Iron Chariots Wiki - User contributions [en]

Lee Strobel

2008-12-24T20:00:33Z

Gizmoiscariot: Corrected title of his upcoming book.

Popular apologetics speaker; author of the ''Case for'' series of books:
* ''[[The Case for Christ]]''
* ''[[The Case for a Creator]]''
* ''[[The Case for Faith]]''
* ''[[The Case for Easter]]''
* ''[[The Case for the Real Jesus]]''

[[Category:Christian apologists|Strobel, Lee]]

Talk:Main Page

2008-11-24T21:46:04Z

Gizmoiscariot: /* Time */

==Introduction Content==

Matt, I like the new information about what "Iron Chariots" means, but I respectfully suggest that it should be displaced to [[Iron Chariots:Introduction]]. My thinking is that the front page should be relatively clean, and new readers should not be required to look at a whole bunch of explanatory text unless they they want to.

I'll wait for your approval or objection before I take this step, or you can do it yourself.

[[User:Kazim|Kazim]] 15:38, 20 June 2006 (MST)

:I was thinking about this earlier and I'm definitely in agreement. You can move all of this to the "about" page (or info, or whatever).

:What I would like to do, is modify the main page so that it remains clean - but is more consistent with other wiki sites (like wikipedia). A quick welcome, some highlighted information and places to start.

: - Matt

==Wiki meta-stuff==

I'm removing this meta-information from the main page:

"Getting started"

* [http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:Configuration_settings Configuration settings list]
* [http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:FAQ MediaWiki FAQ]
* [http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mediawiki-announce MediaWiki release mailing list]

[[User:Kazim|Kazim]] 05:29, 15 June 2006 (MST)

==Main page: Logo and Design==

I will submit a draft of a large logo suitable for display on the front page soon, I am gathering source material for it. I was wondering if anyone could send me a large (1000px +) version of the current iron chariots graphic, just for reference. Thanks.

[[User:FredContreras|FredContreras]]
: I don't have an image that size. The original image is a small photograph of a statue which I modified (a little) in Photoshop. It was always meant to be a placeholder until I (or someone else) got around to making real logos for the site. It isn't essential to the design. In fact, I'm pretty open to suggestions on logos and even (minor) color scheme changes. I've got the original image on my machine at work, but I'm pretty sure that [http://www.sculpturegallery.com/sculpture/roman_chariot.html this page] has the original image. [[User:Sans Deity|Sans Deity]] 21:32, 25 August 2006 (MST)

::Thank you, that's perfect! All I needed was something good to base a logo on.[[User:FredContreras|FredContreras]]

===Logo Draft 1===
[[image:ironchariotslogo.png|frame|Iron Chariots Logo]]
Ok, here is a very prelim version based on the image you supplied.
Let me know if this is ok. I'll keep working on it and post revisions as I create them.

I wonder maybe I should create some tagline graphics too, that you can mix and match with the logo?
[[User:FredContreras|FredContreras]]
:I think you're off to a great start...I'm looking forward to seeing more. [[User:Sans Deity|Sans Deity]] 12:18, 27 August 2006 (MST)

::Yeah, looks good... quick request, can you get the reins back in there? It looks weird for the charioteer to have his arms out and not obviously controlling the horses.

:: Since we're doing a customized image, I wonder if some sort of subtle religious symbolism might be work somewhere in there? I'm not sure what I'm thinking of... a Bible being trampled was what came to mind, but I think that is more aggressive than it should be. --[[User:Kazim|Kazim]] 06:51, 28 August 2006 (MST)

== Featured articles and category ==

Should the main page be in a category? If so, which one?

Secondly, the "Featured articles" section doesn't seem to have been updated in a while. If no one's interested in actively maintaining it, perhaps it should be removed. It can always be added back later, perhaps as a sidebar. --[[User:Arensb|Arensb]] 11:48, 16 December 2007 (CST)

== The Lord could not defeat Iron Chariots ==

I spelt it out for reader who speak English as a second language etc. The meaning of the Bible quote is now clearer. [[User:Proxima Centauri|Proxima Centauri]] 12:02, 29 June 2008 (CDT)
: I've reverted your edit because I think it's important to keep the quote "clean" for the Main Page. I have, however, linked the words "[[chariots of iron]]" to our article on this passage, so you can add any explanatory remarks there, if you'd like. - [[User:Dcljr|dcljr]] 04:35, 5 July 2008 (CDT)

== Time ==

Your [[Special:Recentchanges|recent changes]] clock is running behind, my edits are shown occurring on June 20 but today is July 2. This indicates that it's behind by 12 days. --[[User:Elassint|Elassint]] 19:40, 2 July 2008 (CDT)
: Well, your comment here seems to have been dated correctly. I haven't noticed any problems with the system clock since it was reading MST a while back. I've checked [[Special:Recentchanges]] quite a few times over the last few days and haven't noticed anything strange. Maybe it was just a momentary glich? If you're still seeing weird edit times (as a test, you can create your user page <g>), check the "Date and Time" settings in [[Special:Preferences|your Preferences]]. - [[User:Dcljr|dcljr]] 04:37, 5 July 2008 (CDT)

:: I've noticed the same problem, the "Recent Changes" page shows the latest edits occurring as of 9 Nov - today is 24 Nov. It's been like this as long as I've been using this wiki. I've ignored it until now... [[User:Rivalarrival|Rivalarrival]] 23:08, 23 November 2008 (CST) (Ok, so I've got the wrong timezone too... :-) )

After setting date/time settings in the preferences page, the recent changes dates seem correct. Really weird... I undid my changes, and it went back to the 9th. I tested it a couple more times - if I remove the time offset, the dates in recent changes are screwed up. If I replace it with anything, including "00:00", the dates are correct. It's like the default "offset" is approximately -336 hours. [[User:Rivalarrival|Rival]] 23:21, 23 November 2008 (CST)

Important: This problem seems to affect anyone who is not logged in! Makes it look like this wiki is stagnant, with no updates in the past ~2 weeks! [[User:Rivalarrival|Rival]] 12:05, 24 November 2008 (CST)

Im logged in and the time still shows off for me. Its always shown a couple of weeks behind since I started editing things on the wiki. The reason the time on the commends shows right is that its manually added. I would suspect that its something on the host server, though I would suspect that the forum would have the same problem and it does not. Not sure though if I had access I might be able to find out. Somewhere its reading the date wrong. [[User:gizmoiscariot|Gizmo]] 13:45, 24 November 2008 (PST)

The Chronicles of Narnia

2008-10-20T16:58:02Z

Gizmoiscariot:

{{wikipedia}}
'''''The Chronicles of Narnia''''' is a series of seven fantasy novels written by [[C.S. Lewis]]. Written between 1949 and 1954, the stories focus on adventures in the [[magical]] land of Narnia. The first book, ''The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe'' has been made into a feature film and the sequel, ''Prince Caspian'', was released in 2008. Film versions of the remaining books may follow.

==The books==
The books were originally published in the following order.

# ''The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe''
# ''Prince Caspian''
# ''The Voyage of the Dawn Treader''
# ''The Silver Chair''
# ''The Horse and His Boy''
# ''The Magician's Nephew''
# ''The Last Battle''

Some packaged sets have included them in chronological storyline order instead; see the chronology section below.

==Series overview==
The world of Narnia exists in a [[universe]] parallel to our own. It is filled with talking animals and other magical creatures. Narnia is monitored by a benevolent lion named Aslan. Aslan is not technically a ruler, but he appears to have a high degree of special powers, and he occasionally appears to give guidance or magical support to the people of Narnia in times of dire need.

Narnia also has a neighboring country called Calormen. Narnia and Calormen are separated by a large desert and the country of Archenland. The people of Calormen are described as dark-skinned people with a garlic-scented breath, who wear turbans and pointy slippers and are armed with scimitars. Some of the villains of the series come from Calormen.

In each book (except for ''The Horse and His Boy'') some children from the "real" world find a gateway to the world of Narnia and have some adventures there.

Time passes differently between Narnia and [[Earth]]. A child who visits Narnia always returns to Earth to discover that no time has passed, even if they were in Narnia for many years. Between trips to Narnia, months or years may pass.

==Chronology and book details==

Taken in chronological order, the story arc runs as follows.

# ''The Magician's Nephew'': Around the turn of the century two children, Digory Kirke and Polly Plummer, are given some magical rings. The rings can transport them to numerous other worlds. In the second half of the book, they watch as Aslan creates the world of Narnia.
# ''The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe'': Set many years after ''The Magician's Nephew'', the story follows the Pevensie siblings, Lucy, Edmund, Susan, and Peter. They discover a gateway to Narnia in a [[Wikipedia:wardrobe|wardrobe]]. After they help Aslan to defeat the white witch who threatens Narnia, they grow to adulthood, yet when they return to Earth it is moments later and they are children again.
# ''The Horse and His Boy'': The only book to be set entirely in the Narnian world, ''The Horse and His Boy'' chronicles the journey of Shasta, a young boy living in Calormen. After meeting a talking horse named Bree, Shasta escapes from slavery and travels to Narnia, saving them from a war with the Calormenes in the process.
# ''Prince Caspian'': The Pevensie kids return to Narnia and discover that a thousand years have passed since their reign. They meet Prince Caspian, the rightful Narnian monarch who has been usurped by his wicked uncle Miraz.
# ''The Voyage of the Dawn Treader'': Lucy and Edmund are joined in Narnia by their unpleasant cousin Eustace Scrubb. They arrive on a ship owned by King Caspian, and sail across the world with him.
# ''The Silver Chair'': Eustace is joined by his school friend Jill Pole. Eustace and Jill are charged by Aslan with the task of rescuing Prince Rilian, Caspian's son. Along the way they are also joined by an odd creature named Puddleglum.
# ''The Last Battle'': Two hundred years after the ''The Silver Chair'', Narnia is threatened by a false god and a Calormen invasion. All the Earth characters from the previous books make an appearance, including the adults Digory and Polly, as they try to save the world and the people in it.

==Christian parallels==
C.S. Lewis was Professor of [[Medieval]] and [[Renaissance]] Literature at the [[Wikipedia:University of Cambridge|University of Cambridge]] and a lifelong student of [[mythology]] and [[fairy tale]]s. The books reflect these influences as well as Lewis' [[Christian]] beliefs. Many have described the series as Christian [[allegory]], though Lewis preferred to call them "suppositional" - the distinction being that allegory consists of figurative language to relay literal meaning while the ''Narnia'' series is a literal work in a fictional setting. From a literary standpoint, Lewis may be correct but some claim that this view considers the book on its own, while considering the book in the context of an extended message for life beyond the fantasy realm renders it allegorical. The confusion of terms has little bearing on the fact that books do, intentionally, place the character of [[Jesus Christ]] in an alternate reality, with another body and another name (Aslan).

