User talk:TimSC

From Religions Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome to Iron Chariots Wiki! We hope you will contribute much and well. You will probably want to read the help pages. Again, welcome and have fun! Kazim 15:44, 14 February 2014 (CST)

Hi Tim, I tried to reply to your email asking for permission to update the front page, but it bounced. I say go ahead.

Also, would you be interested in helping to approve new members? I notice you've been pretty active lately and I could use some help. --Kazim 10:01, 8 April 2014 (CDT)

I am not sure how long I can keep up my edit rate but I keep finding stuff to do. :) Not sure why my email address is bouncing emails - I'll look into it. I am willing and able to help with new user registration. Did you get me email from a while back that thumbnails are not being generated on the wiki? (the gremlins might have eaten that too) --Tim Sheerman-Chase 10:08, 8 April 2014 (CDT)

Mental note to self: How many times was John beheaded?[edit]

I was confused by this:

Mark 6:14 And king Herod heard of him; (for his name was spread abroad:) and he said, That John the Baptist was risen from the dead, and therefore mighty works do shew forth themselves in him.

Mark 6:16 But when Herod heard thereof, he said, It is John, whom I beheaded: he is risen from the dead.

Mark 6:25 And she came in straightway with haste unto the king, and asked, saying, I will that thou give me by and by in a charger the head of John the Baptist.

Mark 6:27 And immediately the king sent an executioner, and commanded his head to be brought: and he went and beheaded him in the prison,

How many times was John beheaded? Apparently Mark 6:17 onwards is a flashback: [1]

New pages[edit]

Tim,

I tried to email you at both the addresses I have for you, but they both bounced. I hope you see this. Let me toss off a few words about what's on my mind right now regarding your new edits.

I'm worried because any time we have one person doing the bulk of the new editing on the wiki, there's not much other oversight about whether the content is really suitable or not. Generally speaking I try to be extremely conservative with creating new articles. In the last few weeks I noticed you were creating many dozens of new articles with new categories, and I'm not sure if they are necessary articles or bloat.

I hate to throttle you on this since I'm not actively visiting Iron Chariots on a regular basis, but Matt and I envisioned this as a repository dealing with common apologetics arguments. To pick a random example among the many articles created recently: Not all events necessarily have causes

"Not all events necessarily have causes" is not a term people will be searching for. It is not the name of a common theistic or atheistic argument that stands alone, nor is it a formal fallacy. At best it seems like it would work as a subsection of the "first cause argument" page, which DOES reference a common argument with a name. But even then, the article I'm reading seems to be a lengthy conversational piece about the topic, not a succinct set of responses to frequently used apologetics.

Iron Chariots is not a blog or a magazine. It's a reference resource. You see what I mean?

--Kazim 13:02, 25 April 2014 (CDT)

Sorry about the email weirdness. Wiki discussion is fine. Most of my page creations are either apologetics arguments or renaming of existing pages. I don't remember creating many categories... 2 or 3 about two or three, certainly not dozens. I'd say about 10 or 12 have been created about philosophical concepts or books, which are separate from any specific argument.
The title "Not all events necessarily have causes" was my attempt at being user friendly. Perhaps philosophical terminology of concepts would be better, in this case it would be "brute contingencies" or "contingent brute facts".
I agree that apologetic arguments and counter-arguments have primacy. However, this concept occurs in all(?) variants of the cosmological argument and is probably the biggest counter argument. I think there are about 4 cosmological argument pages on the wiki. I wanted to put additional detail somewhere on the wiki but I think putting it within each of the arguments pages would have bloated them with significant duplication of content. Similarly, if we put a full in depth discussion for and against "infinite regress" on every page separately, it will be horribly duplicated since it is such a common concept.
I guess we should ask ourselves, how much detail is necessary for the concepts we discuss? Should the detail of concepts go on the main article page or on supporting pages? Perhaps "Not all events necessarily have causes" should be merged into "principle of sufficient reason"? Should all the cosmological arguments be merged? Perhaps work needs to focus on the common arguments and when that is done, review. It seems to me a discussion of key concepts such as infinite regress & principle of sufficient reason is more important than rehashing logical fallacies where are already well documented elsewhere. A push in the right direction would be appreciated! --Tim Sheerman-Chase 13:45, 25 April 2014 (CDT)
Sorry, it looks like Kyle Youmans is the one creating all the categories, not you. I'm trying to bring in a few more people on this discussion so we can brainstorm about managing a consistent content style. --Kazim 13:57, 25 April 2014 (CDT)
If I might weigh in: it seems to me that readers will most likely read the page they came for, but probably won't look at related pages unless there's a good reason to do so (such as a "Main article at..." link). So as a rule of thumb, it's best to keep information on existing pages, rather than create new ones. It's also easier to split a section off into its own article, than it is to combine multiple articles into one. --Arensb 15:18, 25 April 2014 (CDT)
I think I understand but unsure if I am correctly interpreting your point. I think you are suggesting that new content should generally be added to each argument page. You mention that articles may need to be split into separate articles, but I am not sure what circumstances this would occur - presumably when it gets too long? If so, I agree. The main argument article should be comprehensive but perhaps some of the more obscure details can be put it related pages that are linked, preferably using the "main article" template. I think the cosmological argument is good in this regard. What do you think?
I suggest we move the discussion to Project talk:Layout and styleguide. Watching that page might be a good idea too. --Tim Sheerman-Chase 04:00, 28 April 2014 (CDT)

