Why? talk:Become an atheist/Archive 1

Okay

So I think this article has the potential to be very funny if the anti-atheism is toned down a bit. Some of these lines are clearly making fun of it and would never pass for trying to convince someone to be an atheist at all. So I'm going to go through and see if I can remove that tone a little and I might remove a few lines. Please read through and consider before you decide whether or not to revert. Thanks. KATIE!! 13:11, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC)

The anti-atheism is the whole joke here. It's an article that makes fun of atheists. That's what it is. I don't see how one could tone that down really.

I honestly had no idea I was going to start this kind of firestorm over it, have been ignoring the article for a long time, and had no idea it was on VFH. In fact, I was thinking of putting the article on QVFD the entire time because I think this kind of humor sucks. It does the exact same thing to atheists that Reasons not to be a devout Christian does to Christians. I wrote the article to illustrate that. Looking at it now, some good items have been added, some have been re-worded/formatted so that they're no longer funny, and some people hate me for reverting this article to put some funny lines back. I'm doing a major edit of it right now that will categorize the reasons into groups. My new idea is to make it be like AOL. (Atheists Online) The other versions that have been written up ought to be merged somehow and formatted to fit this theme. Also, all items need to be in future tense as in "If you become an atheist today, you won't be saved if Jim Jones turns out to have been correct!" or whatever. --Nerd42Talk 02:48, 9 Jan 2006 (UTC)

I love making fun of atheists!

I was just saying that it's too obvious. Subtlety is key. It's not funny if you kick them in the face with it. So that's what I tried to do. Tone down the glaring "I hate atheists" and make it more subtle jabs. But in the end, it's your article.

Cheers! --KATIE!! 21:32, 10 Jan 2006 (UTC)

OK ... I understand your intention generally, but could you give me some examples of what you mean in the specific case of this article? --Nerd42Talk 22:18, 10 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Okay, you're not allowed to bold and italicise. It's retarded. SUBTLETY IS THIS THING WHERE YOU DON'T SLAP PEOPLE IN THE FACE WITH THE FACT THAT IT'S A JOKE AND YOU'RE NOT ACTUALLY SERIOUS. IT'S ESPECIALLY USEFUL IN ARTICLES LIKE THESE WHERE THE TOPIC GETS PEOPLE VERY UPSET. IT IS VERY OBVIOUS THAT YOU ARE TRYING TO MAKE FUN OF ATHEISTS AND IT ISN'T FUNNY BECAUSE YOU HAVE NO TACT.

Cheerio! --KATIE!! 10:53, 12 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Also, "get to" is a very awkward construction. Please replace all instances of it. I did it for you, but you put them back. --KATIE!! 10:58, 12 Jan 2006 (UTC)

It's supposed to be retarded. It's an uncyclopedia article LOL. OK seriously, it's supposed to look stupid because it's supposed to be an advertisement. Advertisements make ridiculous use of formatting in order to highlight "important" words, for example FREE!! --Nerd42Talk 04:15, 17 Jan 2006 (UTC)

I thought there was a good balance of pro atheism and anti and most of them were funny. The contradicting tone was starting to eat away at the comedy after a while but the last line ("There is no god") makes it more of a punchline article. (A really funny punchline at that.) Despite the edit war, good work.

So's your old man

Carnac draws an envelope out of a mayonnaise jar that's been hermetically sealed and sitting on Funk & Wagnall's front porch since noon today.

CARNAC: (holds envelope up to turban) "Trying too hard."

ED: "Trying too hard"?

CARNAC: "Trying too hard."

Carnac opens the envelope and removes a card.

CARNAC: (reading from card) "What's the biggest problem with this article?"

ED: Ho ho ho-ho-ho-ho-ho! Hey-yoooooooooo!!

Laughter and applause from audience; Doc strikes up the band.

