User talk:Ronar~enwiki

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place  after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Well, nobody has welcomed you but you've been editing for a few months! Here is a useful tip, when you leave a talk page comment you can sign it with ~. Have fun! SchmuckyTheCat 05:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Ronar. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Ronar~enwiki that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name. If you think you might own all of the accounts with this name and this message is in error, please visit Special:MergeAccount to check and attach all of your accounts to prevent them from being renamed.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 02:27, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 18:14, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

January 2021
Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. I am glad to see that you are discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Talk:Ordination of women are for discussion related to improving (a) an encyclopedia article in specific ways based on reliable sources or (b) project policies and guidelines. They are not for general discussion about the article topic or unrelated topics, or statements based on your thoughts or feelings. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. --Equivamp - talk 18:56, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Using any other version than the NIV WOULD be improving the article. Among those who believe in the NA/UBS manuscripts, the NASB is considered a much more accurate translation.Ronar~enwiki (talk) 21:18, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Ordination of women, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. Thank you. --Equivamp - talk 01:55, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

It isn't that difficult to look up the actual Greek words on various sites and the other was scripture that I quoted--not original research. It is evident you just don't like the obvious conclusion. Huge swaths of the article are nonNPOV and you obviously are biased.
 * If it is so easy to find sources that back up your claims - not just about translations, but the implications of those translations - then it should be a fairly simple matter of citing them. If you need help learning to cite sources, visit Help:Contents. If you're not willing to collaborate with other editors and insist on making the article say what you want regardless of consensus and Wikipedia policies/guidelines, then you are engaged in an edit war which can result in a block from editing.
 * As far as my "biases" are concerned, reverting your edits doesn't even imply that I disagree with you, let alone that I am biased against your edits. But frankly the accusation is tantamount to acknowledging that you are editing in favor of a particular point of view. Regardless, please remember to avoid making personal attacks against other editors and focus on article content. --Equivamp - talk 03:45, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

I originally just put a comment on the "talk" page, which you decided was unacceptable in a spirit of apparent collaboration, thus prompting me to edit the actual article. If you wish to pretend you don't have a bias, when it is made obvious by a look at your profile, then that is fine. I won't engage in such pretense. I have a bias towards biblical truth, which is very much germane to that portion of the article, thus the bible quote. In a section dealing with Christianity, quotes from the book on which Christianity is founded and inferences from Christian scripture should not be a problem, especially when the Koine Greek is actually referenced.

December 2022
Your recent editing history at David Berlinski shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. tgeorgescu (talk) 09:08, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Tgeorgescu. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to User talk:Ronar~enwiki have been undone because they appeared to be promotional. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted; Wikipedia articles should be written objectively, using independent sources, and from a neutral perspective. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. tgeorgescu (talk) 12:04, 31 December 2022 (UTC)


 * That is my talk page, not a wikipedia article. You gave your opinion and I gave mine. Ronar~enwiki (talk) 00:19, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes. We are biased.
Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia, once wrote:

Wikipedia's policies ... are exactly spot-on and correct. If you can get your work published in respectable scientific journals – that is to say, if you can produce evidence through replicable scientific experiments, then Wikipedia will cover it appropriately.

What we won't do is pretend that the work of lunatic charlatans is the equivalent of "true scientific discourse". It isn't.

So yes, we are biased.


