.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To summarize:&lt;br /&gt;
{| border=&amp;quot;1&amp;quot; cellpadding=&amp;quot;8&amp;quot; cellspacing=&amp;quot;0&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;margin:1em 2em;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
! Table of Payoffs&lt;br /&gt;
! Believe in God&lt;br /&gt;
! Don't believe in God&lt;br /&gt;
|- align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
! align=&amp;quot;left&amp;quot; | God doesn't exist&lt;br /&gt;
| 0&lt;br /&gt;
| 0&lt;br /&gt;
|- align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
! align=&amp;quot;left&amp;quot; | God exists&lt;br /&gt;
| +&amp;amp;infin; (heaven)&lt;br /&gt;
| &amp;amp;minus;&amp;amp;infin; (hell)&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Since the chance of God existing is unknown, but the payoff/punishment scheme is infinitely in favor of believing in God, you should believe just in case he exists. It's the safe bet.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Syllogism===&lt;br /&gt;
::p1. Believers and non believers alike, agree that payoff is good, punishment is bad.&lt;br /&gt;
::p2. if god is real you receive infinite punishment for disbelief or infinite payoff for belief&lt;br /&gt;
::::a. if you believe you go to heaven for eternity.&lt;br /&gt;
::::b. if you do not believe you go to hell for eternity.&lt;br /&gt;
::p3. if god is not real you don't really lose or gain anything either way.&lt;br /&gt;
::::a. if you believe falsely that god does exist you haven't really lost anything.&lt;br /&gt;
::::b. if you don't believe and it turns out god doesn't exist then you don't really gain anything.&lt;br /&gt;
::c1. Therefore even if there is strong evidence against god it is still better to believe.&lt;br /&gt;
::::a. the payoff for believing if there is a god, is infinitely better than the benefit for not believing if there's no god.&lt;br /&gt;
::::b. the punishment for not believing if there is a god, is infinitely worse than the loss caused by believing falsely that there is a god.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Counter-arguments==&lt;br /&gt;
===Begging the question===&lt;br /&gt;
Pascal's wager commits the fallacy of begging the question, by assuming in its premises, certain characteristics about the very god the argument is intended to prove.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Rather than the typical Christian god, what if we hypothesize the possibility of [http://www.dresdencodak.com/cartoons/dc_019.htm a god who rewards skeptical thinking unbelievers] and punishes credulous believers? Such a god would be consistent with the fall-back response of theologians, &amp;quot;We cannot understand the ways of God,&amp;quot; so it is conceivable that such a god would want to reward atheists. This god would not need to be malevolent, merely inactive (e.g., Eru Ilúvatar of J. R. R. Tolkien's legendarium or Ao of the Forgotten Realms Pantheon). This also mirrors deism with regards to creation, and wanting to reward those who take a rational, logical, reasonable, and or skeptical approach to their beliefs.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The new table including a [[Maltheist]] god may look like this:&lt;br /&gt;
{| border=&amp;quot;1&amp;quot; cellpadding=&amp;quot;8&amp;quot; cellspacing=&amp;quot;0&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;margin:1em 2em;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
! Table of Payoffs&lt;br /&gt;
! Believe in God&lt;br /&gt;
! Don't believe in God&lt;br /&gt;
|- align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
! align=&amp;quot;left&amp;quot; | God doesn't exist&lt;br /&gt;
| 0&lt;br /&gt;
| 0&lt;br /&gt;
|- align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
! align=&amp;quot;left&amp;quot; | Legalistic religious god exists&lt;br /&gt;
| +&amp;amp;infin; (heaven)&lt;br /&gt;
| &amp;amp;minus;&amp;amp;infin; (hell)&lt;br /&gt;
|- align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
! align=&amp;quot;left&amp;quot; | Anti-conventional god exists&lt;br /&gt;
| &amp;amp;minus;&amp;amp;infin; (hell)&lt;br /&gt;
| +&amp;amp;infin; (heaven)&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
The mere possibility of such a god makes the expected outcomes for each column undefined, but more importantly, equal.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If you can accept Pascal's Wager as a realistic reason to believe, that leads you to a point where you have no choice but to believe just about everything on the same grounds. Lacking specific evidence about the nature of the true religious faith, there are an infinite number of possible requirements for going to heaven and avoiding hell. Maybe only those who collect stamps go to heaven. Maybe you have to [[Iron Chariots Wiki:Site support|donate]] $10 a week to Iron Chariots for life. Why quibble about a few measly dollars if it will save you from eternal hellfire?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Non-zero cost of belief===&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Cectic-Without Hesitation.jpg|thumb|[http://cectic.com/ Cectic] strip illustrating some problems with Pascal's Wager.]]&lt;br /&gt;
One flaw with Pascal's wager is that it makes the false assumption that belief costs nothing, and lack of belief provides no benefit. This is not the case.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For one thing, if you go through life believing a lie, that is a bad thing in itself. Besides that, there is more to being a believer than just saying, &amp;quot;Okay, I believe now,&amp;quot; and getting on with your life. Serious believers spend a lot of their time in church, and contribute a lot of money as well. There's a reason why some towns have very affluent looking buildings for churches, and why large and elaborate cathedrals are possible: they're funded by folks who donate a tenth of their income throughout their lives to tithing. This is surely quite a waste if the object of worship isn't real.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That's to say nothing of the persecution of other groups that's been instigated in the name of God throughout the ages. Also, in the US, churches don't have to pay taxes, which includes property tax. Property tax is what goes to schools, so all the land that churches own is sucking money out of schools.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When &amp;quot;God Did It&amp;quot; becomes an acceptable answer, there is little incentive to continue exploring the question. More damaging, the &amp;quot;success&amp;quot; of this theory encourages one to apply it to other areas of human understanding. Practiced in this manner, theism can actively discourage human knowledge by compelling people to follow an arbitrary code of conduct, rather than one based on logic and reason.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And by the way, you don't lose pork.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Special pleading===&lt;br /&gt;
{{main article|Which god?}}&lt;br /&gt;
Another flaw is that Pascal's Wager makes the assumption that belief and disbelief are a true dichotomy, and invokes '''special pleading''' to apply the argument only to a specific religion's god.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Belief in one god often excludes belief in another. The Wager can be invoked by any religion which claims to reward belief and/or punish disbelief. One is not left with a choice only between belief and disbelief, but a choice between hundreds of different gods. In using the argument, one asks that it be applied only to his particular god, not all the others. This is special pleading.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The conclusion that belief is the safe wager also invokes special pleading in that it relies on the assertion that belief will be rewarded. The Wager could be used, equally validly, by a religion with an unconventional god who punishes faith and rewards conclusions drawn from evidence (the [[Atheist's Wager]]).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This also invokes the assertion that non belief will not be rewarded in any way. For specific religions such as Christianity it is  frowned upon for use of alcohol and drug use and sex outside of marriage. Now a non-believer who participates in these events seems to be rewarded for their disbelief.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===False Dichotomy===&lt;br /&gt;
The main flaw in this entire argument is assuming that Atheism and Christianity (or whatever religion you choose, for that matter) are the only two options. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In reality, there is Hinduism, Islam, Christianity, Buddhism, etc. so what if the person asking the question of, &amp;quot;What do you have to lose?&amp;quot; is, in fact, wrong in their assessment that the religion they chose is the true religion? You have quite a lot to lose if you are Christian and it turns out that Hinduism is the truth. How do we determine which religion to believe in?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Other counter arguments==&lt;br /&gt;
===Atheist's Wager===&lt;br /&gt;
The [[Atheist's Wager]] is a variant of Pascal's Wager which divides the gods who reward faith and the gods who reward works, finding that it is better to not believe and do good works, for maximum benefit. If one takes into account that rewarding and punishing based on [[faith]] in a deity without [[Argument from nonbelief|reasonable evidence to believe]] that god is evil, then spending your time sucking up to a such a deity is a waste of time. If one discounts the possibility of a God who sends good people to hell for bad reasons, we are left with a completely different payoff table.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Summary:&lt;br /&gt;
*If '''one does not believe in God'''.&lt;br /&gt;
{| border=&amp;quot;1&amp;quot; cellpadding=&amp;quot;8&amp;quot; cellspacing=&amp;quot;0&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;margin:1em 2em;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
! Table of Payoffs&lt;br /&gt;
! Good Life&lt;br /&gt;
! Evil Life&lt;br /&gt;
|- align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
! align=&amp;quot;left&amp;quot; | Benevolent God Exists&lt;br /&gt;
| +&amp;amp;infin; (heaven)&lt;br /&gt;
| &amp;amp;minus;&amp;amp;infin; (hell)&lt;br /&gt;
|- align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
! align=&amp;quot;left&amp;quot; | No God Exists&lt;br /&gt;
| +finite&lt;br /&gt;
| -finite&lt;br /&gt;
|- align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*If '''one believes in God'''.&lt;br /&gt;
{| border=&amp;quot;1&amp;quot; cellpadding=&amp;quot;8&amp;quot; cellspacing=&amp;quot;0&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;margin:1em 2em;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
! Table of Payoffs&lt;br /&gt;
! Good Life&lt;br /&gt;
! Evil Life&lt;br /&gt;
|- align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
! align=&amp;quot;left&amp;quot; | Benevolent God Exists&lt;br /&gt;
| +&amp;amp;infin; (heaven)&lt;br /&gt;
| &amp;amp;minus;&amp;amp;infin; (hell)&lt;br /&gt;
|- align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
! align=&amp;quot;left&amp;quot; | No God Exists&lt;br /&gt;
| +finite&lt;br /&gt;
| -finite&lt;br /&gt;
|- align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Regardless of one's belief about a benevolent God, the results still favor a Good Life. Pascal's wager relies on the judgments of an evil God who sends good people to hell for not believing in him. Moreover, because there are an infinite number of possible such Gods, the odds of getting the right answer are 1 in &amp;amp;infin;. Even if a faith rewarding God existed, believing in an incorrect faith-rewarding God might anger such a god more than not believing in any gods with [[Evidentiary argument|good reasons]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Definitions: Belief===&lt;br /&gt;
Even if one assumes that the wager applies to the Christian god, would he really accept the kind of faith it promotes?  The wager doesn't promote true, deep faith; it promotes a fake faith.  The person simply pretends to be convinced because they're afraid of the punishment for not believing.  The wager is simply an attempt to force the person to believe (see [[argumentum ad baculum]]). (Or, perhaps more accurately, it attempts to force the person to ''act as if'' he or she believes—that is, it serves as an instrument of [[social control]].)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An analogy to this would be a child that professes belief in [[Santa Claus argument|Santa Claus]] out of fear that they will not otherwise receive presents, knowing full well that the presents left under the tree are really from his or her parents. Moreover, can we truly choose what we believe?... If the reward for believing in the existence of unicorns was a ton of gold, would you believe? Or would you simply say you believe.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Moral implications===&lt;br /&gt;
There are deep moral implications to Pascal's wager if the argument is taken to its logical conclusion. It promotes the idea that beliefs are more important than actions — or, more precisely, that [[apostasy]] is the only unforgivable sin. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The central tenet of substitutionary atonement in Christianity, means that you can spend your life murdering, raping, killing, waging genocide, etc., and as long as you accept Jesus Christ as lord and savior before you die, you are entitled to an eternity of pleasure in heaven.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, on the other hand, a non believer who spends a good honest life helping others, is damned to spend an eternity being tortured in hell despite their good deeds.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This is illustrated in the ''[[Gun Slinger (Chick tract)]]''.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Links==&lt;br /&gt;
===See Also===&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Begging the question]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Special pleading]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Belief]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Apostasy]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===External links===&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.jhuger.com/pascal Pascal's Sucker Bet] by [[Jim Huber]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.strongatheism.net/library/atheology/reverse_pascals_wager/ Reverse Pascal's Wager] at strongatheism.net&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://gretachristina.typepad.com/greta_christinas_weblog/2011/02/why-pascals-wager-sucks.html Why It's Not a &amp;quot;Safer Bet&amp;quot; to Believe In God, or, Why Pascal's Wager Sucks] by [[Greta Christina]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Reference===&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Wikipedia:Pascal's Wager]] – Wikipedia article on Pascals wager&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Wikipedia:Blaise Pascal]] – Wikipedia article on Blaise Pascal&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Arguments for god}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Arguments]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Criticisms of atheism]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Arguments for belief]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Dcljr</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Argument_from_the_meaning_of_life</id>
		<title>Argument from the meaning of life</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Argument_from_the_meaning_of_life"/>
				<updated>2012-02-15T11:06:57Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Dcljr: /* Problems With This Argument */ format like the rest&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;==Argument From the Meaning of Life==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The '''argument from the meaning of life''' is a type of [[appeal to emotion]]. In this case, the arguer typically feels as though life hasn't come about by chance and is therefore special and designed with a purpose in mind. The arguer might say &amp;quot;if there was no god, then life would be pointless.&amp;quot; They might even propose that the only way life can have meaning is if God exists.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
No one wants to admit that their life is void of meaning and purpose. The arguer uses this by suggesting that to believe life has meaning, you must also believe that God exists. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Problems With This Argument==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*Those that use this argument assume that life without a god has no meaning. In fact, a person can still have a fulfilling and memorable life even if that life is finite. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*It is important to determine what the theist believes the meaning of life actually is. In some cases, they say the meaning of life is to worship God. Subservient worship is not going to be most people's idea of a meaningful life.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*It is also important to determine if there even is a meaning to life.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*Even still, there is the question of &amp;quot;so what?&amp;quot; Just because we might feel uncomfortable admitting that our life does not serve an eternal purpose, it does not mean that a god necessarily exists. At most, this argument becomes a variation on [[Pascal's Wager]]. The arguer is suggesting that we should believe in a god, even if it does not exist, so that we can feel the self esteem boost of our lives having a higher meaning.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*This argument fails when we bring predestination and free will into the picture. Firstly, if meaning is predestined, then either God is unjust and does not give atheists the same facility to meaning, or is impotent, and can't. Secondly, free will and &amp;quot;designed&amp;quot; meaning cannot exist together, as they are mutually exclusive.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*It seems as if the majority of this argument is based on an objective definition of the word meaning, while in reality a meaning of life is not objective but subjective. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Arguments for god}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Arguments]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Arguments for the existence of God]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Arguments from design]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Dcljr</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Atheists_are_just_in_denial</id>
		<title>Atheists are just in denial</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Atheists_are_just_in_denial"/>
				<updated>2012-02-15T11:03:00Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Dcljr: /* Understanding Denial */ the counterapologetics are in the next section&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;This accusation arises frequently as a [[Straw_man|strawman]] against [[atheist]]s. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:''I see atheism as being internally inconsistent. I don't think it's rational to hold an atheistic viewpoints. I think that when you examine the [[evidence]] that you'll conclude that there must be a [[god]] ... [Atheism is] the act of denial of God.'' - [[Matt Slick]] - Atheist Experience #592 @ 1:06:00&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:''The fool says in his heart, &amp;quot;There is no God.&amp;quot;'' {{bible|Psalm 53:1}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Understanding Denial==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Similar to the phrase &amp;quot;[[belief|believe in]]&amp;quot; that implies attributes that aren't necessarily true, 'denial' makes some serious accusations about the atheist. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/denial Merriam-Webster definition of 'Denial']&lt;br /&gt;
#refusal to satisfy a request or desire&lt;br /&gt;
#'''refusal to admit the truth or reality (as of a statement or charge)''' (2) : assertion that an allegation is false&lt;br /&gt;
#'''refusal to acknowledge a person or a thing : disavowal'''&lt;br /&gt;
#the opposing by the defendant of an allegation of the opposite party in a lawsuit&lt;br /&gt;
#self-denial&lt;br /&gt;
#negation in logic&lt;br /&gt;
#'''a psychological defense mechanism in which confrontation with a personal problem or with reality is avoided by denying the existence of the problem or reality'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The bold entries are the definitions that would seem to be relevant to the discussion. Overall, the accusation is this:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# God is proven&lt;br /&gt;
# The atheist, for whatever reason, doesn't want to admit to the obvious truth&lt;br /&gt;
# The atheist is in denial&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Counter Apologetics==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Besides the strawman definition of atheism, in order for the accusation to hold true, the assertion that ''[[Arguments for the existence of god|sufficient evidence exists to support the God claim]]'' must be demonstrated. The #1 most consistently and demonstrably effective means at precisely and accurately learning about reality, and how it works, is the [[scientific method]]. Arguably, ''no other method'' even remotely comes close. Thus, by default, the scientific method is employed. Presumably, one would use the ''most effective'' tool for the job, not the least.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In order for the evidence to be sufficient, several (minimum) requirements must be met:&lt;br /&gt;
# The evidence meets the standards of evidence for science&lt;br /&gt;
# The evidence must avoid having any [[logical fallacies]] embedded into the argument&lt;br /&gt;
# Sufficient quantities of evidence must be gathered to meet the [[burden of proof]], and the requirements with respect to the severity of [[Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence|extraordinary claims]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Failure to meet these requirements means the evidence is invalidated, and can be rationally discarded, until the problems are addressed and resolved. The accusation that evidence exists that indicates a god is invalid, and thus, there's nothing to be &amp;quot;in denial' about.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Criticisms of atheism]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Arguments]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Dcljr</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Atheist_vs._agnostic</id>
		<title>Atheist vs. agnostic</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Atheist_vs._agnostic"/>
				<updated>2012-02-15T10:50:09Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Dcljr: /* Belief */ OK, let me try to deal with what the previously removed material was getting at, AFAICT&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;Many people are confused about the meaning and usage of the terms '''atheist vs. agnostic'''. A frequent claim made by [[theist]]s is that being an '''[[atheist]]''' implies certainty about the non-existence of [[God]]. At the other extreme, many people apply the term '''[[agnostic]]''' as if it simply means waffling on the issue of whether or not God exists. The following explanation is presented as an attempt to clarify these terms.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Belief==&lt;br /&gt;
''Theism'' addresses the issue of [[belief]]. For any claim asserting the existence of a god, a ''theist'' is an individual who accepts (or positively believes) that the claim is true and an ''atheist'' (literally, &amp;quot;one without theism&amp;quot;) is someone who does not.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Note that this doesn't mean that theists must accept ''any'' existence claim about any god. One can be a theist with respect to some claims and an atheist with respect to others. In particular, followers of one [[religion]] are typically atheists with respect to the gods of all other religions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To be more precise about the issue of belief, consider the '''two possible claims''' one can make regarding the existence of a god:&lt;br /&gt;