--Brett Bretterson 07:17, 1 Dec 2005 (UTC)

And your point is? --Nerd42 15:28, 1 Dec 2005 (UTC)

---

Okay, I understand your not wanting people to mess with your page, but (a) fix the misspellings, (b) remove the "you'll gradually turn gay" bullshit, and for Chrissake, use a lighter blue in the template! You can hardly read any of it. --Johnny C. Raven 03:07, 5 Dec 2005 (UTC)

1. OK, lol, I'll run a spellchecker.
2. LOL you are offended by the "Athiests will gradually turn gay" comment? Take a look at some of the pages around here. That is an extremely mild comment, and it's funny as hell.
3. It's not my template, I just thought it'd look funny there. I've already attempted to make Template:Kansas more readable, and Flammable burned my edit, then did a better version of the same thing. I never screwed with the color though. How about you suggest that at Template talk:Kansas?
4. I've put some of your changes back. I didn't see that you'd fixed anything, I thought you'd just added three bullet points that I didn't see humor or relevance in, and just changed it back real quick. ;) ^_^ --Nerd42 03:37, 5 Dec 2005 (UTC)

---

I'm not offended by anything. The whole page exists for that one line, you've already proven that. And no, it's not funny; it's pathetic. Take it out. --Johnny C. Raven 04:36, 5 Dec 2005 (UTC)

I have added a funny line to this page. --Chronarion 07:24, 5 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Well, yeah, but here again, two things: First, it's "incompatible," and considering you practically run the whole site, you should know that. Second, communion wafers are quite often made with special gluten-free ingredients in order to avoid costly lawsuits by allergic parishioners, so technically this is of questionable accuracy, meaning that Nerd42 would delete it if he didn't know that you practically run the whole site. So this is blatantly unfair, isn't it? I'm not going to get into a spitting contest with Nerd42; I'm just going to wait a while for him/her to figure it out. But all you've done is put him/her in a position where he/she can say "but that actually was funny," and claim he/she is being objective, when in fact he/she is simply trying to justify using Uncyclopedia for extreme-right-wing bullshit propaganda that makes us genuine Christians look like a bunch of assholes. --Johnny C. Raven 08:36, 5 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Dude!!! Go look at most of the other articls on Jesus and Christianity and after defeating those (which are ten times more extreme) then I'll think about taking stuff that is actually funny off of my page for the sake of unbiased humor. I've actually made myself quite unpopular and blue in the face arguing for the idea of some limits of propogandic humor, the response has been, "If you don't like our left-wing articles, then leave them alone and go write your own right-wing articles." So I have. Quit whining. --Nerd42 15:28, 5 Dec 2005 (UTC)

lolz accuracy on uncyclopedia --Nerd42 15:29, 5 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Pure gobshite and you know it. Even the most over-the-top Jesus & Pope parodies aren't doing what you're trying to do here, pal. I've read a LOT of them, trust me. My advice? Read "The Art of War" -- if you're going to stake out your little territory with silly-string and toy traffic cones, don't sit inside the perimeter mooning the angry mob that has you surrounded. Just take the line out. --Johnny C. Raven 15:44, 5 Dec 2005 (UTC)

I've read it. See my article on Making up Sun-Tzu quotes. If you check the original version of the page, you'll notice the line you're objecting to wasn't even part of the original idea.

"Even the most over-the-top Jesus & Pope parodies aren't doing what you're trying to do here, pal."

Which is??? Hey, I like making fun of the Pope, I'm not a Catholic. I'm just wondering .... how is your complaining about this comment any different from my complaining about the opening lines of Reasons not to be a devout Christian, which are:

• You're not allowed to have sex before marriage.
• You're not allowed to enjoy sex within marriage.
• You're only allowed sex to procreate - which means no more sex after your last kid is born.