 * We are biased towards science, and biased against pseudoscience.
 * We are biased towards astronomy, and biased against astrology.
 * We are biased towards chemistry, and biased against alchemy.
 * We are biased towards mathematics, and biased against numerology.
 * We are biased towards medicine, and biased against homeopathy.
 * We are biased towards venipuncture, and biased against acupuncture.
 * We are biased towards solar energy, and biased against esoteric energy.
 * We are biased towards actual conspiracies and biased against conspiracy theories.
 * We are biased towards cargo planes, and biased against cargo cults.
 * We are biased towards vaccination, and biased against vaccine hesitancy.
 * We are biased towards magnetic resonance imaging, and biased against magnetic therapy.
 * We are biased towards crops, and biased against crop circles.
 * We are biased towards laundry detergent, and biased against laundry balls.
 * We are biased towards augmentative and alternative communication, and biased against facilitated communication.
 * We are biased towards water treatment, and biased against magnetic water treatment.
 * We are biased towards mercury in saturated calomel electrodes, and biased against mercury in quack medicines.
 * We are biased towards blood transfusions, and biased against blood letting.
 * We are biased towards electromagnetic fields, and biased against microlepton fields.
 * We are biased towards evolution and an old Earth, and biased against young Earth creationism.
 * We are biased towards holocaust studies, and biased against holocaust denial.
 * We are biased towards an (approximately) spherical earth, and biased against a flat earth.
 * We are biased towards the sociology of race, and biased against scientific racism.
 * We are biased towards the scientific consensus on climate change, and biased against global warming conspiracy theories.
 * We are biased towards the existence of Jesus and biased against the existence of Santa Claus.
 * We are biased towards geology, and biased against flood geology.
 * We are biased towards medical treatments that have been proven to be effective in double-blind clinical trials, and biased against medical treatments that are based upon preying on the gullible.
 * We are biased towards astronauts and cosmonauts, and biased against ancient astronauts.
 * We are biased towards psychology, and biased against phrenology.
 * We are biased towards Mendelism, and biased against Lysenkoism.

And we are not going to change. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:45, 29 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Thus, not NPOV. That Jesus did exist is also evidence in support of intelligent design by virtue of being evidence for the truth of the bible, which source says that God intelligently designed and created the universe. Ronar~enwiki (talk) 06:54, 29 December 2022 (UTC)


