Writing a paper on the website. It's an evaluation of the actual website not the beliefs of the website.
Offline So I'm Dan, I've known about the Rational Response Squad for quite some time. Writing a paper for school involving
the website and have come across a few things about the site that could be improve on. Upon enter and checking the bio's of the
moderators I noticed it did not give the credentials of why they performed the jobs they did. An accurate history of what the Rational Response Squad
has accomplished would also be nice to add. While I understand that this is merely a forum to discuss irrationalities and unite Atheist
we were given guidelines in which websites would be evaluated and my biggest problem was proving the creditability of the site. While I know
of the blasphemy challenge and the Nightline debate and the radio show that use to run, there are many who do not. Since my paper is strictly on the
context of the website while praising other tools and functions of the site I had to give the creditability of the website a mixed rating. While I could not
ignore the actual experience of the staff the fact I had to use outside sources to confirm it hurt the rating. If a history of the group could get a link and
a little more information on the moderators was provided it would help. I understand that moderator information is confidential for there safety but if they have
a degree or something that could be added without giving away specific personal information it would add to the creditability of the site.
- Login to post comments
Hum, I cannot speak for the mods here, or the site owner. But what exactly is the paper about? It seems a bit ambiguous to me.
I can say one thing about this with certainty. Out of even newspaper websites, this website takes a very journalistic approach by keeping it's hands off and letting the reader decide. It has it's standard rules of no spam and no advocating violence or threats of violence. But other than that, merely offending people won't get you banned.
To me and to many here this website represents the sunlight of scrutiny deity claims deserve.
But in any case, I don't think it would be out of line for me to say, as a mere poster here, that it should flatter the mods and owner to be the subject of a paper.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
Here are two pages that might help a little:
http://www.rationalresponders.com/our_team
http://www.rationalresponders.com/why_we_need_your_help
Those pages are a little outdated. Rook and Yellow #5 are no longer active here. It says I am not employed... I've been working a day job for a while.
I don't ask the credentials of my mods before I give them mod power, I judge them instead on competence. Credentials are almost worthless to me, I've met too many people with credentials that have a horrible grasp on rationality and logic. Maybe you could write about how a college degree or credential doesn't qualify someone to talk about a topic, and that our moderators are judged based on their ability to assess/debate/interact with others on the issue of religion rather than if they got a degree.
If you have some specific questions for me, I can answer them in this thread. Feel free to post them.
Here's a cool video that is semi-related to what I just mentioned...
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient
Support our activism efforts by making your Amazon purchases via this link.
The paper itself was to evaluate a website, but the website had to have a historical, educational, or scientific purpose. We were given guidelines in order to evaluate the website. The evaluation is purely on the website in it's functionality. With the evaluation of creditability we were suppose to determine if the site was creditable by visiting the moderator's page. With many site's you see a list of credentials that explain why they hold a certain position for that site. However since no credentials were listed and no history is really explained I had to use what I know about the Rational Response Squad and the internet to explain why this is a creditable source.
As for history of RRS and what we've accomplished it isn't listed well in one specific place. There is segmented data and quotes from several sources. Some of these pages would likely help:
Positive comments towards Sapient that help fuel his activism
The GREAT BIG thread of what helps keep us going!
http://www.celebatheists.com/wiki/Brian_Sapient
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_Response_Squad
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient
Support our activism efforts by making your Amazon purchases via this link.
It's helpful that you responded so quickly because now I can add now promptly I received a response and how you choose your moderators into the paper as I'm only on the second rough draft currently.
How much of a degree does one need to have to tell someone that Thor does not make lightening? The posters here are almost all atheists, but their contributions are like Brian said, not based on degree, but the ability to assess a claim.
I often like to point this out by saying "can your personal claim be tested"and "Would you buy your own claim if another label of a different religion were using the same argument?". I've even aimed this at atheists with other types of woo such as little green men woo, to claims of si fi woo.
Newton got gravity right but also for a spell wanted his Alchemy to be true. A degree by itself will not make all the claims that person makes true. There are Muslims and Jews and Hindus and Christians with all sorts of degrees, that does not mean every claim they make is true.
The credibility of this website is based on the fearlessness of scrutiny and the unwavering support of such regardless of the claim or the degree of the person making the claim or the person's label.
It is as simple as "If it cannot be tested and independently verified, it will and should remain a mere claim". THAT is the core mindset of the website owner and most of the posters here. We are all entitled to our own opinions, but none of us are entitled to our own facts.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
Do you mean credible? Or creditable?
I tend to do things that make people seek out long answers, rather than short ones. I don't like making it easy to learn something as I think it simplifies issues. The religious debate is complex, our site is complex, the best way to learn that it's credible is to spend a few months on it.
Here's a section of posts with our history: http://www.rationalresponders.com/history_rational_response_squad
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient
Support our activism efforts by making your Amazon purchases via this link.
I'm not arguing about if the moderators are creditable or not. In fact I'm not arguing at all. I'm giving the feed back I received on my 1st rough draft. The purpose was to make my paper more creditable by the standards that were presented to me not my personal opinion. I've been an atheist long before I heard of the rational response squad. My goal is to write a positive review of the website, that is the very reason I posted. I can use the feedback given and use it in the paper to support why this is a good site. Remember the paper is based on this site solely so the fact I got a prompt response and explantation speaks of the creditability. While my beliefs are biased that is not what the assignment is. So if I come out as questioning the staff it's because that is what the assignment calls for.
Creditable means 'do we cite and give credit to our sources' I hope we do. Credable means 'believeable, trustworthy, viable'. You are trying to make your paper credable. I hope this clears things up.
"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."
VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"
If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?
Sorry if my lousy diction caused confusion. I guess at this point my only hope is that I used the word diction right and did not confuse anyone further.