Seems to me these two articles are on about the same level. Furthermore, I'm not sure you understand the line anyway. Homosexual activists have scoffed at one of the arguments in favor of the traditional definition of marriage, that "Giving out marriage liscenses to homosexuals will increase the spread of homosexuality by making it socially acceptable." The response to this has been, "What!? You're saying people will begin to gradually turn gay?" I could analyze the reasons behind both sides of this debate but hopefully you're intelligent enough to get it now. lolz. --Nerd42 15:59, 5 Dec 2005 (UTC)

One more thing -- saying "atheists are gay" when everyone knows that is not nessicarily true ticks you off?? THAT'S AWESOME, but why would it? Are you homophobic? --Nerd42 16:11, 5 Dec 2005 (UTC)

There are a lot of gay jokes on Uncyclopedia and I think that how to be funny guide says to not use them. I often found that a lot of people on the Internet use the word "gay" as an insult to someone else who has opposing views. Like right in the middle of a debate, one party decides to call the other party "gay" or "secretly gay". Also if not, and the topic of being gay or calling someone gay one or the other party is accused of being homophobic or a closet homosexual. I am not gay, but I would think that people who are homosexual will find such things offensive to themselves. I think rather that maybe saying that some athiests might gradually turn gay because they support gay marriage might be less offensive because you are not trying to say that all will gradually turn gay, which is what some people think is implied here. Also remember to not forget the lesbians, because we don't want women upset that us guys have excluded and alienated them in yet another article that only talks about gay men and not lesbian women. That way it is not an insult, but plays fun on the fact that if some of the atheists support gay marriage they might gradually turn gay or become a lesbians because they stated that legalizing gay marriage will increase the spread of homosexuality by making it socially acceptable. If not, then just drop the whole gay reference and just say that they will gradually turn into kitten huffers or liberal terrorists or some other silly thing. Just my two cents, I could be wrong. --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 02:34, 13 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Let me say that even if the page is not particularly hilarious, this is EXACTLY the right thing to do. Nerd42, I applaud that you're doing what the flamewar guide says you're supposed to do. --Chronarion 08:58, 19 Dec 2005 (UTC)

I didn't know there were flamewar guidelines. I've now read them (and added them to my watchlist) and they kind of make alot of stuff suddenly make sense lol --Nerd42 19:18, 19 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Nothing more to discuss here

From the VFH discussion:

Where on earth did these flaming atheist bigots come from? This is demented. You're as bad, if not worse, than religious bigots. I'm absolutely floored by the commentary I've seen here. You want us to delete it because it disagrees with your views? That smells of wikipedia's users attempting to control the accepted mentality of the world. Ever wonder why some of us didn't like it there? We're only pushing humor POVs here - it must be funny. That means we have satire, parody, outright lies, brutal truth, and most of our articles will offend someone. Welcome to a club you've apparently never joined here.

In this case, I am absolutely sure that numerous admins have reviewed the article and, like me, said "this is parody/satire". If this is serious, our mostly agnostic, atheist, and discordian administration must be blind. Even the founder of uncyclopedia added an entry. If that isn't acceptance of the parody/satire of the article, I don't know what would be sufficient. Other admins have also contributed. You must've missed the joke.

I admit that the writer sometimes annoys me, but I'm not childish enough to have a personal vendetta against him and every article he writes that may disagree my personal views. Lots of articles do. If you can't accept your personal views being poked fun at every now and then, you're a sad excuse for an individual and you're certainly not ready to be on this site. You are as bad, if not worse, than the writer of the article.

I suggest you return to your 'utopia' and just give up on this battle. I am removing what appears to be a factual hate-based template you added to the article, the template itself, and I will ban anyone that recreates it or replaces it. » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 11:51, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC)

---

Moved from VFH

Finally, someone has a good idea. Even though I still believe that anyone who doesn't want to delete this crap is somewhere between a maggot and an AOL subscriber, I've just added a template to the top of it that should make it acceptable to just about anyone, including me. As long as the template remains in place, then I have no problem with the page and I'm all for having it featured. In fact, why not just eliminate the middleman and permanently replace the main page with this one? Great idea! If User:Nerd42 isn't doing this deliberately to embarrass the rest of World Christendom and propagandize this site, then I don't believe he can object to the template either (though I'm about 99.9% certain he will). After all, it promotes his Wikipedia article, which is even funnier than this is. But if the template goes, or is changed, then this vote obviously changes and the page should go too. --Johnny C. Raven 20:46, 1 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Any chance we could stick to voting here? --Cap'n Sir Ben GUN WotM VFH VFP 05:08, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC)