 * That Jesus did exist is a banal fact of history. It does not make me a Christian any more than believing that Muhammad did exist makes me a Muslim, or believing that Buddha did exist makes me a Buddhist.
 * Besides, WP:NPOV includes WP:DUE, WP:GEVAL, and WP:PSCI. See explanation at WP:NOTNEUTRAL. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:57, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * There is plenty of evidence that Jesus not only existed but died and came back, along with doing many miracles. All of Muhammad's miracles were invented years later.  As to neutrality, wikipedia's bias is one of the main reasons I will never donate a dime to them again.  I donated 3 dollars once because I do use the site, but I have gotten pretty tired of the liberal bias. Ronar~enwiki (talk) 08:55, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Hogwash. There isn't any evidence that the miracles of Jesus were real, and there cannot be such evidence. Such evidence is forfeited at the level of epistemology. tgeorgescu (talk) 10:37, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. You reject evidence because you start with the close-minded assumption that miracles can't exist.  Your statement is just a fancy way of sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "na na na na--I can't hear you!"  The existence of a universe that had a beginning--space AND time starting at the same time(as any cosmologist will tell you they did)--points irrevocably to one of the biggest miracles possible. Ronar~enwiki (talk) 12:01, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I advise you to keep such opinions to yourself. This is not a WP:FORUM for debates. Your views of science and religion are puerile, and it is a waste of time to argue with you. If you push pseudoscientific POVs you will be blocked, that's the only certainty. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:32, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * As you are a fool--"The fool has said in his heart, 'There is no God.' "--I have no interest in your advice. You engaged in debate, then tried to tell me this wasn't the place for debates.  You know--like a hypocrite.  Further, I don't get paid for my contributions to wikipedia.  My only interest is truth.  Your characterization of my views as puerile--childish, silly, trivial--is the sort of thing I expect from those with no respect for the truth.  They focus on things that don't matter.  It doesn't matter if my views are puerile or how my views make you feel.  Facts don't care about your feelings.  The only thing that matters with propositions or worldviews is whether or not they accord with reality.  My views do.  Your views don't.  You've been beaten in the debate, so you resort to bowing out with an insult rather than addressing my arguments.  Of course, you may not realize you've been beaten, but the fact that you resorted to such dishonest tactics should give you some indication. Ronar~enwiki (talk) 01:01, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Not. If you think that intelligent design passes for science, your views are utterly silly and not in agreement with even a summary knowledge of epistemology and of the scientific community. So who ignores reality now? And I do believe in God, it is just that he isn't your god. tgeorgescu (talk) 12:30, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * You say that you believe in God, then say that intelligent design doesn't pass for science. You seem to lack self-awareness to an alarming degree.  Which God do you believe in?  Is it a version of the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob with parts you find objectionable excised? Ronar~enwiki (talk) 22:50, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * You say that you believe in God, then say that intelligent design doesn't pass for science. You seem to lack self-awareness to an alarming degree. is a very cheap sophism. E.g. Catholics and liberal Protestants generally believe in theistic evolutionism, not in intelligent design. They generally agree that ID does not pass for science.
 * I don't believe in the Abrahamic God at all. You come across as having a WP:IN-UNIVERSE view which is very ignorant and exceedingly fanatical, to the extent that your theory of mind has been cancelled. Wikipedians agree to disagree upon theological matters. You seem not to have received the memo. You conflate Wikipedia with Conservapedia. Conservapedia is biased for fundamentalist Christianity, not Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a secular encyclopedia, meaning written by laypeople for laypeople, instead of being under the control of some clergy. Wikipedia is religiously neutral, it cannot say which religion is the correct one, if any.
 * To cut a long story short, if you will defend ID inside Wikipedia you will be blocked or topic banned. That's a promise. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:24, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * How can you believe in a God -- a Creator of the universe, or what else could you mean--and not believe in intelligent design? The first implies the second.  It isn't a fallacy, but follows deductively from the existence of God and what is known about the universe BY scientists.  Catholics and liberal Protestants don't believe in the bible or the true God .  They worship an idol--a false image of God they have built by twisting or flat denying scripture.  You having found some God -deniers who will scratch some itching ears doesn't mean they are the authorities on the origins of the universe and on science.  It doesn't matter what they agree to.  They are still full of nonsense and promote doctrines of demons. You say my "theory of mind" has been cancelled.  If you would bother to read the wikipedia article linked, you would see that a theory of mind is not a thing that can be cancelled.  I understand full well that other people have different points of view, ideologies, ways of thinking and feeling, and views of truth.  I also understand that some points of view accord more with reality than others.  Some ideologies, ways of thinking, ways of feeling(yes, even that), and views of truth accord more with truth than others.  The way of feeling that includes the feeling that raping and killing children is an evil act is more in accord with truth than the way of feeling that includes the feeling that such things don't really matter, are really not so bad, or are even good.  You don't seem to understand that objective truth exists and IS discoverable in many instances.  Your postmodernist ideology--weak, contemptible, and lazy thing that it is--shows clearly.  You then say wikipedians have agreed to disagree on theological matters, then claim that intelligent design--an integral part of biblical Christianity--must be labeled pseudoscience(literal meaning is "false knowledge"--a lie).  How is that in any way neutral or an agreement to disagree?  I am not the one insisting on a bias in wikipedia.  I am content for all points of view to be represented fairly.  I am not the one attempting to cherry-pick sources like you, who promote the extremely unbiblical Roman Catholics and liberal Christians as fair representatives of Christian thought when the bible is a much clearer, less ambiguous, and proper representation of what it means to be a Christian and what true Christians believe.  You see that I don't go on the wikipedia page about Roman Catholicism and edit it to show my view of them as expressed here in a talk page.  