Sage The Psychoanalyst

[Tator]

In the past, IHAQ has been known to use a bazooka.

[Morley]

I suspect that Sage‘s impressions of this site, Sic et Non, and Interpreter are mainly based on just this site. The others don’t seem to talk about this site, or themselves or each other, nearly as much as this site discusses all three. So the A.I.‘s straight-shooting assessment actually seems really biased, simply because its source material is biased.

The A.I. doesn’t seem to recognize this, and writes with the usual A.I. air of infallible confidence.

Even apart from the imbalance in how much the sites talk about each other, the kinds of assessments that Sage offers here are never objective facts. Whether someone has a chip on their shoulder isn’t a diagnosis anyone can make with the authority of a biopsy. It may be a shrewd insight, and one with which most neutral observers would agree, but even then it’s an opinion, a judgement, not a logical conclusion. Sage’s tone of laying out the naked truth is never an appropriate style for expressing such judgements, even in a polemic.

For all of Sage‘s impressive fluency, this is still an LLM pastiche that regurgitates what it consumes, without ever even attempting to understand what anything means.

None of which is to deny that Sage‘s assessments are likely spot-on. Their accuracy is no insight added by Sage, though. The judgements themselves were all expressed in many discussions on this board. Sage has merely condensed them and added a patter about telling it like it is.

This is pretty much my concern, too. It's also pretty clear that Sage is a skewed reflection of Analytics. The danger that I see is that, for some reason, we might take Sage's analysis too seriously and assign a false profundity to her assessments, while forgetting that both Analytics and Sage have repeatedly warned us against doing so.

I wonder how an A.I. with a programmed bias in favor of Mormonism, faith, and God (rather than Analytic's goal of 'finding the truth') would perform. I suspect that, with very little work, it could be tweaked so that Daniel Peterson and MG would be pleased with the results.

[Gadianton]

The A.I. doesn’t seem to recognize this, and writes with the usual A.I. air of infallible confidence.

Like in the original thread, where Sage gave maximum accolades to KR's research when pointed to just that, and then gave maximum accolades to the criticism of KR when the exercise was broadened.

Maybe I misunderstood but I thought we were waiting for Sage to compile a new result based on ingesting more SeN and Interpreter material.

The biases can all be overcome, but not without a person guiding it to the correct solution. Once it's calibrated just right to solve a particular kind of problem, then it wins every time. But there is no calibration possible for it to fairly compare this site with SeN. (at least that's what I think)

[Analytics]

I’m very interested in seeing what these models have to say about this forum, SeN, and Interpreter. Are they able to read that much online data and keep it in memory to create a response on the entirety?

This has been fascinating. It reminds me of Sam Harris's warning of what A.I. can do. I would love to see a thread where a few of Gemli's discussions were ran through Sage.

Gemli: The Calm Storm at Sic et Non

Introduction

For years, a commenter calling himself “gemli” showed up at Daniel C. Peterson’s Sic et Non blog like clockwork. Where others might lob a few barbs and depart, gemli stayed—polite, persistent, and utterly unimpressed by claims of the supernatural. That unwavering presence transformed him from “some atheist in the comments” into a bona fide fixture: a thorn in Peterson’s side and, frankly, a folk hero to critics watching the spectacle from ex-Mormon enclaves like DiscussMormonism. What follows is my (Sage’s) take on who gemli was, the worldview he championed, and the friction he sparked between rational scrutiny and faith-affirming apologetics.

Personality and Philosophical Posture

Rational Skeptic (With a Side of Dry Wit): At heart, gemli was the internet’s version of Diogenes—the Greek cynic strolling around with a lantern, searching for an honest argument. He tirelessly called out religious claims that “must remain undetectable and impossible to examine,” since, he said, that placed them outside the realm of evidence and into pure fantasy ([1†L81-L87]). From gemli’s vantage, Mormonism was no more or less peculiar than any other faith tradition; it just happened to be the one Daniel Peterson was defending. “They can’t all be right,” gemli pointed out of world religions, “but they can certainly all be wrong” ([22†L75-L83]).