No. --Johnny "The Wikinator" Raven 05:20, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Well, you sure showed me. --Cap'n Sir Ben GUN WotM VFH VFP 05:22, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC)

What do you expect, man? Look at the evidence. I've proposed a compromise and if it isn't accepted, then I will continue to wholeheartedly support and join in with anyone who abuses, insults, humiliates, embarrasses, and yes, threatens this dude. I don't care anymore. You people simply do not know who and what you are dealing with. This is absolutely, one-hundred percent fucking serious. Capiche, compadre? --Johnny "The Wikinator" Raven 05:35, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Where on earth did these flaming atheist...

How many times do I have to write that I'm not an atheist before even one of you believes it? Is it really so hard for you to accept that idea? Do you want videotape of me going to church? WHAT?

...bigots come from?

True, I'm definitely bigoted, but not in the way you seem to think.

This is demented. You're as bad, if not worse, than religious bigots.

But if I'm not an atheist bigot, then I must be a religious bigot, no? So why am I agreeing with the suggestion that a page full of religious bigotry be tagged with a POV template? And hey, isn't being "demented" the whole point of this site? Better that than boring and stupid.

I'm absolutely floored by the commentary I've seen here. You want us to delete it because it disagrees with your views?

No. I want you to PUT THE TEMPLATE BACK, because otherwise it makes us all look like hatemongers. Is this so hard to accept? And please, for once, pay attention and quit putting words into my mouth when they're right there in fucking black and white. And what it "disagrees with" are the views expressed in How to be funny and not just stupid, which, apparently, you've never read. I wasn't the one who originally suggested it be deleted, at least not in this context, nor was I the one to originally suggest the POV tag. That is, unless you think those two people are me, which I obviously can't disprove, but I'm hoping they'll eventually speak up for themselves, one of these days.

That smells of wikipedia's users attempting to control the accepted mentality of the world. Ever wonder why some of us didn't like it there? We're only pushing humor POVs here - it must be funny. That means we have satire, parody, outright lies, brutal truth, and most of our articles will offend someone. Welcome to a club you've apparently never joined here.

Again, if it were actually funny in the first place, it would be less objectionable. And do you really think that wikipedia's users are "attempting to control the accepted mentality of the world"? Isn't that statement just as ludicrous and one-sided as anything I've ever written on this subject? I'd say I'm actually trying to be semi-rational about this, but all you seem capable of is exaggerations, and putting up straw-man after straw-man after straw-man. Well, I bow to your obvious cleverness and superiority. But still, how are you personally the arbiter of what's funny and what isn't? If you are, then I'm not the only one wasting my time here. Everyone is.

In this case, I am absolutely sure that numerous admins have reviewed the article and, like me, said "this is parody/satire". If this is serious, our mostly agnostic, atheist, and discordian administration must be blind.

Speak for yourself, please. I'm sorry, but I'm more willing to believe that than the idea that this is "satire." Read the definition of "satire": Last time I checked thefreedictionary.com, it meant "witty language used to convey insults or scorn." Obviously I agree with the last part, but if this were satire, it would be "witty," then, right? It isn't. It's just a sporked piece of crap that survived an NRV tag because the author whined about it in an IRC session. "Satire" doesn't always equal "humour," at least not in the real world. And "parody"? "A literary or artistic work that imitates the characteristic style of an author or a work for comic effect or ridicule." Who is being imitated here? Another Uncyclopedia contributor? This is what you're defending?

Even the founder of uncyclopedia added an entry. If that isn't acceptance of the parody/satire of the article, I don't know what would be sufficient. Other admins have also contributed. You must've missed the joke.