You are not interested in allowing beliefs alternative to your own, though you fool yourself that you are.  You are willing to allow anything BUT true biblical Christianity.  In that you and most of the world are in agreement, and hereby do you attempt to engage in mob rule and to censor the voices of the smallest minority in history--true believers in the true God and His word. Ronar~enwiki (talk) 08:16, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * You are merely WP:SOAPBOXING for your pet theology. Continue with it if you want to get topic banned. Besides, science and theology are different. The website policy WP:PSCI applies only to science, not to theology. Of course I don't allow pseudoscientific views stated in the voice of Wikipedia. I am WP:NOTDUMB. Wikipedia is heavily based upon mainstream science (as in the National Academy of Sciences and Nature (journal)), so it does not have any other choice. About raping and killing children is an evil act is that based upon the Bible (Numbers 31) or is that an unbiblical idea dictated by secularist morality? tgeorgescu (talk) 14:42, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Are you really trying to pretend that you are not advocating for anything on wikipedia(soapbox)? You're a huge hypocrite if you claim that.  Yes, raping children is an evil act.  Killing children is an evil act unless you are God or a human whom God has commanded to kill some children.  God can kill children all day long.  He created them and sustains them in existence, thus He has the right to do as He chooses with them.  You clearly don't like God killing children and think you know better than Him .  You can try to take it up with Him on Judgment Day.  Humans don't have that right, as the bible clearly indicates.  "Secularist morality" is a contradiction in terms.  Nihilism follows naturally from materialism.  Materialists can know what is right because God gave them a conscience(to the extent that their conscience hasn't been seared).  However, there is no logical basis for morality in the materialistic worldview.  I am aware of the nonsense arguments about "human flourishing" and "social contracts/herd law".  Yes, I am conflating "secularist" with "materialist".  Address that if you like, but they are usually the same crowd with the same philosophy.  The whole idea of an encyclopedia that wasn't centralized--that anyone could edit--is a big fat lie when it comes to wikipedia.  It is just mob rule by a bunch of bullies unable to put their ideas up against all others and defend them, choosing instead to cancel and censor opposing viewpoints.  This is why I don't generally bother to edit the actual articles other than to fix grammar or other mistakes that will not be controversial.  I know that someone like you will just be unable to stand an alternative viewpoint existing somewhere(apparently even on my own talk page that someone would have to seek out to read).  Finally, you seem to think that you have the moral high ground because you know and at least claim to follow wikipedia policies, as though those policies couldn't possibly be wrong in any way. Ronar~enwiki (talk) 00:50, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I never said that the policies of Conservapedia are wrong... for Conservapedia. Different houses, different rules. As long as you edit at Wikipedia, you have to obey the WP:RULES of Wikipedia, otherwise you will be blocked or banned.
 * Wikipedia isn't really different from Britannica and Larousse, and since you don't like Wikipedia, it means you don't like Britannica and Larousse either. But that's what a WP:MAINSTREAM encyclopedia is about.
 * Besides, Wikipedia never was a forum with unlimited free speech, so any appeal to your constitutional right to free speech is void by default.
 * Wikipedia does not render biblical (i.e. fundamentalist) Christianity as WP:THETRUTH for the same reason it does not render Salafism or Raëlism as The Truth&trade;. Namely, theology is by definition subjective opinion. Only people who lack a theory of mind deny it.
 * Deduction employing sophistry is faulty. E.g. "God works in mysterious ways" means that science cannot understand how God works, so ID fails because of that: science has no tools for studying and understanding God, his actions inside the natural world are not identifiable by science.
 * That only Christian miracles are true is an extremely ridiculous special pleading. That only biblical Christians (meaning fundamentalist Protestants) are real Christians is the fallacy called no true Scotsman.
 * You clearly don't like God killing children and think you know better than Him in the context of Numbers 31 is the apology of genocide. It also means that the secularist ethics is more moral than the Bible/Abrahamic God.
 * Wikipedia describes what Pope Benedictus XVI stood for, but does not endorse his views. Same applies to Martin Luther and James C. Dobson.
 * As far as Wikipedia is concerned, Trinitarianism is neither true nor false. But creation science and intelligent design are described as pseudoscience because WP:PSCI is basic website policy. I know that you do not like it, but these are the WP:RULES of Wikipedia, and you will get blocked or topic banned if you violate WP:PSCI.
 * This is not a level playing field, since so far creation science and ID proponents have been utterly impotent to convince the National Academy of Sciences that their views are true. So, of course, Wikipedia kowtows to NAS and gives the lie to creation science and ID. Wikipedia has no sympathy for the losers of the scientific debate.
 * It isn't an objective fact that a god has created the Universe. It isn't an objective fact that the Abrahamic God really exists. It isn't an objective fact that the Bible is the Word of The True God&trade;. Wikipedia will not state that your subjective theological opinions are true.
 * If you seek to be WP:SOAPBOXING for your theological opinions, take your business elsewhere. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:31, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It would be great if you would read some of the articles you link. "Special pleading is an informal fallacy wherein one cites something as an exception to a general or universal principle, without justifying the special exception. It is the application of a double standard".  I am not putting forth an exception to a general principle, but the general principle.  I am pointing out that the class " Christian" is defined by a well-written and lengthy book and that a reading of that book combined with observations of liberal " Christians" and Roman Catholics makes it clear that they are not members of the class.  The "No True Scotsman" fallacy is committed when someone seeks to protect a generalized statement from a counterexample by disqualifying said counterexample as a member of the class.  What is the generalized statement I made that YOU or anyone else provided a counterexample to with me attempting to disqualify said counterexample as not being in the class the general statement was made about by ME?  Further, no true Scotsman is different in a SIGNIFICANT way from "no true Christian":  Christianity has been based on a book of writings(the bible) for nearly its entire 2000 year history(it was based on a subset of those writings until the writings were completed).  Most people even claiming to be Christian will affirm this book as authoritative concerning what a Christian is supposed to be, believe, and behave.  They will only argue that their interpretation is the right interpretation, not that the book is not authoritative.  