Rbutr[edit]

Have you heard of a program called Rbutr? It was created to counter false information on the internet so I think that it would be a great tool to use to show people the arguments presented on this wiki. Kyle Youmans 18:30, 6 May 2014 (CDT)

I had not heard of it previously. It's an interesting concept and it might be a useful research tool. I am glad they use hashes to see where I browse rather than totally violating privacy. --Tim Sheerman-Chase 12:34, 8 May 2014 (CDT)

Ironchariots Awareness[edit]

How can I get more people to find this website? Kyle Youmans 19:17, 29 May 2014 (CDT)

That is a complicated question! I am not sure I have much insight here. :) The two main areas might be what we can do directly to the wiki and also what resources are available outside the wiki. Improving the wiki to make it more useful and findable on search engines is the easier one. We probably could do with improving the popular pages, improving navigation, content and images. We might do better in adding articles that are really of interest to people who are grappling with these issues and underpin the classic arguments (e.g. What would it take to change your mind?) and avoid duplicating excelling content of other websites. People's mights are chanced by highlighting and questioning their assumptions.
What we can do outside the wiki: encourage links to the wiki (by making the wiki useful and persuasion). There is the similar wiki RationalWiki which is broader in coverage and seem popular but they have page counts turned off. If we have in depth content, we might get a link to the article. Some generic tips: [2]. Perhaps we could get a selection in publishable ebook/paper format? Any thoughts yourself? --Tim Sheerman-Chase 12:51, 30 May 2014 (CDT)

Criticism required (demanded!)[edit]

Hi Tim,

I don't see any other active members on the Wiki and wondered if you could help me improve on the page I'm working on? Sometimes I am blind to mistakes I make and I don't always have the sense of putting things in the right order. I need someone to criticise or find flaws on the page or arguments/rebuttals made.

~Dally —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dally (talkcontribs), 20:30, 7 February 2015

Will do! I'll make changes and use the talk page for the Sikhism article.--Tim Sheerman-Chase 04:42, 8 February 2015 (CST)

I have a question for you[edit]

Hi, how many people are editing or active on this wiki? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jack (talkcontribs), 16:40, 11 July 2015‎

It's pretty quiet I suppose. It's mainly me and Imadmagician. There are 4 or 5 occasional people. The founders do not get hands on these days. Probably should do more recruiting... --Tim Sheerman-Chase 16:44, 11 July 2015 (CDT)

RationalWiki article and template[edit]

Hey, what do you think about the rationalwiki article and template so far? I used my rationalwiki teplate in the Jesus article —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jack (talkcontribs), 15:02, 12 July 2015‎

It's a good idea but should be used selectively. There is some overlap between RationalWiki and here. If an article is in scope of this wiki, it is pointless linking to RationalWiki because the information should be in our article already. If it is an article which is out of scope but would be a useful resource, then link. Most articles would not need a RationalWiki link, I think. There are often better resources to link to than RationalWiki anyway.
There is no point rewriting or duplicating RationalWiki, which has a much broader scope (and they are more popular). We really focus on apologetics. --Tim Sheerman-Chase 16:21, 12 July 2015 (CDT)
I agree. Also RationalWiki has a more robust editing system then iron chariots, a larger diversity of templates, and doesn't download index.gz files every third or so click.--BruceGrubb 07:49, 17 August 2016 (CDT)
I believe we are on a fairly ancient godaddy server, which makes glitches common and upgrades problematic... --Tim Sheerman-Chase 11:04, 17 August 2016 (CDT)

Atheist groups category structure[edit]

I see you deleted Category:Atheist groups in the United States, Category:Atheist groups in Texas, and Category:Atheist groups on the Internet. Those categories are not empty. Do you think we should just have a "flat" Category:Atheist groups until it gets more members, or did you have an alternative (sub-)category structure in mind? - dcljr 17:28, 4 October 2015 (CDT)

I think it's best with a flat structure. I am not sure there is much point having a list of atheist groups really so I don't think it will expand in the near future. --Tim Sheerman-Chase 09:21, 5 October 2015 (CDT)