Oh, I missed it all-righty. But don't think for one fucking second that just because you're "admins" or "the founder of uncyclopedia" that this makes you better than anyone else. You're not. And if you're completely unwilling to even try to see the larger issue here, then it's you, not me, who are much, much worse.

I admit that the writer sometimes annoys me, but I'm not childish enough to have a personal vendetta...

You all continue to insist this is "personal." Why? I have roughly the same attitude toward this article that I do towards Mein Kampf or The Turner Diaries. But does that mean I have a "personal vendetta" against Adolf Hitler, and whoever wrote The Turner Diaries? I've never met those guys, have I? I'm sure they would've made wonderful pals and drinking buddies. So hey, guilty as charged, boss!

...against him and every article he writes that may disagree my personal views. Lots of articles do. If you can't accept your personal views being poked fun at every now and then, you're a sad excuse for an individual...

Again, my personal views are not being poked fun at here, and this is the only article on the entire site that I've ever objected to, except one mention of Nerd42's contribution to Slavery. If that equals "now and then," or if it suggests nothing to you at all, then personally I don't think you have enough of an attention span to be doing what you're doing. Besides, what are your "personal views"? Do you even have any? Is there anything you genuinely believe, deep in your heart and soul? And if I said you were "gay" or a "moron" just for believing that thing, would you defend my so-called "right" to say it with all the effort that you're putting forth now to defend Nerd42's so-called "right" to say those same things about atheists? Think about it.

...and you're certainly not ready to be on this site. You are as bad, if not worse, than the writer of the article.

Oh, I'm a thousand times worse. Don't ever forget that. After all, I have at least a small bit of brain matter, relatively speaking. That makes me a lot more dangerous, don't you think? And what defines being "ready"? A willingness to turn the other cheek? Look at my list of contributions. Whether or not I'm willing to turn the other cheek isn't the issue here. If you want to put your money where your mouth is, then delete every article and image I've posted, revert every change I've made, and delete my account. Go ahead, it's obviously what you want to do. And coincidentally, at this point it's what I want you to do, too, now that you've proven that personal favoritism trumps everything else around here.

I suggest you return to your 'utopia' and just give up on this battle.

You first.

I am removing what appears to be a factual hate-based template you added to the article, the template itself, and I will ban anyone that recreates it or replaces it. » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 11:51, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC)

So "factual" = "hate-based" now, does it? Well, I'm glad we've cleared that up. I was beginning to forget where I was for a minute there. --Johnny "The Wikinator" Raven 18:55, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC)

--*While I've never understood the concept of "this makes fun of me, I'm offended," I'm even more lost trying to figure out "this makes fun of me so it must be funny, or else people will think I'm offended." It's just not funny. It's not clever and it's not subtle. It's stupid. It's really really really stupid, with only a few lines making any kind of sense. And above that, it's a list. Lists are notoriously unfeaturable, and to feature one it would have to be well above the quality of a list such as this one.

This article isn't offensive, because trust me I'm notoriously difficult to offend, and if I'm offended by anything in this article it's the fact that it sucks. Badly. I've seen unfunnier article on Uncyclopedia, but they get deleted. Very quickly, too. But usually because thsoe ones didn't do themselves the service of being Politically Incorrect so that people would defend them for absolutely no reason. Drop the "all of you are just offended, it's satirical" line. I recognize it's satire, but it's still not funny. Even a little bit. --Spencer (yiff) Cheer up! Hitler's still dead. 18:25, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC)

For the record: My contribution to slavery is not meant to be taken seriously in any way shape manner or form - it's a historian's joke. Of course I do not think there is or ever was any moral justification for slavery. --Nerd42Talk 17:10, 9 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Fine then, damn

Since they won't let me put it on the actual article, here' the version of this article that's actually funny.

Reasons_to_become_an_atheist/the_funny_version

um that article isn't actually funny. (What was that IP address again?)