There are some who attempt to add on to it, but they consistently claim that their addons don't contradict the authoritative text, but are in accord with it, because they know it is authoritative.  There is no such book that is so nearly universally accepted for nearly the entire time Scotland has existed which defines what it means to be a true Scotsman.  It is an objective fact that a God created the universe.  Science and logic prove that it hasn't always existed.  There are only two options available:  Either it always existed--disproven by science and logic--or it came into existence at some point in time.  Things that come into existence had to have something that caused them to come into existence.  Thus, the universe had something that caused it to come into existence.  This little sidestep of saying something can come from nothing when really you mean matter being created by fields(actually being fields which are just aspects of the spacetime fabric) doesn't change that fact that something CAN'T actually come from a true nothing.  The spacetime fabric has to exist before a field can exist in it.  We know spacetime had a beginning(otherwise a literal infinity of days would have to have passed to reach today and literal infinities don't exist.  Imagine coming upon a guy and him telling you he just finished counting to infinity.  You'd rightly call him a liar as any mathematician--like me--will tell you that infinity isn't a number.  It is just a way of saying that something increases without bounds.  Notice it isn't already "increased without bounds" as if it had arrived at some destination called infinity.  You could just add one to it at that point and make it obvious you hadn't reached a number than which no greater number existed).  Since we know space and time had a beginning and that they--being inextricably linked--began at the same time, we know something caused them to begin.  We know that matter can't exist absent the spacetime fabric(most physicists now say particles of matter are really just fields in the spacetime fabric).  Thus, we know that matter could not have existed prior to the spacetime fabric.  Thus, whatever caused the universe to come into existence had to be outside of space and time AND not made up of matter.  We also know, due to the order and information inherent in the universe, that it had to have a mind.  Thus, it is a person, and not some nonsentient force.  This is inescapable logic.  If you can actually show a REAL fallacy in the argument here, do so.  I would suggest you actually read the wikipedia articles about those fallacies beforehand so you know what it is to commit those fallacies.  I had a course in logic in college.  I made an A+ in that course.  I know quiet a bit about formal and informal fallacies and how to spot them and how to avoid them. Ronar~enwiki (talk) 08:19, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Yup, many instances of false dilemma, see e.g. . tgeorgescu (talk) 10:59, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It is only a false dilemma if the options are not exhaustive. Any time you have A and not A for an A that has a truth value, those two options together are exhaustive and there is no false dichotomy.  I am 22 minutes into the video you linked and have rarely seen a group of people quicker to miss or misunderstand a point.  When, for instance, he makes the analogy about how an infinite number of days having passed is like a person counting down from negative infinity and how they would be unable to do it, one of the speakers then says that the ability to do something doesn't meant that it gets done--as if the days could just CHOOSE to not pass at some point.  If only those people were half as intelligent as they think they are, they might be able to find the truth.  Of course, Mr. Craig makes some errors in reasoning and/or believes some wrong things, but the argument still stands and the infinity of universes(for which there isn't a SHRED of evidence) or infinite hotel room analogies are useless for dealing with the problems with an infinitude of time, though space and time are related. Ronar~enwiki (talk) 11:54, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Yup, many instances of false dilemma, see e.g. . tgeorgescu (talk) 10:59, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It is only a false dilemma if the options are not exhaustive. Any time you have A and not A for an A that has a truth value, those two options together are exhaustive and there is no false dichotomy.  I am 22 minutes into the video you linked and have rarely seen a group of people quicker to miss or misunderstand a point.  When, for instance, he makes the analogy about how an infinite number of days having passed is like a person counting down from negative infinity and how they would be unable to do it, one of the speakers then says that the ability to do something doesn't meant that it gets done--as if the days could just CHOOSE to not pass at some point.  If only those people were half as intelligent as they think they are, they might be able to find the truth.  Of course, Mr. Craig makes some errors in reasoning and/or believes some wrong things, but the argument still stands and the infinity of universes(for which there isn't a SHRED of evidence) or infinite hotel room analogies are useless for dealing with the problems with an infinitude of time, though space and time are related. Ronar~enwiki (talk) 11:54, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Ronar sounds awfully like Til. Not saying he *is* Til, just inhabiting the same mental universe. Achar Sva (talk) 00:45, 3 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I still get the difference between a Catholic fundamentalist and a Protestant fundamentalist, but that's about it. Usually, I treat Christian fundamentalists like they would be one and the same person. Well, at least in my own psychology, I no longer see them as being different persons. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:05, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * If you no longer see people as individuals, but as members of a faceless mass, this makes it easier for you to mistreat them when the time comes to do so. It does not, however, accord with reality, and is indicative of your intellectual laziness.  The intellectually lazy prejudiced always do this:  "Oh, he shares some apparent characteristic with these other people, so I can just label him and assume he is like them in most other important respects or even all respects."  It is much harder to deal with the reality that people are vastly different individuals.  To be fair, all of us can fall into this trap occasionally.  However, we should all be called on it when we do it. Ronar~enwiki (talk) 12:01, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I pleaded long enough with you that you have to obey our WP:RULES in order to edit here. And, remember: I do not have formal power inside Wikipedia, since I'm not an admin. I cannot sanction anyone. I can only persuade people, and if they don't listen, then admins take action. tgeorgescu (talk) 12:13, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I pleaded long enough with you that you have to obey our WP:RULES in order to edit here. And, remember: I do not have formal power inside Wikipedia, since I'm not an admin. I cannot sanction anyone. I can only persuade people, and if they don't listen, then admins take action. tgeorgescu (talk) 12:13, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