# The god exists.&lt;br /&gt;
# The god does not exist.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There are '''two positions''' one can take with respect to ''either'' claim:&lt;br /&gt;
# Belief or acceptance of the claim.&lt;br /&gt;
# Disbelief or rejection of the claim.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For claim number 1 (the god exists), the theist takes the first position (belief), while the atheist takes the second (disbelief).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For claim number 2 (the god does not exist), the theist takes the second position (disbelief), while the atheist can hold ''either position'' (belief or disbelief).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Note that one may wish to consider a &amp;quot;third option&amp;quot; of simply reserving judgment. This is actually consistent with position number 2. &amp;quot;Disbelief&amp;quot; means lack of belief. If someone reserves judgment, then they clearly ''don't believe'' — thus they ''disbelieve'', which is position 2. In light of this, one must interpret the term &amp;quot;rejection of a claim&amp;quot; as meaning ''provisional'' rejection: that is, rejection at the current time, given what (else) one currently believes and knows (similarly, acceptance is also provisional). In particular, the term &amp;quot;rejection&amp;quot; should '''not''' be interpreted as implying ''acceptance'' of the opposite claim.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Therefore, atheists ''need not'' positively believe that no gods exist. Some do, and this position is often known as [[strong atheism]]. By contrast, other atheists hold that ''neither'' claim is sufficiently supported by evidence to justify acceptance, a position known as [[weak atheism]]. (The weak atheism position is often confused with agnosticism, which is discussed below.)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While [[logic]] dictates that exactly one of the two claims above must be true (assuming the concept of &amp;quot;god&amp;quot; is sufficiently well-defined in the first place), there is no such restriction in the case of ''belief''. Just because someone doesn't believe something, that doesn't mean they believe the opposite. This is one reason why the theist's accusation that atheism requires &amp;quot;just as much faith&amp;quot; as theism is unfounded (except possibly in the case of particularly strong forms of strong atheism, discussed below).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An example of disbelief not being the complete opposite of belief is that just because I do not believe Babe Ruth was the greatest baseball player of all time doesn't mean I think he was the worst either. Disbelief is not the opposite. It is not a logical proposition such as -p v p.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Knowledge==&lt;br /&gt;
''Gnosticism'' (in the general sense being discussed here) addresses the issue of what one knows or claims to know. For any claim regarding the existence of a god, a ''gnostic'' is an individual who claims [[knowledge]] that the assertion is [[true]] and an ''agnostic'' (literally, &amp;quot;one who lacks knowledge&amp;quot;) is someone who makes no such claim.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Obviously, based on these definitions, the terms atheist and agnostic are not mutually exclusive. One can be an ''agnostic atheist'', meaning someone who doesn't claim to know whether or not a god exists (agnostic) but doesn't find belief to be justified by evidence or argument (atheist). Other ways in which the terms agnostic, gnostic, atheist and theist can be combined are discussed below.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Typically, the gnostic's assertion of knowledge is [[esoteric]] and may well be attributed to divine [[revelation]]. In some cases, the gnostic will assert that the knowledge of a god's existence is available to anyone, although rarely through [[empirical]], [[scientific]] evidence.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Many people assume that atheists believe that gods can be ''proved'' not to exist, but this isn't strictly true. In fact, there is no term commonly used to describe such an atheist, since their position would be even more extreme than strong atheism. Such a person might be called an &amp;quot;untheist&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;antitheist&amp;quot;, perhaps. According to our definitions, they would simply be called a ''gnostic atheist'' who happens to think that his or her belief can be proven.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While many atheists would probably agree that given any sufficiently detailed description of a god, that particular god could be convincingly argued against, that is very different from constructing an airtight proof of universal non-existence. (See also [[Proving a universal negative]] and [[You can't prove God doesn't exist]].)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Combining terms==&lt;br /&gt;
As the terms we have been discussing concerning belief and knowledge aren't mutually exclusive, it is possible to combine them into four different descriptions:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{| cellpadding=&amp;quot;8&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
!&lt;br /&gt;
! style=&amp;quot;background:#ffc&amp;quot; | Agnostic&lt;br /&gt;
! style=&amp;quot;background:#dfd&amp;quot; | Gnostic&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
! style=&amp;quot;background:#fdd&amp;quot; | Atheist&lt;br /&gt;
| &amp;lt;big&amp;gt;1. '''Agnostic atheist'''&amp;lt;/big&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
:does not believe any god exists, but doesn't claim to know that no god exists&lt;br /&gt;
| &amp;lt;big&amp;gt;2. '''Gnostic atheist'''&amp;lt;/big&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
:believes that no god exists and claims to know that this belief is true&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
! style=&amp;quot;background:#edf&amp;quot; | Theist&lt;br /&gt;
| &amp;lt;big&amp;gt;3. '''Agnostic theist'''&amp;lt;/big&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
:believes a god exists, but doesn't claim to know that this belief is true&lt;br /&gt;
| &amp;lt;big&amp;gt;4. '''Gnostic theist'''&amp;lt;/big&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
:believes a god exists and claims to know that this belief is true&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Note that case 1 describes weak atheism, but case 2, as stated, is actually stronger than strong atheism, since it includes a claim of ''knowledge''.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Clearly the distinction between belief and knowledge is an important one, and it is this distinction that is often misunderstood, or simply ignored, by self-identified &amp;quot;believers&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Other epistemological issues==&lt;br /&gt;
A common usage of the term ''agnostic'' denotes a philosophical position invented by [[Thomas Huxley]]. This type of agnostic would claim that the answers to questions about the existence of gods are both unknown and fundamentally ''unknowable''. In addition, many agnostics believe that such questions are essentially meaningless, as the concept of &amp;quot;god&amp;quot; is ill-defined.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It's important to note, when discussing the complicated issues of knowledge and [[epistemology]], that these claims of knowledge do not necessarily require absolute [[omniscience]]. It can be argued that we can never truly &amp;quot;know&amp;quot; anything (see [[Wikipedia:Agnosticism]]), yet we constantly make claims of knowledge. You may &amp;quot;know&amp;quot; who your (birth) mother is, for example &amp;amp;mdash; but you could be wrong. For many gnostic atheists, their claim of knowledge stems from practical considerations. The positive assertion that &amp;quot;gods don't exist&amp;quot; can be made, and said to be &amp;quot;known&amp;quot;, in the same spirit as the statement that &amp;quot;[[leprechaun]]s don't exist&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Atheism}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Atheism]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Dcljr</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Atheist_vs._agnostic</id>
		<title>Atheist vs. agnostic</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Atheist_vs._agnostic"/>
				<updated>2012-02-15T10:29:19Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Dcljr: /* Belief */ remove redundant (&amp;amp; somewhat problematic) paragraph -- these issues are already dealt with elsewhere in this section&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;Many people are confused about the meaning and usage of the terms '''atheist vs. agnostic'''. A frequent claim made by [[theist]]s is that being an '''[[atheist]]''' implies certainty about the non-existence of [[God]]. At the other extreme, many people apply the term '''[[agnostic]]''' as if it simply means waffling on the issue of whether or not God exists. The following explanation is presented as an attempt to clarify these terms.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Belief==&lt;br /&gt;
''Theism'' addresses the issue of [[belief]]. For any claim asserting the existence of a god, a ''theist'' is an individual who accepts (or positively believes) that the claim is true and an ''atheist'' (literally, &amp;quot;one without theism&amp;quot;) is someone who does not.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Note that this doesn't mean that theists must accept ''any'' existence claim about any god. One can be a theist with respect to some claims and an atheist with respect to others. In particular, followers of one [[religion]] are typically atheists with respect to the gods of all other religions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To be more precise about the issue of belief, consider the '''two possible claims''' one can make regarding the existence of a god:&lt;br /&gt;
# The god exists.&lt;br /&gt;
# The god does not exist.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There are '''two positions''' one can take with respect to ''either'' claim:&lt;br /&gt;
# Belief or acceptance of the claim.&lt;br /&gt;
# Disbelief or rejection of the claim.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For claim number 1 (the god exists), the theist takes the first position (belief), while the atheist takes the second (disbelief).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For claim number 2 (the god does not exist), the theist takes the second position (disbelief), while the atheist can hold ''either position'' (belief or disbelief).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Notice, therefore, that atheists need not positively believe that no gods exist. Some do, and this position is often known as [[strong atheism]]. By contrast, other atheists hold that ''neither'' claim is sufficiently supported by evidence to justify acceptance, a position known as [[weak atheism]]. (The weak atheism position is often confused with agnosticism, which is discussed below.)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While [[logic]] dictates that exactly one of the two claims above must be true (assuming the concept of &amp;quot;god&amp;quot; is sufficiently well-defined in the first place), there is no such restriction in the case of ''belief''. Just because someone doesn't believe something, that doesn't mean they believe the opposite. This is one reason why the theist's accusation that atheism requires &amp;quot;just as much faith&amp;quot; as theism is unfounded (except possibly in the case of particularly strong forms of strong atheism, discussed below).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An example of disbelief not being the complete opposite of belief is that just because I do not believe Babe Ruth was the greatest baseball player of all time doesn't mean I think he was the worst either. Disbelief is not the opposite. It is not a logical proposition such as -p v p.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Knowledge==&lt;br /&gt;
''Gnosticism'' (in the general sense being discussed here) addresses the issue of what one knows or claims to know. For any claim regarding the existence of a god, a ''gnostic'' is an individual who claims [[knowledge]] that the assertion is [[true]] and an ''agnostic'' (literally, &amp;quot;one who lacks knowledge&amp;quot;) is someone who makes no such claim.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Obviously, based on these definitions, the terms atheist and agnostic are not mutually exclusive. One can be an ''agnostic atheist'', meaning someone who doesn't claim to know whether or not a god exists (agnostic) but doesn't find belief to be justified by evidence or argument (atheist). Other ways in which the terms agnostic, gnostic, atheist and theist can be combined are discussed below.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Typically, the gnostic's assertion of knowledge is [[esoteric]] and may well be attributed to divine [[revelation]]. In some cases, the gnostic will assert that the knowledge of a god's existence is available to anyone, although rarely through [[empirical]], [[scientific]] evidence.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Many people assume that atheists believe that gods can be ''proved'' not to exist, but this isn't strictly true. In fact, there is no term commonly used to describe such an atheist, since their position would be even more extreme than strong atheism. Such a person might be called an &amp;quot;untheist&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;antitheist&amp;quot;, perhaps. According to our definitions, they would simply be called a ''gnostic atheist'' who happens to think that his or her belief can be proven.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While many atheists would probably agree that given any sufficiently detailed description of a god, that particular god could be convincingly argued against, that is very different from constructing an airtight proof of universal non-existence. (See also [[Proving a universal negative]] and [[You can't prove God doesn't exist]].)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Combining terms==&lt;br /&gt;
As the terms we have been discussing concerning belief and knowledge aren't mutually exclusive, it is possible to combine them into four different descriptions:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{| cellpadding=&amp;quot;8&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
!&lt;br /&gt;
! style=&amp;quot;background:#ffc&amp;quot; | Agnostic&lt;br /&gt;
! style=&amp;quot;background:#dfd&amp;quot; | Gnostic&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
! style=&amp;quot;background:#fdd&amp;quot; | Atheist&lt;br /&gt;
| &amp;lt;big&amp;gt;1. '''Agnostic atheist'''&amp;lt;/big&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
:does not believe any god exists, but doesn't claim to know that no god exists&lt;br /&gt;
| &amp;lt;big&amp;gt;2. '''Gnostic atheist'''&amp;lt;/big&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
:believes that no god exists and claims to know that this belief is true&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
! style=&amp;quot;background:#edf&amp;quot; | Theist&lt;br /&gt;
| &amp;lt;big&amp;gt;3. '''Agnostic theist'''&amp;lt;/big&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
:believes a god exists, but doesn't claim to know that this belief is true&lt;br /&gt;
| &amp;lt;big&amp;gt;4. '''Gnostic theist'''&amp;lt;/big&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
:believes a god exists and claims to know that this belief is true&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Note that case 1 describes weak atheism, but case 2, as stated, is actually stronger than strong atheism, since it includes a claim of ''knowledge''.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Clearly the distinction between belief and knowledge is an important one, and it is this distinction that is often misunderstood, or simply ignored, by self-identified &amp;quot;believers&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Other epistemological issues==&lt;br /&gt;
A common usage of the term ''agnostic'' denotes a philosophical position invented by [[Thomas Huxley]]. This type of agnostic would claim that the answers to questions about the existence of gods are both unknown and fundamentally ''unknowable''. In addition, many agnostics believe that such questions are essentially meaningless, as the concept of &amp;quot;god&amp;quot; is ill-defined.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It's important to note, when discussing the complicated issues of knowledge and [[epistemology]], that these claims of knowledge do not necessarily require absolute [[omniscience]]. It can be argued that we can never truly &amp;quot;know&amp;quot; anything (see [[Wikipedia:Agnosticism]]), yet we constantly make claims of knowledge. You may &amp;quot;know&amp;quot; who your (birth) mother is, for example &amp;amp;mdash; but you could be wrong. For many gnostic atheists, their claim of knowledge stems from practical considerations. The positive assertion that &amp;quot;gods don't exist&amp;quot; can be made, and said to be &amp;quot;known&amp;quot;, in the same spirit as the statement that &amp;quot;[[leprechaun]]s don't exist&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Atheism}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Atheism]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Dcljr</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Moral_argument</id>
		<title>Moral argument</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Moral_argument"/>
				<updated>2012-02-15T10:24:44Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Dcljr: /* If God does not exist, humans are just animals */ only use &amp;quot;I&amp;quot; on talk pages... and edit summaries (I don't think I like this entire section)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;[[Image:Jesus_and_Mo_-_sense.jpg|thumb|''Jesus and Mo'' lampoons one of the problems with the moral argument.]]&lt;br /&gt;
The simplest form of the '''moral argument''' is as follows:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# If [[God]] does not exist, [[morality]] does not exist.&lt;br /&gt;
# Morality exists.&lt;br /&gt;
# Therefore, God exists.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This is a deductively valid argument, which is to say if its premises are true its conclusion cannot be false. The key question is whether or not the premises are true.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The first premise is by far the most often-disputed premise in the argument. While many religious believers take the first premise for granted, the reasons for thinking it true are not clear, and there are some serious objections to it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Arguments for the first premise==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Famous atheists rejected morality===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Though this line of argumentation is popular among religious apologists, it clearly commits the fallacy of appealing to authority, and that is not its only problem. Many nontheists who have rejected conventional views of morality have done so on grounds independent of their views on the existence of God. Also, it requires selectively quoting authorities, because many nontheists--indeed, many theists--have rejected the first premise of the moral argument. Finally, it is trivially easy to construct a similar argument against theism, for example: &amp;quot;John Calvin did not believe in free will, therefore 'If God exists, free will does not exist,' but free will does exist, therefore God does not exist.&amp;quot; Even if Calvin had good arguments for his stance on free will being entailed by theism, non-Calvinistic theists will not be swayed by the mere citation of Calvin's authority, nor should they be.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Hitler and Stalin were atheists===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''Main article: [[20th century atrocities]]''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The basic fallacy of this argument is similar to the one in the first, though it could be considered an example of guilt by association rather than an appeal to authority. Furthermore, the historical accuracy of the argument can be questioned. [[Hitler]]'s theistic proclamations are well documented,[http://nobeliefs.com/Hitler1.htm] and anti-religious quotes attributed to him are apparently inauthentic. He seems to have held to basic doctrines of Christianity, in spite of rather unorthodox changes, such as his belief that Jesus was an Aryan and Paul corrupted Christianity with proto-Bolshevism. Stalin was an atheist, but given that this is one of many beliefs he held, it is unclear why his actions should be attributed to his atheism. For example, though many would be surprised by this, Stalin opposed mainstream theories of evolution on the grounds that they were too capitalistic. Stalin's rejection of evolution could just as easily be named the source of his crimes as his rejection of God, and indeed his rejection of evolution arguably sheds more light on the ideological dogmatism at the heart of the Soviet regime.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===If God does not exist, humans are just animals===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One snappy response to this argument is &amp;quot;Humans are animals whether or not God exists,&amp;quot; which has indeed been the consensus view among taxonomists since Aristotle. Though this point may seem trivial, beneath it is the deeper point that it is hard to see how God's existing or not existing changes the status of humans. If the theist insists on claiming that human beings are worthless on their innate attributes alone, it is hard to see how God could change this situation; see [[Appeal to emotion]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This implies that animals do not have any sort of relationship or ability to worship a god. This implies that animals are mindless, reasonless beings. While this may be the case, we do not and can not know for certain. We only see the animals from an anthropocentric view, so it would be difficult at best to say that humans would be worthless on their innate attributes alone.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Moral law requires a Lawgiver===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Though we sometimes use the same words to talk about moral principles and human legislation, closer inspection calls into doubt the claim that there is a strong analogy between them. Human laws can be changed if the government wills it and follows correct procedures, but moral principles are typically thought to be unchanging. Also, it is possible to have a bad human law, but it is impossible to have a bad moral principle. In response to this second argument, it could be claimed that amoral laws are analogous to acts of a lower body that violate acts of a higher body which the lower body is responsible. This seems intuitively wrong, however: the wrong in a national law relegating part of the population to sub-human status seems very different, and more serious, than the wrong in a local law that contradicts a state. This argument is built on an [[equivocation]], and is fallacious on those grounds.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===God's rewards and punishments needed to make morality in one's own self interest===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Usually, this argument is not stated so baldly. A more typical statement is &amp;quot;we admire people who sacrifice their lives for others, but if there is no God who rewards self-sacrifice, then such people are being stupid.&amp;quot; When the underlying assumption is stated explicitly, most people recoil. Most people do not believe that the ultimate maxim by which we should act is &amp;quot;look out only for your own self interest.&amp;quot; Though such a view is technically an ethical theory (known to philosophers as ethical egoism), it is not what most people mean when they talk about morality. It seems that if ethical egoism is true, then the second premise of the moral argument is false, at least in the normally understood sense.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Absolute morality requires an absolute standard===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Statements of this argument are often unclear, but it seems to rest on an equivocation of the term &amp;quot;absolute,&amp;quot; in much the same way that the Lawgiver argument rests on an equivocation of the term &amp;quot;law.&amp;quot; The two relevant senses here are &amp;quot;applicable in all cases&amp;quot; (a characteristic typically applied to moral principles) and &amp;quot;omnipotent, omniscient, etc.&amp;quot; (a characteristic typically assigned to God). There is no reason to think that the first sense entails the second sense.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Arguments against the first premise==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===The Euthyphro dilemma===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This is perhaps the most famous objection to the second premise. The [[Euthyphro dilemma]] is found in Plato's ''Euthyphro'', in which Socrates asks the question, &amp;quot;Is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?&amp;quot;  In layman's terms this would be, &amp;quot;Is that which is good commanded by God ''because'' it's good, or is it good because God commands it?&amp;quot; Both options are problematic for those who would claim morality is dependent upon God.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If God is free to decide what is good, and it is good by virtue of his decree, then God has no higher standard to answer to. Therefore his will may be seen as genuinely arbitrary.  Although God once decreed that murder and theft are morally wrong, he might have declared the opposite just as easily, so then murder and theft would be right. This makes morality arbitrary, not what most theists mean to say in articulating the second premise of the moral argument.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If right and wrong are inherent to the action, regardless of God's decree, then God has nothing to do with the process.  God doesn't set moral standards; he follows them, and is therefore irrelevant to morality (except to the extent that he can tell us things which we could not figure out for ourselves.)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If goodness is not something that a god ''exhibits'', but something of which the god is the ''source'', the statement &amp;quot;god is good&amp;quot; becomes a meaningless tautology. Consider the property &amp;quot;tastes like an apple&amp;quot;. Many things that aren't apples exhibit this quality, but what does it mean to say that an ''apple'' tastes like an apple? Nothing; it simply cannot be any other way. Similarly, defining god as the source of the property &amp;quot;goodness&amp;quot;, then applying that property back to god, is equivalent to saying &amp;quot;god is consistent with his own nature&amp;quot;, which tells us nothing.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An effective summary of the argument was given by [[Bertrand Russell]]:&lt;br /&gt;
{{quote-source|The point I am concerned with is that, if you are quite sure there is a difference between right and wrong, then you are then in this situation: is that difference due to God's fiat or is it not? If it is due to God's fiat, then for God himself there is no difference between right and wrong, and it is no longer a significant statement to say that God is good.|''[[Why I Am Not a Christian]]''}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One perceived way to get out of the dilemma is to say that, although God has the freedom to command immoral acts such as rape, he would never do such a thing because it goes against his character or nature.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In response, Michael Martin has argued that this doesn't solve anything because the dilemma can be reformulated in terms of God's character: &amp;quot;Is God's character the way it is because it is good or is God's character good simply because it is God's character?&amp;quot;[http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/michael_martin/rape.html] The structure of this modified dilemma is exactly the same as before, and it appears to be if anything harder to escape.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Moral truths as necessary truths===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Richard Swinburne, a theistic philosopher, has argued that moral truths cannot depend on God because moral truths are necessary truths, existing in all possible worlds, including ones where God does not exist. This objection of Swinburne's was cited by Jeffery Jay Lowder in Lowder's debate with Phil Fernandes.[http://video.google.pl/videoplay?docid=7385355182363346492] Keith Yandell, another theistic philosopher, raised a similar objection in his comments on the Craig-Flew debate.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Which God? ===&lt;br /&gt;