With regard to motive, Lewis stated:
{{Quote-source|Some people seem to think that I began by asking myself how I could say something about Christianity to children; then fixed on the fairy tale as an instrument, then collected information about child psychology and decided what age group I'd write for; then drew up a list of basic Christian truths and hammered out 'allegories' to embody them. This is all pure moonshine. I couldn't write in that way. It all began with images; a faun carrying an umbrella, a queen on a sledge, a magnificent lion. At first there wasn't anything Christian about them; that element pushed itself in of its own accord.|Lewis in ''Of Other Worlds''}}

Regardless of his initial plan, the parallels between Aslan and Jesus exist and were structured, Lewis claims, to give "''an imaginary answer to the question, 'What might Christ become like, if there really were a world like Narnia and He chose to be incarnate and die and rise again in that world as He actually has done in ours?<nowiki>'</nowiki>''" The parallels have made this a favorite series for Christians while the fantasy elements have endeared the books to non-Christians as well.

===Christian objections===
Despite the parallels, there are some Christians who object to this series. Some feel that depicting Jesus as an [[anthropomorphic]] lion is [[blasphemous]] while others object to [[pagan]] and [[occult]] references as well as the positive depiction of [[mythical creature]]s traditionally associated with [[evil]].

[[Category:Books|Chronicles of Narnia, The]]

Apes, Lies and Ms. Henn (Chick tract)

2008-10-05T03:42:03Z

Gizmoiscariot: Finished with the rest of the tract. Needs comments now.

'''''Apes, Lies and Ms. Henn''''' is a tract written by the [[evangelist]] [[Jack Chick]]. It contains a message for children about the supposed falsity of [[evolution]].

== Synopsis ==

(Panel 1)
* '''Principal:''' ''(holding up a photograph)'' "I have good news children. Your teacher, Mrs. Tucker, had twins!"
* '''Li'l Susy:''' "''Wow!''"
* '''Principal:''' "And here is your ''new'' teacher, Ms. Henn."

{Panel 2)
* '''Class:''' "GOOD MORNING, MS. HENN!"
* '''Ms. Henn:''' "Thank you, children."

{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Notice how the regular teacher was a "Mrs." while the new one is "Ms."? Could this be a subtle foreshadowing of how unpleasant Ms. Henn is going to be? After all, middle-aged women who go by "Ms." obviously have something wrong with them... right?}}

(Panel 3)
* '''Ms. Henn:''' "We're going to be great friends... and you'll meet many of my close friends, too."

{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text="You'll meet many of my close friends"? Usually, teachers don't invite their friends to class. But maybe this is supposed to refer to the many great figures of history (a picture of George Washington can be seen hanging on the wall) and, presumably, science that Ms. Henn plans to introduce the children to.}}

(Panel 4)
* '''Ms. Henn:''' "We're going to have such ''fun'' together... As long as you do what ''I'' say!"

{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Chick portrays the teacher as visually unappealing, in order to help get his message across.}}

(Panel 5)
: LATER
* '''Ms. Henn:''' "Today I want you to know how great you are and how far humans have come... soon we'll live in outer space!"
* '''Class:''' ''(various kids)'' "Ooh!" "Wow!" "Awesome!"

(Panel 6)
* '''Ms. Henn:''' "But it took millions of years to change from apes into humans."

{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=She is gesturing toward a poster showing the classic ape-to-man-walking-upright series of depictions, labeled "Evolution of Man". Of course, the species did not change from ape to human; apes and humans have a relatively recent [[common ancestor]]. Evolution is best not thought of as a series of species, one after another. A better metaphor is that of a tree, in which existing species give rise to new species (larger branches sprouting off smaller ones) but are not replaced by them (not necessarily, anyway).}}

(Panel 7)
* '''Kid:''' "Ms. Henn, did we ''really'' come from monkeys?"
* '''Ms. Henn:''' "Yes, scientists have ''PROVEN'' it."

{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Science has proven no such thing. No teacher who really understands science would use the word "proven" in this context. More importantly, though, the correct answer to the kid's question is, "No." Or more precisely: "No, not monkeys like we see today, but ape-like animals that gave rise to humans, chimpanzees, gorillas, and other modern apes."}}

(Panel 8)
* '''Li'l Susy:''' ''(to another student)'' "Timmy, that's a lie!"
* '''Ms. Henn:''' "''WHAT DID YOU JUST SAY!?''"

{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Ms. Henn is looking particularly scary in this panel. The short-tempered, somewhat irrational, science-worshiping authority figure is a favorite [[straw man]] employed in Chick tracts.}}

(Panel 9)
* '''Ms. Henn:''' "What is your ''name'', little girl?"
* '''Li'l Susy:''' "Susy... Susy Barnes."

{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Ms. Henn is now brandishing a large rod, pointed directly at Susy. The threat of physical violence is palpable.}}

(Panel 10)
* '''Ms. Henn:''' "Well, Miss ''Barnes'', what did you tell that little boy?"
* '''Li'l Susy:''' "Ms. Henn, I told him the truth... We didn't come from monkeys."

{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=The irony is, Susy ''is'' telling the truth — but not in the way Chick (or Susy) thinks.}}

(Panel 11)
* '''Ms. Henn:''' "Are ''you'' calling me a ''liar''?"
* '''Li'l Susy:''' "No, ma'am... ''You're'' calling ''God'' a liar!"
* '''Ms. Henn:''' "You come with me!"

{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Ms. Henn is actually shaking with rage at this point.}}

(Panel 12)
* '''Timmy:''' "''Oh no!...'' What's gonna happen to li'l Susy?"

(Panel 13)
* '''Ms. Henn:''' "How ''dare'' you embarrass me in front of the class! You are in ''deep trouble'', young lady!"

(Panel 14)
* '''Ms. Henn:''' "And I never ''forgive'' or ''forget!'' ''Now'', go back in there and keep your mouth shut... ''or else!''"

(Panel 15)
* '''Ms. Henn:''' "Everything's alright, children... Just a ''little'' misunderstanding... ''Right'', Susy?"
* '''Li'l Susy:''' "Ok, Ms. Henn."

(Panel 16)
* '''Ms. Henn:''' "If I tell you we came from apes... I ''expect'' you to believe me... ''right?''"
* '''Li'l Susy:''' "Oh Lord, she's ''lying!'' What can I ''do?''"

(Panel 17)
* '''Ms. Henn:''' "The scientific evidence is absolutely ''overwhelming!'' Millions of years ago dinosaurs ruled the earth...

(Panel 18)
* '''Ms. Henn:''' "Scientists believe they disappeared when a gigantic comet hit the earth."

(Panel 19)
* '''Ms. Henn:''' "It's absolutely true... and birds came from dinosaurs... That's it, children, we'll continue this tomorrow. Isn't it exciting?"

(Panel 20)
* '''Timmy:''' "Susy, why did you say Ms. Henn called God a liar?"
* '''Li'l Susy:''' "Cuz God made the earth in only 6 days, '''not''' millions of years."
* '''Timmy:''' "How do ''you'' know?"

(Panel 21)
* '''Li'l Susy:''' "God tells us in the Bible what happened... and He should know... He was ''there!'' Was Ms. Henn?"
* '''Timmy:''' "She's old, but she's not ''that'' old!"

(Panel 22)
* '''Li'l Susy:''' "God said He made the ''first'' dinosaur and the ''first'' man... on the ''same day!'' And that was about ''6,000'' years ago, not ''millions!''"

(Panel 23)
* '''Timmy:''' "''That's'' in the Bible?"
* '''Li'l Susy:''' "The Bible tells us ''lots'' of stuff. It ''even'' tells us where we go when we ''die''.

(Panel 24)
* '''Timmy:''' "We all go to ''heaven,'' right?
* '''Li'l Susy:''' "No, Timmy, ''most'' people will end up in hell."
* '''Li'l Susy:''' "How come?"

(Panel 25)
* '''Li'l Susy:''' "Because of Sin, Timmy... Sin is when people do ''bad'' things and disobey God. And ''sin'' is what keeps people from going to heaven."
* '''Timmy:''' "Wow, I didn't know ''that!''"

(Panel 26)
* '''Li'l Susy:''' "The saddest part is... if people are told that we come from ''apes...'' and ''believe'' it... Then they ''won't'' pay any attention to what ''God'' Says."

(Panel 27)
* '''Timmy:''' "Susy, what Ms. Henn told us today is ''wrong'' if it gets us in ''trouble'' with God."
* '''Li'l Susy:''' "That's right! This ''lie'' was created by the devil to keep kids out of heaven."

(Panel 28)
* '''Timmy:''' "But, Susy, I want to go to ''heaven'' when I die! ''What'' am I supposed to ''do?''"

(Panel 29)
* '''Li'l Susy:''' "Jesus did something very ''special'' for you, Timmy... to make sure th ol'''devil'' doesn't get you when you die."

(Panel 30)
* '''Timmy:''' "Susy, this is scary. What ''did'' Jesus do?"
* '''Li'l Susy:''' "He left ''heaven'' for you, Timmy!"
* '''Timmy:''' "''Heaven?'' What are you trying to say? He's ''God''?"

(Panel 31)
* '''Li'l Susy:''' "Yes, He ''is'', Timmy, and the devil fought Him for your soul. And the angels in heaven were watching it ''all!''"

(panel 32)
* '''Li'l Susy:''' "When Jesus was born, the devil sent a whole ''army'' of men to kill Him."
* '''Timmy:''' "Did Jesus get away?"

(Panel 33)
* '''Li'l Susy:''' "Oh, yes!... because He had to grow up and show us the ''only'' way we can get into heaven."
* '''Timmy:''' "How's that?"

(Panel 34)
* '''Li'l Susy:''' "Jesus said, "''I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.""
* '''Timmy:''' "Is Jesus the ''only'' way to heaven?"
* '''Li'l Susy:''' "That's right, Timmy."

(Panel 35)
* '''Li'l Susy:''' "And this is what Jesus went through to take away our sins... He was arrested, tortured and put to death -- ''because of a dirty lie!'' "For God so loved the world ''(that's you)'', that he gave his only begotten Son (''Jesus)'', that whosoever believeth in him should not perish (''in hell''), but have everlasting life (''in heaven'')." He shed His precious blood (''God's blood'') to wash away our sins. He died, was buried and 3 days later, He ''arose'' from the dead! Later He went back up into heaven... and He's gonna come back... ''real'' soon!"

(Panel 36)
* '''Timmy:''' "Is that true, Susy?
* '''Li'l Susy:''' "Yes, Timmy, and the devil doesn't ''want'' people to hear about Jesus... So he ''blinds'' them and makes them think there are ''many'' ways to heaven."

(Panel 37)
* '''Li'l Susy:''' "Most of the world will end up in hell with the old devil because they didn't believe in Jesus so they could be saved."
* '''Timmy:''' "Susy, I ''want'' Jesus to save me. What am I supposed to do?"

(Panel 38)
* '''Li'l Susy:''' "Pray and ask Jesus to forgive you for your sins and to come into your heard and save you."
* '''Timmy:''' "OK, I will!"

(Panel 39)
So Timmy prayed and Jesus became His Saviour and the Lord of his life.
* '''Li'l Susy:''' "Good for you, Timmy. Now the old devil won't get you."

(Panel 40)
* '''Li'l Susy:''' "Timmy, Jesus created man and apes the same day. Ms. Henn doesn't believe in Jesus. She's ''wrong''! But she's our teacher and we have to respect her."