January 2023
Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia, as you did to User talk:Ronar~enwiki. While objective prose about beliefs, organisations, people, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Thank you. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:48, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

This isn't just for today, but for having a long history of WP:SOAPBOXING that your religion is objectively true. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:39, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to add promotional or advertising material to Wikipedia, as you did at User talk:Ronar~enwiki, you may be blocked from editing. This is for continuing to WP:SOAPBOX that your religion is objectively true. tgeorgescu (talk) 10:36, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Insisting that your religion is objectively true makes you look like a completely inane fool. This is a WP:CIR matter. You are working very hard at becoming the laughing stock of Wikipedia. You should know better. That's not how a rational and educated person behaves in public, unless they are trolling. Reasonable and educated persons know since Immanuel Kant that your religion is subjective belief, and there is no avenue for appealing such judgment. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:47, 2 January 2023 (UTC)


 * You again talk about appearances rather than addressing the arguments. You do this because you are incapable of addressing the arguments.  You know you are outclassed.  No one but you is on my talk page.  No one else is even paying attention to you.  I could care less what you or anyone else thinks about me.  I am going to defend truth.  You may be slightly educated, but you are not rational.  In which book did Immanuel Kant establish that ALL religion is subjective belief?  I have his book on logic.  I will read the book you quote and answer what I feel certain will be a fallacious argument.  He was not God .  He was just another sinner.  If you continue to harass me by going back and deleting all of my talk page edits(not even article edits, which is what the public tends to interact with and consider "the truth"), I will pursue action against you in accordance with wikipedia's rules.  If you can't address reason with reason, instead responding like a petty little bully, I will deal with you as a bully.  Check out Wikipedia:harassment if you need a refresher. Ronar~enwiki (talk) 21:54, 2 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Your actions are now under scrutiny at WP:AE. Note that WP:BOOMERANG does not say that I'm immune from sanctions just because I was the first to complain. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:07, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Let them scrutinize. The edit you kept reverting didn't mention religion, but LOGIC and authorial intent in general.  You seem to think I am afraid of being banned from editing.  I don't even edit that much, usually just putting something on a talk page so someone can address an issue if they wish to.  I don't fear you or anyone here.  I am going to defend the truth as long as I am able. Ronar~enwiki (talk) 22:18, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you use Wikipedia for promotion or advertising, as you did at Talk:Homosexuality in the New Testament. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:53, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Talk:Homosexuality in the New Testament shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:38, 2 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Then stop reverting it yourself and call for a third opinion. Stop trying to be the thought police all by your lonesome.  You engaged in harassing behavior by hunting up an extremely old edit to a talk page and reverting it just because it was an edit I made and you were annoyed at me over a completely different matter. Ronar~enwiki (talk) 22:57, 2 January 2023 (UTC)


