What does Jow Forums think about rationalwiki

One of most gay, retarded and irrational sites ever known to a man

Wouldn't wipe my ass with it.

en.rightpedia.info/w/RationalWiki

absolute niggerdom. ad hominem and strawman galore as others have mentioned. they're also incredibly dumb, read their info on zerohedge.com for instance. whoever writes this is seriously retarded

Mind and soul have to be working seperately and jesus praised that aswell.

Has there been anyone since, say, 1950, that claimed to be "rational" that wasn't an utter moron and/or a subversive?
The word had meaning when applied to Leibniz, but I've never in my life agreed with the general worldview of contemporary people calling themselves "rational" (and that includes lots of different worldviews in conflict with one another).

Wikis are trash.

They're all blatantly biased, especially if you just read over some of the background discussion on certain topics. There's no truth because there's no freedom on these sites.

The brackets in the logo tell you all that you need to know.

That said, sometimes it's decent to bring yourself back down to earth after going down an esoteric rabbit hole.

Niggertits McGee

Need a fedora on that brain.

>reddit the wiki

Literally straight up retarded.
I do not know how you can call yourself "rational" and deny the existence of race at the same time.

To the left of regular Wikipedia. Which is obviously leftist itself. Its a more
controlled thought policed Wikipedia. Let me
write a haiku about it all.

I once was a man
Rational Wikiped-
-ia made me a boy

Don't give evil an inch.

Contemporary left in a nutshell

Leftist autofellatio it seems.

Was usurped by irrational far left extremism many years ago. RationalWiki is a rubbish heap.

It went from being an anti-conservapedia circlejerk to a dumpster fire for mentally unstable leftists to ban each other from contributng.

obvious propaganda

> political "correctness"
> "rational" wiki
> "common sense" gun control

people without ulterior motives rarely feel the need to make assertions about their own sanity/rationality

Go on Rightpedia, instead

agreed, but people should think about this less in terms of branding and more in terms of association.

it's not just a one-way label. when they call themselves "rational", this changes the very definition of the word. their positions are not only made to seem rational, but the word "rational" becomes associated with their positions. when they hear "rational" again, people think of what they read on rationalwiki, and the association is reinforced. so the word itself changes.

there's probably a psychological term for this.

Attached: Screenshot_2018-05-05-11-03-49.png (1200x1920, 451K)

Attached: Screenshot_2018-05-05-11-05-18.png (1200x1920, 357K)

Attached: Screenshot_2018-05-05-11-05-51.png (1200x1920, 400K)

Attached: Screenshot_2018-05-05-11-07-47.png (1200x1920, 381K)

Attached: Screenshot_2018-05-05-11-09-25.png (1200x1920, 326K)

Attached: Screenshot_2018-05-05-11-10-01.png (1200x1920, 341K)

Attached: Screenshot_2018-05-05-11-13-47.png (1200x1920, 308K)

and i'm starting to get the sense that this is how most people think. they do not often make use of A priori knowledge. they operate by simple word associations, and often reject deductive reasoning.

If somebody links to it then I stop taking them seriously so in that respect it's a real time-saver

Attached: Screenshot_2018-05-05-11-16-35.png (1200x1920, 396K)

Anything which needs to remind you how "rational" it is, is probably bullshit with an agenda. RationalWiki is no different. Low effort fedora bait for people who like to read dismissive articles on faith healers and get the warm and fuzzies.

Spot on my nip friend

"Its just common sense"

Also not a good idea. I am as right wing as they come but I don't want to read some fundamentalist neocon opinion on everything

Attached: Screenshot_2018-05-05-11-18-09.png (1200x1920, 407K)

Attached: Screenshot_2018-05-05-11-19-18.png (1200x1920, 321K)

Attached: Screenshot_2018-05-05-11-22-35.png (1200x1920, 513K)

but i think this is natural. maybe in prehistoric times, it was generally advantageous to impose your will on reality rather than trying to understand it.

only a minority of humanity are in the habit of actually using their brains

They set out to make conservapedia look downright sane. They succeeded.

a minority so small that even a few very rational observations can get you put on a fucking watch list, to my simultaneous astonishment and disappointment

Fedora on and GTFO

We know RationalWiki must be rational because they put it right in the name. Similarly, the Russian newspaper Pravda under Soviet communism was all truth. It's not like libtards would fucking lie. Politifact is always factual. The Affordable Care Act obviously must be highly affordable. CNN clearly carries only news. Progressives are undeniably the party of progress, which is why we are back to pretending we don't know there are two genders and that human genetics divides us into racial clusters.

I mean, it's not like the libfagdemonscumfucktards name their shit the EXACT FUCKING OPPOSITE of what it really is.

Attached: Equality to conservatives and liberals.jpg (600x497, 254K)

Only people with an IQ above 115 or so are able to gather information and make inferences on their own based on that information. This group of people represents about 5% of the total population and less than 0.5% of the total black population.