(Panel 41)
* '''Timmy:''' "The old devil has blinded Ms. Henn, Right, Susy?"
* '''Li'l Susy:''' "Yes, Timmy, she believes a ''lie'' and we must love her and pray for her."
If ''YOU'' believe in Evolution instead of Jesus, ''you'll'' end up in hell.

{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=At the bottom of the tract, there is a sheet that asks if you accepted Jesus as your personal Saviour. The headline says "NOBODY ELSE CAN SAVE YOU, TRUST JESUS TODAY!" which sounds like many sales pitches that is used in commercials. "Buy this product today!"}}

''This section is not complete.''

==External link==
* [http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/1051/1051_01.asp Full tract at Chick.com]

{{jackchick}}

[[Category:Apologetic literature]]

Apes, Lies and Ms. Henn (Chick tract)

2008-10-05T03:21:02Z

Gizmoiscariot: Saving up till 24

Personal revelation

2008-10-03T17:26:23Z

Gizmoiscariot:

* "I believe in [[God]] because he personally revealed himself to me."
* "I saw a [[ghost]] with a friend of mine - I am not a liar, an attention seeker. Neither was I overtired when this happened."

==Counter-Arguments==

The problem with personal [[revelation]] is that it cannot be verified independently. The person who received the revelation may exhibit a long-term change in character, or other convincing signs that he or she had ''some'' sort of emotional experience, but it is impossible to tell what actually happened.

Furthermore, the revelation never includes information that the recipient could not possibly have known and can be independently verified, such as the time and location at which the next earthquake would occur, or any number of as-yet-unsolved problems in science, or even the meaning of "frontlets" in the [[Bible]] ({{Bible|Exodus 13:16}}).

Another problem with personal revelation is that so many people from other religions experience it too, yet they don't all experience the [[Christian]] god. If personal revelation in the case of Christianity is to be believed then one must also believe the [[Muslim]] when they say they've had personal revelation of [[Allah]]. More than likely it is an experience that they then attach to information they received while growing up. If you were born in the US, you more than likely grew up at least knowing some Christian concepts. If you were born in the middle east, you more than likely grew up learning [[Islam]]ic concepts.

[[Category:Testimonial arguments]]

Transcendental argument

2008-10-03T16:45:29Z

Gizmoiscariot:

The Transcendental Argument (TAG). Wikipedia defines the argument as follows,
"The Transcendental Argument is an argument for the existence of God that attempts to show that logic, science, ethics (and generally every fact of human experience and knowledge) are not meaningful apart from a preconditioning belief in the existence of God."[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcendental_argument]

Eg. Knowledge cannot be obtained absolutely unless the source of that knowledge is itself an absolute source (read: being/God). Ergo, either you sub-consciously believe in an absolute being that upholds and makes absolute the laws of the universe/morality OR you do not and CAN NOT know anything for certain.

=== Counter-Arguments ===
<HR />

So what? Many non-theists when they are backed against the wall will admit that they know nothing with 100% certainty. Humans generally will prefer some explanation rather than no explanation. However, "some explanation" this does not make the claim true. Absolute certainty is in general meaningless as by definition one would have to be omniscient to acquire it. Atheists are not the ones making the absolute truth claim that something exists whereas theists do make that claim (eg God must exist).

Examples of things that some may call absolute certain is the idea that the sun will rise tomorrow. To be truly absolute certain, you would have to know the future to know that it indeed will rise. However that is in general useless. Its much more accurate to say that we have evidence that for quite some time now the sun has risen in the morning, so we can be reasonably certain that it will do so again tomorrow.

Some claim that TAG employs [[Circular reasoning]]. However, there are counter-counter-arguments to this.

Others claim that TAG is a variation of the [[Ontological argument]].

[[Category:Transcendental arguments]]

Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses

2008-09-22T19:47:03Z

Gizmoiscariot:

== Cult Status ==

To call them a cult using a definition formulated to include them, in conflict with their legal standing in most areas, seems neither honest nor truthful.

I'm not arguing that they do not show many aspects of being a cult. Kevin Crawley's "behavioural definition" of cultism, loosely based on the incorporation of Margaret Singer's list of cult indoctrination techniques with Dr. Robert Lifton's methods of thought reform, appears to be properly applicable to Jehovah's Witnesses. However, as far as I am aware, no one qualified to do so has written associating the said techniques/methods/definition with Jehovah's Witnesses.

Given their legal standing and the lack of a professional opinion otherwise, I argue that calling them a cult is a matter of personal opinion and at most a topic of controversy. It should be limited to a section dedicated to controversies about the religion, not throughout other sections as a statement of fact.

If you do have a professional opinion linking Singer and Lifton's methods, or even Crawley's definition, to the Witnesses, I'd be glad to hear it. Reference away.

--[[User:Jaban|Jaban]] 05:26, 22 September 2008 (CDT)

I also agree that cult usually has a connotation of things that JW's don't necessarily fit in (though I do believe they are probably the closest of the main Christian denominations due to their beliefs of blood, door to door preaching and especially in their belief of disfellowship and shunning). However it is hard to draw the line as to what is truly a cult. Some definitions would end up getting all religions whereas some would only get the most extreme groups (such as the ones that have killed themselves to follow comets and what not).

[[User:Gizmoiscariot|Gizmoiscariot]] 12:45, 22 September 2008 (PDT)

== Blood ==
The recently added paragraph on blood transfusions, in my opinion, is entirely dishonest. It represents their beliefs and practices inaccurately, and uses hostile language and misconceptions to attack their obviously distasteful (and arguably immoral) rule.

While stated opposition to transfusions is required by members, and parents are usually encouraged or asked to actively prevent transfusions, it is not the official policy, and in my experience not actual practice, to demand active prevention on penalty of excommunication. I have not heard of a single case where a member was threatened with excommunication if they did not cooperate with a "plot" to kidnap their child from a hospital.

And excuse my sarcasm, but they are "generally" charged with negligence? You mean more than the zero documented instances I've been able to find? When I was a Witness I heard stories of children being temporarily made wards of the court throughout medical procedures requiring blood, and those cases are all documented. But I've never found any documented cases of the parents being charged with negligence for refusing treatment, nor parents being charged with kidnapping. The stories circulated within the church and among former members seem to be based on "what if" scenarios, not actual cases.

I would like to see an attack on the religion for (a) teaching people untruths about blood transfusions to create an environment of fear surrounding them and mistrust of the medical system in general, (b) encouraging members to actively and illegally prevent blood transfusions for critically ill minors (part of which would include "kidnapping"), and (c) their continuing to use the legal system to delay treatment for each new case, despite the fact that they lose every time. But I'd like to see the attack done honestly and with legitimate arguments.

--[[User:Jaban|Jaban]] 06:59, 22 September 2008 (CDT)

I agree, its the last two sentences that I have an issue with. Unless you have some source to back it up, I suggest it be deleted. I personally think the blood transfusion ban is stupid, and its personally scary as one of my best friends is a JW and would hate to have her need a blood transfusion to stay alive and have her refuse it. But I would not suggest that JW's kidnap children to prevent blood transfusions without backing it up. Unless someone can source that, I say delete it.

--[[User:Gizmoiscariot|Gizmoiscariot]] 12:04, 22 September 2008 (PDT)

Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses

2008-09-22T19:03:44Z

Gizmoiscariot: /* Blood */

== Cult Status ==

To call them a cult using a definition formulated to include them, in conflict with their legal standing in most areas, seems neither honest nor truthful.

I'm not arguing that they do not show many aspects of being a cult. Kevin Crawley's "behavioural definition" of cultism, loosely based on the incorporation of Margaret Singer's list of cult indoctrination techniques with Dr. Robert Lifton's methods of thought reform, appears to be properly applicable to Jehovah's Witnesses. However, as far as I am aware, no one qualified to do so has written associating the said techniques/methods/definition with Jehovah's Witnesses.

Given their legal standing and the lack of a professional opinion otherwise, I argue that calling them a cult is a matter of personal opinion and at most a topic of controversy. It should be limited to a section dedicated to controversies about the religion, not throughout other sections as a statement of fact.

If you do have a professional opinion linking Singer and Lifton's methods, or even Crawley's definition, to the Witnesses, I'd be glad to hear it. Reference away.

--[[User:Jaban|Jaban]] 05:26, 22 September 2008 (CDT)

== Blood ==
The recently added paragraph on blood transfusions, in my opinion, is entirely dishonest. It represents their beliefs and practices inaccurately, and uses hostile language and misconceptions to attack their obviously distasteful (and arguably immoral) rule.

While stated opposition to transfusions is required by members, and parents are usually encouraged or asked to actively prevent transfusions, it is not the official policy, and in my experience not actual practice, to demand active prevention on penalty of excommunication. I have not heard of a single case where a member was threatened with excommunication if they did not cooperate with a "plot" to kidnap their child from a hospital.

And excuse my sarcasm, but they are "generally" charged with negligence? You mean more than the zero documented instances I've been able to find? When I was a Witness I heard stories of children being temporarily made wards of the court throughout medical procedures requiring blood, and those cases are all documented. But I've never found any documented cases of the parents being charged with negligence for refusing treatment, nor parents being charged with kidnapping. The stories circulated within the church and among former members seem to be based on "what if" scenarios, not actual cases.

I would like to see an attack on the religion for (a) teaching people untruths about blood transfusions to create an environment of fear surrounding them and mistrust of the medical system in general, (b) encouraging members to actively and illegally prevent blood transfusions for critically ill minors (part of which would include "kidnapping"), and (c) their continuing to use the legal system to delay treatment for each new case, despite the fact that they lose every time. But I'd like to see the attack done honestly and with legitimate arguments.

--[[User:Jaban|Jaban]] 06:59, 22 September 2008 (CDT)

I agree, its the last two sentences that I have an issue with. Unless you have some source to back it up, I suggest it be deleted. I personally think the blood transfusion ban is stupid, and its personally scary as one of my best friends is a JW and would hate to have her need a blood transfusion to stay alive and have her refuse it. But I would not suggest that JW's kidnap children to prevent blood transfusions without backing it up. Unless someone can source that, I say delete it.
--[[User:GizmoIscariot|GizmoIscariot]] 12:04, 22 September 2008 (CDT)

Thought crime

2008-09-18T06:28:53Z

Gizmoiscariot:

"Thought crime" comes from the idea that even a person's thoughts can be illegal or immoral. The idea was originated in George Orwell's novel 1984, where Thought Police utilize a variety of psychological and surveillance techniques to discover people who are capable of even contemplating a challenge to authority. However, unlike religion, thought crime as seen by Orwell is more behavioral. It was suggested that though you could fake it perhaps for a while, eventually the Thought Police would come because of some slip up that tipped your hand. Religion (especially the idea of sin in the Abrahamic ones) is literally the idea that thinking it is instantly a sin as God will be able to tell (as he is all-knowing.)

Some apologists consider the act of merely thinking of breaking a commandment to be an actual sin against that commandment. Hatred, for example, is considered a sin against thou shall not kill. Another example (an idea that Kirk and Ray use quite often) is that if you have lust for someone, that you are committing adultery. Yet another perfect example, again pulling from the ten commandments is the idea of "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's." The entire idea of coveting anything would be a thought crime.