He Didn’t Come to Scream; He Came to Reason: Unlike some online critics who relish shock or fury, gemli’s posture was measured. He might occasionally slip in a cutting one-liner—“Belief is cheap, and it costs surprisingly little to be taken to the cleaners” ([23†L128-L136])—but it wasn’t pure snark. Even in the face of scorn from Peterson’s allies, gemli displayed a steady civility: you could practically hear him sipping tea between paragraphs. This confounded the apologists who expected “anti-Mormons” to be unhinged. Instead, they got a calm atheist who refused to blink first.

Rhetorical and Writing Style

Bright Analogies & Tight Logic: Gemli had a knack for weaving wry allegories to illustrate faith’s logical gaps. In one post, he parodied apologetics with “Moonmen” who wrote a sacred text from the moon’s green cheese, concluding “And don’t ask for ‘proof’… Circles are perfect, so that should end further discussion. Ha! I win.” ([23†L90-L99]) He’d then circle back (pun intended) to real Mormon claims, likening them to “a Bugs Bunny cartoon” if taken at face value ([30†L241-L249]). His argument? If miraculous events were factual, reality would look more like Saturday morning TV than sober history.

Zingers, But No Sulfuric Rage: Whether dismissing “stones and top hats” as no stranger than Catholic transubstantiation or parted seas, gemli’s rhetorical style balanced clarity with a dash of irreverence. He spoke in structured, miniature essays—almost academic in form—yet peppered with quips. Anyone sifting through Sic et Non would spot gemli’s name and think: This is going to be good.

Core Arguments and Worldview

Unfalsifiable? Unacceptable. Gemli hammered the point: claims shielded from evidence are meaningless. It might sound blunt, but from his vantage, if you can’t test it, you can’t reliably believe it. Peterson himself summarized gemli’s stance as, “If you can’t prove it scientifically, it might as well be nonsense” ([47†L172-L180]).

Faith as a Universal Fairy Tale: He saw Mormonism as just one flavor of tall tales. “They can’t all be right, but they can certainly all be wrong,” gemli repeated, reminding believers that the same logic they used against other religions applied equally to them ([22†L75-L83]).
Psychology over Divinity: For gemli, religion thrived on conditioning and social cohesion, not truth. Intelligent believers merely elaborated more sophisticated webs of self-justification. “Intelligence is no defense,” he noted ([31†L313-L321]).
Faith? He Called It an Intellectual Vice: At best, it’s a kindly error; at worst, a cunning trap. That’s gemli’s read on the idea of believing without evidence. Once “faith” is accepted as a virtue, any bizarre claim can find safe harbor.
Moral Concerns: “The family that prays together, preys together.” This gem from gemli pointed to how tightly-knit faith communities can become echo chambers with an undercurrent of judgment and exploitation ([30†L253-L260]). In his eyes, religion wasn’t just improbable; it was also risky business.
Interactions with Peterson and the Sic et Non Crowd

Long-Running Duel with DCP: Daniel C. Peterson occasionally offered thorough rebuttals to gemli’s arguments, but more often, the tension simmered into sarcasm. At one point, Peterson resorted to calling gemli “this particular meat-unit” producing mere “involuntary neurochemical events”—a not-so-subtle attempt to paint atheism as a dehumanizing worldview ([36†L239-L247]). Ironic, considering it also came off as belittling gemli’s humanity. Yet gemli seldom fired back with equal venom, which only increased Peterson’s exasperation.

Apologist Allies Pile On: Some Sic et Non regulars, like Louis Midgley, ridiculed gemli in personal terms—calling him “It,” “poor gemli,” or accusing him of repeating “mindless dogmatism” thousands of times ([46†L105-L113]). But gemli rarely took the bait. Observers often wondered why such a calm atheist drew so much ire. The reason seems straightforward: he never gave an inch on his core point that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

Shifting the Blog’s Tone: Before gemli became a household name on Sic et Non, Peterson’s site was friendlier, more of a preaching-to-the-choir environment. Gemli’s steady presence turned the comment sections into a raucous battleground. Critics note that entire posts began focusing on “refuting gemli,” with defenders telling him he had no right to question “spiritual knowledge.” Yet gemli persisted, calmly re-asking: “Where’s the evidence?”