{{main article|Which God?}}&lt;br /&gt;
This argument does not specify a particular God which is the source of a true objective moral standard. Even if one accepted the argument, one would be forced to decide which religion to follow by some other means. If one can determine which God is the &amp;quot;true&amp;quot; God without using this argument, how is the argument necessary in the first place?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Alternatively, if one cannot rationally find the correct religion, the argument undermines its own respect towards objective morality, by suggesting that morality comes from a source we cannot recognize. While this does not mean that the argument is false, it does imply that human beings can never legitimately understand whether they are acting rightly or wrongly.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Incidentally we can also ask, Which morality?  [[Christian morality]] changes with history and varies according to which Christian individual or which Christian sect is interpreting Christianity.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Argument is self-refuting===&lt;br /&gt;
One can argue that if God does not exist, an objectively provable existence of objective morality does not exist, and an objective need for objective morality to exist does not exist. Hence, the atheistic situation is no longer problematic.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Heaven precludes genuine charity===&lt;br /&gt;
If there is an omnipotent and perfectly just God and an everlasting reward, there is no reason to act morally except to secure one's own well-being in the afterlife, i.e. loving your brother can only be a rational means to one's own ends not the well-being of one's brother.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Premises====&lt;br /&gt;
# If all else being equal my actions cause you to forego a good I have wronged you.&lt;br /&gt;
# Heaven is a good that outweighs all Earthly goods.&lt;br /&gt;
# In a perfectly just world, any wrong done to a person that can be compensated will be compensated.&lt;br /&gt;
# God desires a perfectly just world.&lt;br /&gt;
# God is omnipotent, therefore capable of compensating any wrong.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Argument====&lt;br /&gt;
# If my actions caused you to forego Heaven (for example by convincing you to reject God or seeing that you die before repenting) you would be wronged.  (Premises 1, 2)&lt;br /&gt;
# God desires to compensate any wrong.  (Premises 3, 4)&lt;br /&gt;
# God would compensate you for that wrong.  (Premise 5, Argument 2)&lt;br /&gt;
# No action of mine can deny you a good that makes all others trivial or otherwise affect your ultimate well-being.  (Arguments 1, 3)&lt;br /&gt;
# No action of mine can deny you Heaven or otherwise affect your ultimate well-being.  (Permise 2, Argument 4)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Therefore====&lt;br /&gt;
My actions are irrelevant to your ultimate well-being (Argument 5) assuming a just God and an eternal reward (Premises 1-5).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Secular morality===&lt;br /&gt;
: ''Main article: [[Secular morality]]''&lt;br /&gt;
Finally, it can in general be claimed that there is a specific, well-founded theory of morality that leaves God out of the picture. This is a complex topic and is dealt with in full by the above-linked article. One thing is worth noting here: some theists appear to think that it constitutes a valid link in the moral argument to simply demand a secular theory of morality without giving any reason to think that theistic theories are more likely to be successful. This is clearly fallacious, and debaters should not fall into this trap. Meta-ethics, like most areas of philosophy, has unresolved debates, but pointing to an unresolved philosophical debate is no argument for the existence of God. To show that the moral argument is unsuccessful, one need only show that we should not accept the second premise. Full development of secular theory of morality may be helpful here, but it is not necessary.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Other formulations of the moral argument==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Normativity of morality===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This formulation of the moral argument relies on the assumption of normativity, that is to say, that the awareness of morality is a more or less universal experience among humans.  Most people recognize that, for example, murder is wrong.  From there, a theist claims that this universal awareness must come from some ultimate source, which is God.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To put it concisely:&lt;br /&gt;
# It appears to human beings that moral normativity exists.&lt;br /&gt;
# The best explanation of moral normativity is that it is grounded in God.&lt;br /&gt;
# Therefore God exists.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This version of the moral argument may sometimes be used by theists as [[red herring]] when responding to arguments about the moral nature of God.  For instance, a person who points out the inherent cruelty of exterminating 99% of the earth's population, as in the story of [[Noah's ark]], or takes issue with the apparent Biblical support of [[slavery]] and [[rape]], may quickly expect to be countered with this claim:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;You recognize mass murder/slavery/rape as a '''bad''' thing, so you must have some standard to judge that against.  If there was no God, then you'd have no rational reason to say that those things aren't good.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Counter-apologetic responses to normativity===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Although the awareness of SOME sort of right and wrong is apparently universal, many specific details differ across cultures and time periods.  In the case of slavery, for example, the practice was once universally accepted in the southern United States, and many anti-abolitionists even quoted the Bible to justify the practice.  (See the main [[slavery]] article for more details.)  This indicates that morality has a strong cultural component to it, and is tied up in evolving notions of [[secular morality]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In fact, this serves as an argument against the existence of God.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Moral-Knowledge Argument&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A recently proposed atheological argument is the Moral-Knowledge Argument, which can be expressed as follows: If the theists' version of god exists, then he is a being who is omnipotent, omniscient, and benevolent. Since this god is benevolent and his ethics are supposedly morally good for humanity, he would want all human beings to know his ethics perfectly. And since this god is omnipotent, it would be within his capacity to make sure that all human beings know his ethics perfectly. However, all human beings do not know his ethics perfectly, which is shown by their disagreeing about many moral values. Therefore, this version of god does not exist. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Other human perceptions also have the appearance of being normative.  For instance, most people agree that chocolate is &amp;quot;delicious,&amp;quot; while dirt is &amp;quot;not delicious.&amp;quot;  By the same reasoning as the argument from normative morality, it could be said that there must be some ultimate standard for deliciousness, and that standard must be God, the ultimate tasty treat.  We could use a similar argument to prove that God is the definition of the perfect homosexual lover.&lt;br /&gt;
# The fact that there may be an abstract standard of perfect goodness that an individual strives to achieve, does not indicate that this standard represents an existing object.  For example, bowling a perfect game would yield a score of 300.  However, even if no one in history had ever bowled a 300, this would still be the highest attainable score according to the rules of the game.  It is quite possible to have a theoretical ideal, yet not have any concrete instance of that ideal.  Therefore, we could say: &amp;quot;Yes, this thing that you call 'God' could be our standard for morality.  However, ''this tells us nothing about whether or not God exists.''&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===The Immoral Imperative===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
#Christians are called to evangelize and share the gospel as a command from God. The mercy of God is shared for the purpose of conversion which treats people as a means. According to Kant, treating anyone as a means rather than an end in themselves is immoral, therefore, Christians are immoral as is the command.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A possible solution to this dilemma is in reassessing the command from God. If the gospel of Christianity is not specifically for the sake of the gospel itself, nor is it a means to God's end, but rather is the means by which a person's life is improved, the individual becomes the end, thus making it moral under the Kantian mindset. The person &amp;quot;receiving&amp;quot; the evangelism (i.e. the gospel) is treated justly insofar as her personal improvement is the goal. This solution can only be upheld if the reality of &amp;quot;salvation&amp;quot; is in fact the reality of a better life.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==References==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*Stan W. Wallace, ed. ''Does God Exist?: The Craig-Flew Debate.'' Ashgate, 2003.&lt;br /&gt;
*Richard Swinburne. ''The Existence of God.'' Oxford University Press, 2004.&lt;br /&gt;
*Richard C. Carrier. 'Hitler's Table Talk: Troubling Finds.' ''German Studies Review'' 26.3 (Oct 2003): 561-76.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==External Link==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/euthyfro.html Full text of the ''Euthyphro'' dialogue] by Plato&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-arguments-god/ Moral Arguments for the Existence of God]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Arguments for god}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Arguments for the existence of God]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Deductive arguments]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Moral arguments]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Dcljr</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Iron_Chariots_Wiki_talk:Editing_guidelines</id>
		<title>Iron Chariots Wiki talk:Editing guidelines</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Iron_Chariots_Wiki_talk:Editing_guidelines"/>
				<updated>2011-11-23T07:13:40Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Dcljr: /* What are we doing here? */ follow-up&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;Can I suggest that we have some sort of guidelines for how we think the best way is to structure things?  Examples of this: Target page naming (e.g. Creationist &amp;gt; Creationism), linking to external resources, categories, and so forth.  The sooner we get this down, the sooner we can nip errant page organisation in the bud (which I'd probably be guilty of otherwise!) -- [[User:Blu Matt|Blu Matt]] 05:26, 1 August 2006 (MST)&lt;br /&gt;
: Yes, I'm planning (now that I've mostly finished with Episode 7 of Way of the Master) to rework the front page, the IC introduction page and included editing guidelines on style, structure, formatting....and other stuff. Unfortunately, it may not happen until next week, as I'll be leaving on vacation soon. Some of this information already exists in the admin forums, I just haven't finished incorporating all of it into the wiki pages. [[User:Sans Deity|Sans Deity]] 07:07, 1 August 2006 (MST)&lt;br /&gt;
:: Splendid. Enjoy your holiday. :-) -- [[User:Blu Matt|Blu Matt]] 07:18, 1 August 2006 (MST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Major and minor edits ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The rule of thumb I've been using is that a minor edit is one that doesn't change the information in the article. Thus, fixing a bunch of spelling or punctuation errors is a minor edit, but fixing an error of fact (even a small one) is a major edit. Should this be added to the guidelines?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Also, may I suggest adding &amp;quot;'''DO''' use the &amp;quot;Preview&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;Show changes&amp;quot; buttons before committing a change&amp;quot;?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
--[[User:Arensb|Arensb]] 06:10, 4 August 2006 (MST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: I've added those tips.&lt;br /&gt;
: I think I should mention that I am often guilty of not checking the &amp;quot;minor edit&amp;quot; box when I should, because I forget details like that when I'm just doing a quick and dirty style fix.&lt;br /&gt;
: --[[User:Kazim|Kazim]] 07:31, 4 August 2006 (MST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Section headers ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As I've edited various pages I've taken the liberty of changing certain stylistic choices other editors have made, such as removing any space I find after the colon in &amp;lt;tt&amp;gt;&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;[[Category:]]&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tt&amp;gt; links and inserting newlines (blank lines) after ==section headers==. I haven't made a concerted effort to &amp;quot;codify&amp;quot; my opinions on these matters, though, since they don't actually affect the appearance of the article(s). But there is one matter of style that definitely ''is'' visible on the page and so really should be decided on and adopted as policy (in my opinion), and that is the choice of ''capitalization'' for section headers. We've chosen to use &amp;quot;sentence style&amp;quot; (a.k.a., &amp;quot;[[Wikinews:Wikinews:Style guide#Headlines|downstyle]]&amp;quot;) for '''page titles'''; should that convention extend to section headers, as well? I say yes. It looks like a number of other editors would disagree. (Note that Wikipedia tends to use downstyle headers.) What say you? - [[User:Dcljr|dcljr]] 17:53, 26 February 2007 (CST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:I pretty much trust your instincts on these matters.  I think most of the section headers already are sentence style, so it's fine with me if we convert the rest.--[[User:Kazim|Kazim]] 08:30, 27 February 2007 (CST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:I think I've been capitalizing section titles, but I think you're right: sentence style keeps things consistent with page titles. --[[User:Arensb|Arensb]] 10:22, 27 February 2007 (CST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:: Thanks for the quick response. I'll now feel free to change the section headers as I come across them. Not sure I'll make a concerted effort, but maybe.... Oh, and I'll make a note of this in the DOs and DON'Ts on this project page. - [[User:Dcljr|dcljr]] 14:42, 28 February 2007 (CST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== What are we doing here? ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As I pointed out [[User talk:Proxima Centauri#Deletions and restorations|elsewhere]], in response to recent problems with Ray Comfort related articles, there are four articles that have been &amp;quot;featured&amp;quot; on the [[Main Page]] for years now, and all of them are point-by-point refutations of individual works of apologetics ([[50 reasons to believe in God]], [[The Beauty of a Broken Spirit—Atheism (Way of the Master)]], [[Evolution (Way of the Master)]], and [[Big Daddy? (Chick tract)]]). Now Russell ([[User:Kazim|Kazim]]) apparently thinks we shouldn't be doing this kind of thing anymore. Am I mistaken? What does Matt ([[User:Sans Deity|Sans Deity]]) have to say about this? - [[User:Dcljr|dcljr]] 17:59, 21 November 2011 (CST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:I don’t think the editing guidelines have changed, I think an unwise decision was taken in anger without Kazim or me looking carefully at the articles before deletion.  We need to take care that Jdog doesn’t manipulate us into getting angry like that again.  [[User:Proxima Centauri|Proxima Centauri]] 01:35, 22 November 2011 (CST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::I only criticize contributors' work when I find an irrational, incorrect, and/or useless argument has been made. If I find articles that I don't think belong here, I attempt to explain why I believe that's the case. That's it. You argue with me every single time I do so, (understandably) more vehemently if it's your own work, and I respond as necessary to demonstrate my point. I'm sorry if that angers you, but there's no intent to do so and I don't see how your emotional reaction has any bearing on whether I'm correct or not. If you can sufficiently demonstrate that I'm incorrect, I'll happily change my view.&lt;br /&gt;
::I understand that you're hurt and angry over having to move the WotM articles to yet another wiki, but trolling me in almost every non-article edit and calling for the WotM articles to be retained here during &amp;quot;a cooling off period&amp;quot; or having wanted your attacks on RC to be restored prior to the RC page being locked for a few days because &amp;quot;a page in transition could be confusing&amp;quot; (it wasn't, Kazim was quite careful to maintain or improve the integrity of the article during the edits) just continues to demonstrate that you're the only one being irrational about this.&lt;br /&gt;
::*Some articles placed on the wiki may not actually belong here and need removal.&lt;br /&gt;
::*Some articles placed on the wiki may be poorly written or have poor arguments and need correction.&lt;br /&gt;
::*The focus of the wiki may change slightly as its purpose is refined, possibly because contributions to it have revealed the need to do so.&lt;br /&gt;
::*The articles or arguments subject to modification or deletion could belong to any contributor, including yourself.&lt;br /&gt;
::Do you dispute any of those four statements? If not, then where is the problem? [[User:Jdog|Jdog]] 11:41, 22 November 2011 (CST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::: Proxima: Perhaps I read too much into Russell's remarks about moving the WotM articles. I'd appreciate clarification by him on whether he thinks we should be encouraging or discouraging (or neither) point-by-point refutations of individual apologetical works in the future. As a general rule, I would say such articles are clearly &amp;quot;on topic&amp;quot; here, and can be very useful to readers as long as they're &amp;quot;fact-based&amp;quot; and only include enough of a &amp;quot;response&amp;quot; as is necessary to address the unique context(s) in which the arguments are being raised; the rest of the explanation/background can be covered in the articles about the arguments themselves. Surely we can all agree on this recommendation? - [[User:Dcljr|dcljr]] 01:13, 23 November 2011 (CST)&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Dcljr</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Iron_Chariots_Wiki_talk:Editing_guidelines</id>
		<title>Iron Chariots Wiki talk:Editing guidelines</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Iron_Chariots_Wiki_talk:Editing_guidelines"/>
				<updated>2011-11-23T05:32:40Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Dcljr: /* What are we doing here? */ &amp;quot;threading&amp;quot; comments for easier scanning (note: only wiki formatting changed, not anyone's words)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;Can I suggest that we have some sort of guidelines for how we think the best way is to structure things?  Examples of this: Target page naming (e.g. Creationist &amp;gt; Creationism), linking to external resources, categories, and so forth.  The sooner we get this down, the sooner we can nip errant page organisation in the bud (which I'd probably be guilty of otherwise!) -- [[User:Blu Matt|Blu Matt]] 05:26, 1 August 2006 (MST)&lt;br /&gt;
: Yes, I'm planning (now that I've mostly finished with Episode 7 of Way of the Master) to rework the front page, the IC introduction page and included editing guidelines on style, structure, formatting....and other stuff. Unfortunately, it may not happen until next week, as I'll be leaving on vacation soon. Some of this information already exists in the admin forums, I just haven't finished incorporating all of it into the wiki pages. [[User:Sans Deity|Sans Deity]] 07:07, 1 August 2006 (MST)&lt;br /&gt;
:: Splendid. Enjoy your holiday. :-) -- [[User:Blu Matt|Blu Matt]] 07:18, 1 August 2006 (MST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Major and minor edits ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The rule of thumb I've been using is that a minor edit is one that doesn't change the information in the article. Thus, fixing a bunch of spelling or punctuation errors is a minor edit, but fixing an error of fact (even a small one) is a major edit. Should this be added to the guidelines?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Also, may I suggest adding &amp;quot;'''DO''' use the &amp;quot;Preview&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;Show changes&amp;quot; buttons before committing a change&amp;quot;?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
--[[User:Arensb|Arensb]] 06:10, 4 August 2006 (MST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: I've added those tips.&lt;br /&gt;
: I think I should mention that I am often guilty of not checking the &amp;quot;minor edit&amp;quot; box when I should, because I forget details like that when I'm just doing a quick and dirty style fix.&lt;br /&gt;