Reductio ad absurdum

2008-09-16T22:22:13Z

Gizmoiscariot: /* Counter-apologetics */

{{philosophy-stub}}
{{wikipedia}}
'''Reductio ad absurdum''' is a type of [[logic]]al [[argument]] where one assumes a claim for the sake of argument, arrives at an "absurd" result (often a [[contradiction]]), and then concludes that the original assumption must have been wrong, since it led to this absurd result.

Note that this is a [[Validity vs. soundness|logically valid]] technique. It is a form of ''modus tolens'', an inference rule which takes this form:
* If '''P''' then '''Q'''.
* '''Q''' is false.
* Therefore '''P''' is false.

More formally, a ''reductio ad absurdum'' argument typically takes the form:
* Assume '''P'''.
* This implies '''Q'''.
* It also implies '''R'''.
* But '''Q''' and '''R''' are contradictory ('''Q''' [[iff]] not '''R''').
* Therefore '''P''' is false.

Here's a real example (from [[wikipedia:number theory|number theory]]) of this type of argument in action:
* Assume there are finitely many [[wikipedia:prime number|prime number]]s.
* Then there is a largest prime number. Call it ''p''.
* Consider the product of all the prime numbers up to this largest prime: 2 × 3 × 5 × 7 × 11 × ... × ''p''.
* Add one: (2 × 3 × 5 × 7 × 11 × ... × ''p'') + 1. Call this number ''N''.
* Notice that ''N'' is not divisible by any of the primes up to ''p'', since the remainder, when ''N'' is divided by any the primes, will always be 1. (For example, ''N'' divided by 2 gives the [[wikipedia:quotient|quotient]] 3 × 5 × 7 × 11 × ... × ''p'', with remainder 1.)
* So ''N'' is prime. And clearly, ''N'' is larger than ''p''.
* Thus we have found a prime number larger than the supposed "largest prime". This is a contradiction.
* Therefore, we have to reject our original assumption. There must be infinitely many prime numbers.

==Counter-apologetics==

See [[Can God create a rock so heavy that he can't lift it?]] for an example in the context of [[counter-apologetics]] (the claim being assumed is that God is all-powerful).

The problem with this type of argument is that the "absurdity" one reaches must actually be a logical contradiction in order for the argument to be valid. If the conclusion is simply unlikely, then the argument doesn't necessarily work. For example:

* If [[God]] doesn't exist, then life arose by purely natural means.
* This is absurd (read: very, very unlikely).
* [[Therefore, God exists.]]

Well... no. Ignoring the fact that the premise is faulty (as its possible, however unlikely that life arose by something other than purely natural means) the absurdity is not shown. The assertion that its absurd is only used to come to the conclusion that [[God did it]]. The person that would be making this argument does not know how life arose, so to assume anything other than a deity seems absurd. (See: [[God of the gaps]])

[[Category:Argumentation]]
[[Category:Logic]]

Gun Slinger (Chick tract)

2008-09-16T21:04:29Z

Gizmoiscariot: /* Commentary */

[[Image:gunslinger_page18.gif|frame|Terrible Tom is rewarded for his misdeeds with an eternity in heaven, in ''Gun Slinger'']]

[[Gun Slinger (Chick tract)|Gun Slinger]] is a [[Chick tract]] whose description is "A hired killer trusts [[Christ]] and, at death, goes to [[heaven]]. But the law-abiding marshal who hunted him rejects Christ and goes to [[hell]]. Clearly shows that [[salvation]] is through grace, not works."

==Synopsis==

In the old west, Terrible Tom comes to town. Tom is a hitman who is hired to kill the town preacher. Upon hearing the preacher's sermon, Tom has an attack of conscience. Instead of killing the preacher, Tom falls on his knees and accepts Jesus Christ.

An hour later, Terrible Tom is arrested by the town marshall, who describes himself as "the most honest, law-abiding man in this whole territory." Tom spends his last day chatting with the preacher from jail, and says that he is ready to go meet God.

In an ironic twist, the marshall is killed by rattlesnakes hours after Tom is hanged. Since the marshall did not accept Jesus, he goes to hell, while Terrible Tom goes to heaven.

The moral of the story is laid out in the last panel, which says: "Going to heaven is not a matter of '''GOOD''' or '''BAD'''. It's a matter of '''SAVED''' or '''LOST'''. No matter how '''bad''' you've been, Jesus '''''still''''' loves you and wants to save you '''''right now!''''' '''''Will you let him?'''''"

==Commentary==

This tract starkly lays out Chick's [[fundamentalist]] philosophy that it does not matter how good or bad you are. Many people view heaven and hell as reward and punishment for good and bad behavior. [[Hank Hanegraaff]] has argued:
{{Quote-source|[C]ommon sense regarding justice dictates that there must be a hell. Without hell, the wrongs of [[Hitler]]'s Holocaust would never be righted. Justice would be impugned if, after slaughtering six million [[Jew]]s, Hitler merely died in the arms of his mistress with no eternal consequences. The ancients knew better than to think such a thing. David knew that it might seem for a time as though the wicked prosper despite their evil deeds, but, in the end, justice will be served. We may wish to think that no one will go to hell, but common sense regarding justice precludes that possibility.|Hank Hanegraaff, ''Why Should I Believe in Hell?''}}

Jack Chick's philosophy turns this question on its head. If salvation is based entirely on grace rather than works, then it is entirely possible that Hitler not only died, but then immediately ascended to heaven. Hitler was a [[Catholic]], of course, and Chick believes that all Catholics are deluded. But who is to say that Hitler did not, like Terrible Tom, experience a conversion and acceptance of Jesus hours before his death? Worse yet, many of Hitler's Jewish victims probably died in their sins and went straight to hell (in Chick's world view).

This cartoon should make it clear that many Christians do not regard heaven and hell as divine justice at all. Salvation and damnation are not based on anything that a person has done in their lives. It is quite clear that the use of heaven and hell is more for fear mongering to scare people into believing in Jesus as they may be perfect in every other way but if they do not accept him, you will go to hell.

==External links==

* [http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0037/0037_01.asp Full tract at Chick.com]
* [http://www.oneplace.com/ministries/Bible_Answer_Man/Article.asp?article_id=980 Why Should I Believe in Hell?]

{{jackchick}}

[[Category:Apologetic literature]]

Uncaused cause

2008-09-16T20:43:51Z

Gizmoiscariot: /* Why call it God? */ Added god of the gaps link

{{argument-stub}}
As formulated by [[Thomas Aquinas]], the '''uncaused cause''' argument is stated as follows:

:"Nothing is caused by itself. Every effect has a prior cause. This leads to a regress. This has to be terminated by a first cause, which we call [[God]]."

==Counter-apologetics==
Many of the responses to the [[Unmoved mover]] argument also apply to this one:

===Self-contradiction===
One can argue that the conclusion "God is the first cause" contradicts the premise "everything has a cause", and that the first cause argument is therefore self-contradictory.

It can, however, be restated as a ''[[reductio ad absurdum]]'', to make the contradiction a desirable feature:
# Premise: every event has a cause.
# Premise: there can be no [[infinite]] regress.
# Premise: there exists some event e0.
# From (1) and (3), it follows that e0 has a cause e1, which in turn has a cause e2, and so on, in an infinite regress.
# From (2) we know that there can be no infinite regress, which contradicts (4).
# Therefore, at least one of the premises must be false.

If we reject premise 1, that every event has a cause, then there must be at least one uncaused cause, which can be called "God".

===Why call it God?===
Even if we accept the argument from first cause, the conclusion is still problematic: the word "God" carries a lot of undesirable cultural baggage, denoting an intelligent being. If the ultimate cause of our universe turns out to be, say, a random vacuum fluctuation, then that would be "God" by Aquinas's definition, but to call this phenomenon "God" would be misleading. It also can be noted that if for some reason there did have to be a first cause, we currently do not currently know what which leads to the "[[God of the gaps]]" idea.

===Other counterarguments===
#[[Who created God?]]
# Pairs of virtual particles are created (and annihilated) all of the time, in vacuum, out of literally nothing, with no prior cause. This contradicts Aquinas's premise.
# Even if there is an infinite regess of causes, so what? The human mind is uncomfortable with the concept of infinity, but reality has no obligation to make us comfortable.

[[Category: Cosmological arguments]]

Dark Dungeons (Chick tract)

2008-09-16T20:24:01Z

Gizmoiscariot: /* The game turns real! */ panel 5-7

[[Image:Darkdungeons page4.gif|frame|A scene from ''Dark Dungeons'']]

'''''Dark Dungeons''''' is a [[Chick tract]] whose description is "Debbie thought playing Dungeons and Dragons was fun... until it destroyed her friend."

==Synopsis==

Some very classic-looking 80's kids play [[Dungeons & Dragons]], and get caught in a crazy alternate universe of Jack Chick's imagination.

==Tract walkthrough==

===A friendly game===
(Panel 1)
:* Ms. Frost: "Okay, Wizard, cast your spell!"
:* Marcie: "Okay, Dungeon Master. My spell of light blinds the monster."

{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=<nerdy>Um, isn't the dungeon master supposed to tell YOU whether your spell blinds the monster? :)</nerdy>}}

(Panel 2)
:* Frost: "The thief, Black Leaf, did not find the poison trap, and I declare her dead."
:* Marcie: "'''''NO,'' NOT BLACK LEAF! NO, ''NO!'' I'M GOING TO DIE! Please don't make me quit the game! Somebody save me! You can't do this!'''"
:* Frost: "Marcie, get out of here. '''YOU'RE DEAD!''' You don't exist any more."

{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Far be it from this editor to judge the depths of emotion that serious role-playing gamers experience, but has anyone ever seen a reaction like this in real life? It takes about ten minutes to roll a new character, right?

As this event foreshadows the suicide of Marcie, no doubt it is at least partly based on such incidents as the suicide of [[Patricia Pulling]]'s son Bink. However, the idea that Bink's suicide had anything to do with his character was never established. There is no clear [[evidence]] that anyone has ever become suicidally depressed over a lost character. However, this is fiction, so it's not all that important.}}

===The game turns real!===
(Panel 3)

:* Frost: "Debbie, your cleric has been raised to the 8th level. I think it's time that you learn how to '''''really''''' cast spells."
:* Debbie: "You mean you're going to teach me how to have '''''the real power?'''''"
:* Frost: "Yes, you have the personality for it now."

{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=This is where we get to the really wacky ideas that fundamentalists have about what Dungeons & Dragons is about. They apparently really believe that it is a gateway into real life occult activities. The lesson here is that if people are willing to turn off their [[critical thinking]] abilities and believe in one kind of supernatural entity without evidence, they are likely to accept a whole host of similar ideas for no good reason.

How does [[Jack Chick]] think that this initiation works, exactly? Is it only wizards who obtain "real powers" when they hit level 8? What if Marcie (the thief) had reached level 8 instead of getting killed? Would she have learned how to pick locks and hide in shadows? What if a fighter reaches level 8? Do they get a free suit of plate mail?