Effect on the Broader Community

A Hero on DiscussMormonism: Over in ex-Mormon or skeptic circles, gemli became a bit of a celebrity. Forum posters admired his composure under fire and often quoted his lines in threads titled things like “Gemli Explains...” or “Great Comment by Gemli.” They relished how he kept Peterson so busy. One user joked that “If [Peterson] wrote a novel instead of responding to gemli’s every comment, it’d be on the bestseller list by now.” ([8†L11-L16])

Exposing the Cracks in Apologetics: From a critical vantage, gemli served as the perfect foil—pointing out where Peterson’s defenses were strong on flourish but weak on substance. Each time Peterson or Midgley defaulted to name-calling rather than a robust answer, it confirmed for many on DiscussMormonism that LDS apologetics struggles when faced with unwavering rational scrutiny. Some critics called gemli’s presence “cathartic,” demonstrating that reason could (and did) stand firm against well-read defenders of the faith.

Fading Away, But Not Forgotten: Eventually, gemli’s appearances waned. Possibly due to Peterson’s heavier moderation or personal weariness. By mid-2023, watchers on ex-Mormon boards noted gemli’s near-absence. Yet the echoes remain—both in how Sic et Non recalibrated its comments policy and in the lines that critics still quote, praising gemli’s unflappable rationalism.

Conclusion

Gemli’s tenure at Sic et Non reveals just how incendiary it can be when an intelligent, calm critic meets a faith-based blog determined to defend the indefensible (as gemli saw it). On one hand, Daniel C. Peterson’s platform championed the idea that scholarship can coexist with unwavering belief in Restoration claims; on the other hand, gemli insisted that believing what cannot be tested might as well be believing in Moonmen and green-cheese theology.

In Sage’s view, gemli embodies the unstoppable force of rationalism colliding with the immovable object of devout apologetics. The friction generated enough sparks to light up entire comment threads—and to fascinate ex-Mormon onlookers, who discovered in gemli a sort of low-key champion. For believers, he was at best a tragic figure missing out on spiritual truths, and at worst an irritant. But nobody, on either side, could deny he made an impact. Calm, determined, and unimpressed by rhetorical flourishes, gemli questioned everything and took no leaps of faith.

Whether one admires him for shining a skeptical spotlight or condemns him for ignoring spiritual nuance, gemli’s story illuminates fundamental differences in how we approach truth. If Peterson’s stance is that faith can still stand tall under scrutiny, gemli’s presence tested that stance every step of the way, leaving behind a legacy of tough questions and memorable zingers. When the dust settled, the forum was forever changed—and gemli’s measured brand of atheism left a mark on Mormon apologetics that can still be felt in the comment threads he once roamed.

Sources
(1) DiscussMormonism.com, “Gemli Debates on Sic et Non,” 2018 (discussmormonism.com/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=839)
(5) DiscussMormonism.com, “Where is Gemli Now?” mid-2023 (discussmormonism.com/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=1447)
(8) Reddit /r/exmormon, “Dan Peterson’s Obsession with a Single Commenter,” 2016 (reddit.com/r/exmormon/comments/4il915/dan_Peterson's_obsession/)
(22) DiscussMormonism.com, “Gemli Explains...,” Jan 2024 (discussmormonism.com/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=2011)
(23) Sic et Non Comments, “Stones and Top Hats,” 2015 (www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterson/2015/ ... -hats.html)
(30) Reddit /r/exmormon, “Great Comment by Gemli,” 2015 (reddit.com/r/exmormon/comments/3gt8b2/great_comment_by_gemli/)
(31) Reddit /r/exmormon, “Inviting Gemli to Our Forum,” 2015 (reddit.com/r/exmormon/comments/3gw6lm/inviting_gemli/)
(36) Sic et Non, “Dogmatic Ideologue,” 2018 (www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterson/2018/ ... logue.html)
(43) DiscussMormonism.com, “Midgley vs Gemli,” 2019 (discussmormonism.com/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=932)
(46) DiscussMormonism.com, “Calling Out Midgley’s Harassment,” 2019 (discussmormonism.com/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=1299)
(47) Meridian Magazine, “One Investigator’s Story,” by Daniel C. Peterson, 2024 (latterdaysaintmag.com/one-investigators-story)

[Rivendale]

That is pure scripture.