You could try this one instead:

Reasons to become an atheist/The Dead Serious Scrolls Version

Hmm. Both versions have some good ideas and some bad ideas. I'd suggest some kind of merger in which the good ideas from both are implemented and the bad / boring / excessively long bits are left out. --Nerd42Talk 02:53, 9 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Ugh. At least Nerd42's version is divided into sections. The other two are just hideously long bulleted lists. --Cainad 03:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Offending line

“DO NOT add this line back: "You'll save money on funerals since you can dump your loved ones' corpses in a landfill, or make big money selling them to necrophiliacs." Violators will be banned.”

~ User:Keitei on Reasons to become an atheist

I understand completely how that line could be overly offensive, and how that could negatively impact the article's humor. I found it rather tasteless myself. (I find alot of the humor around here too gross for my tastes, but some of the rest of the site is really funny and that's why I stay) I think the line didn't say all of that other stuff initially. It just said, "You'll save money on funerals." I'm not sure who added the rest of the line and I don't care. But I was thinking, would any of the following alternatives be acceptable to you instead?

1. You'll save money on funerals.
2. You'll save money on funerals because you can dump your loved ones' corpses in a landfill.
3. You'll save money on funerals since you'll believe dead people aren't going anywhere anyway.
4. You'll save money on funerals since there's no point in getting all dressed up when there's no place to go.
5. You'll save money on funerals because you can have them in a bar.

Or would any other such less offenseive but still funny ideas be all right to add? --Nerd42Talk 03:10, 9 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Those are perfectly acceptable. That was just the result of an annoying crapface making a huge fuss. We decided against censorship, but those are funnier. So do what you like. --KATIE!! 18:15, 16 Jan 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I vote for #4, it's a lot funnier.--Bradaphraser 18:51, 16 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I thought #4, while cliche, was probably still the most humorous of the five. I will add it under the "ways to save money" section. --Nerd42Talk 04:11, 17 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Arrrrrrrr, eyeball spork! Hate hate! Die!

RAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAR!

Katie hate this! - It make her spork her eyes out!

Bad edits

There have been alot of bad edits on this page recently that have made it alot less funny. I have (I hope) fixed them. One of the major problems is that people keep rewording different points to make them agree with their own views instead of to make them funny. (example: changing "you get to think for yourself, according to a recent scientific journal" to just plain "you get to think for yourself" - the first one is funny, the second one is not funny but was what somebody changed it to)

Also, an entire section was added called "Reasons NOT to become an Atheist" which so clearly doesn't belong here that it makes me wonder what whoever wrote it was thinking.

Perhaps this article could be protected somehow? Wikipedia has this thing that only lets people who have been members a certain amount of time edit specific articles. Does Uncyclopedia have that capibility, and would it be appropriate to apply it here? --Nerd42Talk 14:45, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Multiple humor strands going on

There are a couple different threads going on here. There's the homosexuality thread that makes people mad, (...you'll gradually begin to turn gay!) the creation/evolution thread that makes people mad, (...you'll get to believe that fishes can have monkey eggs!) and the general Bashing Atheist Bashing thread, (...you'll get to believe that everyone who disagrees with you is an ignorant boob!) And there are also others but now I'm starting to get confused because the lines between them blur ... --Nerd42Talk 17:33, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Compared to previous revisions, I think this article is now balanced and funny enough for everyone to stop bitching. No matter what kind of bigot the reader is, there is bound to be something here to stroke their ego. Some examples:

Atheist Bigotry:

• ...you can be a decent person because you are a decent person, not because "GOOOOOOD TOLD ME TOOO!"

Religious Bigotry

• ...you'll never have to do anything nice for anyone else ever ever again!

As you can see, the foolish prejudices of both views are equally represented in the article. There's something for everybody!

--Cainad 03:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

• Right! That's the idea. Now if we could only get people to quit making bad edits. --Nerd42Talk 20:04, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

But itss true

"...you'll never go to hell, simply because you don't believe in the place! That's atheist logic!"

It is true. Christian logic is that if you don't believe in the tooth fairy, you should still be afraid she will come to harvest your teeth for her ivory trade during the night.