Although D&D deals with a world of fantasy and magic, many roleplaying games have entirely different themes. What happens to a player who reaches a high level in a superhero themed game? Do they immediately learn how to fly and burn things with their eyes? What about science-fiction characters? Are they issued futuristic laser guns? Do they get to captain their own starships?}}

(Panel 4)

:* Narration: '''''THE INTENSE OCCULT TRAINING THROUGH D&D PREPARED DEBBIE TO ACCEPT THE INVITATION TO ENTER A WITCHES' COVEN.
:* Frost: "I've brought Elfstar to become a priestess and a witch."
:* Cult member: "Welcome, Elfstar. You're now a priestess of the craft, and of the Temple of Diana."

{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Debbie has just been accepted into what bears a remarkable resemblance to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organization_XIII#Members Organization XIII]. One would think it would be a bit more difficult than that to learn magic. Playing a board game isn't what I would call "intense training."

Jack Chick is not the only fundamentalist who seems to think that you can get in touch with the paranormal through such simple means. Sure it's just a board game, but so is a [[ouija board]], and many people think that one of those mass produced pieces of cardboard with the alphabet on it can allow you to contact souls from another world.

They don't allow their children to watch [[Harry Potter]] or play The Legend of Zelda for fear of their children getting possessed or becoming a sorcerer. These beliefs are [http://www.spotlightministries.org.uk/harrypotterarticle.htm surpisingly common] among theists.}}

(Panel 5)

:* Debbie: "Ms. Frost, this is fantastic... This makes the game '''''real'''''... It's not a fantasy anymore. Last night I cast my '''''first''''' spell... This is '''''real''''' power!"
:* Frost: "I knew you were ready by the way you played the game... but this is just the beginning. There is so much more."

(Panel 6)

:* Frost: "Which spell did you cast, Debbie?"
:* Debbie: "I used the mind bondage spell on my father. He was trying to stop me from playing D&D."

(Panel 7)

:* Frost: "What was the result?"
:* Debbie: "He just bought me $200.00 worth of new D&D figures and manuals. '''''It was great!'''''"

{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text= Something that is interesting about panels 5-7 is that it implies that this occult power actually does have influence in the real world. If Debbie's father was unhappy with her playing D&D and she was able to cast a spell and it truly changed his mind, then this could be argued that Jack Chick and friends truly believe that the power is real.}}

===Debbie and Marcie===

(Panel 8)

:* Later That Week
:* Frost: "Hey Debbie! Marcie's on the phone. She wants to talk to you. She's really upset."
:* Debbie: "I can't. I'm fighting the Zombie. Tell her I'll see her tonight."

(Panel 9)

:* Debbie: "Hi, Mrs. Anderson. Marcie wanted me to see her tonight."
:* Mrs. Anderson: "I'm glad you're here, Debbie. Marcie has shut herself in her room and won't come out. She hasn't been herself for weeks. I've been very worried. Ever since her character in the game got killed, it's as though a part of her died. Maybe you can talk some sense into her."

(Panel 10)

:* Debbie: "Nooooo! No, Marcie, you didn't ''have'' to do that!"

(Panel 11)

:* Marcie's suicide note reads: "It's my fault Black Leaf died. I just can't face life alone! Marcie"

{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=The connection between role-playing games and suicide is an urban myth - reputable sources have examined the claims, and found no basis for them. For more on the subject, visit [http://www.theescapist.com/basic_gaming_faq.htm#reputation The Escapist].}}

(Panel 12)

:* Debbie: "Miss Frost, I can't get Marcie out of my mind. How could she do something like this? If I'd left the game, she'd be alive today."
:* Miss Frost: "Get your priorities straight, Debbie. Your spiritual growth through the game is more important than some lousy loser's life."

(Panel 13)

:* Miss Frost: "It would have happened sooner or later. Her character was too weak."
:* Debbie: "But the law of our faith is that we can do whatever we want as long as we harm no one. But now we have harmed Marcie."
:* Debbie thinks to herself: "What have I gotten myself into?"

(Panel 14)

:* Miss Frost appears to grab Debbie roughly. "'''Don't be stupid, Debbie.''' I think you'd better let Elfstar take care of things. You're getting out of control."
:* Debbie: "'''I don't want to be Elfstar any more.''' I want to be Debbie."

===Debbie finds help===

(Panel 15)

:* Mike: "Hey Debbie, what's wrong? Can I help?"
:* Debbie: "I thought I had all the answers, Mike, but now everything is falling apart. ''Sob''"
:* Mike: "Debbie, I told you Jesus is the only answer. I've been praying and fasting for you."
:* Debbie: "Why would you do that for me?"

(Panel 16)

:* Mike: "Because I know what you're involved in. It's a spiritual warfare that you can't win without the Lord Jesus."
:* Debbie: "What can I do?"
:* Mike: "Come with me to a meeting this afternoon. The speaker came out of witchcraft, and he knows what you're up against."

(Panel 17)
:* Narration: THAT AFTERNOON
:* Speaker: "You who are involved in the occult think that you have achieved power. But you have been trapped in a dungeon of bondage. The limited power you have been given is only bait to lure you to destruction. But Jesus came that you might have life and that more abundantly."

(Panel 18)
:* Speaker: "Jesus sets us free from the bondage of witchcraft and gives us victory over all the power of the enemy (Satan).* God's Word declares that you must '''''repent''''' of your sins and turn to Jesus Christ as your Saviour. ({{bible|Luke 13:5}}). Then according to {{bible|Acts 19:19}} you should gather up all of your occult paraphernalia like your rock music, occult books, charms, Dungeons and Dragons material. Don't throw them away. '''''Burn them!''''' We'll do that here tonight. We will also be praying for the deliverance of those who have allowed occult forces to control them.
:* (footnote: * {{bible|1 John 4:4}} and {{bible|John 8:36}})

(Panel 19)
:* Speaker: "If you want Jesus as your Lord, come forward now."
:* Debbie: (rising from her pew) "Oh, God! I need help... My life's a mess. ''Help me!''"

{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=It is never made clear why Debbie's life is such a mess. Her two questionable actions are casting a mind-bondage spell on her father to acquire more gaming books (people have prayed for worse things), and neglecting her friend in a desperate time of need, something that could easily have happened at this very prayer meeting, or while at church on any given Sunday.

Debbie is obviously regretful of her selfish actions in regards to Marcie, a perfectly normal emotional response to the situation. So, other than choosing a religion that isn't Christianity, what is it about Debbie's life that is such a mess?}}

(Panel 20)
:* Speaker: "In the name of Jesus, I order* you spirits of the occult to leave Debbie."
:* Debbie: "Jesus, I repent of my sins and I want you to be my Saviour and Lord. You guide me through Life. You be in charge of everything... not that lousy D&D manual."
:* (Spirits are seen leaving Debbie as the Speaker drives them out.)
:* Footnote: *'''WARNING:''' See {{bible|Acts 19:13-17}}
:* Footnote: "If the Son therefore shall make ye free, ye shall be free indeed." ({{bible|John 8:36}}) ...where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty." ({{bible|2 Cor. 3:17}})

{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text='''Important exorcism safety tip:''' Bring a picture ID when exorcising spirits and be certain to present it to them when asked, otherwise you may find yourself fleeing your house naked and wounded.}}

(Panel 21)
:* Speaker (praying over a pile of gaming material): "We take authority in the name of Jesus Christ and through the power of His shed blood and bind the demonic forces in this filth of Satan."
:* Debbie (bowing her head as the bonfire burns in the background): "Thank you, Lord, for setting me free."
:* Footnote: There shall not be found among you anyone...that useth divination...or a witch;...or a consulter with familiar spirits, or a wizard....For all that do these things are an abomination unto the Lord. {{bible|Deut. 18:10-12}}

{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=So, now what? The tract doesn't say what happens afterward, but I'll guess that Marcie is still dead (And in the world of Jack Chick, she's probably burning in hell right now.) So that didn't solve anything, except now Debbie can't play D&D or make a lucrative career performing magic. How is this better exactly?

Debbie should consider herself lucky that her new church group doesn't also recognize {{bible|Exodus 22:18}}: "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live," otherwise she may have found herself in the middle of that bonfire. Why are they choosing to focus on one Old Testament scripture while ignoring another? (See [[Cafeteria Christian]]) }}

===This section is not yet completed===

==External links==

* [http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0046/0046_01.asp Full tract at Chick.com]
* [http://www.fecundity.com/darkdung/index.html Mystery Science Theater meets Dark Dungeons] (a parody)
* [http://www.enterthejabberwock.com/?p=133 Chick Dissection] - Another analysis of this tract at [[Enter the Jabberwock]]
* [http://www.theescapist.com/darkdungeons.htm The Escapist - Dark Dungeons] - Another analysis from The Escapist, a roleplaying advocacy website. See also: [http://www.theescapist.com/random011102.htm Spellcasting 101], where Harry Potter and Dungeons & Dragons spells are "scientifically" tested to see if they can really be cast straight out of the books.

{{jackchick}}

[[Category:Apologetic literature]]

Religion provides hope

2008-09-16T20:13:46Z

Gizmoiscariot: /* Religion also provides despair */ Reworded some things fixing a few typos.

One common [[apologetic]] is the argument that '''religion provides hope''', or meaning, or the assurance of the love of [[God]], and that taking away a person's religion would be cruel.

==Counter-arguments==
===Red herring===
Whether or not [[religion]] provides hope or meaning has nothing to do with whether it is true.

===Is this desirable?===
This argument is comparable to the statement, "It would be cruel to take away someone's antidepressants, since that person would succumb to depression". This may be true in some (perhaps even many) cases, but in general it is better to raise people not to require drugs to be happy. Similarly, it is better to be able to find hope and meaning without having to resort to religion.

===Religion also provides despair===
This argument also ignores the fact that for many people, religion brings unhappiness: in many forms of religion, people are told that having sexual thoughts is a [[sin]]; homosexuals are told that they are vile and wicked; and some denominations preach that all humans, no matter how much good they do, are miserable sinners who deserve to be tortured for all eternity.

The hope that such religions provide is not the uplifting hope of improving one's future, but rather the hope of evading just punishment.

Many forms of Christianity teach that the majority of mankind will go to [[Hell]]. The fear of this may cause great distress. If you are on death's door and were raised to believe that you may be going to hell, it can create great stress and energy that could have been spent better possibly saying goodbye to loved ones. It causes friends and relatives stress to think that perhaps a recent loved one that died could be in hell. It is difficult to estimate how much stress and unhappiness is caused by the fear of hell and the suffering that one is supposed to have while in hell. Many people may be reluctant to admit how much they fear that they are sinners and could be destined to go to hell as well as the fear they hold that loved ones were sinners and are in hell. The fact that hell is forever, its hard to even imagine. Many may be uncomfortable outside on a hot day or sitting in a boring meeting, yet hell is portrayed far, far worse than these daily annoyances that many may try to avoid.

==See also==
* [[Red herring]]

[[Category:Arguments]]
[[Category:Religion]]

God did it

2008-09-16T18:04:45Z

Gizmoiscariot:

#REDIRECT [[God of the gaps]]

Goddidit

2008-09-16T17:59:46Z

Gizmoiscariot:

#REDIRECT [[God of the gaps]]

Agnosticism

2008-09-12T16:34:31Z

Gizmoiscariot: typo

{{stub}}

'''Agnosticism''' is a [[philosophical]] position stating that there can be no [[proof]] either way that [[God]] exists or doesn't exist. Agnostics believe that there may be a god, but that he/she is ultimately unknowable.