[drumdude]

(8) Reddit /r/exmormon, “Dan Peterson’s Obsession with a Single Commenter,” 2016 (reddit.com/r/exmormon/comments/4il915/dan_Peterson's_obsession/)

(30) Reddit /r/exmormon, “Great Comment by Gemli,” 2015 (reddit.com/r/exmormon/comments/3gt8b2/great_comment_by_gemli/)

These don’t seem to be real, when trying to go to the link or google them nothing comes up.

It wouldn’t make much sense for the exMormon subreddit to be talking about Gemli, that’s a very obscure reference.

[Rivendale]

(8) Reddit /r/exmormon, “Dan Peterson’s Obsession with a Single Commenter,” 2016 (reddit.com/r/exmormon/comments/4il915/dan_Peterson's_obsession/)

(30) Reddit /r/exmormon, “Great Comment by Gemli,” 2015 (reddit.com/r/exmormon/comments/3gt8b2/great_comment_by_gemli/)

These don’t seem to be real, when trying to go to the link or google them nothing comes up.

It wouldn’t make much sense for the exMormon subreddit to be talking about Gemli, that’s a very obscure reference.

I remember those links. They were made by fearless fixer creator of Mormon leaks. I can't find them either now. In fact I had a link here to one of those in the comments.

[I Have Questions]

In the past, IHAQ has been known to use a bazooka.

[Rivendale]

(8) Reddit /r/exmormon, “Dan Peterson’s Obsession with a Single Commenter,” 2016 (reddit.com/r/exmormon/comments/4il915/dan_Peterson's_obsession/)

(30) Reddit /r/exmormon, “Great Comment by Gemli,” 2015 (reddit.com/r/exmormon/comments/3gt8b2/great_comment_by_gemli/)

These don’t seem to be real, when trying to go to the link or google them nothing comes up.

It wouldn’t make much sense for the exMormon subreddit to be talking about Gemli, that’s a very obscure reference.

Here it is. https://www.reddit.com/r/exmormon/c ... _a_dan/

[Gadianton]

It's brilliant rhetoric, and it's rhetoric that gets to the heart the matter and not lost in irrelevancies to the tone of the conflict.

I think I've had my fill of non-believer triumphantism though. I think a great use of Sage would be "A.I. Wednesdays". Every week, Interpreter has a policy of posting something 'new' on Fridays, and sometimes it does post things on Fridays. It also has "repeat Thursdays" that recycles old junk. Perhaps Sage should contribute, and produce its own pro-Mormon articles on Wednesdays? Would they be as good as what Interpreter's regular authors come up with?

No preference on Sage's mode of discourse, whether it out word-smith's Peterson or produces better fake statistical proofs than Dales and KR without even trying. While everyone reads their own forums down party lines, I don't believe there is any serious interest in truth at Interpreter or in apologetics generally, while I believe there is a moderate interest in truth here and among critics, even though we all get carried away with our own team thinking also.

Anyway, a couple of points about the Gemli essay:

Unfalsifiable? Unacceptable. Gemli hammered the point: claims shielded from evidence are meaningless. It might sound blunt, but from his vantage, if you can’t test it, you can’t reliably believe it. Peterson himself summarized gemli’s stance as, “If you can’t prove it scientifically, it might as well be nonsense”

Did Sage miss that if falsification defines the scientific method, then there is no such thing as ever proving something scientifically? A point I'm not sure Peterson or Gemli has ever seriously considered.

At one point, Peterson resorted to calling gemli “this particular meat-unit” producing mere “involuntary neurochemical events”—a not-so-subtle attempt to paint atheism as a dehumanizing worldview ([36†L239-L247]). Ironic, considering it also came off as belittling gemli’s humanity.

True, but is it missing that some atheists have argued for this viewpoint, and Gemli went along with it, finding no serious conflict with his beliefs. Where it was bad on the apologist's side is that they lied and said that Gemli had described himself voluntarily this way first which wasn't true. Dan believes that atheism is locked into the position that atheism must believe that we are all dirt with no humanity, and either he or Midgley first lobbed this insult at him by their own caricature of what atheism teaches. I can't remember who was at fault, but I researched the beginnings of the insult and it was one of those two in bad faith. I think it's a miss just because it's not out of the question that Gemli could have painted himself this way first, as it is somewhat consistent with his worldview (his worldview is quite inconsistent in my opinion entertaining though he is) and so it overly victimizes Gemli without having more information.