User talk:Wissam hemadeh
You're about two comments from being blocked and I'd really rather not do that, so let's clear a few things up.
- Sign your comments. It's really easy 4 tildes at the end of your comments will add the name and date stamp. (It's very difficult to follow discussion on talk pages when there's just a wall of text with no formatting and no signature)
- We don't need to have a discussion and take a vote about how to deal with a simple, obviously flawed argument
- Understand the scope in which you're working. Euthyphro shouldn't be a catch all for all moral arguments - feel free to create new pages
- Make sure you're familiar with posting rules, guidelines and wiki formatting. Visit the forum and/or talk to people who post regularly.
- Make sure you not only know who you're talking to, but make it clear who you're directing your comments to. Several of the comments you made, responding to me, don't seem to apply to me. The first step is to look at the history for a given page. You can see who has made changes and what changes they've made...that'll keep you from saying things like "your counter-arguments" to someone who didn't make them. (Note: At first, I took this to mean 'your arguments' as in 'your wiki'...but I'm not convinced you even knew that you were talking to the site owner.)
So, let's get to your actual comments, so we can clear the air and I can get back to work:
"Furthermore, I did not insinuate that the Euthyphro should address ALL moral argument but I was giving atheists a heads-up as to the modern moral argument where Euthyphro is useless and a new swift response should be made. Doesn't this require some collaboration and agreement on the counter-argument?"
- — Wissan
The argument you presented is not an argument where Euthyphro is useless, it's just a moral argument that limits the use of Euthyphro as a response. We have an entire category for moral arguments, feel free to add a page for this one if it doesn't exist. No, we don't need collaboration and agreement on counter-arguments. We tend to list the counter arguments and they are then modified or removed. A wiki is a living document, we don't need a committee before adding a page and, in the end, a committee of 1 (me) may overturn the decisions.
"And if you really care about this site, I advise you to work on the kalam argument."
- — Wissan
Thanks for your advice. There's a reason that I opened the wiki up to the public: I simply don't have time to do this, the TV show, the podcast, my ridiculously demanding regular job, e-mail, speaking engagements, ACA business and still find time to eat, sleep and occasionally socialize. There are many articles that simply don't exist. There are many that need some serious editing...but I've had to limit my efforts here to a bare minimum.
"Kalam is one of the best theistic arguments."
- — Wissan
Which is only slightly more impressive than being the least smelly dung pile.
"Kalam is the only one which has been constantly used in recent debates. Have you been to any recent debates?"
- — Wissan
Clearly you have no idea who you're talking to. I say that not because I would have expected any special fawning...but because if you knew, you couldn't have said something so monumentally stupid. Whether or not I've been to a recent debate (I have) is entirely irrelevant. I'm involved in debates 7 days a week, with real theists of all stripes and Kalam isn't nearly so common as you might think. That said, it deserves a thorough response.
"No, my friend. You are NOT ready to take on counter-apologetics if you have no idea of what the kalam cosmological argument for atheists is, which has been introduced by atheist philosopher quentin smith. Search for it, please do!"
- — Wissan
I have done...and you missed the point. Your implication was that without Kalam for atheism, one isn't ready to take on Kalam as an apologetic. This is false and it ignores the burden of proof. Kalam stands or falls on its own merits and the existence or non-existence of a Kalam-for-atheism is a secondary concern. I've read Smith's essay. It's interesting and contingent upon unproven particulars. I don't find it particularly compelling and I don't find that it is in any way superior, as a response, than simply exposing the flaws in Kalam. - HOWEVER, it is an argument that should be included, both in the counters to Kalam and as a page in the arguments for the non-existence of a god. Your implication that one isn't ready for counter-apologetics if they don't possess an exhaustive familiarity with a particular argument is without merit. My concern was that you seemed to be confused about how to address a simple and obviously flawed argument...that concern was based on a miscommunication. You were asking for feedback on how to address it at the wiki, not feedback about how one should respond to it. The fact that you still missed the point that one has no more need of the Kalam for atheism than they do of the atheists wager in order to address the apologetic is still a minor concern.
"You also have poor articles on 'quran and science' which could be a powerful atheistic tool against islam'. There's no mentioning of the 'inimatibility of quran' argument. There are many arguments you have missed. As you see, I have my hands full and it seems that you are not ready taking on counter-apologetics from the apparent poverty of this wiki."
- — Wissan
Well, aren't we lucky you've arrived! There was no claim that the wiki is finished (as if it ever would be) or that it even had adequate coverage of most arguments...it's a resource, a work in progress and its state is entirely dependent on volunteer participation. While the goal would be to serve as the premiere treatment for these subjects no one has said we were anywhere close to that. Your comment is akin to walking into a garage where someone is building a car from scratch and saying, "Where's the odometer? There's no headliner or carpet? If you really cared about this car, you'd have a GPS system installed. You aren't ready for Daytona..." - and it's almost enough for me to revoke your welcome.
Fortunately, I'm not quite that reactionary. Go. Edit pages, add comments help improve the site like many others have done. Just sign your comments and try to be clear. - Sans Deity 10:37, 2 March 2010 (CST)
Above the editing box on every page there are a bunch of icons. The second last one is a squiggly line that looks like a signature. If you click on it, it will insert your signature and the date/time. Or you can type two dashes and four tildes instead.
Sign discussion comments, but not article edits.
--Jaban 14:54, 3 March 2010 (CST)
I've seen a few things that you've written in the first person. Is that the standard procedure here?--Bob M 06:04, 15 May 2010 (CDT)
No, it's not really standard procedure but I write articles for several publications on the internet in the first person. You are encouraged to change them.--wissam hemadeh 14:38, 15 May 2010 (CDT)
- Thank you for your encouragement. But I've mentioned previously that arguments against the existence of gods don't do much for me - as I feel that they are about as useful as arguments against the existence of Father Christmas. Consequently I'm reluctant to start editing such articles. I was just curious about why you did it that way. Thanks for responding.--Bob M 06:33, 16 May 2010 (CDT)