==Interpretations==

Agnosticism has two general meanings.

# '''Knowledge of the divine is impossible.''' This definition is not to be mistaken with an alternative to atheism. Atheism and theism deal with belief, agnosticism and gnosticism deal with the basis for such belief. For example, agnostic atheism holds that knowledge of the divine is impossible(or currently unobtained) and thus belief in God is unjustified and illogical. On the other hand, agnostic theism is also perfectly valid. Any theist who says ‘just have faith’ is holding such a position, as they are admitting that they have no knowledge of whether a god or gods exist, and yet still believe despite of that. Gnostic atheism and theism are pretty much self-explanatory given that the definition of Gnostic to be ‘believing that knowledge of the existence or nonexistence of the divine is possible or currently held’. A gnostic atheist claims that he knows that god does not exist(or thinks one day such knowledge will be obtained), and thus believes that there is no god. A gnostic theist, on the other hand, believes in god because he claims to know the existence of god.
# '''Not believing in something without evidence.''' For example, agnosticism about the existence of invisible immaterial pink leprechauns inside computers, making it work. There is no evidence that they do not exist, yet assuming they do exist is almost delusional. As there is no evidence for them, the logical answer is that they don’t exist. The amount of things towards which we are agnostic about is infinite, including the infinite possibilities of extraneous things yet unthought of. Yet believing in such things is not illogical. Thus too, is belief in a god bounded. Unless strict and clear evidence is provided, non-belief is not illogical, in fact, it is the default logical choice.

==Misunderstandings==

Often, people claim that they are agnostic because they lack belief in a god but don't know for sure. This is a misnomer caused by a misunderstanding of agnosticism. In this case it is used as a softened version of atheism rather than its true meaning. What such people mean to claim is that they are weak atheists, or negative atheists, who lack belief in god. Such a description applies to people who have never heard of the idea of a god, e.g. babies, isolated tribes of people, etc. Some would argue that "agnostic" better applies to people who simply don’t know what they believe yet rather than weak atheism. However, not knowing implies a lack of conviction. A belief is a conviction in the truth of something. If that conviction in the existence of god is lacking, implicit atheism at least describes such beliefs. Furthermore, the claim of simply lacking a belief in a god does not take somewhat of a middle ground. The fact that they lack belief in all gods they know of, means that they have rejected all the gods possible, which is a position of strong atheism, or disbelief, at least of all gods they know of. Therefore, all people who have no specific belief in god are strong atheists, at least towards the deities they know of. Thus, the only people who are complete weak atheists are babies, or people with no knowledge of any supposed deities.

The problem with this misunderstanding of Agnosticism is mainly due to this common scenario. Somebody asks "Do you believe in god?" and receives the answer "I’m agnostic", meaning "I don’t know". However, the original question was not about knowledge, but about belief. However, with the question "Is there a god?" I can logically remain agnostic as this question deals with knowledge. To the infinitely many possible gods, however, implicit atheism is the only option as strong atheism requires a specific disbelief in the possible deity, which in return requires specific characteristics for the deity be explained. In reference to a specific god the position of strong atheism is perfectly valid and possibly even gnostic atheism.

==See also==
*[[Atheist vs. agnostic]]

[[Category:Philosophical issues]]

Messianic prophecy

2008-09-12T16:30:47Z

Gizmoiscariot: typo

{{merge|Jesus fulfilled prophecy}}

[[Messianic prophecy]] in [[Christianity]] refers to a collection of claims that the events in the life of [[Jesus]] represent the fulfillment of prophecies from [[Judaism]]. There is, as one would expect, considerable disagreement between Jews and Christians regarding which passages qualify as prophecy and which, if any, of the prophetic requirements for the 'moshiach', or messiah, were met by Jesus.

==Jewish Messianic Prophecy==
While Judaism is divided into Orthodox, Conservative and Reform branches, each with its own views, the belief that the moshiach (anointed one) will eventually appear is one of the 13 principles of faith, as expressed by noted Jewish scholar, Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon:

{{quote-source|I believe with perfect faith in the coming of the moshiach, and though he may tarry, still I await him every day.|Principle 12 of Rambam's 13 Principles of Faith}}
===Specific attributes of the Jewish moshiach ===
A complete discussion of this subject can be found at the [http://www.jewfaq.org/moshiach.htm Judaism 101] site. In summary, the Jewish view of a moshiach is that of a fully human man who is well versed in Jewish law and will serve as a charismatic leader and warlord who will win many battles for Israel.

If Jesus existed and the [[New Testament]] contains an accurate record of his words and deeds, he does not fit this view of a messiah.

==Christian Messianic Prophecy==
Christians have their own [[Jesus fulfilled prophecy|claims]] of prophecy that different from those of the Jews. This presents the outsider with a very difficult question:

{{quote|If Jesus is the Jewish messiah, why are the Christian claims of prophecy so dramatically different from those of the Jews?}}

The number of prophecies claimed by Christians varies greatly. While some Christians may simply aver that Jesus "fulfilled all prophecies", others attempt to enumerate and specify which prophecies they believe have been fulfilled. It is a trivial matter to find websites espousing [http://bibleprobe.com/300great.htm hundreds] or even [http://biblia.com/jesusbible/prophecies.htm thousands] of fulfilled prophecies.

Among more scholarly apologists, the number of fulfilled prophecies is still often noted as being in the hundreds. [[Josh McDowell]], in his famous apologetic work ''[[Evidence That Demands a Verdict]]'' includes dozens of messianic prophecies which he claims have been fulfilled.

==Counter-Apologetics==
Claims of fulfilled prophecy need to meet certain criteria in order to be considered evidence of divine revelation.

First, they should be clearly understood to be prophetic before any claim of fulfillment is presented. It is a trivial matter to match events to ambiguous passages and claim that the passages were prophetic. We tend to find hidden meaning wherever we seek it and flimsy correlation that should realistically be viewed as unrelated coincidence is often attributed as causally or prophetically related.

Second, predictions should represent knowledge that the prophet should not have access to and should involve something beyond the mundane so that the fulfillment of the prophecy demonstrates that the source of the prophecy transcends the prophet. Predicting that the sun will rise tomorrow may have a very high success rate, but it's hardly the sort of thing we should consider as evidence of any supernatural source of prophecy.

Third, regardless of how unclear or poorly understood the prediction is at the time it is made, it should be clear enough that the fulfillment should be obvious. [[Victor J. Stenger]] in his book, ''[[God: The Failed Hypothesis]]'' explains:

{{quote-source|For example, suppose the New Testament somewhere contained the following passage: "Before two millennia shall pass since the birth of our Lord, a man will stand on another world within the firmament and he will smite a tiny orb with his staff such that it will fly from sight." Obviously no mere mortal in Jesus' day could have anticipated that in two thousand years men would walk on the moon. Nor would he be expected to know anything about golf.|Vic Stenger, ''God: The Failed Hypothesis''}}

Claims of fulfilled prophecy in the Bible suffer from other problems:
* Knowing about a prophecy may encourage people to work to fulfill it.
** This is akin to claiming that the waiter fulfilled my prophecy by bringing me what I ordered.
* Other religions with contradictory beliefs also claim fulfilled prophecy
* The claims that particular prophecies have been fulfilled are unverifiable. One must begin with the assumption that the Bible is an accurate record of both the prediction and its claim of fulfillment.
** In addition the inability to verify these claims, we have the added problem that the Bible we have today is the result of both a selection bias (Church leaders picked the books and versions that best matched what they believed to be true) and scribal alteration.

Any sufficiently ambiguous passage can, after the fact, be viewed to be prophetic. Many are convinced of the prophetic abilities of Nostradamus, yet none of those predictions meet the requirements we would impose in order to establish that the claim of fulfilled prophecy is anything more than chance or the wishful thinking and careful rationalization of those who wish to believe.

Marriage

2008-09-12T16:17:04Z

Gizmoiscariot: /* Counter-Apologetics */ - government marriage

'''Marriage''' is defined as:

# The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.
# The state of being married; wedlock.
# A common-law marriage.
# A union between two persons having the customary but usually not the legal force of marriage: a same-sex marriage.

==Controversy==

The last definition is highly controversial, as [[gay marriage]] is a hot topic in US politics.

==Apologetics==

[[Christian]]s claim that marriage is strictly a religious tradition, and that government should not be involved in marriage at all.

==Counter-Apologetics==

In fact, marriage only became religious in nature thanks to a concerted effort by the church. People have been getting "married" for most of mankind's history. The act of getting married deals with far more than religious ceremony; it involves family, jealousy, and questions of paternity.

In the 16th century, the [[Catholic]] church passed the [[Tametsi decree]], which declared among other things that no marriage was legitimate unless recognized by the church. Thus, the church declared themselves effectively in charge of families by fiat.

The claims many theists have that marriage is a religious matter and that government should stay out of it could be correct. However, government is involved in what has been called marriage due to medical decisions, tax filing among many other things afforded to couples who are married. Since we live in a society that uses marriage in these ways, rather than just two people who are "married" by spirit or whatnot, anyone should be able to get married to be given the same rights, same-sex or not.

[[Category:Religion]]
[[Category:Social issues]]

Zeitgeist

2008-09-10T22:10:50Z

Gizmoiscariot: Fixed some spelling, added a clarifying sentence

'''''Zeitgeist''''' is a popular internet movie with three parts.

Part one is dedicated to religion, offering an initial hypothesis of its use as a mechanism for control. Additionally, it offers an explanation of a supposed similarity in the story of [[Jesus]] to various [[god]] and [[messiah]] stories throughout history.

Part two is dedicated to supposed inconsistencies in the government accounts of the [[Wikipedia:September 11, 2001 attacks|9/11 attacks]] in tandem with a hypothesis that it is in line with prior government manipulation to get the United States into war.

Part three is dedicated to the [[Wikipedia:New World Order (conspiracy theory)|New World Order]] under the hypothesis that it's a group of "international bankers" who benefit from war. It includes parts suggesting the supposed constitutional illegality of income tax.

==Counter-Arguements==
Much of the first part is interesting however either stretches the truth or outright lies to push its ideas as well as setup for the following two parts. Much of it tries to draw comparisons between Jesus and many other gods. There are of course some similarities, such as the claims that some deity (Mithra, Horus among many others) might have similar stories (for example some sort of Messiah figure) but then claims that most of them died on December 25th, which is incorrect. It also brings up into question the historicity of Jesus some of which are valid however they never dig real deep into this idea (probably due to the fact that due to the lack of evidence there is not much to say.) It also tries to draw several comparisons in the bible to astrology in an attempt to show that it is based on the same idea as everything else (such as Jesus the son and comparing it to other religions that have had sun worship. However they never quite mention the fact that Sun and Son only necessarily sound similar in English.) Much of it is interesting until you look deeper into it (which is how the whole movie is presented.) The rest of the two parts are presented much of the same way. Little bit of speculation or quote mining that at the surface perhaps looks like it has substance till looked into further. The Zeitgeist debunked link (as well as that sites further debunking of the 9/11 "truth" concept) has some decent info and shows many of the flaws.

