A while back I decided to upgrade the server software for the Iron Chariots wiki and install a bunch of add-ons, including one that allows me to force all new editors to write a short biography and wait for approval. It’s kind of a headache, but before doing this, we would get dozens of new users a day who would start filling up the wiki articles with advertisements for wristwatches and porn. Unfortunately, sometimes I can go for a couple of months without remembering to check the spam trap, and then people complain. But it beats the alternative.
Today I remembered that I haven’t approved users since April, so I cleared out a fairly manageable 17 requests. Nearly half of them were spammers who were stupid enough to put spam in their biography, so that was easy. I approved a bunch of requests… and then I saw this guy.
Jun 14 2013
Iron Chariots spam
Jun 09 2013
Open thread on episode #817 with Russell and Martin: Grace, love and mercy edition
Edit: On Sunday’s show we spoke with philosopher and blogger Dan Fincke, who discusses the concept of secular objective morality in these posts: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/camelswithhammers/tag/leah-libresco/. Additionally, Martin referenced some YouTube videos debunking claims of advanced scientific information in the Koran. Here is the promised link to the YouTube channel.
Martin It’s Martin (dat’s me!) and Russell fielding the hordes today, so I know you will all tune in. Comment below on the shenanigans when the dust has settled later today. In the meantime, I’ve been warming up with a couple of amusing exchanges with some Facebook creationists today. Helps to stay in fighting trim. Enjoy.
You gotta love the irony in the fellow’s comment about treating atheists with “grace, love and mercy” under that graphic. But I guess that’s how those terms are defined in their dark little world.
Jun 02 2013
Open thread on AETV 816: Russell and Jen
Russell and Jen discussed religious harassment in the military. Then we took calls from an atheist dealing with depression, an agnostic Mormon trying to decide whether the personal satisfaction of belief outweighs any potential harm, and several others.
Jun 02 2013
Vatican: But seriously, atheists still get tortured forever
Hemant Mehta already mentioned this last week, but it bears repeating. We’ve been getting a lot of email asking us if we heard the exciting (?) news that Pope Francis said atheists don’t necessarily go to hell. A few days later, the Vatican hastened to assure us that — yes, ha ha, that infallible pope, he’s a kidder all right.
Vatican spokesman Thomas Rosica has now issued an “explanatory note” stating:
…they cannot be saved who, knowing the Church as founded by Christ and necessary for salvation, would refuse to enter her or remain in her.
[...]
May 31 2013
Open thread on AETV 815
Sorry for the late posting, I just realized that neither Matt nor Don ever posts their own threads. Anyway, here it is.
May 22 2013
More on the Merry Christmas bill
I got email today from a reporter for “The Christian Post.” He wanted to ask me some questions about my opinions expressed yesterday on Raw Story. I am not familiar with this reporter’s writing, but thought it might be a bad idea to go into a phone conversation cold. So I wrote a message to him first, and I’m reproducing it here for discussion.
May 21 2013
Texas “Merry Christmas Bill”
I got quoted at length by a RawStory.com blogger looking for a reaction to the Texas legislature’s latest salvo in the War On Christmas. It was not the most diplomatic interview I’ve ever given. 
May 19 2013
Open thread on episode #814
On the schedule today are Matt and Tracie.
As cohost, I need to talk here about what I’ll be talking about. Depending on call volume and what Matt’s in the mood for, I’d like to do another dice demo to examine the statement “X is possible,” and what we mean by that.
Is god possible? I don’t know…and I’d like to talk today about the idea “It is possible a god exists.”
Is it? If I have a small opaque bag and ask you if it’s possible for me to roll a 21 with the dice in the bag–can you answer that question without a peak in the bag? I can’t. I could, I suppose, assert that since that many dice could be in the bag, it’s possible; but if they empty the bag, and it’s just 2 dice…then I’m using “possible” to describe things that are actually *impossible*. What are the implications of using the word “possible” to describe impossible things? Is it correct to say that if a thing cannot be determined to be “impossible” it must, then, be considered “possible”? Or is it more correct to say “we can’t say if it’s possible or not, because we don’t have sufficient information”?
Hope we can discuss it further on the program. We’ll see.
About the Author
Recent Comments