›
If you have an email ending in @hotmail.com, @live.com or @outlook.com (or any other Microsoft-related domain), please consider changing it to another email provider; Microsoft decided to instantly block the server's IP, so emails can't be sent to these addresses.
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE

Rational wiki

MyrmidonMyrmidon
edited 2011-07-20 21:05:11 in General
It's somehow far more accurate and far less convincing than Conservapedia.

Granted, Wikipedia beats them both,
«1

Comments

  • NyktosNyktos
    a little muffled
    Doesn't it mostly just exist to make fun of ignorant people?
  • MyrmidonMyrmidon
    Which is not a worthwhile past-time.
  • snowbullsnowbull
    Cue-bey
    less convincing than Conservapedia

    How?
  • MyrmidonMyrmidon
    edited 2011-07-20 21:33:35
    http://conservapedia.com/Evolutionary_racism Okay, look at this page.


    If you knew literally nothing about either, who would seem more trustworthy here?
  • CaptainFargleCaptainFargle
    edited 2011-07-20 21:49:20
    As you all might have guessed, I'm a big fan of Rational Wiki.

    Making fun of Andrew Schafly and his ilk is an extremely noble pursuit. 

    EDIT: And to answer your question Myrm, RationalWiki is so much more trustworthy than Conservapedia, even at first glance, that measuring the interstellar space between galaxies produces smaller numbers. 
  • ChagenChagen
    [tɕagɛn]
    Rational Wiki is a bunch of bored Atheists making fun of religion to make up for their sad existences. They're biased and so left-wing that you really should not listen to them.
  • CaptainFargleCaptainFargle
    See that's where you're wrong Chagen. Bias would imply that they're distorting the truth. 

    RationalWiki runs entirely on proven fact. 
  • MyrmidonMyrmidon
    edited 2011-07-20 21:52:09
    ^^^

    ^^

    ^

  • ChagenChagen
    [tɕagɛn]
    No, Rational Wiki runs on the biases of extreme left-wing Atheists.
  • MyrmidonMyrmidon
  • CaptainFargleCaptainFargle
    edited 2011-07-20 22:32:47
    Thumped.
  • MyrmidonMyrmidon
  • All NinesAll Nines
    Has friends besides tanks now
    God damn it.
  • ChagenChagen
    [tɕagɛn]
    If Rational Wiki weren't such stuck-up idiots, I could actually deak with them.

    Except they aren't. Also, antitheism, but I don't feel like debating that right now.
  • CaptainFargleCaptainFargle
    edited 2011-07-20 21:59:54
    Everest, I'm going to ask right now. Can I continue this or is it about to be locked?

    Basically, I'm asking for permission to let rip. 
  • MyrmidonMyrmidon
    Can you just separate these two? I kind of want to talk about it, but not like this,
  • All NinesAll Nines
    edited 2011-07-20 22:02:01
    Has friends besides tanks now
    @CaptainFargle: It's really your language that's the issue, more than the viewpoint. Nine times out of ten, that's the problem at the core of things. If you and Chagen could respectfully debate the strengths and weaknesses of theism vs. antitheism, there would be no problem.

    ^ Not much I can do there, I'm afraid.

    EDIT: "Basically, I'm asking for permission to let rip."

    Not on my watch.
  • CounterclockCounterclock
    Belief
    @Captain, Would you care to list some examples of where and how Rational Wiki is well.... Rational.

    Rather than just saying it is.
  • CaptainFargleCaptainFargle
    @Everest: I'm afraid Chagen's position and mine are... mutually exclusive. That seems like a rather calm way to put it. 

    @Counterclock: Give me a moment. I'll pull up some good ones. 
  • All NinesAll Nines
    edited 2011-07-20 22:07:02
    Has friends besides tanks now
    @CaptainFargle: I can see that. That's not the issue; the issue is your attitude. If you can't debate civilly with people whose viewpoints are opposed to yours, don't debate things with them at all.
  • StormtroperStormtroper
    edited 2011-07-20 22:14:29

    Our purpose here at RationalWiki includes:


    1. Analyzing and refuting pseudoscience and the anti-science movement.
    2. Documenting the full range of crank ideas.
    3. Explorations of authoritarianism and fundamentalism.
    4. Analysis and criticism of how these subjects are handled in the media.

    It's not hard to be rational when dealing with these topics, but they (should I say we?) do that right, so the adjective fits (and the name is an artifact title, anyway).
  • MalkavianMalkavian
    MORONS! I'VE GOT MORONS ON MY PAYROLL!
    I... agree with Chagen...

    oh god what have i become

    While there's nothing inherently wrong with anti-theism the trend of treating anyone with a belief in some sort of higher power as 'sheeple' or what have you does more to drive people away from your argument than convince others.
  • NyktosNyktos
    a little muffled
    @Myrmidon:
    If you knew literally nothing about either, who would seem more trustworthy here?
    I wouldn't trust either of them, frankly.

    I don't get the impression RationalWiki's goal is actually to be a resource to learn about shit, though.
  • CaptainFargleCaptainFargle
    @Everest: The issue here is that what Chagen is claiming is so.... His viewpoint is so outlandish that to me that I see it as worthy of nothing but mockery and contempt. 

    From where I'm standing he doesn't even have a logical basis or sound premise from which to extrapolate. His argument, to me, is flawed on every possible level and should be immediately dismissed out of hand to make way for debate that actually has some merit behind it. 

    Does that make where I'm coming from clearer?
  • StormtroperStormtroper
    Anyhow, if you're going to argue against Rationalwiki, you could do better than bringing up a stub, like the Aristotle article or something (if it hasn't been changed yet).
  • ChagenChagen
    [tɕagɛn]
    Yes, yes, religion is the source of all evil, we know already.
  • CounterclockCounterclock
    Belief
    @Captain, Don't insult him because of that though, prove him wrong with evidence, that's why I asked for evidence, so you could be all like "Yo, Chagen, see this, It's rational, sup, G-dog" and then instead of dissing everyone who is in disagreement with you, You'd have a platform from which to argue on. Or something like that.
  • CaptainFargleCaptainFargle
    @Counterclock: I've been working on that. Here's a selection of good articles to get you all started. 




  • All NinesAll Nines
    edited 2011-07-20 22:22:44
    Has friends besides tanks now
    "@Everest: The issue here is that what Chagen is claiming is so.... His viewpoint is so outlandish that to me that I see it as worthy of nothing but mockery and contempt. 


    From where I'm standing he doesn't even have a logical basis or sound premise from which to extrapolate. His argument, to me, is flawed on every possible level and should be immediately dismissed out of hand to make way for debate that actually has some merit behind it.


    Does that make where I'm coming from clearer?"


    I had gathered that already, and it doesn't justify attitude, even if you think that's the appropriate response. Dismissing tested and common opinions out of hand is bad enough, but viewing the person holding them as contemptible and worthy of derision by extension is just not okay.
  • CaptainFargleCaptainFargle
    edited 2011-07-20 22:23:10
    @Everest: My issue is that those tested and common opinions, the tests for them have come up false. Time and time again they've been proven wrong. Thus to me, continuing to advocate such constitutes wilful ignorance. Something which I have no patience for. 
This discussion has been closed.