 * It's the very same matter, namely WP:SOAPBOXING for your own religion. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:02, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is Ronar~enwiki. Thank you. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:52, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

January 2023
 You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 04:19, 4 January 2023 (UTC)


 * You could take notice of how infrequently I do any editing and see that I don't really care about large scale edits. I usually just put something on the talk page for someone else to do something if they do have the time, energy, and knowhow to address some error, lack of NPOV, or other difficulty, and even that is very infrequent.  I donated once to wikipedia.  Won't make that mistake again.  I WAS here to use an encyclopedia and felt obliged to give rather than just get benefit from it in spite of its bias.  As I said, I won't ever make the mistake of giving money to the wikipedia foundation again and I will actively discourage others from giving to them as they care less about the truth being told than a bunch of artificial and poorly thought out rules being enforced. Ronar~enwiki (talk) 12:14, 4 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Our rules is what made Wikipedia one of the greatest websites in the world. We won't change our rules just because you want Wikipedia to become your pulpit. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:14, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't want it to become my pulpit. I want it to be a place where everyone is free to speak and express their viewpoints.  The book burners always have some excuse for censorship. Ronar~enwiki (talk) 20:18, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Quoted by tgeorgescu (talk) 22:52, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * @Tgeorgescu I think it would be best if you stopped engaging here. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 22:53, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * @Tgeorgescu I think it would be best if you stopped engaging here. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 22:53, 4 January 2023 (UTC)