A propaganda site that gets heavily shilled by google since a while (together with Media Matters).

>"anybody who doesn't agree with us is an evangelical creationist nazi who watches fox news" - the website

Attached: 1514654313045.jpg (452x463, 75K)

its some smug edgy blog unable to actually gather real information and real events and anything that isnt mainstream automatically gets deemed debunked or fake

It's not neocon at all. They always name the Jew

>Unironically subscribes to the Jesus Myth Hypothesis
Jesus Christ Mythists are completely irrational creatures who never apply the historical standards they have for Jesus for any other historical figure before or during his time. They honestly believe that only foreign, hostile, third-party contemporary (as in within Jesus' lifetime) primary sources that have no real connection to Jesus or his disciples count. You don't even have to be Christian to acknowledge Jesus of Nazareth existed, but it's good to know Rationalwiki still credits sources who aren't even historians, let alone experts concerning early 1st century Biblical history or the early Roman Empire of the Classical era.

of course, this is just speculation on my part. who knows why they're keeping close tabs on any given person?

>There is no reason to ever be found in the mind of a man who has rejected God.
Generally the opposite is true.

Beliefs are irrational. Suspending disbelief - being irrational can be useful if applied in the right manner. Our brains and skulls have evolved in ways that strongly promote the ability to reason, however we can suspend disbelief to engage in brief flights of fantasy. We needed our imaginations to be able to hypothesize and plan ahead. We needed to be able to speculate on the movements of herds, etc. Irrational thinking has some utility for very short periods and our brains are well suited for it. However, we are not meant to suspend our disbelief for long periods of time. Living in delusions and daydreams in the stone age would have been the fastest path to Darwinian death.

Your irrational beliefs for extended periods are having a profound and deleterious effect on your brain's chemistry. Holding mutually exclusive concepts without question or scrutiny creates a harmful cognitive dissonance. The long term strain of this deliberate dissonance damages your ability to think rationally. Talking donkeys, living for days without oxygen inside a fish intact, flying horses, the sun standing still in the sky, dragons, etc. It's all nonsense that you are required to believe to prove your "faith".

Eventually you start making completely crazy claims on your own because your rational cognition has atrophied.

>libfagdemonscumfucktards name their shit the EXACT FUCKING OPPOSITE of what it really is.
So you're saying Jow Forums is really /mlp/? I've seen it happen.

This is pure pseudointellectual speculation mixed with a strange misunderstanding of the nature of religious belief. Nobody is required to believe in dragons for their faith. Biblical literalism is a Protestant fiction, and a modern one at that. The early Church fathers, and philosophers like Kierkegaard, devoted a LOT of time to figuring out the rational basis for faith. The fact that you are unaware of this legacy says more about you than it does about faith.

I make it a rule to ignore people who advertise themselves this way.

>there's probably a term for this
doublespeak?

> Beliefs are irrational.
I love how pseuds expose themselves in their first breath

Nassim Taleb's definition of rational is by far the best I've come across. Judge by actions, not words. We live in a world we don't fully understand so beliefs that tread into the unknown aren't irrational if they make you live better, if they help society function. What's irrational is undermining social structures that have existed for so long without consideration of unintended consequences.

Wow that's exactly right

Well I always hated them, but I was an schizo paranoid terrorist not so long ago.

And yet Catholics take transubstantiation completely literally from what I've read. So your defense isn't serious at all since all an antagonistic atheist has to do is focus on the incredible things you actually have to take literally.

>Jesus Christ Mythists are completely irrational creatures who never apply the historical standards they have for Jesus for any other historical figure before or during his time.
There were literally hundreds of stories about "Jesus" that were discarded by the Council at Nicea only because warring christian factions didn't like how they were portrayed. And before that the Maccabees had so many differing versions of the Pentateuch, they were all discarded for the sloppy Septuagint. The bible is an anthology, written by glory-grabbers, edited by public relations department and agreed upon by committees. It's literal shit.

there is not one article on there that can be taken seriously
the site is run by literal SJWs

This is easily dispensed with if you presuppose an active God. He wouldn't let his faith die in its infancy unless he didn't care and if he didn't care it wouldn't matter anyway.

All people are going to do is argue past each other frankly.

> Biblical literalism is a Protestant fiction
You're just as bad as the dude you replied to

CLEAR YOUR FUCKING NOTIFICATIONS AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

Attached: 1520918302080.jpg (808x805, 141K)

>Nobody is required to believe in dragons for their faith.
Oh, you fell for that Sola Scriptura/Sola Fides con job. There's a half dozen different dragons in the bible. How are these elements of faith any different than the others, like the miracle ressurection?

>So you're saying Jow Forums is really /mlp/?
shhhhhh. You're not supposed to talk about that.

It's true. Well, educated people know it's true. You probably didn't know it and now you're just embarrassing yourself.