==Links==
[http://www.conspiracyscience.com/articles/zeitgeist/ Zeitgeist Debunked] - Good site going through the movie and pointing out what is wrong with it.

[[Category:Movies]]

Zeitgeist

2008-09-10T22:05:53Z

Gizmoiscariot: Adding debunk site, other information of countering the movie.

'''''Zeitgeist''''' is a popular internet movie with three parts.

Part one is dedicated to religion, offering an initial hypothesis of its use as a mechanism for control. Additionally, it offers an explanation of a supposed similarity in the story of [[Jesus]] to various [[god]] and [[messiah]] stories throughout history.

Part two is dedicated to supposed inconsistencies in the government accounts of the [[Wikipedia:September 11, 2001 attacks|9/11 attacks]] in tandem with a hypothesis that it is in line with prior government manipulation to get the United States into war.

Part three is dedicated to the [[Wikipedia:New World Order (conspiracy theory)|New World Order]] under the hypothesis that it's a group of "international bankers" who benefit from war. It includes parts suggesting the supposed constitutional illegality of income tax.

==Counter-Arguements==
Much of the first part is interesting however either stretches the truth or outright lies to push its ideas as well as setup for the following two parts.. Much of it tries to draw comparisons between Jesus and many other gods. There are of course some similarities, it on almost all of them claims that the deity (Mithra, Horus among many others) died on December 25th, which is false. It also brings up into question the historicity of Jesus. It also tries to draw several comparisons in the bible to astrology in an attempt to show that it is based on the same idea as everything else (such as Jesus the son and comparing it to other religions that have had Sun worship. However they never quite mention the fact that Sun and Son only necessarily sound similar in English.) Much of it is interesting until you look deeper into it (which is how the whole movie is presented.) The rest of the two parts are presented much of the same way. Little bit of speculation or quote mining that at the surface perhaps looks like it has substance till looked into further. The Zeitgeist debunked link (as well as that sites further debunking of the 9/11 "truth" concept) has some decent info and shows many of the flaws.

==Links==
[http://www.conspiracyscience.com/articles/zeitgeist/ Zeitgeist Debunked] - Good site going through the movie and pointing out what is wrong with it.

[[Category:Movies]]

User talk:Sans Deity

2008-09-10T20:13:05Z

Gizmoiscariot: /* Comments/Requests */

== Comments/Requests ==
Is there a way to fix the dates when looking at the recent changes/history of things? The server seems to be several days off (close to two weeks). I suspect the server that this wiki is on might have the date and time wrong. Im not sure who hosts the server or whos in charge of stuff like that. [[User:gizmoiscariot|gizmoiscariot]] 13:15, 10 September 2008 (PDT)

== Image/text alignment problem ==

As noted in the edit summary, I took the liberty of [http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=User:Sans_Deity&diff=4878&oldid=2319 inserting a newline] in your user page to fix an image/text alignment problem. When a right-aligned <nowiki>[[Image]]</nowiki> link is followed on the same line by text, some browsers (I.E. 5.0, at least) align the ''text'' to the right, too. Besides looking wrong, this makes the text easy to miss, especially when it's at the very top of the page. I think I've seen this problem in some articles, as well. Something to keep in mind.... - [[User:Dcljr|dcljr]] 12:24, 13 February 2007 (CST)

== Cite.php for ref's ==

In Wikipedia and other Wikimedia wikis, the [[WikimediaMeta:Cite.php|Cite.php]] extension allows for easy creation and maintenance of footnotes in articles using [[WikimediaMeta:Help:Footnotes|<tt><ref></ref></tt> and <tt><reference/></tt>]] tags. I've encountered a few cases were this would be really helpful to have here. According to documentation at the first link above, the extension requires at least MediaWiki 1.6x, so [[Special:Version|it should work for us]]. I would suggest we upgrade to a newer MediaWiki version anyway, but moving to 1.7x would also [http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Important_Release_Notes require an upgrade to PhP 5]. Maybe a task for this summer? <g> - [[User:Dcljr|dcljr]] 19:59, 30 March 2007 (CDT)

: I'd like to second this.
: Also, I'm a Unix sysadmin in Real Life™. If I can help, let me know.
: --[[User:Arensb|Arensb]] 21:17, 30 March 2007 (CDT)

:: When I last looked, it wasn't possible to add these due to limitations of my hosting service. I'll try to dig into this issue again, but (as I'm sure everyone has noticed) I really haven't had the time to focus on the wiki. I'll need to set aside a block of time to do this, but I'm not only spread to thin, I now have to start looking for a new job (Sept. 1 is my last day). I'll try to make time before then. [[User:Sans Deity|Sans Deity]] 17:22, 27 June 2007 (CDT)
::: "''limitations of my hosting service''" — Because of their version of PHP? I'd say, if that's the reason, you need to start complaining to your hosting service. (The current stable release of MediaWiki doesn't even ''support'' PHP4 anymore.) - [[User:Dcljr|dcljr]] 15:10, 28 June 2007 (CDT)

== Sandbox ==

I noticed someone created [[Project:Sandbox]] back in Feb. Since we probably ''should'' have such a page, I've gone ahead and created a template-header for it, [[Template:Sandbox header]], explaining what the Sandbox is for, along with a "testing" template called [[Template:Sandbox]] (not "Template:Testing" or similar) for use on the Sandbox page to test template behavior. Then, of course, the template itself needed a template-header, [[Template:Sandbox template header]], to explain ''it''.... Anyway, I hope everything is basically self-explanatory on the pages [[Project:Sandbox]] and [[Template:Sandbox]]. Just figured I'd give you a heads-up so you can "watch" the two "header" templates, if you want. (I would suggest protecting them, but that probably would be overkill. Sufficient to "watch" them for now.) - [[User:Dcljr|dcljr]] 17:52, 10 April 2007 (CDT)

== Utility templates? ==

I've been going through [[:Category:Templates|categorizing]] and [[Project:Templates|describing]] our various templates (with mixed results). Since you created [[:Category:Utility templates]], I guess I should ask you what your definition of a "utility template" is. Based on the single template that was in the category at the time I came across it ([[Template:If]]), I guessed it was for templates that are primarily for use in ''other'' templates, to make their "code" simpler (like subroutines in computer programming). But now I don't know what to do with templates like [[Template:Quote-source]] and [[Template:Comment-box1]]. Do you think either of those should be called "Utility templates" and the definition expanded? - [[User:Dcljr|dcljr]] 15:53, 17 April 2007 (CDT)

: I'm not [[User:Sans Deity]], but I think you're right, that utility templates are ones used for building or simplifying other templates; infrastructure, not content.
: Since [[Template:Quote-source]] and [[Template:Comment-box1]] are directly used in various pages, I wouldn't call them utility templates. I think if there were a template that said, "This <topic>-related article is a stub", that could be included in other templates that specified a topic, then that generic template would be a utility template. But that's just my opinion. --[[User:Arensb|Arensb]] 16:09, 17 April 2007 (CDT)

:: I created the [[:Category:Utility templates]] category to hold templates used in other templates. Arensb's assessment is pretty much on the money. [[User:Sans Deity|Sans Deity]] 09:35, 18 April 2007 (CDT)

== In progress ==

It seems you've tagged a couple of articles as [[:Category:works in progress|works in progress]] and not found the time to return to them for further expansion. Understandable... but maybe we should have a policy about that template staying on articles for too long. For example, if there's no edits by the original "tagging" author in a month, say, editors are free to remove the template or replace it with another (e.g., stub) template, as appropriate. In particular, we should try to avoid situations where the template [http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Mormonism&action=history stays on an article for many months with no edits] or [http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Jesus_fulfilled_prophecy&oldid=5433 is placed on a stubby article where "progress" hasn't really even begun]. Not meaning to be overly critical, but these two cases seemed somewhat "suboptimal"... - [[User:Dcljr|dcljr]] 17:58, 24 April 2007 (CDT)
:Good catch. The mormon page was someone else's work...I just tagged it for them as an example of what they should do until they were done. The prophecy page was one I wanted to do, but never got to. They're both cleared. I think a month is probably more than enough. Any work in progress that's seen no activity for a month should be fair game to anyone - regardless of who tagged it. [[User:Sans Deity|Sans Deity]] 23:08, 24 April 2007 (CDT)
:: Will note this guideline on relevant pages. - [[User:Dcljr|dcljr]] 12:52, 25 April 2007 (CDT)

== Wiki spam galore ==

Obviously you've noticed how this spam is getting ridiculously out of hand. Have you seen [http://chongqed.org/prevent_spam.html this page]? It's full of useful suggestions for keeping the spam under control.

Do we currently prevent the page histories from showing up in search engines? If not, we definitely should, as the spammers may be benefiting from product placement even after we roll back their crap.

Also, how many people currently have the authority to block accounts? I wouldn't mind giving that permission to a few others. However, since they keep autogenerating random IDs, I'm not sure if there's even a point to blocking the accounts. Perhaps we should do something to prevent the types of accounts they're making, something like this:
:if ((username has six letters)
::and (username has at least one lowercase letter)
::and (username has an uppercase letter not in the first character)
::then deny account creation

Is that possible to do? --[[User:Kazim|Kazim]] 09:37, 12 June 2007 (CDT)

I was looking into solutions earlier. I think, considering the small community here, that I may either disable account creation (and let sysops manually add new editors) or try to create some custom user groups (bureaucrats, sysops, editors, n00b) so that no one can edit until their account has been flagged for it.

Unfortunately, this hasn't been easy. Most of the solutions are very slap-dash, as the software was originally designed to be open to edits from everyone. I'm hoping to have this solved by the end of the week. I should have some time this afternoon to investigate solutions. [[User:Sans Deity|Sans Deity]] 10:32, 12 June 2007 (CDT)

== Killing the vandals ==

I've made it a bit more difficult on the vandals. I've added a new requirement for any new users - they must verify an e-mail address.

