Rational Response Squad on RationalWiki
Offline Hey guys. I was not sure where to start this forum, or if it will get that many views, but I hope at least some of the higher ups in the Squad see this.
I just recently became a member on this site, but have been a long time fan and thankful of its accomplishments. I have been a member of a website known as RationalWiki, and I just recently created RationalWiki's FIRST article about the Rational Response Squad.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Rational_Response_Squad
It is not complete and needs more work. In it, I provided a thorough overview from the Nightline Debate with Way of the Master. I am trying to set it up so comments of criticism will be easier to read, perhaps make insert two columns with the debate on one side and criticism on the other. Or, maybe even better, put the criticism in a shadedbox beneath each piece. But I want to know what you think and your words of wisdom.
Feel free to give your thoughts in the comments section below, as well as tips on how to improve the article or anything you would like to add to the article.
- Login to post comments
Well, the page regarding the debate with Way of the Master got so big that RationalWiki decided to make it into its own independent article. It can be found here,
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Rational_Response_Squad_debate_with_Way_of_the_Master
Your thoughts are still appreciated. Thank you.
Don't we have a page on Wikipedia? If not someone should start one.
There is a page on everything you can think of in wikipedia
Here is the RRS page on wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_Response_Squad
Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_Response_Squad
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
Cool page!
Click here to find out why Christianity is the biggest fairy tale ever created!! www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm www.JesusNEVERexisted.com
I was already aware that an RRS article existed on wikipedia, but RationalWiki attracts more atheists and nonbelievers. Plus, I am sure Wikipedia would not allow me to go into detail about the Nightline debate and explain why Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron were wrong.
Well, I don't really know what wikipedia would allow. I can check with a friend of mine who claims to be one of the top 250 editors over there.
That being said, I am not sure how much it matters. More exposure for this site can be a good thing. Especially when it is exposure at the level of those who do not believe. Really, sending out stuff to believers mostly hits those who are reading believer stuff but are not convinced.
The real believers are not likely going to go over but who knows about specific cases. On the otherr hand, exposure to other unbelievers who may not already know about us is good in a different way. It promotes us as a place for unbelievers in a way that thw wiki can't ever do. Forum vs wiki=so different that it is not even worth going into.
=
Thanks for spreading the message. I know that I have benefited greatly from this site and have found loads of information since being here. Any article or medium that gives this place some exposure is a good thing. Keep up the good work.
“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno
I think you'll find that under self-explanatory in wikipedia.org.
"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc
Of course Wikipedia would. Why wouldn't they?? They are not a Christian site.
Kirk Cameron was the biggest f*cking MORON in that interview. He pointed to the Mona Lisa painting and said just like how the painting has an author so must life on earth have an author.
The sh*t for brains psycho forgets that there are THOUSANDS of gods and goddesses mankind has claimed and he also forgets that MOTHER NATURE could certainly be the author of life without some hocus pocus fairy tale garbage!!
Click here to find out why Christianity is the biggest fairy tale ever created!! www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm www.JesusNEVERexisted.com