Here's a challenge, make an atoothfairyist aritcle, I will start,

"If you are economically unstable, you can take comfort in knowing that the tooth fairy wont bring you any quarters!" "There's no reason to have good oral hygiene because you wont get any money out of it!"

Well, not quite. You're leaving out an important piece of the puzzle. The way it actually goes is: "Christian logic is that if you don't believe in the tooth fairy, even though the tooth fairy actually exists, then you should still be afraid she will come to harvest your teeth, because in reality, the tooth fairy actually does exist no matter what you think about it, being rather like the force of gravity."

That line from this article is, of course, not reflective of how atheists actually think - only of how relativist atheists think. The original line omitted the word "atheist" from "atheist logic" and just said "That's logic!" --Nerd42Talk 20:06, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Somebody is being stupid enough to want to change this line to "...you'll never go to hell simply because it doesn't exist" which really just isn't funny. --Nerd42Talk 20:13, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

GET AN ACCOUNT

some retard keeps vandalizing the page. If you're going to do that, at least get an account. Geez. --Nerd42Talk 18:06, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Looks like one of those pain-in-the-ass anonymous ISP numbers. Most of them start with 172, which probably means it's the same person using different computers. Whomever it is, we do know that he/she is a royally stupid atheist who can't take a joke to save his/her life. Makes other atheists look bad. --Cainad | Speak with The Eye 02:16, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I applaud your effort to help find a better version of the page. I do think some minor changes I made helped it some and that's why I didn't just revert back to yours. --Nerd42Talk 19:34, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Fishes can have monkey eggs?

There is a name for the idea that fishes can have slightly different fish eggs. It's called "Creation Biology" - particularly "variations within created kinds".

There is a name for the idea that fishes can have monkey eggs. It's called the "Hopeful Monster" theory and is actually believed by some evolutionists / atheists, though it has largely been rejected by the mainstream scientific community. Why not make fun of it?

Please leave the "fishes can have monkey eggs" line alone because "fishes can have monkey eggs" is clearly funnier than "fishes can have slightly different fish eggs" --Nerd42Talk 19:34, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Finding out where these bad edits are coming from

172.166.128.97	US	UNITED STATES		-	-	AMERICA ONLINE 	
172.146.66.182	US	UNITED STATES		-	-	AMERICA ONLINE 	
172.162.188.40	US	UNITED STATES		-	-	AMERICA ONLINE 	
172.163.247.212	US	UNITED STATES		-	-	AMERICA ONLINE 	
172.151.110.220	US	UNITED STATES		-	-	AMERICA ONLINE 	
172.130.34.233	US	UNITED STATES		-	-	AMERICA ONLINE 	
172.131.141.148	US	UNITED STATES		-	-	AMERICA ONLINE 	
172.144.178.136	US	UNITED STATES		-	-	AMERICA ONLINE 	
172.144.227.220	US	UNITED STATES		-	-	AMERICA ONLINE 	
172.151.240.200	US	UNITED STATES		-	-	AMERICA ONLINE 	
172.165.208.187	US	UNITED STATES		-	-	AMERICA ONLINE 	
172.130.170.181	US	UNITED STATES		-	-	AMERICA ONLINE 	

Somebody who uses AOL. --Nerd42Talk 19:28, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Changes that need to be made

It seems that some of the bad edits survived in the protected version of the page.

• ...you'll be persecuted religiously!! Score! Foul!

Needs to be changed back to the original:

• ...you'll never be persecuted for your religion! Score!!

Or just eliminated entirely.

Also...

• ...you'll have a worldview that is scientifically supported by evidence!

Needs to be changed back to the original:

• ...you'll have a worldview that is scientifically supported by scientific science! Scientifically!

There may be other crappy edits still in there but those are the most important ones I see at the moment. If some sysop or somebody could edit it real quick without unprotecting the page, I'd appreciate it, because I think the decision to protect the page was a good one. --Nerd42Talk 17:19, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for fixing it! --Nerd42Talk 19:53, 13 October 2006 (UTC)