It's an extra hoop that may kill the vandals, especially if they are bots. If it doesn't work, I'll take additional steps. [[User:Sans Deity|Sans Deity]] 12:26, 12 June 2007 (CDT)

That seems to have done the trick for now. Good job, Matt! --[[User:Kazim|Kazim]] 11:13, 13 June 2007 (CDT)

: I've also tried to start using the "[[WikimediaMeta:Help:Patrolled edit|Mark as patrolled]]" feature a bit more. When you select a "diff" from the [[Special:Recentchanges|Recent changes]] page (not from a page's history, though), you can mark the edit as "patrolled" (if it hasn't already been done), meaning it was a legitimate edit. Unpatrolled edits are marked with a red exclamation point (!) on the Recent changes page. Only admins can mark edits as patrolled. - [[User:Dcljr|dcljr]] 14:01, 14 June 2007 (CDT)
:: Interestingly, admins can even patrol their own edits. I guess if you're an admin you can be trusted not to abuse this feature.... - [[User:Dcljr|dcljr]] 16:49, 20 June 2007 (CDT)

== Another extension ==

In addition to the '''Cite.php''' extension I requested [[#Cite.php for ref's|above]], I've come across another extension it would be nice to have: '''[[WikimediaMeta:Help:ParserFunctions|ParserFunctions]]''' (which requires >= MediaWiki 1.6.8). This would make it possible to simply copy over any Wikipedia (for example) templates that use '''#if''' and the like, without needing to translate them to use our [[Template:If]]. For example, [[Template:Cite journal|this one]], which a user has already [[Talk:Hares chew their cud|tried to use]] in an article here. - [[User:Dcljr|dcljr]] 13:31, 27 June 2007 (CDT)

User talk:DisComforting Ignorance

2008-09-10T19:42:45Z

Gizmoiscariot:

You added the following sentence to the [[Ray Comfort]] article:
:"''Contrary to his concession on the Hellbound Alleee show, he maintains that he no longer uses it as an argument as atheists have maliciously removed the Coke can segment to take the banana argument out of context.''"
What Coke can segment? Removed it from what? From the Hellbound Alleee episode? - [[User:Dcljr|dcljr]] 10:57, 10 September 2008 (CDT)

I can probably shed some light on this. The whole [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A7uA-P8TsPM show can be found here]. It starts at about the 2:30 mark for the coke can. Right before he brings up the banana argument on the Way of the Master show, he first starts off his his coke can argument for design. He starts with a parody of how he sees evolution, but relates it to the coke can. Short version "Millions of years pass, dirt comes up to make the shape of can, then millions more of years go by and paint falls from the sky and writes Coca Cola on the side, and a tab appears at the top." In some ways that is funnier than the banana argument. After that nonsense, he then goes "No, the can was designed so it had to have a designer." If I remember correctly thats when he pulls out the banana and starts on that. Ray's complaint is the banana argument is not nearly as strong without the coke can thing to set it up. Personally I feel that it sounds even dumber to add the coke can part, so personally I think its a moot point. However, thats why Ray cries about it. [[User:gizmoiscariot|gizmoiscariot]] 11:01, 10 September 2008 (PDT)

Correct. If you look at the Atheist Test I linked to in the article, you'll see the Coke can argument laid out. He argues that since evolution doesn't work for a Coke can, it's ridiculous to think it works for biological organisms. After stating that, he then makes an argument with the banana to show how it's designed. His response to people who laugh at it and point out the flaws with the argument is to contend that the Coke can argument is a necessary component of the banana argument as he's comparing the banana with the Coke can (such as it has a tab to open, but no other similarity). It is an attempt to save face. He maintains that the banana argument doesn't make sense without the coke can. He recently made an entry entitled [http://raycomfortfood.blogspot.com/2008/06/banana-isnt-proof.html The Banana Isn't Proof] where he claims atheists unscrupulously removed the Coke can portion to take the banana argument out of context, and that is the real reason he doesn't use it -- instead of not using it because it's flawed:

:Thanks to Youtube I realize that I will have to say this over and over. Many times I have compared a banana to a coke can (with its tab at the top, etc.) using something called "parody." This is arguably a humorous way of making a point. Atheists removed the coke can and said that I believe that the banana is proof that God exists. In doing so they did a good job and making a monkey out of me.

[[User:DisComforting Ignorance|DisComforting Ignorance]] 14:01, 10 September 2008 (PDT)

Well I call BS. He has said many of times that "There is a painting so there must be a painter. Building, builder and so on." He posits at the end of that speech that if there is something that is designed, which everything is, there must be a designer. That implies that he does believe the banana as proof that God exists as he believes design proves it. The only thing he parodies in that cut from the video is the coke can to evolution. Which would be funny if he wasn't serious and if he wasn't outright dishonest by forgetting to mention that aluminum cans don't happen by themselves in nature, yet evolution does and has been seen. However that doesn't fit into his world view, so he skips it. Its also easier to complain that atheists take his argument of the banana out of context then it is to admit that the argument is wrong on many points.

[[User:gizmoiscariot|gizmoiscariot]] 12:41, 10 September 2008 (PDT)

User talk:DisComforting Ignorance

2008-09-10T18:10:19Z

Gizmoiscariot: Last edit I swear

User talk:DisComforting Ignorance

2008-09-10T18:01:34Z

Gizmoiscariot:

User talk:DisComforting Ignorance

2008-09-10T18:00:52Z

Gizmoiscariot:

User:Gizmoiscariot

2008-08-27T21:59:30Z

Gizmoiscariot:

* [http://gizmoiscariot.blogspot.com Blog]
* [http://www.new.facebook.com/home.php#/profile.php?id=1410223096 Facebook]
* [http://www.myspace.com/gizmoi Myspace page]

User:Gizmoiscariot

2008-08-27T21:58:50Z

Gizmoiscariot: Add my user page

[http://gizmoiscariot.blogspot.com Blog]
[http://www.new.facebook.com/home.php#/profile.php?id=1410223096 Facebook]
[http://www.myspace.com/gizmoi Myspace page]

Kirk Cameron

2008-08-27T21:55:19Z

Gizmoiscariot: Fireproof addition

Kirk Cameron is a former child star who used to play Mike Seaver on ''Growing Pains''. He says [[I used to be an atheist|he used to be a devout atheist]], until he asked himself "What if I'm wrong?" Today he is an ardent apologist, appearing in the movie version of ''[[Left Behind]]'', and hosting [[The Way of the Master]] with [[Ray Comfort]]. Kirk is also starring in an upcoming movie [http://www.fireproofthemovie.com/main.php Fireproof] of which the synopsis being a firefighter (Kirk) starts losing his marriage to his wife and his father suggests turning to God and the bible to try to save the marriage.

[[Category:People|Cameron, Kirk]]
[[Category:Christian apologists|Cameron, Kirk]]
[[Category:Entertainers|Cameron, Kirk]]

Ray Comfort

2008-08-27T16:56:48Z

Gizmoiscariot: Removed Valen's preaching counters

[[Image:Ray_Comfort.jpg|thumb|Ray Comfort]]

'''Ray Comfort''' is a New Zealand [[Christian]] [[apologist]] who co-hosts ''[[The Way of the Master]]'' radio show.

==Favorite arguments==

Ray Comfort has appeared on many a [[Freethinker|freethinking]] radio show. Some arguments come up time and time again.

===The Watchmaker Argument===

He will usually say something along the lines of "If I see a watch, it must have been made by a watchmaker, a loaf of bread by a baker, a building by an engineer, a creation by a creator."

This is the [[argument from design]].

===The Banana Argument===

Until recently, the [[banana argument]] was, according to Comfort, "the Atheist's Worst Nightmare". However, he conceded the argument on the [[Hellbound Alleee]] show.

===[[Are you a good person?]]===

This argument uses the [[appeal to emotion]]. He asks the atheist or unbeliever a set of questions.

*Have you ever told a lie?
**Well yes, everybody at some point...
***What are you called if you tell a lie?
****A liar.
* Have you ever stolen anything, regardless of its value?
**A little thing when I was young.
***What do you call a person who steals?
****A thief.
* Jesus said that anybody who looked at a women in lust is guilty of adultery in his heart. Have you ever looked at a woman with lust?
** Well, yeah.
* Have you ever used God's name in vain?
** Yes.
***You've taken the name of the God who gave you life in as a cuss word and that's called blasphemy.
*So, by your own admission, you are a lying, thieving, adulterous, blasphemer, and when [[Jesus]] comes again on judgment day, how do you think he's going to treat you?
**Would you go to heaven or hell?

*If you were flying on a plane and knew it was going to crash and you had a parachute under your seat? What would you do?
**Put it on.
***You wouldn't just believe in it, you'd put it on.
****Jesus is that parachute.

==Counter Responses==
* Have you ever told the truth? What does that make you?
* Taking the Lord's name in vain to mean cursing is a mistranslation of the [[3rd commandment]]. The more proper translation (seen in many better translations) is takes the name of God in a false oath, or in a vain oath. It is a prohibition against swearing to God falsely, effectively turning the third commandment into grounds on which a trustworthy contract could be made.
* Bearing false witness against your neighbor is a misinterpretation of the [[9th commandment]]. Most systems of government were guilty until proven innocent. One would after an accusation was made be asked to prove his or her innocence or else punished for the act. If a person could prove their innocence their accuser would be guilty of false witness and typically put to death. The act of accusing a person of a crime was a more serious one than today with our "innocent until proven guilty" standard, and the closest analogy would be filing a false police report, rather than lying.
* Looking at a woman in lust is a thought crime. Lust isn't a conscious action, and one is to be punished for human nature.
* Comfort will seize any admission of imperfection to condemn his interlocutor: stealing a piece of candy from a store when one was a child counts as a "yes" answer to "Have you ever stolen anything?". Comfort's god considers this equivalent to robbing a bank. Asked for justification of the claim that stealing a stick of gum when you were two is equal to robbing a bank, Comfort offers that because the crime is against an infinite God it demands an infinite punishment. Comfort's God is not only unjust, he also blames the victims and accords punishments depending on the victim rather than crimes.

==External link==
* "[http://raytractors.blogspot.com/ The Raytractors]", Ray Comfort's Detractors, "Here's a place to critique Ray Comfort without being subject to his rules of censorship. We are a community of mostly atheists and agnostics, but theists are welcome to join. Sign up by emailing MacGyver Jr. - See his profile."
* ''[http://raycomfortfood.blogspot.com/ Atheist Central]'', Ray Comfort's weblog (former title: ''Comfort Food'').

[[Category:People|Comfort, Ray]]
[[Category:Christian apologists|Comfort, Ray]]

Talk:The Firefighter (Way of the Master)

2008-08-26T04:31:02Z

Gizmoiscariot:

Matt,

I'd like to propose that this page be retitled to "The Firefighter (Way of the Master episode)", and that future articles on any show episodes follow the same convention.

As is my usual habit, I checked what [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angel_%28Buffy_episode%29 Buffy fans do on Wikipedia] to reach this conclusion.

--[[User:Kazim|Kazim]] 12:47, 1 August 2006 (MST)

== Arensb ==

Thanks much for editing out my typos and the other corrections. There are other references to 'tautology' and I think we should include the word and its definition in the 'begging the question' section and perhaps add a redirect from 'tautology' to that article (just in case I use it again, as it's one of my favorite words...like 'sagacity'). [[User:Sans Deity|Sans Deity]] 21:00, 1 August 2006 (MST)
: I've added a [[tautology]] article, but haven't linked it to [[begging the question]], since I'm not sure what you meant above.
: Oh, and I'll let you add the 'sagacity' article :-)
: --[[User:Arensb|Arensb]] 13:31, 5 April 2007 (CDT)
:: I just meant that the two articles [[tautology]] and [[begging the question]] should be connected, at least in the "see also" section. The two are related. I don't think we'll need a 'sagacity' article. :) [[User:Sans Deity|Sans Deity]] 16:16, 5 April 2007 (CDT)

= Firefighter story =
Has anyone been able to find the story that is told at the beginning of the program? Im curious if its something that is even true or if its a complete fabrication.

--[[User:Gizmo|Gizmo]] 21:30, 25 August 2008 {PST}