: --[[User:Kazim|Kazim]] 07:31, 4 August 2006 (MST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Section headers ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As I've edited various pages I've taken the liberty of changing certain stylistic choices other editors have made, such as removing any space I find after the colon in &amp;lt;tt&amp;gt;&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;[[Category:]]&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tt&amp;gt; links and inserting newlines (blank lines) after ==section headers==. I haven't made a concerted effort to &amp;quot;codify&amp;quot; my opinions on these matters, though, since they don't actually affect the appearance of the article(s). But there is one matter of style that definitely ''is'' visible on the page and so really should be decided on and adopted as policy (in my opinion), and that is the choice of ''capitalization'' for section headers. We've chosen to use &amp;quot;sentence style&amp;quot; (a.k.a., &amp;quot;[[Wikinews:Wikinews:Style guide#Headlines|downstyle]]&amp;quot;) for '''page titles'''; should that convention extend to section headers, as well? I say yes. It looks like a number of other editors would disagree. (Note that Wikipedia tends to use downstyle headers.) What say you? - [[User:Dcljr|dcljr]] 17:53, 26 February 2007 (CST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:I pretty much trust your instincts on these matters.  I think most of the section headers already are sentence style, so it's fine with me if we convert the rest.--[[User:Kazim|Kazim]] 08:30, 27 February 2007 (CST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:I think I've been capitalizing section titles, but I think you're right: sentence style keeps things consistent with page titles. --[[User:Arensb|Arensb]] 10:22, 27 February 2007 (CST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:: Thanks for the quick response. I'll now feel free to change the section headers as I come across them. Not sure I'll make a concerted effort, but maybe.... Oh, and I'll make a note of this in the DOs and DON'Ts on this project page. - [[User:Dcljr|dcljr]] 14:42, 28 February 2007 (CST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== What are we doing here? ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As I pointed out [[User talk:Proxima Centauri#Deletions and restorations|elsewhere]], in response to recent problems with Ray Comfort related articles, there are four articles that have been &amp;quot;featured&amp;quot; on the [[Main Page]] for years now, and all of them are point-by-point refutations of individual works of apologetics ([[50 reasons to believe in God]], [[The Beauty of a Broken Spirit—Atheism (Way of the Master)]], [[Evolution (Way of the Master)]], and [[Big Daddy? (Chick tract)]]). Now Russell ([[User:Kazim|Kazim]]) apparently thinks we shouldn't be doing this kind of thing anymore. Am I mistaken? What does Matt ([[User:Sans Deity|Sans Deity]]) have to say about this? - [[User:Dcljr|dcljr]] 17:59, 21 November 2011 (CST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:I don’t think the editing guidelines have changed, I think an unwise decision was taken in anger without Kazim or me looking carefully at the articles before deletion.  We need to take care that Jdog doesn’t manipulate us into getting angry like that again.  [[User:Proxima Centauri|Proxima Centauri]] 01:35, 22 November 2011 (CST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::I only criticize contributors' work when I find an irrational, incorrect, and/or useless argument has been made. If I find articles that I don't think belong here, I attempt to explain why I believe that's the case. That's it. You argue with me every single time I do so, (understandably) more vehemently if it's your own work, and I respond as necessary to demonstrate my point. I'm sorry if that angers you, but there's no intent to do so and I don't see how your emotional reaction has any bearing on whether I'm correct or not. If you can sufficiently demonstrate that I'm incorrect, I'll happily change my view.&lt;br /&gt;
::I understand that you're hurt and angry over having to move the WotM articles to yet another wiki, but trolling me in almost every non-article edit and calling for the WotM articles to be retained here during &amp;quot;a cooling off period&amp;quot; or having wanted your attacks on RC to be restored prior to the RC page being locked for a few days because &amp;quot;a page in transition could be confusing&amp;quot; (it wasn't, Kazim was quite careful to maintain or improve the integrity of the article during the edits) just continues to demonstrate that you're the only one being irrational about this.&lt;br /&gt;
::*Some articles placed on the wiki may not actually belong here and need removal.&lt;br /&gt;
::*Some articles placed on the wiki may be poorly written or have poor arguments and need correction.&lt;br /&gt;
::*The focus of the wiki may change slightly as its purpose is refined, possibly because contributions to it have revealed the need to do so.&lt;br /&gt;
::*The articles or arguments subject to modification or deletion could belong to any contributor, including yourself.&lt;br /&gt;
::Do you dispute any of those four statements? If not, then where is the problem? [[User:Jdog|Jdog]] 11:41, 22 November 2011 (CST)&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Dcljr</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Kornelius_Novak</id>
		<title>Kornelius Novak</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Kornelius_Novak"/>
				<updated>2011-11-23T01:57:06Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Dcljr: /* Criticism */ not endorsing any other contents here, but removing especially problematic phrase...&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;Kornelius &amp;quot;Mondo&amp;quot; Novak is a German evangelist of Romanian origin. He is the founder and former president of the of the [[Holy Riders MC]] chapter Germany, an evangelistical motorcycle club originally founded in Norway. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Life ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Novak.jpg|thumb|right|Kornelius &amp;quot;Mondo&amp;quot; Novak]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In his youth Kornelius Novak was a promising bodybuilder and achieved national vice-championship in his category (youth, heavy-weight). He used to work as bouncer for discos in and around Stuttgart, Baden-Württemberg. A disturbing event caused him to develop a fundamental belief in God: God reportedly prevented a dangerous fight involving knives and brass knuckles.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
He studied theology and graduated with a master's degree. He became a pastor like his father Adolf Novak. He worked as pastor in a Baptist church in Göppingen, Baden-Württemberg and worked as a motorcycle missionary.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
During his time as president of the Holy Riders MC chapter Germany he did extensive missionary work among bikers like the Hells Angels MC and could be met on many of the major motorcycle rallies. He was excluded from the club when he tried to restructure the chapter to no longer evangelize among motorcyclists only. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Holy Riders MC chapter Germany's big slogan is &amp;quot;TURN OR BURN&amp;quot;. Their annual motorcycle rally is named &amp;quot;Turn or Burn Rally&amp;quot;, actively promoting [[Pascal's Wager]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After his exclusion from the Holy Riders MC he founded the Jesus Family, a similar but largely unsuccessful project that was set out to evangelize among all kinds of different subcultures including bikers, prostitutes, drug addicts etc. The Jesus Family no longer exists.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Kornelius Novak wrote a number of evangelistical tracts and pamphlets. His most notable project is the book Kreuz &amp;amp; Quer in der Szene, which has been published in several different languages including German, Norwegian, Czech, and Romanian. He also published a glossy magazine named &amp;quot;Kreuz und Quer&amp;quot; to inform people about his work and – of course – raise funds for his work. The Kreuz-und-Quer-Book and all 10 editions of his magazine can be read on and downloaded from his website.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As of 2011 Kornelius Novak lives in northern Norway where he works as a pastor and missionary. He still is active in other countries like the Czech Republic once in a while. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Criticism ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Despite actively promoting [[self-denial]] as a major factor in religious life, Novak used to drive large pick-up trucks, a type of vehicle not very common in Germany, sporting religious slogans painted all over the vehicle. He also owns a large and expensive Harley Davidson E-Glide. Like most evangelistic asshats he gloats about his total obedience to his god and his in-depth knowledge and understanding of the [[Bible]] being the main reason for his alleged success while ignoring major failures like his exclusion from the Holy Riders MC, the Jesus Family barrel burst and constant problems with breaking down vehicles.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
His most disputable statement was that [[Adolf Hitler]] and the Nazis executed god's judgement on the Jews as prophesised in {{Bible|Jeremiah 9:16}} and {{Bible|Ezekiel 5:12}}. He no longer actively promotes this allegation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Books ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Kreuz und Quer in der Szene]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Der Gottesbeweis]]&lt;br /&gt;
*Gottes Gerechtigkeit - Gericht und Gnade&lt;br /&gt;
*Göttliche Heilung - Was sagt die Bibel dazu?&lt;br /&gt;
*22 Bedeutungen des Kreuzes für das Glaubensleben&lt;br /&gt;
*Geistestaufe - Wiedergeburt - Bekehrung&lt;br /&gt;
*Der Glaubensquotient&lt;br /&gt;
*Heilsnotwendige Taufe&lt;br /&gt;
*Gott, wie kannst du gerecht sein?&lt;br /&gt;
*Gott und dein freier Wille&lt;br /&gt;
*Gott liebt dich trotzdem!&lt;br /&gt;
*Heiligung&lt;br /&gt;
*Weltwunder Gemeinde&lt;br /&gt;
*Wiedergeboren und doch verloren?&lt;br /&gt;
*Prinzipen erhörter Gebete - Betend zur Erweckung&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Links ==&lt;br /&gt;
*Kornelius Novak's website: http://www.jesusfamily-kreuzundquer.de&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:People]] [[Category:Evangelists]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Dcljr</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Iron_Chariots_Wiki_talk:Editing_guidelines</id>
		<title>Iron Chariots Wiki talk:Editing guidelines</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Iron_Chariots_Wiki_talk:Editing_guidelines"/>
				<updated>2011-11-21T23:59:35Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Dcljr: What are we doing here?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;Can I suggest that we have some sort of guidelines for how we think the best way is to structure things?  Examples of this: Target page naming (e.g. Creationist &amp;gt; Creationism), linking to external resources, categories, and so forth.  The sooner we get this down, the sooner we can nip errant page organisation in the bud (which I'd probably be guilty of otherwise!) -- [[User:Blu Matt|Blu Matt]] 05:26, 1 August 2006 (MST)&lt;br /&gt;
: Yes, I'm planning (now that I've mostly finished with Episode 7 of Way of the Master) to rework the front page, the IC introduction page and included editing guidelines on style, structure, formatting....and other stuff. Unfortunately, it may not happen until next week, as I'll be leaving on vacation soon. Some of this information already exists in the admin forums, I just haven't finished incorporating all of it into the wiki pages. [[User:Sans Deity|Sans Deity]] 07:07, 1 August 2006 (MST)&lt;br /&gt;
:: Splendid. Enjoy your holiday. :-) -- [[User:Blu Matt|Blu Matt]] 07:18, 1 August 2006 (MST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Major and minor edits ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The rule of thumb I've been using is that a minor edit is one that doesn't change the information in the article. Thus, fixing a bunch of spelling or punctuation errors is a minor edit, but fixing an error of fact (even a small one) is a major edit. Should this be added to the guidelines?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Also, may I suggest adding &amp;quot;'''DO''' use the &amp;quot;Preview&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;Show changes&amp;quot; buttons before committing a change&amp;quot;?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
--[[User:Arensb|Arensb]] 06:10, 4 August 2006 (MST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: I've added those tips.&lt;br /&gt;
: I think I should mention that I am often guilty of not checking the &amp;quot;minor edit&amp;quot; box when I should, because I forget details like that when I'm just doing a quick and dirty style fix.&lt;br /&gt;
: --[[User:Kazim|Kazim]] 07:31, 4 August 2006 (MST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Section headers ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As I've edited various pages I've taken the liberty of changing certain stylistic choices other editors have made, such as removing any space I find after the colon in &amp;lt;tt&amp;gt;&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;[[Category:]]&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tt&amp;gt; links and inserting newlines (blank lines) after ==section headers==. I haven't made a concerted effort to &amp;quot;codify&amp;quot; my opinions on these matters, though, since they don't actually affect the appearance of the article(s). But there is one matter of style that definitely ''is'' visible on the page and so really should be decided on and adopted as policy (in my opinion), and that is the choice of ''capitalization'' for section headers. We've chosen to use &amp;quot;sentence style&amp;quot; (a.k.a., &amp;quot;[[Wikinews:Wikinews:Style guide#Headlines|downstyle]]&amp;quot;) for '''page titles'''; should that convention extend to section headers, as well? I say yes. It looks like a number of other editors would disagree. (Note that Wikipedia tends to use downstyle headers.) What say you? - [[User:Dcljr|dcljr]] 17:53, 26 February 2007 (CST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:I pretty much trust your instincts on these matters.  I think most of the section headers already are sentence style, so it's fine with me if we convert the rest.--[[User:Kazim|Kazim]] 08:30, 27 February 2007 (CST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:I think I've been capitalizing section titles, but I think you're right: sentence style keeps things consistent with page titles. --[[User:Arensb|Arensb]] 10:22, 27 February 2007 (CST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:: Thanks for the quick response. I'll now feel free to change the section headers as I come across them. Not sure I'll make a concerted effort, but maybe.... Oh, and I'll make a note of this in the DOs and DON'Ts on this project page. - [[User:Dcljr|dcljr]] 14:42, 28 February 2007 (CST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== What are we doing here? ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As I pointed out [[User talk:Proxima Centauri#Deletions and restorations|elsewhere]], in response to recent problems with Ray Comfort related articles, there are four articles that have been &amp;quot;featured&amp;quot; on the [[Main Page]] for years now, and all of them are point-by-point refutations of individual works of apologetics ([[50 reasons to believe in God]], [[The Beauty of a Broken Spirit—Atheism (Way of the Master)]], [[Evolution (Way of the Master)]], and [[Big Daddy? (Chick tract)]]). Now Russell ([[User:Kazim|Kazim]]) apparently thinks we shouldn't be doing this kind of thing anymore. Am I mistaken? What does Matt ([[User:Sans Deity|Sans Deity]]) have to say about this? - [[User:Dcljr|dcljr]] 17:59, 21 November 2011 (CST)&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Dcljr</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=User_talk:Proxima_Centauri</id>
		<title>User talk:Proxima Centauri</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=User_talk:Proxima_Centauri"/>
				<updated>2011-11-21T23:54:13Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Dcljr: /* Deletions and restorations */ I'm a little confused now....&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;I’m lonely here as nobody has spoken to me yet. [[User:Proxima Centauri|Proxima Centauri]] 03:03, 24 July 2009 (CDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:Awww.  There, there. --[[User:Kazim|Kazim]] 11:46, 31 July 2009 (CDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::&amp;lt;irony&amp;gt;Thanks for being so understanding. &amp;lt;/irony&amp;gt; [[User:Proxima Centauri|Proxima Centauri]] 01:04, 1 August 2009 (CDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:Glad to see there are some folks who actually use the chat functions on these wiki pages. I mostly just edit, but I guess I'll have to check them. Off hand, you wouldn't happen to know if there's any way to encode formal logic on this page, would you? The standard wiki form doesn't work. - JStein (8:49, 9/13/2011)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I see you started a WOTM program review. *Big hugs* I have made multiple requests for help on RW, YouTube, and [http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Trolling_With_Logic TWL]. You are the first person to give a helping hand. Thanks mate, I really appreciate it. [[User:Feredir28|Wolf]] 15:25, 6 October 2011 (CDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Multiverse==&lt;br /&gt;
Any chance that we could not use the '''Multiverse''' &amp;quot;theory&amp;quot; here? It's currently an untestable claim that has no evidence to support it, not a scientific theory. I certainly agree that it's ''possible'', but until we have a way of detecting other universes, it's an irrational claim and not suitable for use in counter-apologetics. [[User:Jdog|Jdog]] 09:36, 7 October 2011 (CDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:[http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Kalam&amp;amp;curid=2213&amp;amp;diff=18138&amp;amp;oldid=18111&amp;amp;rcid=17057 I think the mustiverse theory prevents God being proved]. [[User:Proxima Centauri|Proxima Centauri]] 11:10, 7 October 2011 (CDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::It does no such thing. The multiverse ''concept'' (please provide scientific evidence for the claim or stop calling it a theory) simply moves the problem up one level; a theist just has to claim that &amp;quot;God caused the multiverse to exist&amp;quot; and you're back where you started, plus you've added another unprovable claim to the mix. If anything, the concept of parallel universes could potentially be used to explain the conflicts between omniscience, omnipotence, and omnibenevolence. [[User:Jdog|Jdog]] 20:54, 7 October 2011 (CDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I’ve taken it out as the issue is not worth so much trouble and I risk getting behind with refuting [[Ray Comfort]].  In my opinion the [[wikipedia:Multiverse|Muliverse]] is valid against [[Kalam]] because Kalam explicitly states, “Everything that '''starts to exist''' needs a cause and the Multiverse didn’t necessarily , '''start to exist'''.  I agree the Multiverse does not work against general first cause arguments. [[User:Proxima Centauri|Proxima Centauri]] 02:35, 8 October 2011 (CDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Ray Comfort==&lt;br /&gt;
Ray Comfort is, as they say on the Non-Prophets, an ASSHAT (anyone playing the Non-Prophets drinking game?). Pretend i said all this in an Australian pirate accent so it counts as six drinks if you are. Anyway, lets all unite against creationist asshats. I'm just doing some minor editing, correcting some spelling mistakes, maybe adding a sentence or two when needed. Does anyone else visit this site, or are the fundie asshats trying to get rid of us?&lt;br /&gt;
SOMEONE TELL ME HOW TO USE THE CHAT, i just did this by clicking edit on your page, then inserted my username how everyone else's was. [[User: WhatsAGoodUsername?|WhatsAGoodUsername?]] 0334, 30 October 2011 (CDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
You can find out how active the site is by [http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Special:Recentchanges Clicking this link], alternatively you can click Recent changes 3 lines below the picture of the chariot and horses near the top left hand side of the page.  To talk a user you click on the icon saying, “Discussion” in the top left of the Userpage and to talk about an article you click on the icon saying, “Discussion” in the top left of the article.&lt;br /&gt;
  &lt;br /&gt;
This is an atheist website and Christians can’t stop us being ungodly here, see [[Iron Chariots Wiki:Neutral point of view]].  [[User:Feredir28|Feredir28]] has been working very hard helping refute [[Ray Comfort]] as have others. [[User:Proxima Centauri|Proxima Centauri]] 07:04, 30 October 2011 (CDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Okay, thanks. You're on here too much, all the edits I see are from me, you, and two other people. Kazim and Sans Deity need to start &amp;quot;plugging&amp;quot; this site on the Non-Prophets and the Atheist Experience more, we need more people! [[User: WhatsAGoodUsername?|WhatsAGoodUsername?]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Spam/vandalism ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Lol, when I tried saving one of those marked as spam, I was told you had just deleted it. &amp;lt;impolite&amp;gt;Don't you have a life either?&amp;lt;/impolite&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Is there no way we can upgrade the MediaWiki software? The latest version should make user-management, and thus spam-prevention, within easier reach. Sure, it will add some bureaucracy to new user creation, but won't it be worth it?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:You could try asking, [[User:Sans Deity|Sans Deity]], he's the site owner. [[User:Proxima Centauri|Proxima Centauri]] 05:24, 8 October 2011 (CDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::I see he's probably too busy. Especially as an upgrade, apparently ANY upgrade beyond the current version, would require an upgrade of PHP. Which looks like it would involve the ISP...&lt;br /&gt;
::Something tells me that the most effective solution would be to find a new ISP, export and import, and then transfer the domain name to the new site. All of course without stealing the domain from Sans Deity.&lt;br /&gt;
::Isn't this interesting? I didn't even know there was a forum. How much more work would that involve?&lt;br /&gt;
::I can feel myself giving up here.  --[[User:BronzeDome|BronzeDome]] 05:53, 9 October 2011 (CDT)&lt;br /&gt;
Bother... I think I'll leave you to it. I'll stick to fixing typos...  --[[User:BronzeDome|BronzeDome]] 02:31, 10 October 2011 (CDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::: He's going to get to it after wedding season.  Be patient please, no coup is required.  --[[User:Kazim|Kazim]] 15:05, 31 October 2011 (CDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think the computer must have delayed before you found out I'd deleted that stuff.  While I'm checking regularly I don't need delete templates but if ever I can't check for any reason delete templates will be very useful.  Any admin who gets to delete just needs to go to [[:Category:Pages for deletion]] and find a bunch of articles all together ready to delete. [[User:Proxima Centauri|Proxima Centauri]] 10:12, 10 October 2011 (CDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Clean up ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I rolled back some changes and I don't have time to monitor and fix everything. I've been getting complaints about some regulars adding sloppy speculation and changing the site from informative to a personal, sloppy, speculative bitch-slapping of apologists. Dig through your changes....and wherever you've added unfounded accusations, speculations or snide comments - remove them. I'm going to check back after the wedding and if there aren't improvements, I'll be locking the site down, upgrading it and changing policies and permissions. This isn't a place to talk shit about apologists or post things that might cause unnecessary problems. You CANNOT simply toss around accusations about financial motivations - that leads to legal problems, and I'd prefer if people didn't post sloppy arguments. [[User:Sans Deity|Sans Deity]] 01:22, 15 October 2011 (CDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:First, my thanks to Proxima about AtheistWiki, but before we go there mate, we have work to do. I will go through all my material on Ray Comfort - that includes the programs, books, and main page. Nobody here meant harm, but we will not be divide over this issue and continue to work together. [[User:Feredir28|Wolf]] 13:03, 15 October 2011 (CDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I haven’t got time to go through your edits and I’m going to bed soon, I’ve had an infection recently.  On this wiki are writers who’ve done really good hard hitting stuff about the [[Problem of evil]] and other difficult topics.  '''Please write nothing here that could offend those writers or which those writers may not like.'''  You can write snark and offensive stuff at RationalWiki or [http://atheism.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page Atheism Wiki], '''just don’t break any libel laws'''. [[User:Proxima Centauri|Proxima Centauri]] 13:42, 15 October 2011 (CDT)&lt;br /&gt;
*:I appreciate the fixes.  Please take a moment to check out the newly added &amp;quot;types of pages&amp;quot; section under [[Iron Chariots Wiki:Editing guidelines]] for a little more guidance in how pages ought to look. --[[User:Kazim|Kazim]] 18:16, 15 October 2011 (CDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Atheist groups in ... ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I suggest merging all those '''[[Special:Deadendpages|Atheist groups in some-country-or-state]]''' pages into one '''List of atheist groups''' page, organised, naturally, by continent, country and state. The current state of myriad miniature &amp;quot;articles&amp;quot; seems... silly.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
May I?  [[User:BronzeDome|BronzeDome]] 07:02, 18 October 2011 (CDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Please ask [[User:Kazim|Kazim]] or [[User:Sans Deity|Sans Deity]], both know more about this wiki than I do. [[User:Proxima Centauri|Proxima Centauri]] 09:36, 18 October 2011 (CDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Yes please. --[[User:Kazim|Kazim]] 15:04, 31 October 2011 (CDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Praise and Glory to the FSM!==&lt;br /&gt;
What do you think of the edit I did on the page about the FSM? We need a [[War on Christmas]] page, but I'm going to sleep, its 3 Am(pacific time)[[User: WhatsAGoodUsername?|WhatsAGoodUsername?]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I like it but what the established administrators like counts for more here than what I like. [[User:Proxima Centauri|Proxima Centauri]] 06:17, 7 November 2011 (CST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