I love it when retards on Jow Forums throw around words they have no understanding of

>beliefs that tread into the unknown aren't irrational if they make you live better
They are still beliefs
They are still irrational

Attached: Venn diagram of irrational nonsense .png (982x1075, 496K)

This universe is irrational.

That's the thing, I believe everyone knows that some things are figurative while others are literal. And some things are symbolic and literal. For instance, calling Satan the dragon doesn't mean he's an actual dragon (unless the lizard alien shit is true then all bets are off). It would be metaphor but that wouldn't make it any less spectacular since you're still taking the existence of a cosmic entity for granted. Whether it's literally a dragon or not is almost irrelevant at that point.

Even if it weren't the most biased garbage bluepilled shit on the internet, its massive smugness guarantees that nobody who disagrees with anything on the wiki will be convinced, and it only ends up reinforcing the opinions of people who already agree with what the wiki says.

Considering the irreproducibility crisis and the lindy effect, taking science seriously is irrational these days.

No, an antagonistic atheist is playing by the wrong rules. Transubstantiation does not claim that the bread physically changes on the molecular level. It changes as a substance, that is, the nature of it changes from a metaphysical point of view. Atheists insist on bringing everything into the arena of materialist empiricism, but this is not that. No one literally claims that the bread becomes flesh physically. Read any serious treatment of this written by someone of repute (aka not a wannabe Catholic blogger defending these points like a Protestant, or an atheist with a bone to pick), and you will find what I am saying to be true. Your argument is a strawman. The language used to describe the process is based in scripture, and is phrased that way for a reason, but the principle behind it is not a simple 1 to 1 conversion.

We don't even understand how space or gravity works and you assume that belief in something with little evidence is irrational when that's the foundation for the majority of our modern theoretical science.
Is quantum theory irrational?

EncyclopediaDramatica is less biased and more intellectual honest tbqh.

empiricists who don't know what "rational" means

>the rational basis for faith.
They are separate, non-overlapping, mutually exclusive magisteria, reason and faith.

Oh please go on, I'd love to hear how you're going to defend this

I called out Protestants in my post, and you accuse me of following Sola Scriptura and Sola Fides? I think you might actually be retarded.

>Your argument is a strawman.

Actually it's not. I made it clear that I'm not versed in Catholic doctrine by saying 'from what I've read'. You've corrected the record but again the central point isn't the example. The atheist can simply shift to the resurrection or whatever. You will at some point have to defend a literal and incredible belief so just be honest already.

You have no understanding of what beliefs are or rationality in the proper epistemological sense.

Biblical literalism is not a Protestant distinctive. Protestants have no advocated for a literalist interpretation of the Bible. That's a Catholic fundamentalist trope based on Evangelical fundamentalists.

>This is easily dispensed with if you presuppose an active God.
I have no beliefs in any gods. "Holy" literature is entertaining fiction to non-believers.

Nope, this notion of faith and reason being irreconcilable is a meme from the enlightenment. Even the most stalwart of the naturalist Ancient Philosophers , like Lucretius, thought that you could reach correct judgment on the nature of the divine through reason.

Yes, there are things that do not square with our materialist conception of the world, I don't deny this for an instant, but this does not make them irrational. The principles that back up these "supernatural" events can be arrived at through reason.

/thread

"Faith" means trust. Reason implies faith, therefore they are mutually inclusive. All reason is contingent on faith in its axioms. You are an idiot regurgitating what you have no conceptual understanding of.

Your belief is irrelevant when debating what is or isn't logically coherent given certain basic presuppositions. I mean it's not exactly hard to entertain ideas you disagree with for the sake of argument.

And Evangelicals are...

It's a liberal propaganda website.

Compare these three articles:
Conservative slant, but ultimately objective: conservapedia.com/Elevatorgate
A little bit more neutral, but largely the same as conservapedia: knowyourmeme.com/memes/events/elevatorgate
Liberal slant, incomplete and full of Damage control: rationalwiki.nom.pw/wiki/Elevatorgate

>Seriously, watch the original video. No shaming, no naming, no ranting. She did not accuse the man who approached her of rape, she hasn't given any more details about him (and nor has anyone else), so no doxxing either. It probably would have been fine if it ended here, but instead this was the impetus for years of hate.
SJW damage control.

Attached: please reconsider.png (824x720, 430K)

Generally any kind of group or website or book which operated on the understanding that everyone is a massive immense piece of shit will be highly intellectual.
Also schadenfreude attracts high-functioning intelligent people.

>The principles that back up these "supernatural" events can be arrived at through reason.

You should start there instead of making a very inaccurate summary argument about biblical literalism then because it's clearly more sophisticated than a simple dichotomy as even your position on the transubstantiation indicates.

You brought up an example, and I provided a response to that example. We can discuss principles if you would like, and I agree that principles are a better place to start.

How was what I said about Biblical literalism inaccurate?

>When Australia posts for real
what universe did i wake up in this time? I swear every time i go to bed i must die and my conscience through quantum strings picks up in another near identical universe.