Merge pages[edit]

As you've seen, I created the Moral anti-realism page. However, we already have a Moral non-realism page too. I did't realize this before-it covers some of the same territory. Do you think they should be merged? I'm not sure how to do that.--Mcc1789 (talk) 05:28, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Generally, move all content to a single page, then set the empty page to redirect to the one with content. Let me know if you get stuck. I don't have a strong view which to keep.--TimSC (talk) 01:53, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

What happend to Iron Chariots wiki?[edit]

I know this may be off topic but what happened to Iron Chariots Wiki? I read that this wiki, Religions wiki, is a fork of the Iron Chariots wiki. Skeptic1 (talk) 20:07, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

It was hosted on GoDaddy which was never very reliable. Eventually the site became read only for some unknown reason - possibly a quota problem. Then it disappeared completely.
Matt and Russell didn't have time to administer it and were not willing to transfer the domain. I decided to carry on by forking the site. --TimSC (talk) 14:47, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
O.K. Thank you for letting me know about that. I thought that it was down because the wiki had too many articles and cost too much to run. Skeptic1 (talk) 20:52, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Modal Ontological Argument[edit]

Hi,

I thought that there's no point in putting the obsolete forms of the ontological argument when there's the modal version. If you want I can put all the prior versions of the ontological argument back, just for historical matters. It's fairly easy to deal with the non-modal ontological arguments because they aren't valid if they don't use modal logic. I also tried to provide all the counter-arguments possible and the responses to the counter-arguments.

I'm aware that this website is for atheists but people have to get good information (like the reverse ontological argument that was provided before my edit; it's actually invalid since it makes a logical mistake that I explained in my edit).

Thank you for accepting my edit, although it needs some perfectioning (I didn't have much time so I did it in a hurry). I'll probably add more things (If I'm allowed, of course). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yann A. Staquet (talkcontribs), 19:57, 12 November 2019‎

I'll probably add the old content to other pages dedicated to obsolete versions. I think they are still widely used in apologetics even if they are wrong. I've added you to the automoderated group so the anti-spam features should say out of your way from now on.--TimSC (talk) 20:50, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
Ok, thank you —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yann A. Staquet (talkcontribs), 19:10, 13 November 2019‎
I see you did some "modifications"... Why have I wasted my time showing that the counter-arguments proposed are absurd? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yann A. Staquet (talkcontribs), 19:29, 26 November 2019‎
Most of the content you added has been retained but I have moved some content to other articles e.g. Argument from incompatible attributes‎‎, Omniscience, Which god?‎‎. It's not practical to put all details of every related argument in the article. The wiki has a skepticial perspective but every argument should be fairly represented (at least somewhere on the wiki). I think the article has improved since you were involved but it sounds like you don't like it as it stands. I'd quite like further contributions but preferably within the existing structure rather than rewriting the whole article. However, if you don't want me editing you contributions, you might not be interested.--TimSC (talk) 19:48, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

The changes you made to the whole don't bother me. Everything I wrote was not a definitive version, it was just an idea of what could be implemented. What I think is unfair is that you still keep the Omnipotence paradox, the Reverse Ontological Argument, etc. when I showed or tried to show that they aren't good objections; you could at least put my counter-arguments, otherwise any person could stumble across this wiki and think that these are good objections. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yann A. Staquet (talkcontribs), 18:41, 27 November 2019‎

Yes, I should have made that clear, I was including all popular arguments for and against, even if they are invalid. I agree that all (or most all) arguments should have at least a summary of the counter arguments. The details might need to be in another article. At the moment, the incompatible attributes section in the Ontological argument article has no counter argument, which it needs. I tried to summarise the counter arguments for the Reverse Ontological Argument but not necessarily very well. The counter arguments are sometimes loosely ordered in their significance but that is very much a work in progress.
The challenge is to summarise all related counter arguments to the incompatible attributes objection in a few sentences (I think that would be the best solution). Same for Proof by logic, Changing the subject, etc sections. The counter argument to "Changing the subject" can be a bit longer than the others since it is particularly relevant to the Ontological argument. I'm not really happy with the "Begging the Question" section because it is filled with jargon that I don't yet understand, so the reader is unlikely to understand either. However, this discussion probably belongs in the Circular reasoning or Begging the question article as it is quite in depth.
I am a bit concerned about the tone of what you are going to add, in terms of making a firm conclusion for or against an argument. I guess I hope that each section can inform the reader and they can quickly come to the "correct" conclusion about the arguments validity. However, as authors we don't necessarily agree on each argument's validity and therefore we can't easily guide the reader. Let's hope we can present information in a way that we think can agree is reasonable.--TimSC (talk) 01:38, 28 November 2019 (UTC)