PLEASE CHECK MY NEW PAGE ON RICK PERRY. It needs more info, linked to my sources in the page, sorry i dont have time to look at my sources more and post more info, it is DAMNED important this gets up and running, as it might prevent another crazy religious president like Bush. One was enough. [[User: WhatsAGoodUsername?|WhatsAGoodUsername?]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have no problem about the article on [[Rick Perry]] but please check with [[User:Sans Deity|Sans Deity]] as he is the site owner.  I suggest writing mainly material demonstrating that Perry’s position on religion is irrational as this wiki is primarily about countering irrational religion.  I suggest checking the sources in the RationalWiki article for information but here you should write respectfully.  Googling [http://www.google.co.uk/#sclient=psy-ab&amp;amp;hl=en&amp;amp;source=hp&amp;amp;q=rick%20perry%2Breligious%20nut&amp;amp;pbx=1&amp;amp;oq=&amp;amp;aq=&amp;amp;aqi=&amp;amp;aql=&amp;amp;gs_sm=&amp;amp;gs_upl=&amp;amp;bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&amp;amp;fp=2f9736ba80af0173&amp;amp;biw=1198&amp;amp;bih=541&amp;amp;pf=p&amp;amp;pdl=3000 rick perry+religious nut] will get you information that will sometimes need rewriting respectfully.  Googling [http://www.google.co.uk/#sclient=psy-ab&amp;amp;hl=en&amp;amp;source=hp&amp;amp;q=rick+perry%2Breligious%2Birrational&amp;amp;pbx=1&amp;amp;oq=rick+perry%2Breligious%2Birrational&amp;amp;aq=f&amp;amp;aqi=&amp;amp;aql=&amp;amp;gs_sm=s&amp;amp;gs_upl=44304l47432l0l50604l11l11l0l0l0l0l178l1412l3.8l11l0&amp;amp;bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&amp;amp;fp=2f9736ba80af0173&amp;amp;biw=1198&amp;amp;bih=541 rick perry+religious+irrational] will get information that won’t need rewording respectfully so often.  I also suggest that you look for websites where political material is expected.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I’m from the UK and I don’t fully understand American politics, I personally fear Mitt Romney because he stands the biggest chance of defeating Obama as far as I know.  [http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Mitt_Romney Mitt Romney] flip flops so much nobody knows what he would do as president.  RationalWiki accepts articles about all relevant issues over the [http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/2012_U.S._Presidential_Election 2012 U.S. Presidential Election] and has articles about most of the [http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/2012_U.S._Presidential_Election#Republican_Party possible Republican runners], you can register there and add to articles or write new ones but not all the editors are polite or well behaved. [[User:Proxima Centauri|Proxima Centauri]] 02:22, 9 November 2011 (CST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I'm from Canada (different time zones suck) and i dont think if i put the bit about the N.A.R. by itself it would really do anything......however, if it is linked to rick perry, then people will notice (hopefully....). i know sans deity is the site owner, i joined this site because i heard about it from some old episodes of the non prophets. My source is legitimate, as it is from national public radio, and it seems unbiased. i dunno, just put it up there because it seems to have some relevance to me.what's your personal opinion of those N.A.R. folks?&lt;br /&gt;
anyways, let me know if you need help deleting spam, i have some free time on my hands. Right now, i think this website is a damn good reference, dont you agree? [[User: WhatsAGoodUsername?|WhatsAGoodUsername?]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I don't need help deleting spam as only administrators can delete.  I don't know much about the N.A.R.  Do you mean the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Apostolic_Reformation New Apostolic Reformation]?  I know no more about them than what's in the Wikipedia article. [[User:Proxima Centauri|Proxima Centauri]] 03:22, 9 November 2011 (CST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Yes, thats what i meant, the youtube video i linked is part of a series by that user that goes into detail about their beliefs (the npr article i posted,[http://www.npr.org/2011/08/24/139781021/the-evangelicals-engaged-in-spiritual-warfare Link] was great too, but less in detail and colorful, as well as being worth less laughs) , and how bat shit crazy they are. for the love of spaghetti, they think oprah is the freakin antichrist! they should cover that crap on the [[Non-Prophets]], it would get so many laughs! i mean, they are the new spanish inquisition without the torture and censorship (at the moment), and they are trying to gain popularity? thats like another hitler staging rock concerts![[User: WhatsAGoodUsername?|WhatsAGoodUsername?]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So, whats religion like in the U.K.?[[User: WhatsAGoodUsername?|WhatsAGoodUsername?]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We have some street corner evangelists but most people in Britain are apathetic about religion or skeptical. [[User:Proxima Centauri|Proxima Centauri]] 02:07, 11 November 2011 (CST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Just like here. I know two and only two christian people under 20. ahhh religion, die already.&lt;br /&gt;
 Been lotsa spam lately huh?&lt;br /&gt;
[[User: WhatsAGoodUsername?|WhatsAGoodUsername?]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I fear the spam will continue till one of the top administrators gets as [[Wikipedia:CAPTCHA|CAPTCHA]]. [[User:Proxima Centauri|Proxima Centauri]] 01:11, 13 November 2011 (CST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Meh, it just shows how morally &amp;quot;superior&amp;quot; theists are.[[User: WhatsAGoodUsername?|WhatsAGoodUsername?]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Proposal for Ray Comfort articles ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hi Proxima,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I'd like to make a modest proposal regarding the large amount of work you've done on all of Ray Comfort's works.  I'm still having the feeling that you're seeing Iron Chariots as a private sandbox to go after Comfort's entire body of work, and the articles you're generating are coming in too fast for anybody to review them, or perhaps even read them.  They don't seem to be strongly cohesive integrated with the rest of the site, the main focus of which is to be a resource for specific arguments with organized responses.  However, here's my alternate suggestion.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A more focused website that is centered around your special interest in Ray would probably be a very useful and more appropriate resource.  Call it whatever you want, make it as polemic and opinionated as you want.  Make it the official &amp;quot;I Hate Ray Comfort&amp;quot; site if you like.  Heck, &amp;quot;ihateraycomfort.com&amp;quot; is available, and I'm sure you could come up with other variations that suit your intentions.  You seem like somebody who knows how to set up a website, but if not I'd be happy to recommend resources for getting started, and if necessary, help migrate those articles to HTML pages.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I'd be more than happy to have one main article about Ray Comfort which, in addition to providing short explanations and links to his common arguments, also links to your site.  You could include a paragraph-long blurb in the links section saying how thorough and extensive it is, and you would have full creative control over it without my (I'm sure) annoying meddling.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What do you say?  --[[User:Kazim|Kazim]] 08:41, 15 November 2011 (CST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Plus, you'd avoid my criticism when I actually do read one or two of the RC articles here. Thanks for removing the gay stereotyping from the &amp;quot;convert your family!&amp;quot; WotM episode review, though. [[User:Jdog|Jdog]] 10:32, 15 November 2011 (CST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Feredir did most of the work, I don't want to remove what he wrote. [[User:Proxima Centauri|Proxima Centauri]] 12:03, 15 November 2011 (CST)&lt;br /&gt;
:Maybe you could start something jointly? --[[User:Kazim|Kazim]] 12:26, 15 November 2011 (CST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thank you for inviting me to this discussion. My thoughts on Kazim's idea are mixed. When I first arrived on IronChariots, I was aware that it was used to confront specific theistic arguments, but when I saw that IC had only 4 review/critiques of Ray's programs and barely a paragraph for one of his books, I thought perhaps there was a little more to IC. At the time, I thought the least I could do was muster some time and man-power to expand IC operations. Now, while I am sure my time and hard work is much appreciated, the thought of having a website is intriguing but an unsure feeling keeps creeping around me. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Proxima, would it be more suiting if we moved all our work (both yours and mine) to Atheism.wiki or would an independent website created by the both of us be more suiting? If the conclusion would be a website, the next difficult part is to make something &amp;quot;uniqueness&amp;quot; I guess. Several rationalist websites confront Ray Comfort (such as forums like WeAreSMRT and the Rational Response Squad) but none of them give a &amp;quot;walk through&amp;quot; of Ray's materials, pointing out and documenting every flaw in Ray's  material. For my own two cents: if I had my own website confronting creationists, it would not focus entirely on Ray Comfort. But before I go any further into that, we must first decide if a website would be the best option, and if it would be the case, I would do what I can to contribute. If not, we will work things out. What say you? [[User:Feredir28|Wolf]] 13:22, 15 November 2011 (CST)&lt;br /&gt;
:It seems that Proxima has already moved a lot of the material I always wished to preserve the most to Atheism.wikia, for which I am most grateful (and soon I will be a user to contribute more). The question of the website still remains open, where Proxima and I (and possibly more) can both decide how to format whatever as we see fit. [[User:Feredir28|Wolf]] 13:35, 15 November 2011 (CST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Now that Wolf's spoken up, I feel that there's a misinterpretation of &amp;quot;refuting specific theistic arguments&amp;quot;. Ray doesn't make new theistic arguments in each of his works, he simply repeats the same arguments over and over (sometimes with minor variations). Once you've made pages for argument from design, personal revelation, and fear of hell, then made appropriate redirects to them (banana argument to argument from design, for example), you've got his entire body of work almost completely refuted. Having a page about him where it lists the specific arguments he makes and links to pages about those arguments is a good thing. [[User:Jdog|Jdog]] 14:58, 15 November 2011 (CST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For several years [http://atheism.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page Atheism Wiki] has stagnated because I thought working to build up this site and RationalWiki would help the cause more.  Recently I decided working more on Atheism Wiki is worthwhile because this wiki caters for intellectuals and RationalWiki is becoming steadily more intellectual.  Nobody is catering for less intellectual types like high school students with religious doubts.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This is your website, it’s your choice whether you keep the Way of the Master Series or not.  I’m sorry that you want to delete it because Google ranks it very high on the first page.  [[User:Proxima Centauri|Proxima Centauri]] 14:08, 15 November 2011 (CST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It’s up to you, Feredir if you want to do your own blog, I’m more experienced with wikis but learning how to do a blog could be interesting.  I plan to work hard on refuting Ray Comfort on Atheism Wiki for 3 reasons.&lt;br /&gt;
#I already know how to work with wikis.&lt;br /&gt;
#Transferring work from one wiki to another is quick and relatively little needs doing to refit the material.&lt;br /&gt;
#On a wiki there is always the chance other people with bad experience of Ray Comfort will join the wiki and help us. [[User:Proxima Centauri|Proxima Centauri]] 14:17, 15 November 2011 (CST)&lt;br /&gt;
:I agree with you Proxima regarding working on a wiki. I too would prefer to work on a wiki since I already know how to do it. I already have my own blog, but I prefer working on wikis like RationalWiki, and info travels faster I think that way since anyone can take the time to contribute and spread the word. I like the sense of teamwork, which is why I helped create [http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Trolling_With_Logic TWL] [[User:Feredir28|Wolf]] 14:30, 15 November 2011 (CST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An unsure feeling keeps creeping around me too, I’m sure together we can make material on Atheism Wiki presentable, how long will it take before Google picks it up?  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree we should deal with other fundamentalists as well as Ray Comfort.  Feredir lives relatively near to Ray Comfort and has first-hand experience of his influence.  So I thought, “OK, let’s spend six months or so refuting Ray Comfort, when we’ve dealt with Ray and Kirk exhaustively we can consider doing something else.&amp;quot;  My 2 cents are that the first priority should be to get [[The Way of the Master]] complete because red links in the template look bad.  Once that’s completed, we can start work debunking other fundamentalists. [[User:Proxima Centauri|Proxima Centauri]] 14:41, 15 November 2011 (CST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:What term are you googling to see ICW on the first page? The only one I saw when I just tried a few was &amp;quot;Ray Comfort&amp;quot;, at the bottom. I think you underestimate people who have religious doubts and do them a disservice by thinking of them as &amp;quot;less intellectual&amp;quot;, which would help explain why your approach to refuting RC's work is so odd. [[User:Jdog|Jdog]] 14:58, 15 November 2011 (CST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::I've already pointed out several times that Google collects data on individual users and tailors their results to what it thinks you want to see.  Just because you see it first in the results doesn't mean that anyone else does.  I don't even see it on the first page. --[[User:Kazim|Kazim]] 16:49, 15 November 2011 (CST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Another thing I want to check on is, did you create the atheism wikia page?  If not, have you checked with the creators in advance to see if it fits their style guidelines?  I'd hate for you to waste a bunch of additional work.  That's one reason why I suggested that a personal web page (neither a wiki nor a blog, but a privately maintained and organized collection of articles) might be the way you want to go.  --[[User:Kazim|Kazim]] 16:54, 15 November 2011 (CST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Feredir and I both think people who've viewed a WOTM video should be able to find a refutation of that video.  Also people who want to know what is in a WOTM video without watching it should be able to find the information.  It's not up to you what we do on our own website. [[User:Proxima Centauri|Proxima Centauri]] 15:02, 15 November 2011 (CST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:I'm not telling you what to do on your own website (why are you continuing to discuss it on this website, anyway? Do you or Feredir not have e-mail?), we crossposted because you write your replies over multiple posts instead of making use of the &amp;quot;show preview&amp;quot; button. My reply was aimed at your claims that the WotM refutations cater to &amp;quot;less intellectual&amp;quot; people, because if you're doing this with the idea that you're an intellectual and that you're writing for the benefit of people of lesser intelligence, you're just turning atheism into a form of &amp;quot;white man's burden&amp;quot; and failing at the very goal you're trying to achieve by doing all these refutations in the first place. Your work is getting bumped from RationalWiki and here because you refuse to see that. [[User:Jdog|Jdog]] 17:54, 15 November 2011 (CST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Deletions and restorations ==&lt;br /&gt;
I understand (from the thread above) that there have been problems with the Ray Comfort related articles lately, but [http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&amp;amp;type=&amp;amp;user=Proxima+Centauri&amp;amp;page= why have you deleted articles] that had extensive content ''before'' you even edited them? For example, you deleted (and I just restored) [[The Beauty of a Broken Spirit—Atheism (Way of the Master)]], [[The Firefighter (Way of the Master)]], and even [[Template:Wayofthemaster]], all of which were originally created and heavily edited by the founders of this wiki (and other administrators). In other words, those articles were not &amp;quot;yours to delete&amp;quot;. I've restored all of them to their respective states before you and/or [[User:Feredir28|Feredir28]] first edited them (since I assume your intention was to remove your and his contributions, and you just got a bit sloppy doing that). You also deleted [[The Satanic Influence (Way of the Master)]], which neither of you ever edited in the first place. A quick glance through the deleted content didn't reveal anything inappropriate, so I've restored that article, too. I didn't restore any articles you or Feredir28 created. - [[User:Dcljr|dcljr]] 05:21, 21 November 2011 (CST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:OK [[User:Proxima Centauri|Proxima Centauri]] 08:13, 21 November 2011 (CST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Hi Dcljr, please check the bottom of the talk page on Ray Comfort.  I requested that the reorganization happen, my preference is to cut down on / relocate the articles specifically addressing individual apologists' bodies of work. --[[User:Kazim|Kazim]] 11:08, 21 November 2011 (CST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::: Hmm. I [[Talk:Ray Comfort|still don't see]] where you suggested that all the articles be deleted, only particular contributions to them. Feel free to re-delete the articles, if you feel that's best. - [[User:Dcljr|dcljr]] 14:00, 21 November 2011 (CST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::: I think you, Kazim and the other senior administrators should decide among yourselves what to do.  I'm tired of all this.  I'm tired of Jdog regularly making us angrier than we were before we read his comments. I'm tired of weeks of hard work followed by being told off by Kazim, Jdog and others.  I'm tired of senior administrators leaving the wiki alone for long periods without saying what they want, then blaming Feredir and me when things are not their liking.  That's the one and only time so far that I can remember when I've agreed with Jdog over anything important.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::: I've copied what matters to Feredir and me to [http://atheism.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page Atheism Wiki] and it is up to you what you do here. [[User:Proxima Centauri|Proxima Centauri]] 15:18, 21 November 2011 (CST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::: I haven't had time to consider this but my first suggestion is to leave things as [[User:Dcljr|dcljr]] left it.  I suspect Kazim and I were wrong to get everything deleted, the next phase in this argument could easily be that the authors of deleted material, (not by Feredir and me) will complain. Then the dispute could escalate with Jdog making criticisms all round.  At least let's leave things as they are for a week or so to give cooling off time and to give the senior administrators time to think and discuss the issue. As I said I'm not keen to be involved further. [[User:Proxima Centauri|Proxima Centauri]] 16:35, 21 November 2011 (CST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::: (Apologies for continuing this on your talk page, but...) FWIW, I don't consider myself a &amp;quot;senior administrator&amp;quot;. The only valid distinction, IMO, is between [[Special:Listusers/sysop|regular admins and bureaucrats]]. I don't know who [[User:EnthusOcn|EnthusOcn]] is, but the other 3 bureaucrats are the ones who founded the wiki in the first place, so they should decide what they want to do with it. I would point out, however, that four articles have been &amp;quot;featured&amp;quot; on the [[Main Page]] for years now, all point-by-point refutations of individual apologetical works. Are we not doing that anymore? This should be discussed on-wiki somewhere; I suggest [[Iron Chariots Wiki talk:Editing guidelines#What are we doing here?]], since this obviously has implications for what we want to say on that project page. - [[User:Dcljr|dcljr]] 17:54, 21 November 2011 (CST)&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Dcljr</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=User_talk:Jdog</id>
		<title>User talk:Jdog</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=User_talk:Jdog"/>
				<updated>2011-11-21T20:03:39Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Dcljr: Drive-by Administrating&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{{Welcome}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thanks for pointing out how much Christian apologetics there was in the article [http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Can_freethinkers_believe_a_religion%3F&amp;amp;oldid=16533 Crisp].  I haven't deleted it, instead I revised it and moved it to [[Can freethinkers believe a religion?]].  I think the article is now worth keeping, I will go through the other articles you flagged for deletion when I have time. [[User:Proxima Centauri|Proxima Centauri]] 06:09, 22 September 2011 (CDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
You helped improve the wiki by showing many theist arguments here unrefuted and that shouldn't happen in an atheist wiki.  Just taking theist stuff out is better than nothing but we should show that our arguments are better, after all we follow the scientific method.  Putting theist stuff back in and showing why it's unreasonable is a long job but that improves the wiki more I feel, thanks for drawing attention to where work is needed. [[User:Proxima Centauri|Proxima Centauri]] 13:28, 22 September 2011 (CDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:I think my main issue with the pages is that they don't link to anything else but other stuff he created. He seems to have made them purely to promote his view of Christianity and a couple of authors that he agrees with; this is not the place for him to do so. I'd love to rip the concept of &amp;quot;Christian Atheism&amp;quot; to shreds, but I don't see a reason to allow him to set up his own little &amp;quot;CrispWiki&amp;quot; here if he can't even be bothered to fit it in to the rest of the wiki. [[User:Jdog|Jdog]] 17:43, 22 September 2011 (CDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Taking over part of a wiki when someone else is paying is a serious issue, if he wants to spread his own ideas and his favourite authors he should pay for his own website or create his own website with free hosting.  Perhaps an effective way of dealing with him is to use the wiki to show how his ideas and his favourite authors are wrong, since he uses someone else's website he can't prevent that.  It's the middle of the night here, I'll consider your comment more carefully later when I've rested. [[User:Proxima Centauri|Proxima Centauri]] 19:34, 22 September 2011 (CDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I've [http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete deleted] 3 of [[User:Rdaley06|Rdaley06's]] articles together with a load of spam, I couldn't keep the articles and remove the references. [[User:Proxima Centauri|Proxima Centauri]] 08:24, 23 September 2011 (CDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Please do not [[Straw man|misrepresent]], when you made [http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Talk%3ARay_Comfort&amp;amp;diff=18868&amp;amp;oldid=18867 this edit] Kazim had not [http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=How_to_Witness_to_a_Loved_One_%28Way_of_the_Master%29&amp;amp;limit=500&amp;amp;action=history removed what I wrote].  It may be that you plan to persuade him but as of now this has not happened. [[User:Proxima Centauri|Proxima Centauri]] 08:12, 4 November 2011 (CDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:*I'm not misrepresenting anything at all, you're misunderstanding me. I haven't editted out anything you've posted on the &amp;quot;WotM: family members&amp;quot; episode page, nor it's discussion page, and you should know this. Does my username appear in the editing history? No, it doesn't. When I said &amp;quot;Ray's page&amp;quot;, I was referring to the following edit of the main [[Ray Comfort]] page:&lt;br /&gt;
:::17:03, 20 October 2011 Jdog ''(Reverted edits by Proxima Centauri. You just got told not to do this sort of thing; where does this relentless hatred of Ray Comfort come from? He's easily refuted and not worth so much of your time.)''&lt;br /&gt;
:I took out a biased sentence [[http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Ray_Comfort&amp;amp;diff=18790&amp;amp;oldid=18784]] you'd just put in at the top of the page [[http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Ray_Comfort&amp;amp;diff=18784&amp;amp;oldid=18767]], then you stuck it back into the Favorite Arguments section a few hours later [[http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Ray_Comfort&amp;amp;diff=18791&amp;amp;oldid=18790]], and the first edit Kazim made to the page afterwards removed it again [[http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Ray_Comfort&amp;amp;diff=18813&amp;amp;oldid=18811]]. It's not a [[misrepresentation|straw man]], you just appear to have a serious problem with Ray Comfort (because you don't continually attack any other apologists this way, even ones more deserving of the effort, like WLC) and it's distorting your ability to think rationally. I'm sure you also don't like having writings that you spent a lot of time on criticized (but that doesn't mean they should be immune to valid criticism) and that may also be clouding your judgement.&lt;br /&gt;
:*As to your claim that someone could read one of the transcripts here of Ray's videos and suddenly decide to become a Christian because the rebuttal wasn't ''right there'' (as opposed to being on a linked-to page about the argument), I say you have no understanding of the vast difference between the non-Christians who visit our wiki and the non-Christians who might watch Ray's videos and potentially find them convincing enough to become Christian. Furthermore, you also misunderstand the purpose of this wiki. From the main page:&lt;br /&gt;
:::Our ultimate goal is to provide a robust and definitive resource for:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;table align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot; width=&amp;quot;85%&amp;quot; border=&amp;quot;0&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* [[atheist]]s seeking responses to common apologetic arguments&lt;br /&gt;
* [[theist]]s who are questioning the efficacy of their beliefs&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* [[apologist]]s who feel that their &amp;quot;pet&amp;quot; argument is above reproach&lt;br /&gt;
* individuals of any philosophical ideal who have an interest in religious studies&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/table&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
:There's nothing in there about transcribing (for rebuttal or not) every single piece of trash an apologist spits out and I suspect that doing so violates copyright laws (full transcriptions of copyrighted material have been successfully challenged as being well beyond the scope of &amp;quot;quoting for review&amp;quot; that would normally be allowed). Ultimately, I think we should delete all the individual pages of the WotM episodes and just edit the main page about the series so that it gives a list of the episodes with the actual arguments made and links to the appropriate pages about those arguments (where they can be rebutted). From what I've seen of the transcripts, there's an awful lot of filler in his videos where he's either repeating an argument he's already made in that episode or just plain not really making any point at all. Like the &amp;quot;dress up like an old lady&amp;quot; bit; I had pulled up the video on youtube to see if you were justified in your comment or not and all that bit was was a walkthrough of a suggested slight variant on the &amp;quot;are you a good person?&amp;quot; argument that Ray's made dozens of times before.&lt;br /&gt;
:*Lastly, I'm not trying to persuade Kazim of anything and I resent the accusation of such; he's already stated in comments that he doesn't want you doing this stuff, yet you keep doing it. The only time I've ever had contact with Kazim was when he replied to my e-mail to AETV about Sans Deity accidentally blocking me when I deleted a bunch of spam articles at once. I wouldn't have even had to do that if you accepted e-mail from the wiki, because you'd just been made an admin at the time and I tried to contact you first.&lt;br /&gt;
:[[User:Jdog|Jdog]] 16:48, 4 November 2011 (CDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==The Problem of Heaven==&lt;br /&gt;
''note: I'm trying to decide what the best page is for this argument ([[Heaven]]? [[Free will]]? [[Faith]]? [[Pascal's Wager]]? Something else?), once I'm happy with the way it reads. Thoughts and criticisms are welcome. I haven't run across this argument before, but I think it would be hubris to say I'm the first to make it, so I'd also be interested in knowing if someone else has made this argument.''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some theists argue that faith is required for us to freely choose to follow God and that the evidence for God is deliberately insufficient. However, this argument is contradicted by the [[appeal to consequences|fear of hell/reward of heaven]] because these are incentives offered to choose to follow God. Why would a god that values our free choice even make us aware of the possibility of changing our destination in afterlife based on that choice, instead of providing unrefutable proof of its own existence and not offering incentives?&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Jdog|Jdog]] 13:53, 18 November 2011 (CST)&lt;br /&gt;
Moved to my talk page, reworded argument. [[User:Jdog|Jdog]] 10:36, 19 November 2011 (CST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Drive-by Administrating ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
See my latest comment at [[User talk:Proxima Centauri#Deletions and restorations]]. I wasn't sure Russell (Kazim) had even noticed the deletions, since he'd only made one small talk-page comment since the deletions happened. - [[User:Dcljr|dcljr]] 14:03, 21 November 2011 (CST)&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Dcljr</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=User_talk:Proxima_Centauri</id>
		<title>User talk:Proxima Centauri</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=User_talk:Proxima_Centauri"/>
				<updated>2011-11-21T20:00:04Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Dcljr: /* Deletions and restorations */ reply&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;I’m lonely here as nobody has spoken to me yet. [[User:Proxima Centauri|Proxima Centauri]] 03:03, 24 July 2009 (CDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:Awww.  There, there. --[[User:Kazim|Kazim]] 11:46, 31 July 2009 (CDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::&amp;lt;irony&amp;gt;Thanks for being so understanding. &amp;lt;/irony&amp;gt; [[User:Proxima Centauri|Proxima Centauri]] 01:04, 1 August 2009 (CDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:Glad to see there are some folks who actually use the chat functions on these wiki pages. I mostly just edit, but I guess I'll have to check them. Off hand, you wouldn't happen to know if there's any way to encode formal logic on this page, would you? The standard wiki form doesn't work. - JStein (8:49, 9/13/2011)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I see you started a WOTM program review. *Big hugs* I have made multiple requests for help on RW, YouTube, and [http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Trolling_With_Logic TWL]. You are the first person to give a helping hand. Thanks mate, I really appreciate it. [[User:Feredir28|Wolf]] 15:25, 6 October 2011 (CDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Multiverse==&lt;br /&gt;
Any chance that we could not use the '''Multiverse''' &amp;quot;theory&amp;quot; here? It's currently an untestable claim that has no evidence to support it, not a scientific theory. I certainly agree that it's ''possible'', but until we have a way of detecting other universes, it's an irrational claim and not suitable for use in counter-apologetics. [[User:Jdog|Jdog]] 09:36, 7 October 2011 (CDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:[http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Kalam&amp;amp;curid=2213&amp;amp;diff=18138&amp;amp;oldid=18111&amp;amp;rcid=17057 I think the mustiverse theory prevents God being proved]. [[User:Proxima Centauri|Proxima Centauri]] 11:10, 7 October 2011 (CDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::It does no such thing. The multiverse ''concept'' (please provide scientific evidence for the claim or stop calling it a theory) simply moves the problem up one level; a theist just has to claim that &amp;quot;God caused the multiverse to exist&amp;quot; and you're back where you started, plus you've added another unprovable claim to the mix. If anything, the concept of parallel universes could potentially be used to explain the conflicts between omniscience, omnipotence, and omnibenevolence. [[User:Jdog|Jdog]] 20:54, 7 October 2011 (CDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I’ve taken it out as the issue is not worth so much trouble and I risk getting behind with refuting [[Ray Comfort]].  In my opinion the [[wikipedia:Multiverse|Muliverse]] is valid against [[Kalam]] because Kalam explicitly states, “Everything that '''starts to exist''' needs a cause and the Multiverse didn’t necessarily , '''start to exist'''.  I agree the Multiverse does not work against general first cause arguments. [[User:Proxima Centauri|Proxima Centauri]] 02:35, 8 October 2011 (CDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Ray Comfort==&lt;br /&gt;
Ray Comfort is, as they say on the Non-Prophets, an ASSHAT (anyone playing the Non-Prophets drinking game?). Pretend i said all this in an Australian pirate accent so it counts as six drinks if you are. Anyway, lets all unite against creationist asshats. I'm just doing some minor editing, correcting some spelling mistakes, maybe adding a sentence or two when needed. Does anyone else visit this site, or are the fundie asshats trying to get rid of us?&lt;br /&gt;
SOMEONE TELL ME HOW TO USE THE CHAT, i just did this by clicking edit on your page, then inserted my username how everyone else's was. [[User: WhatsAGoodUsername?|WhatsAGoodUsername?]] 0334, 30 October 2011 (CDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
You can find out how active the site is by [http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Special:Recentchanges Clicking this link], alternatively you can click Recent changes 3 lines below the picture of the chariot and horses near the top left hand side of the page.  To talk a user you click on the icon saying, “Discussion” in the top left of the Userpage and to talk about an article you click on the icon saying, “Discussion” in the top left of the article.&lt;br /&gt;
  &lt;br /&gt;
This is an atheist website and Christians can’t stop us being ungodly here, see [[Iron Chariots Wiki:Neutral point of view]].  [[User:Feredir28|Feredir28]] has been working very hard helping refute [[Ray Comfort]] as have others. [[User:Proxima Centauri|Proxima Centauri]] 07:04, 30 October 2011 (CDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Okay, thanks. You're on here too much, all the edits I see are from me, you, and two other people. Kazim and Sans Deity need to start &amp;quot;plugging&amp;quot; this site on the Non-Prophets and the Atheist Experience more, we need more people! [[User: WhatsAGoodUsername?|WhatsAGoodUsername?]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Spam/vandalism ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Lol, when I tried saving one of those marked as spam, I was told you had just deleted it. &amp;lt;impolite&amp;gt;Don't you have a life either?&amp;lt;/impolite&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Is there no way we can upgrade the MediaWiki software? The latest version should make user-management, and thus spam-prevention, within easier reach. Sure, it will add some bureaucracy to new user creation, but won't it be worth it?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:You could try asking, [[User:Sans Deity|Sans Deity]], he's the site owner. [[User:Proxima Centauri|Proxima Centauri]] 05:24, 8 October 2011 (CDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::I see he's probably too busy. Especially as an upgrade, apparently ANY upgrade beyond the current version, would require an upgrade of PHP. Which looks like it would involve the ISP...&lt;br /&gt;
::Something tells me that the most effective solution would be to find a new ISP, export and import, and then transfer the domain name to the new site. All of course without stealing the domain from Sans Deity.&lt;br /&gt;
::Isn't this interesting? I didn't even know there was a forum. How much more work would that involve?&lt;br /&gt;
::I can feel myself giving up here.  --[[User:BronzeDome|BronzeDome]] 05:53, 9 October 2011 (CDT)&lt;br /&gt;
Bother... I think I'll leave you to it. I'll stick to fixing typos...  --[[User:BronzeDome|BronzeDome]] 02:31, 10 October 2011 (CDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::: He's going to get to it after wedding season.  Be patient please, no coup is required.  --[[User:Kazim|Kazim]] 15:05, 31 October 2011 (CDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think the computer must have delayed before you found out I'd deleted that stuff.  While I'm checking regularly I don't need delete templates but if ever I can't check for any reason delete templates will be very useful.  Any admin who gets to delete just needs to go to [[:Category:Pages for deletion]] and find a bunch of articles all together ready to delete. [[User:Proxima Centauri|Proxima Centauri]] 10:12, 10 October 2011 (CDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Clean up ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I rolled back some changes and I don't have time to monitor and fix everything. I've been getting complaints about some regulars adding sloppy speculation and changing the site from informative to a personal, sloppy, speculative bitch-slapping of apologists. Dig through your changes....and wherever you've added unfounded accusations, speculations or snide comments - remove them. I'm going to check back after the wedding and if there aren't improvements, I'll be locking the site down, upgrading it and changing policies and permissions. This isn't a place to talk shit about apologists or post things that might cause unnecessary problems. You CANNOT simply toss around accusations about financial motivations - that leads to legal problems, and I'd prefer if people didn't post sloppy arguments. [[User:Sans Deity|Sans Deity]] 01:22, 15 October 2011 (CDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:First, my thanks to Proxima about AtheistWiki, but before we go there mate, we have work to do. I will go through all my material on Ray Comfort - that includes the programs, books, and main page. Nobody here meant harm, but we will not be divide over this issue and continue to work together. [[User:Feredir28|Wolf]] 13:03, 15 October 2011 (CDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I haven’t got time to go through your edits and I’m going to bed soon, I’ve had an infection recently.  On this wiki are writers who’ve done really good hard hitting stuff about the [[Problem of evil]] and other difficult topics.  '''Please write nothing here that could offend those writers or which those writers may not like.'''  You can write snark and offensive stuff at RationalWiki or [http://atheism.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page Atheism Wiki], '''just don’t break any libel laws'''. [[User:Proxima Centauri|Proxima Centauri]] 13:42, 15 October 2011 (CDT)&lt;br /&gt;
*:I appreciate the fixes.  Please take a moment to check out the newly added &amp;quot;types of pages&amp;quot; section under [[Iron Chariots Wiki:Editing guidelines]] for a little more guidance in how pages ought to look. --[[User:Kazim|Kazim]] 18:16, 15 October 2011 (CDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Atheist groups in ... ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I suggest merging all those '''[[Special:Deadendpages|Atheist groups in some-country-or-state]]''' pages into one '''List of atheist groups''' page, organised, naturally, by continent, country and state. The current state of myriad miniature &amp;quot;articles&amp;quot; seems... silly.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
May I?  [[User:BronzeDome|BronzeDome]] 07:02, 18 October 2011 (CDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Please ask [[User:Kazim|Kazim]] or [[User:Sans Deity|Sans Deity]], both know more about this wiki than I do. [[User:Proxima Centauri|Proxima Centauri]] 09:36, 18 October 2011 (CDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Yes please. --[[User:Kazim|Kazim]] 15:04, 31 October 2011 (CDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Praise and Glory to the FSM!==&lt;br /&gt;
What do you think of the edit I did on the page about the FSM? We need a [[War on Christmas]] page, but I'm going to sleep, its 3 Am(pacific time)[[User: WhatsAGoodUsername?|WhatsAGoodUsername?]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I like it but what the established administrators like counts for more here than what I like. [[User:Proxima Centauri|Proxima Centauri]] 06:17, 7 November 2011 (CST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
PLEASE CHECK MY NEW PAGE ON RICK PERRY. It needs more info, linked to my sources in the page, sorry i dont have time to look at my sources more and post more info, it is DAMNED important this gets up and running, as it might prevent another crazy religious president like Bush. One was enough. [[User: WhatsAGoodUsername?|WhatsAGoodUsername?]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have no problem about the article on [[Rick Perry]] but please check with [[User:Sans Deity|Sans Deity]] as he is the site owner.  I suggest writing mainly material demonstrating that Perry’s position on religion is irrational as this wiki is primarily about countering irrational religion.  I suggest checking the sources in the RationalWiki article for information but here you should write respectfully.  Googling [http://www.google.co.uk/#sclient=psy-ab&amp;amp;hl=en&amp;amp;source=hp&amp;amp;q=rick%20perry%2Breligious%20nut&amp;amp;pbx=1&amp;amp;oq=&amp;amp;aq=&amp;amp;aqi=&amp;amp;aql=&amp;amp;gs_sm=&amp;amp;gs_upl=&amp;amp;bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&amp;amp;fp=2f9736ba80af0173&amp;amp;biw=1198&amp;amp;bih=541&amp;amp;pf=p&amp;amp;pdl=3000 rick perry+religious nut] will get you information that will sometimes need rewriting respectfully.  Googling [http://www.google.co.uk/#sclient=psy-ab&amp;amp;hl=en&amp;amp;source=hp&amp;amp;q=rick+perry%2Breligious%2Birrational&amp;amp;pbx=1&amp;amp;oq=rick+perry%2Breligious%2Birrational&amp;amp;aq=f&amp;amp;aqi=&amp;amp;aql=&amp;amp;gs_sm=s&amp;amp;gs_upl=44304l47432l0l50604l11l11l0l0l0l0l178l1412l3.8l11l0&amp;amp;bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&amp;amp;fp=2f9736ba80af0173&amp;amp;biw=1198&amp;amp;bih=541 rick perry+religious+irrational] will get information that won’t need rewording respectfully so often.  I also suggest that you look for websites where political material is expected.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I’m from the UK and I don’t fully understand American politics, I personally fear Mitt Romney because he stands the biggest chance of defeating Obama as far as I know.  [http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Mitt_Romney Mitt Romney] flip flops so much nobody knows what he would do as president.  RationalWiki accepts articles about all relevant issues over the [http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/2012_U.S._Presidential_Election 2012 U.S. Presidential Election] and has articles about most of the [http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/2012_U.S._Presidential_Election#Republican_Party possible Republican runners], you can register there and add to articles or write new ones but not all the editors are polite or well behaved. [[User:Proxima Centauri|Proxima Centauri]] 02:22, 9 November 2011 (CST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I'm from Canada (different time zones suck) and i dont think if i put the bit about the N.A.R. by itself it would really do anything......however, if it is linked to rick perry, then people will notice (hopefully....). i know sans deity is the site owner, i joined this site because i heard about it from some old episodes of the non prophets. My source is legitimate, as it is from national public radio, and it seems unbiased. i dunno, just put it up there because it seems to have some relevance to me.what's your personal opinion of those N.A.R. folks?&lt;br /&gt;
anyways, let me know if you need help deleting spam, i have some free time on my hands. Right now, i think this website is a damn good reference, dont you agree? [[User: WhatsAGoodUsername?|WhatsAGoodUsername?]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I don't need help deleting spam as only administrators can delete.  I don't know much about the N.A.R.  Do you mean the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Apostolic_Reformation New Apostolic Reformation]?  I know no more about them than what's in the Wikipedia article. [[User:Proxima Centauri|Proxima Centauri]] 03:22, 9 November 2011 (CST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Yes, thats what i meant, the youtube video i linked is part of a series by that user that goes into detail about their beliefs (the npr article i posted,[http://www.npr.org/2011/08/24/139781021/the-evangelicals-engaged-in-spiritual-warfare Link] was great too, but less in detail and colorful, as well as being worth less laughs) , and how bat shit crazy they are. for the love of spaghetti, they think oprah is the freakin antichrist! they should cover that crap on the [[Non-Prophets]], it would get so many laughs! i mean, they are the new spanish inquisition without the torture and censorship (at the moment), and they are trying to gain popularity? thats like another hitler staging rock concerts![[User: WhatsAGoodUsername?|WhatsAGoodUsername?]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So, whats religion like in the U.K.?[[User: WhatsAGoodUsername?|WhatsAGoodUsername?]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We have some street corner evangelists but most people in Britain are apathetic about religion or skeptical. [[User:Proxima Centauri|Proxima Centauri]] 02:07, 11 November 2011 (CST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Just like here. I know two and only two christian people under 20. ahhh religion, die already.&lt;br /&gt;
 Been lotsa spam lately huh?&lt;br /&gt;
[[User: WhatsAGoodUsername?|WhatsAGoodUsername?]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I fear the spam will continue till one of the top administrators gets as [[Wikipedia:CAPTCHA|CAPTCHA]]. [[User:Proxima Centauri|Proxima Centauri]] 01:11, 13 November 2011 (CST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Meh, it just shows how morally &amp;quot;superior&amp;quot; theists are.[[User: WhatsAGoodUsername?|WhatsAGoodUsername?]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Proposal for Ray Comfort articles ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hi Proxima,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I'd like to make a modest proposal regarding the large amount of work you've done on all of Ray Comfort's works.  I'm still having the feeling that you're seeing Iron Chariots as a private sandbox to go after Comfort's entire body of work, and the articles you're generating are coming in too fast for anybody to review them, or perhaps even read them.  They don't seem to be strongly cohesive integrated with the rest of the site, the main focus of which is to be a resource for specific arguments with organized responses.  However, here's my alternate suggestion.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A more focused website that is centered around your special interest in Ray would probably be a very useful and more appropriate resource.  Call it whatever you want, make it as polemic and opinionated as you want.  Make it the official &amp;quot;I Hate Ray Comfort&amp;quot; site if you like.  Heck, &amp;quot;ihateraycomfort.com&amp;quot; is available, and I'm sure you could come up with other variations that suit your intentions.  You seem like somebody who knows how to set up a website, but if not I'd be happy to recommend resources for getting started, and if necessary, help migrate those articles to HTML pages.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I'd be more than happy to have one main article about Ray Comfort which, in addition to providing short explanations and links to his common arguments, also links to your site.  You could include a paragraph-long blurb in the links section saying how thorough and extensive it is, and you would have full creative control over it without my (I'm sure) annoying meddling.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What do you say?  --[[User:Kazim|Kazim]] 08:41, 15 November 2011 (CST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Plus, you'd avoid my criticism when I actually do read one or two of the RC articles here. Thanks for removing the gay stereotyping from the &amp;quot;convert your family!&amp;quot; WotM episode review, though. [[User:Jdog|Jdog]] 10:32, 15 November 2011 (CST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Feredir did most of the work, I don't want to remove what he wrote. [[User:Proxima Centauri|Proxima Centauri]] 12:03, 15 November 2011 (CST)&lt;br /&gt;
:Maybe you could start something jointly? --[[User:Kazim|Kazim]] 12:26, 15 November 2011 (CST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thank you for inviting me to this discussion. My thoughts on Kazim's idea are mixed. When I first arrived on IronChariots, I was aware that it was used to confront specific theistic arguments, but when I saw that IC had only 4 review/critiques of Ray's programs and barely a paragraph for one of his books, I thought perhaps there was a little more to IC. At the time, I thought the least I could do was muster some time and man-power to expand IC operations. Now, while I am sure my time and hard work is much appreciated, the thought of having a website is intriguing but an unsure feeling keeps creeping around me. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Proxima, would it be more suiting if we moved all our work (both yours and mine) to Atheism.wiki or would an independent website created by the both of us be more suiting? If the conclusion would be a website, the next difficult part is to make something &amp;quot;uniqueness&amp;quot; I guess. Several rationalist websites confront Ray Comfort (such as forums like WeAreSMRT and the Rational Response Squad) but none of them give a &amp;quot;walk through&amp;quot; of Ray's materials, pointing out and documenting every flaw in Ray's  material. For my own two cents: if I had my own website confronting creationists, it would not focus entirely on Ray Comfort. But before I go any further into that, we must first decide if a website would be the best option, and if it would be the case, I would do what I can to contribute. If not, we will work things out. What say you? [[User:Feredir28|Wolf]] 13:22, 15 November 2011 (CST)&lt;br /&gt;
:It seems that Proxima has already moved a lot of the material I always wished to preserve the most to Atheism.wikia, for which I am most grateful (and soon I will be a user to contribute more). The question of the website still remains open, where Proxima and I (and possibly more) can both decide how to format whatever as we see fit. [[User:Feredir28|Wolf]] 13:35, 15 November 2011 (CST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Now that Wolf's spoken up, I feel that there's a misinterpretation of &amp;quot;refuting specific theistic arguments&amp;quot;. Ray doesn't make new theistic arguments in each of his works, he simply repeats the same arguments over and over (sometimes with minor variations). Once you've made pages for argument from design, personal revelation, and fear of hell, then made appropriate redirects to them (banana argument to argument from design, for example), you've got his entire body of work almost completely refuted. Having a page about him where it lists the specific arguments he makes and links to pages about those arguments is a good thing. [[User:Jdog|Jdog]] 14:58, 15 November 2011 (CST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For several years [http://atheism.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page Atheism Wiki] has stagnated because I thought working to build up this site and RationalWiki would help the cause more.  Recently I decided working more on Atheism Wiki is worthwhile because this wiki caters for intellectuals and RationalWiki is becoming steadily more intellectual.  Nobody is catering for less intellectual types like high school students with religious doubts.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This is your website, it’s your choice whether you keep the Way of the Master Series or not.  I’m sorry that you want to delete it because Google ranks it very high on the first page.  [[User:Proxima Centauri|Proxima Centauri]] 14:08, 15 November 2011 (CST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It’s up to you, Feredir if you want to do your own blog, I’m more experienced with wikis but learning how to do a blog could be interesting.  I plan to work hard on refuting Ray Comfort on Atheism Wiki for 3 reasons.&lt;br /&gt;
#I already know how to work with wikis.&lt;br /&gt;
#Transferring work from one wiki to another is quick and relatively little needs doing to refit the material.&lt;br /&gt;
#On a wiki there is always the chance other people with bad experience of Ray Comfort will join the wiki and help us. [[User:Proxima Centauri|Proxima Centauri]] 14:17, 15 November 2011 (CST)&lt;br /&gt;
:I agree with you Proxima regarding working on a wiki. I too would prefer to work on a wiki since I already know how to do it. I already have my own blog, but I prefer working on wikis like RationalWiki, and info travels faster I think that way since anyone can take the time to contribute and spread the word. I like the sense of teamwork, which is why I helped create [http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Trolling_With_Logic TWL] [[User:Feredir28|Wolf]] 14:30, 15 November 2011 (CST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An unsure feeling keeps creeping around me too, I’m sure together we can make material on Atheism Wiki presentable, how long will it take before Google picks it up?  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree we should deal with other fundamentalists as well as Ray Comfort.  Feredir lives relatively near to Ray Comfort and has first-hand experience of his influence.  So I thought, “OK, let’s spend six months or so refuting Ray Comfort, when we’ve dealt with Ray and Kirk exhaustively we can consider doing something else.&amp;quot;  My 2 cents are that the first priority should be to get [[The Way of the Master]] complete because red links in the template look bad.  Once that’s completed, we can start work debunking other fundamentalists. [[User:Proxima Centauri|Proxima Centauri]] 14:41, 15 November 2011 (CST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:What term are you googling to see ICW on the first page? The only one I saw when I just tried a few was &amp;quot;Ray Comfort&amp;quot;, at the bottom. I think you underestimate people who have religious doubts and do them a disservice by thinking of them as &amp;quot;less intellectual&amp;quot;, which would help explain why your approach to refuting RC's work is so odd. [[User:Jdog|Jdog]] 14:58, 15 November 2011 (CST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::I've already pointed out several times that Google collects data on individual users and tailors their results to what it thinks you want to see.  Just because you see it first in the results doesn't mean that anyone else does.  I don't even see it on the first page. --[[User:Kazim|Kazim]] 16:49, 15 November 2011 (CST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Another thing I want to check on is, did you create the atheism wikia page?  If not, have you checked with the creators in advance to see if it fits their style guidelines?  I'd hate for you to waste a bunch of additional work.  That's one reason why I suggested that a personal web page (neither a wiki nor a blog, but a privately maintained and organized collection of articles) might be the way you want to go.  --[[User:Kazim|Kazim]] 16:54, 15 November 2011 (CST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Feredir and I both think people who've viewed a WOTM video should be able to find a refutation of that video.  Also people who want to know what is in a WOTM video without watching it should be able to find the information.  It's not up to you what we do on our own website. [[User:Proxima Centauri|Proxima Centauri]] 15:02, 15 November 2011 (CST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:I'm not telling you what to do on your own website (why are you continuing to discuss it on this website, anyway? Do you or Feredir not have e-mail?), we crossposted because you write your replies over multiple posts instead of making use of the &amp;quot;show preview&amp;quot; button. My reply was aimed at your claims that the WotM refutations cater to &amp;quot;less intellectual&amp;quot; people, because if you're doing this with the idea that you're an intellectual and that you're writing for the benefit of people of lesser intelligence, you're just turning atheism into a form of &amp;quot;white man's burden&amp;quot; and failing at the very goal you're trying to achieve by doing all these refutations in the first place. Your work is getting bumped from RationalWiki and here because you refuse to see that. [[User:Jdog|Jdog]] 17:54, 15 November 2011 (CST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Deletions and restorations ==&lt;br /&gt;
I understand (from the thread above) that there have been problems with the Ray Comfort related articles lately, but [http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&amp;amp;type=&amp;amp;user=Proxima+Centauri&amp;amp;page= why have you deleted articles] that had extensive content ''before'' you even edited them? For example, you deleted (and I just restored) [[The Beauty of a Broken Spirit—Atheism (Way of the Master)]], [[The Firefighter (Way of the Master)]], and even [[Template:Wayofthemaster]], all of which were originally created and heavily edited by the founders of this wiki (and other administrators). In other words, those articles were not &amp;quot;yours to delete&amp;quot;. I've restored all of them to their respective states before you and/or [[User:Feredir28|Feredir28]] first edited them (since I assume your intention was to remove your and his contributions, and you just got a bit sloppy doing that). You also deleted [[The Satanic Influence (Way of the Master)]], which neither of you ever edited in the first place. A quick glance through the deleted content didn't reveal anything inappropriate, so I've restored that article, too. I didn't restore any articles you or Feredir28 created. - [[User:Dcljr|dcljr]] 05:21, 21 November 2011 (CST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:OK [[User:Proxima Centauri|Proxima Centauri]] 08:13, 21 November 2011 (CST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Hi Dcljr, please check the bottom of the talk page on Ray Comfort.  I requested that the reorganization happen, my preference is to cut down on / relocate the articles specifically addressing individual apologists' bodies of work. --[[User:Kazim|Kazim]] 11:08, 21 November 2011 (CST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::: Hmm. I [[Talk:Ray Comfort|still don't see]] where you suggested that all the articles be deleted, only particular contributions to them. Feel free to re-delete the articles, if you feel that's best. - [[User:Dcljr|dcljr]] 14:00, 21 November 2011 (CST)&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Dcljr</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=User_talk:Feredir28</id>
		<title>User talk:Feredir28</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=User_talk:Feredir28"/>
				<updated>2011-11-21T11:40:17Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Dcljr: Deletions and restorations&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Template question ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User talk:Dcljr#Template question|You asked]] about &amp;quot;''how to leave a link to the Way of the Master Template at the bottom of [the [[Conscience (Way of the Master)]] article].''&amp;quot; I'm not sure what you mean, since the template is there already. If you mean how do you link to your new article '''from''' the template, I [http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Template:Wayofthemaster&amp;amp;diff=15033&amp;amp;oldid=11581 changed it] to do that. It doesn't show up as a link on [[Conscience (Way of the Master)#External links|the article itself]] (such self-links come out as bold text), but you can see the link at [[Template:Wayofthemaster|the template page]] and [[The Firefighter %28Way of the Master%29#External link|on other articles]] that contain that template. - [[User:Dcljr|dcljr]] 12:45, 15 January 2011 (CST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thank you mate. Sorry about wording my question like that, but you did what I asked. I wanted my article to be linked from the template. I have several more rebuttals to Way of the Master episodes coming later. Thanks. Have a good one. --[[User:Feredir28|Wolf]] 11:45, 16 January 2011 (CST)Feredir28&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== RationalWiki ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What you're writing here and at RationalWiki on [[Ray Comfort]] is very good, at RatWiki short [http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/RationalWiki:Blocking_policy Joke Blocks] are an enjoyable game. [[User:Proxima Centauri|Proxima Centauri]] 02:38, 15 September 2011 (CDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:Thank you very much for that. I do not fully get the game, it seems to me like a tag game. Whatever it is, I appreciate it but I think I will stick to what I do best. Also, a quick question, maybe you can help. Over the years, I have heard from many Christians that their religion is responsible for creating many things (reason, science, democracy, morality, ect.) and I am sure we have heard some form of it once. For this, I recently created the article [[Christianity invented science]] and explained why it is wrong. I chose this one because it is growing in the conservative academia and Christian apologetic literature. However, there is just one more topic I want to address, the delusion that Christianity invented secularism. I would not bother with this unless it was no growing as well, but I see it very frequently. Anyway, I know we already have a article on separation of church and state, but I wanted to know if I should create an entirely new article refuting the stance that secularism is a Christian idea and separation of church and state was invented to keep government out of religion and not the other way around. What should I do? [[User:Feredir28|Wolf]] 13:01, 15 September 2011 (CDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::If you feel you can write well on any topic please do. [[User:Proxima Centauri|Proxima Centauri]] 11:47, 28 September 2011 (CDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Ray Comfort again ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Google puts our article on [[Ray Comfort]] on its first page, can you help improve it still further? [[User:Proxima Centauri|Proxima Centauri]] 11:48, 28 September 2011 (CDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:Really!? That's exciting! You can count on me to improve it. Oh, this is going to be fun. I just have to work on two of the programs, but don't worry, I will get around to it quickly. [[User:Feredir28|Wolf]] 12:07, 28 September 2011 (CDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Christian morality ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I've had it up to here with Christians calling us immoral. [[User:Proxima Centauri|Proxima Centauri]] 12:47, 11 October 2011 (CDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:You and me both. Im sick of the excuse, if there is no God, everything is allowed. Even my own mother totally accepts this. I plan to extend secular morality real soon, and a bit more on christian morality. [[User:Feredir28|Wolf]] 15:26, 11 October 2011 (CDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:I'm also thinking of starting an article or something addressing the problems of Christian absolute morality. What do you think? [[User:Feredir28|Wolf]] 15:39, 11 October 2011 (CDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:You don't need to ask me before you write anything. [[User:Proxima Centauri|Proxima Centauri]] 01:44, 12 October 2011 (CDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Clean up ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I rolled back some changes and I don't have time to monitor and fix everything. I've been getting complaints about some regulars adding sloppy speculation and changing the site from informative to a personal, sloppy, speculative bitch-slapping of apologists. Dig through your changes....and wherever you've added unfounded accusations, speculations or snide comments - remove them. I'm going to check back after the wedding and if there aren't improvements, I'll be locking the site down, upgrading it and changing policies and permissions. This isn't a place to talk shit about apologists or post things that might cause unnecessary problems. You CANNOT simply toss around accusations about financial motivations - that leads to legal problems, and I'd prefer if people didn't post sloppy arguments. [[User:Sans Deity|Sans Deity]] 01:21, 15 October 2011 (CDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I waited a few hours before responding so as not to write anything hasty.  The most important, I feel is that we don't let the Christians divide us.  Snide comments are often acceptable in RationalWiki '''provided they can be proved in a court of law'''.  If the site owners don't want that sort of stuff here it's best removed or transfered elsewhere. [[User:Proxima Centauri|Proxima Centauri]] 04:37, 15 October 2011 (CDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A [http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Black_swan Black swan] event has something in common with this.  We were editing here, the position of the work we were doing was rising steadily in Google so we both thought we were improving the wiki.  Then suddenly we opened our computers and found we were in trouble.  I can’t at the moment think of a better or more robust way of dealing with this black swan than what I’ve already suggested, move the snide stuff elsewhere and explain that we didn’t mean any harm.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For the future please let us know sooner if we are editing in ways the regulars don’t like so we don’t waste a fortnight’s work. [[User:Proxima Centauri|Proxima Centauri]] 09:03, 15 October 2011 (CDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I haven't read, [[Iron Chariots Wiki:Editing guidelines]], as I said I've been unwell recently but both of us should read it carefully before we edit again.  You can write snark and offensive stuff at RationalWiki or [http://atheism.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page Atheism Wiki], '''just don’t break any libel laws'''.  You can write long articles there as well. [[User:Proxima Centauri|Proxima Centauri]] 13:50, 15 October 2011 (CDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My apologies for all this. Nobody here meant any harm, and we will see to it that we fix the material. I will get on it right away. [[User:Feredir28|Wolf]] 14:51, 15 October 2011 (CDT)&lt;br /&gt;
*'''Update''': I revised several programs and articles, but I must pause here. I just received notice that my great-grandmother just passed, and I must take off. Again, I'm sorry for all this, and I promise to get back to work when I can. [[User:Feredir28|Wolf]] 14:51, 15 October 2011 (CDT)&lt;br /&gt;
**I appreciate the fixes.  Please take a moment to check out the newly added &amp;quot;[[Iron Chariots Wiki:Editing guidelines#Types of pages|types of pages]]&amp;quot; section under [[Iron Chariots Wiki:Editing guidelines]] for a little more guidance in how pages ought to look. --[[User:Kazim|Kazim]] 18:16, 15 October 2011 (CDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There has been a problem with [[Jehovah's Witness (Way of the Master)]].  When I viewed [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G80lC6dIiZo the video] it didn’t start with the scene in Time Square that you described and we must be extra careful about accuracy on Atheist websites.  People often/usually believe Christians unless a lie is proved and even if a lie is proved people may still excuse it because [http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Liars_for_Jesus Lying for Jesus] is imagined to be lying for a good cause.  By contrast there is prejudice against atheists and if we’re caught out writing anything inaccurate, even if it’s unintentionally inaccurate we can easily get labelled deceitful immoral atheists.  We need to be scrupulously accurate so people learn that they can trust what we write even though they can’t always trust the Christians.  I don’t know what went wrong, perhaps Ray Comfort changed the video since you viewed it, just please do what you can to prevent such problems in future. [[User:Proxima Centauri|Proxima Centauri]] 05:32, 9 November 2011 (CST)&lt;br /&gt;
:I fixed it. The scene with the Time Squares can be seen on truegod.tv (seen [http://www.truegod.tv/v/1b3d here]). I made a special note that the YouTube episode does not have the Time Square part included. I know that theists will jump at the chance to point out every small bit when and where we are incorrect. [[User:Feredir28|Wolf]] 12:52, 9 November 2011 (CST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Possible Ray Comfort website ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I'd like your feedback on [http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=User_talk:Proxima_Centauri#Proposal_for_Ray_Comfort_articles this suggestion]. --[[User:Kazim|Kazim]] 12:28, 15 November 2011 (CST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Deletions and restorations ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Please see [[User talk:Proxima Centauri#Deletions and restorations]]. Following up on what I said there, I see I restored [http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=The_Firefighter_%28Way_of_the_Master%29&amp;amp;diff=17182&amp;amp;oldid=11391 one recent edit of yours] that seemed harmless enough. You can remove the text yourself, if you wish. On the other hand, I can restore some other deleted edits of yours if you don't agree with all of [[User:Proxima Centauri|Proxima Centauri]]'s wholesale [http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&amp;amp;type=&amp;amp;user=Proxima+Centauri&amp;amp;page= deletions]. - [[User:Dcljr|dcljr]] 05:40, 21 November 2011 (CST)&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Dcljr</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=User_talk:Proxima_Centauri</id>
		<title>User talk:Proxima Centauri</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=User_talk:Proxima_Centauri"/>
				<updated>2011-11-21T11:21:52Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Dcljr: Deletions and restorations&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;I’m lonely here as nobody has spoken to me yet. [[User:Proxima Centauri|Proxima Centauri]] 03:03, 24 July 2009 (CDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:Awww.  There, there. --[[User:Kazim|Kazim]] 11:46, 31 July 2009 (CDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::&amp;lt;irony&amp;gt;Thanks for being so understanding. &amp;lt;/irony&amp;gt; [[User:Proxima Centauri|Proxima Centauri]] 01:04, 1 August 2009 (CDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:Glad to see there are some folks who actually use the chat functions on these wiki pages. I mostly just edit, but I guess I'll have to check them. Off hand, you wouldn't happen to know if there's any way to encode formal logic on this page, would you? The standard wiki form doesn't work. - JStein (8:49, 9/13/2011)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I see you started a WOTM program review. *Big hugs* I have made multiple requests for help on RW, YouTube, and [http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Trolling_With_Logic TWL]. You are the first person to give a helping hand. Thanks mate, I really appreciate it. [[User:Feredir28|Wolf]] 15:25, 6 October 2011 (CDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Multiverse==&lt;br /&gt;
Any chance that we could not use the '''Multiverse''' &amp;quot;theory&amp;quot; here? It's currently an untestable claim that has no evidence to support it, not a scientific theory. I certainly agree that it's ''possible'', but until we have a way of detecting other universes, it's an irrational claim and not suitable for use in counter-apologetics. [[User:Jdog|Jdog]] 09:36, 7 October 2011 (CDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:[http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Kalam&amp;amp;curid=2213&amp;amp;diff=18138&amp;amp;oldid=18111&amp;amp;rcid=17057 I think the mustiverse theory prevents God being proved]. [[User:Proxima Centauri|Proxima Centauri]] 11:10, 7 October 2011 (CDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::It does no such thing. The multiverse ''concept'' (please provide scientific evidence for the claim or stop calling it a theory) simply moves the problem up one level; a theist just has to claim that &amp;quot;God caused the multiverse to exist&amp;quot; and you're back where you started, plus you've added another unprovable claim to the mix. If anything, the concept of parallel universes could potentially be used to explain the conflicts between omniscience, omnipotence, and omnibenevolence. [[User:Jdog|Jdog]] 20:54, 7 October 2011 (CDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I’ve taken it out as the issue is not worth so much trouble and I risk getting behind with refuting [[Ray Comfort]].  In my opinion the [[wikipedia:Multiverse|Muliverse]] is valid against [[Kalam]] because Kalam explicitly states, “Everything that '''starts to exist''' needs a cause and the Multiverse didn’t necessarily , '''start to exist'''.  I agree the Multiverse does not work against general first cause arguments. [[User:Proxima Centauri|Proxima Centauri]] 02:35, 8 October 2011 (CDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Ray Comfort==&lt;br /&gt;
Ray Comfort is, as they say on the Non-Prophets, an ASSHAT (anyone playing the Non-Prophets drinking game?). Pretend i said all this in an Australian pirate accent so it counts as six drinks if you are. Anyway, lets all unite against creationist asshats. I'm just doing some minor editing, correcting some spelling mistakes, maybe adding a sentence or two when needed. Does anyone else visit this site, or are the fundie asshats trying to get rid of us?&lt;br /&gt;
SOMEONE TELL ME HOW TO USE THE CHAT, i just did this by clicking edit on your page, then inserted my username how everyone else's was. [[User: WhatsAGoodUsername?|WhatsAGoodUsername?]] 0334, 30 October 2011 (CDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
You can find out how active the site is by [http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Special:Recentchanges Clicking this link], alternatively you can click Recent changes 3 lines below the picture of the chariot and horses near the top left hand side of the page.  To talk a user you click on the icon saying, “Discussion” in the top left of the Userpage and to talk about an article you click on the icon saying, “Discussion” in the top left of the article.&lt;br /&gt;
  &lt;br /&gt;
This is an atheist website and Christians can’t stop us being ungodly here, see [[Iron Chariots Wiki:Neutral point of view]].  [[User:Feredir28|Feredir28]] has been working very hard helping refute [[Ray Comfort]] as have others. [[User:Proxima Centauri|Proxima Centauri]] 07:04, 30 October 2011 (CDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Okay, thanks. You're on here too much, all the edits I see are from me, you, and two other people. Kazim and Sans Deity need to start &amp;quot;plugging&amp;quot; this site on the Non-Prophets and the Atheist Experience more, we need more people! [[User: WhatsAGoodUsername?|WhatsAGoodUsername?]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Spam/vandalism ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Lol, when I tried saving one of those marked as spam, I was told you had just deleted it. &amp;lt;impolite&amp;gt;Don't you have a life either?&amp;lt;/impolite&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Is there no way we can upgrade the MediaWiki software? The latest version should make user-management, and thus spam-prevention, within easier reach. Sure, it will add some bureaucracy to new user creation, but won't it be worth it?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:You could try asking, [[User:Sans Deity|Sans Deity]], he's the site owner. [[User:Proxima Centauri|Proxima Centauri]] 05:24, 8 October 2011 (CDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::I see he's probably too busy. Especially as an upgrade, apparently ANY upgrade beyond the current version, would require an upgrade of PHP. Which looks like it would involve the ISP...&lt;br /&gt;
::Something tells me that the most effective solution would be to find a new ISP, export and import, and then transfer the domain name to the new site. All of course without stealing the domain from Sans Deity.&lt;br /&gt;
::Isn't this interesting? I didn't even know there was a forum. How much more work would that involve?&lt;br /&gt;
::I can feel myself giving up here.  --[[User:BronzeDome|BronzeDome]] 05:53, 9 October 2011 (CDT)&lt;br /&gt;
Bother... I think I'll leave you to it. I'll stick to fixing typos...  --[[User:BronzeDome|BronzeDome]] 02:31, 10 October 2011 (CDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::: He's going to get to it after wedding season.  Be patient please, no coup is required.  --[[User:Kazim|Kazim]] 15:05, 31 October 2011 (CDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think the computer must have delayed before you found out I'd deleted that stuff.  While I'm checking regularly I don't need delete templates but if ever I can't check for any reason delete templates will be very useful.  Any admin who gets to delete just needs to go to [[:Category:Pages for deletion]] and find a bunch of articles all together ready to delete. [[User:Proxima Centauri|Proxima Centauri]] 10:12, 10 October 2011 (CDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Clean up ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I rolled back some changes and I don't have time to monitor and fix everything. I've been getting complaints about some regulars adding sloppy speculation and changing the site from informative to a personal, sloppy, speculative bitch-slapping of apologists. Dig through your changes....and wherever you've added unfounded accusations, speculations or snide comments - remove them. I'm going to check back after the wedding and if there aren't improvements, I'll be locking the site down, upgrading it and changing policies and permissions. This isn't a place to talk shit about apologists or post things that might cause unnecessary problems. You CANNOT simply toss around accusations about financial motivations - that leads to legal problems, and I'd prefer if people didn't post sloppy arguments. [[User:Sans Deity|Sans Deity]] 01:22, 15 October 2011 (CDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:First, my thanks to Proxima about AtheistWiki, but before we go there mate, we have work to do. I will go through all my material on Ray Comfort - that includes the programs, books, and main page. Nobody here meant harm, but we will not be divide over this issue and continue to work together. [[User:Feredir28|Wolf]] 13:03, 15 October 2011 (CDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I haven’t got time to go through your edits and I’m going to bed soon, I’ve had an infection recently.  On this wiki are writers who’ve done really good hard hitting stuff about the [[Problem of evil]] and other difficult topics.  '''Please write nothing here that could offend those writers or which those writers may not like.'''  You can write snark and offensive stuff at RationalWiki or [http://atheism.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page Atheism Wiki], '''just don’t break any libel laws'''. [[User:Proxima Centauri|Proxima Centauri]] 13:42, 15 October 2011 (CDT)&lt;br /&gt;
*:I appreciate the fixes.  Please take a moment to check out the newly added &amp;quot;types of pages&amp;quot; section under [[Iron Chariots Wiki:Editing guidelines]] for a little more guidance in how pages ought to look. --[[User:Kazim|Kazim]] 18:16, 15 October 2011 (CDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Atheist groups in ... ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I suggest merging all those '''[[Special:Deadendpages|Atheist groups in some-country-or-state]]''' pages into one '''List of atheist groups''' page, organised, naturally, by continent, country and state. The current state of myriad miniature &amp;quot;articles&amp;quot; seems... silly.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
May I?  [[User:BronzeDome|BronzeDome]] 07:02, 18 October 2011 (CDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Please ask [[User:Kazim|Kazim]] or [[User:Sans Deity|Sans Deity]], both know more about this wiki than I do. [[User:Proxima Centauri|Proxima Centauri]] 09:36, 18 October 2011 (CDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Yes please. --[[User:Kazim|Kazim]] 15:04, 31 October 2011 (CDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Praise and Glory to the FSM!==&lt;br /&gt;
What do you think of the edit I did on the page about the FSM? We need a [[War on Christmas]] page, but I'm going to sleep, its 3 Am(pacific time)[[User: WhatsAGoodUsername?|WhatsAGoodUsername?]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I like it but what the established administrators like counts for more here than what I like. [[User:Proxima Centauri|Proxima Centauri]] 06:17, 7 November 2011 (CST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
PLEASE CHECK MY NEW PAGE ON RICK PERRY. It needs more info, linked to my sources in the page, sorry i dont have time to look at my sources more and post more info, it is DAMNED important this gets up and running, as it might prevent another crazy religious president like Bush. One was enough. [[User: WhatsAGoodUsername?|WhatsAGoodUsername?]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have no problem about the article on [[Rick Perry]] but please check with [[User:Sans Deity|Sans Deity]] as he is the site owner.  I suggest writing mainly material demonstrating that Perry’s position on religion is irrational as this wiki is primarily about countering irrational religion.  I suggest checking the sources in the RationalWiki article for information but here you should write respectfully.  Googling [http://www.google.co.uk/#sclient=psy-ab&amp;amp;hl=en&amp;amp;source=hp&amp;amp;q=rick%20perry%2Breligious%20nut&amp;amp;pbx=1&amp;amp;oq=&amp;amp;aq=&amp;amp;aqi=&amp;amp;aql=&amp;amp;gs_sm=&amp;amp;gs_upl=&amp;amp;bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&amp;amp;fp=2f9736ba80af0173&amp;amp;biw=1198&amp;amp;bih=541&amp;amp;pf=p&amp;amp;pdl=3000 rick perry+religious nut] will get you information that will sometimes need rewriting respectfully.  Googling [http://www.google.co.uk/#sclient=psy-ab&amp;amp;hl=en&amp;amp;source=hp&amp;amp;q=rick+perry%2Breligious%2Birrational&amp;amp;pbx=1&amp;amp;oq=rick+perry%2Breligious%2Birrational&amp;amp;aq=f&amp;amp;aqi=&amp;amp;aql=&amp;amp;gs_sm=s&amp;amp;gs_upl=44304l47432l0l50604l11l11l0l0l0l0l178l1412l3.8l11l0&amp;amp;bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&amp;amp;fp=2f9736ba80af0173&amp;amp;biw=1198&amp;amp;bih=541 rick perry+religious+irrational] will get information that won’t need rewording respectfully so often.  I also suggest that you look for websites where political material is expected.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I’m from the UK and I don’t fully understand American politics, I personally fear Mitt Romney because he stands the biggest chance of defeating Obama as far as I know.  [http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Mitt_Romney Mitt Romney] flip flops so much nobody knows what he would do as president.  RationalWiki accepts articles about all relevant issues over the [http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/2012_U.S._Presidential_Election 2012 U.S. Presidential Election] and has articles about most of the [http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/2012_U.S._Presidential_Election#Republican_Party possible Republican runners], you can register there and add to articles or write new ones but not all the editors are polite or well behaved. [[User:Proxima Centauri|Proxima Centauri]] 02:22, 9 November 2011 (CST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I'm from Canada (different time zones suck) and i dont think if i put the bit about the N.A.R. by itself it would really do anything......however, if it is linked to rick perry, then people will notice (hopefully....). i know sans deity is the site owner, i joined this site because i heard about it from some old episodes of the non prophets. My source is legitimate, as it is from national public radio, and it seems unbiased. i dunno, just put it up there because it seems to have some relevance to me.what's your personal opinion of those N.A.R. folks?&lt;br /&gt;
anyways, let me know if you need help deleting spam, i have some free time on my hands. Right now, i think this website is a damn good reference, dont you agree? [[User: WhatsAGoodUsername?|WhatsAGoodUsername?]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I don't need help deleting spam as only administrators can delete.  I don't know much about the N.A.R.  Do you mean the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Apostolic_Reformation New Apostolic Reformation]?  I know no more about them than what's in the Wikipedia article. [[User:Proxima Centauri|Proxima Centauri]] 03:22, 9 November 2011 (CST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Yes, thats what i meant, the youtube video i linked is part of a series by that user that goes into detail about their beliefs (the npr article i posted,[http://www.npr.org/2011/08/24/139781021/the-evangelicals-engaged-in-spiritual-warfare Link] was great too, but less in detail and colorful, as well as being worth less laughs) , and how bat shit crazy they are. for the love of spaghetti, they think oprah is the freakin antichrist! they should cover that crap on the [[Non-Prophets]], it would get so many laughs! i mean, they are the new spanish inquisition without the torture and censorship (at the moment), and they are trying to gain popularity? thats like another hitler staging rock concerts![[User: WhatsAGoodUsername?|WhatsAGoodUsername?]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So, whats religion like in the U.K.?[[User: WhatsAGoodUsername?|WhatsAGoodUsername?]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We have some street corner evangelists but most people in Britain are apathetic about religion or skeptical. [[User:Proxima Centauri|Proxima Centauri]] 02:07, 11 November 2011 (CST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Just like here. I know two and only two christian people under 20. ahhh religion, die already.&lt;br /&gt;
 Been lotsa spam lately huh?&lt;br /&gt;
[[User: WhatsAGoodUsername?|WhatsAGoodUsername?]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I fear the spam will continue till one of the top administrators gets as [[Wikipedia:CAPTCHA|CAPTCHA]]. [[User:Proxima Centauri|Proxima Centauri]] 01:11, 13 November 2011 (CST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Meh, it just shows how morally &amp;quot;superior&amp;quot; theists are.[[User: WhatsAGoodUsername?|WhatsAGoodUsername?]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Proposal for Ray Comfort articles ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hi Proxima,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I'd like to make a modest proposal regarding the large amount of work you've done on all of Ray Comfort's works.  I'm still having the feeling that you're seeing Iron Chariots as a private sandbox to go after Comfort's entire body of work, and the articles you're generating are coming in too fast for anybody to review them, or perhaps even read them.  They don't seem to be strongly cohesive integrated with the rest of the site, the main focus of which is to be a resource for specific arguments with organized responses.  However, here's my alternate suggestion.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A more focused website that is centered around your special interest in Ray would probably be a very useful and more appropriate resource.  Call it whatever you want, make it as polemic and opinionated as you want.  Make it the official &amp;quot;I Hate Ray Comfort&amp;quot; site if you like.  Heck, &amp;quot;ihateraycomfort.com&amp;quot; is available, and I'm sure you could come up with other variations that suit your intentions.  You seem like somebody who knows how to set up a website, but if not I'd be happy to recommend resources for getting started, and if necessary, help migrate those articles to HTML pages.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I'd be more than happy to have one main article about Ray Comfort which, in addition to providing short explanations and links to his common arguments, also links to your site.  You could include a paragraph-long blurb in the links section saying how thorough and extensive it is, and you would have full creative control over it without my (I'm sure) annoying meddling.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What do you say?  --[[User:Kazim|Kazim]] 08:41, 15 November 2011 (CST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Plus, you'd avoid my criticism when I actually do read one or two of the RC articles here. Thanks for removing the gay stereotyping from the &amp;quot;convert your family!&amp;quot; WotM episode review, though. [[User:Jdog|Jdog]] 10:32, 15 November 2011 (CST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Feredir did most of the work, I don't want to remove what he wrote. [[User:Proxima Centauri|Proxima Centauri]] 12:03, 15 November 2011 (CST)&lt;br /&gt;
:Maybe you could start something jointly? --[[User:Kazim|Kazim]] 12:26, 15 November 2011 (CST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thank you for inviting me to this discussion. My thoughts on Kazim's idea are mixed. When I first arrived on IronChariots, I was aware that it was used to confront specific theistic arguments, but when I saw that IC had only 4 review/critiques of Ray's programs and barely a paragraph for one of his books, I thought perhaps there was a little more to IC. At the time, I thought the least I could do was muster some time and man-power to expand IC operations. Now, while I am sure my time and hard work is much appreciated, the thought of having a website is intriguing but an unsure feeling keeps creeping around me. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Proxima, would it be more suiting if we moved all our work (both yours and mine) to Atheism.wiki or would an independent website created by the both of us be more suiting? If the conclusion would be a website, the next difficult part is to make something &amp;quot;uniqueness&amp;quot; I guess. Several rationalist websites confront Ray Comfort (such as forums like WeAreSMRT and the Rational Response Squad) but none of them give a &amp;quot;walk through&amp;quot; of Ray's materials, pointing out and documenting every flaw in Ray's  material. For my own two cents: if I had my own website confronting creationists, it would not focus entirely on Ray Comfort. But before I go any further into that, we must first decide if a website would be the best option, and if it would be the case, I would do what I can to contribute. If not, we will work things out. What say you? [[User:Feredir28|Wolf]] 13:22, 15 November 2011 (CST)&lt;br /&gt;
:It seems that Proxima has already moved a lot of the material I always wished to preserve the most to Atheism.wikia, for which I am most grateful (and soon I will be a user to contribute more). The question of the website still remains open, where Proxima and I (and possibly more) can both decide how to format whatever as we see fit. [[User:Feredir28|Wolf]] 13:35, 15 November 2011 (CST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Now that Wolf's spoken up, I feel that there's a misinterpretation of &amp;quot;refuting specific theistic arguments&amp;quot;. Ray doesn't make new theistic arguments in each of his works, he simply repeats the same arguments over and over (sometimes with minor variations). Once you've made pages for argument from design, personal revelation, and fear of hell, then made appropriate redirects to them (banana argument to argument from design, for example), you've got his entire body of work almost completely refuted. Having a page about him where it lists the specific arguments he makes and links to pages about those arguments is a good thing. [[User:Jdog|Jdog]] 14:58, 15 November 2011 (CST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For several years [http://atheism.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page Atheism Wiki] has stagnated because I thought working to build up this site and RationalWiki would help the cause more.  Recently I decided working more on Atheism Wiki is worthwhile because this wiki caters for intellectuals and RationalWiki is becoming steadily more intellectual.  Nobody is catering for less intellectual types like high school students with religious doubts.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This is your website, it’s your choice whether you keep the Way of the Master Series or not.  I’m sorry that you want to delete it because Google ranks it very high on the first page.  [[User:Proxima Centauri|Proxima Centauri]] 14:08, 15 November 2011 (CST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It’s up to you, Feredir if you want to do your own blog, I’m more experienced with wikis but learning how to do a blog could be interesting.  I plan to work hard on refuting Ray Comfort on Atheism Wiki for 3 reasons.&lt;br /&gt;
#I already know how to work with wikis.&lt;br /&gt;
#Transferring work from one wiki to another is quick and relatively little needs doing to refit the material.&lt;br /&gt;
#On a wiki there is always the chance other people with bad experience of Ray Comfort will join the wiki and help us. [[User:Proxima Centauri|Proxima Centauri]] 14:17, 15 November 2011 (CST)&lt;br /&gt;
:I agree with you Proxima regarding working on a wiki. I too would prefer to work on a wiki since I already know how to do it. I already have my own blog, but I prefer working on wikis like RationalWiki, and info travels faster I think that way since anyone can take the time to contribute and spread the word. I like the sense of teamwork, which is why I helped create [http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Trolling_With_Logic TWL] [[User:Feredir28|Wolf]] 14:30, 15 November 2011 (CST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An unsure feeling keeps creeping around me too, I’m sure together we can make material on Atheism Wiki presentable, how long will it take before Google picks it up?  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree we should deal with other fundamentalists as well as Ray Comfort.  Feredir lives relatively near to Ray Comfort and has first-hand experience of his influence.  So I thought, “OK, let’s spend six months or so refuting Ray Comfort, when we’ve dealt with Ray and Kirk exhaustively we can consider doing something else.&amp;quot;  My 2 cents are that the first priority should be to get [[The Way of the Master]] complete because red links in the template look bad.  Once that’s completed, we can start work debunking other fundamentalists. [[User:Proxima Centauri|Proxima Centauri]] 14:41, 15 November 2011 (CST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:What term are you googling to see ICW on the first page? The only one I saw when I just tried a few was &amp;quot;Ray Comfort&amp;quot;, at the bottom. I think you underestimate people who have religious doubts and do them a disservice by thinking of them as &amp;quot;less intellectual&amp;quot;, which would help explain why your approach to refuting RC's work is so odd. [[User:Jdog|Jdog]] 14:58, 15 November 2011 (CST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::I've already pointed out several times that Google collects data on individual users and tailors their results to what it thinks you want to see.  Just because you see it first in the results doesn't mean that anyone else does.  I don't even see it on the first page. --[[User:Kazim|Kazim]] 16:49, 15 November 2011 (CST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Another thing I want to check on is, did you create the atheism wikia page?  If not, have you checked with the creators in advance to see if it fits their style guidelines?  I'd hate for you to waste a bunch of additional work.  That's one reason why I suggested that a personal web page (neither a wiki nor a blog, but a privately maintained and organized collection of articles) might be the way you want to go.  --[[User:Kazim|Kazim]] 16:54, 15 November 2011 (CST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Feredir and I both think people who've viewed a WOTM video should be able to find a refutation of that video.  Also people who want to know what is in a WOTM video without watching it should be able to find the information.  It's not up to you what we do on our own website. [[User:Proxima Centauri|Proxima Centauri]] 15:02, 15 November 2011 (CST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:I'm not telling you what to do on your own website (why are you continuing to discuss it on this website, anyway? Do you or Feredir not have e-mail?), we crossposted because you write your replies over multiple posts instead of making use of the &amp;quot;show preview&amp;quot; button. My reply was aimed at your claims that the WotM refutations cater to &amp;quot;less intellectual&amp;quot; people, because if you're doing this with the idea that you're an intellectual and that you're writing for the benefit of people of lesser intelligence, you're just turning atheism into a form of &amp;quot;white man's burden&amp;quot; and failing at the very goal you're trying to achieve by doing all these refutations in the first place. Your work is getting bumped from RationalWiki and here because you refuse to see that. [[User:Jdog|Jdog]] 17:54, 15 November 2011 (CST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Deletions and restorations ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I understand (from the thread above) that there have been problems with the Ray Comfort related articles lately, but [http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&amp;amp;type=&amp;amp;user=Proxima+Centauri&amp;amp;page= why have you deleted articles] that had extensive content ''before'' you even edited them? For example, you deleted (and I just restored) [[The Beauty of a Broken Spirit—Atheism (Way of the Master)]], [[The Firefighter (Way of the Master)]], and even [[Template:Wayofthemaster]], all of which were originally created and heavily edited by the founders of this wiki (and other administrators). In other words, those articles were not &amp;quot;yours to delete&amp;quot;. I've restored all of them to their respective states before you and/or [[User:Feredir28|Feredir28]] first edited them (since I assume your intention was to remove your and his contributions, and you just got a bit sloppy doing that). You also deleted [[The Satanic Influence (Way of the Master)]], which neither of you ever edited in the first place. A quick glance through the deleted content didn't reveal anything inappropriate, so I've restored that article, too. I didn't restore any articles you or Feredir28 created. - [[User:Dcljr|dcljr]] 05:21, 21 November 2011 (CST)&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Dcljr</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Category_talk:Pages_for_deletion</id>
		<title>Category talk:Pages for deletion</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Category_talk:Pages_for_deletion"/>
				<updated>2011-11-21T10:35:40Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Dcljr: user's comment moved from category page; my follow-up&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;As of 22nd Sept [[User:Jdog|Jdog]] has listed several articles for deletion.  I’ve looked at one and it had too much Christian apologetics for an atheist wiki, [http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Can_freethinkers_believe_a_religion%3F&amp;amp;oldid=16533 here’s how it was before Jdog edited it].  I spent the morning improving it and moved it to a new title, [[Can freethinkers believe a religion?]], I think it’s now worth keeping.  Other administrators please do not delete these articles till I’ve had time to check them out. [[User:Proxima Centauri|Proxima Centauri]] 06:22, 22 September 2011 (CDT)&lt;br /&gt;
: Category is now empty. - [[User:Dcljr|dcljr]] 04:35, 21 November 2011 (CST)&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Dcljr</name></author>	</entry>

	</feed>