Total Posts:11|Showing Posts:1-11
Jump to topic:

RationalWiki

Unitomic
Posts: 591
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2015 8:43:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I've found it to be a very useful site. However, it shows such an incalculable anti-theistic (anti-creationist more specifically) view, that I am beginning to wonder if it doesn't itself suffer from the very fallacies it claims to be against.
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2015 10:23:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/19/2015 8:43:56 PM, Unitomic wrote:
I've found it to be a very useful site. However, it shows such an incalculable anti-theistic (anti-creationist more specifically) view, that I am beginning to wonder if it doesn't itself suffer from the very fallacies it claims to be against.

ikr
tejretics
Posts: 6,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2015 4:33:53 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/19/2015 8:43:56 PM, Unitomic wrote:
I've found it to be a very useful site. However, it shows such an incalculable anti-theistic (anti-creationist more specifically) view, that I am beginning to wonder if it doesn't itself suffer from the very fallacies it claims to be against.

While it's a bit useful, it *really* has tons of fallacious arguments. Its critiques of WL Craig's debates are just simply wrong. And it just dismisses all non-AGW theories without much justification. While AGW most likely dominates climate change, RW just dismisses the possibility of any other theory (well, I have skeptical leanings...) and fails to account for the fact that climate skeptics know much more about AGW than them.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
Unitomic
Posts: 591
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2015 4:50:43 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/20/2015 4:33:53 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 9/19/2015 8:43:56 PM, Unitomic wrote:
I've found it to be a very useful site. However, it shows such an incalculable anti-theistic (anti-creationist more specifically) view, that I am beginning to wonder if it doesn't itself suffer from the very fallacies it claims to be against.

While it's a bit useful, it *really* has tons of fallacious arguments. Its critiques of WL Craig's debates are just simply wrong. And it just dismisses all non-AGW theories without much justification. While AGW most likely dominates climate change, RW just dismisses the possibility of any other theory (well, I have skeptical leanings...) and fails to account for the fact that climate skeptics know much more about AGW than them.

Agreed. For all that it tries, the site is still just a bunch of people. And as such, even it suffers major prejudice. Especially since it's a somewhat insular group.
triangle.128k
Posts: 3,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2015 2:27:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/19/2015 8:43:56 PM, Unitomic wrote:
I've found it to be a very useful site. However, it shows such an incalculable anti-theistic (anti-creationist more specifically) view, that I am beginning to wonder if it doesn't itself suffer from the very fallacies it claims to be against.

You should use uncyclopedia instead, it's wayyy better.
Berend
Posts: 188
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2015 9:48:47 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
RationalWiki has some good points, but they are extremely bias, and not very rational. Their jabs at anyone who is a Christian, their jabs at anyone who is not anti-vaccine, but skeptical, anyone who is anti-feminism, they will call you thins you are not and be unfair to you. It's a bias source that should not be taken as a credible source due to the bias. It's not better than Conservapedia.
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,074
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2015 4:57:53 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/20/2015 2:27:30 PM, triangle.128k wrote:
At 9/19/2015 8:43:56 PM, Unitomic wrote:
I've found it to be a very useful site. However, it shows such an incalculable anti-theistic (anti-creationist more specifically) view, that I am beginning to wonder if it doesn't itself suffer from the very fallacies it claims to be against.

You should use uncyclopedia instead, it's wayyy better.

Ah yes, Uncyclopedia. The embodiment of intellectualism. Written by infallible human beings with IQs above 200. Holier than Wikipedia.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
Yassine
Posts: 2,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2015 5:05:20 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/19/2015 8:43:56 PM, Unitomic wrote:
I've found it to be a very useful site. However, it shows such an incalculable anti-theistic (anti-creationist more specifically) view, that I am beginning to wonder if it doesn't itself suffer from the very fallacies it claims to be against.

- I once tried to read some articles there. Couldn't get passed the first one. Terrible & poor stuff. The best source I found so far is plato.standford.edu (suggested to me by Envisage).
Current Debates:

Islam is not a religion of peace vs. @ Lutonator:
* http://www.debate.org...
PetersSmith
Posts: 5,848
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2015 5:47:29 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/19/2015 8:43:56 PM, Unitomic wrote:
I've found it to be a very useful site. However, it shows such an incalculable anti-theistic (anti-creationist more specifically) view, that I am beginning to wonder if it doesn't itself suffer from the very fallacies it claims to be against.

It's like the liberal version of conservapedia.
Empress of DDO (also Poll and Forum "Maintenance" Moderator)

"The two most important days in your life is the day you were born, and the day you find out why."
~Mark Twain

"Wow"
-Doge

"Don't believe everything you read on the internet just because there's a picture with a quote next to it."
~Abraham Lincoln

Guide to the Polls Section: http://www.debate.org...
Unitomic
Posts: 591
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2015 6:15:25 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/21/2015 5:47:29 AM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 9/19/2015 8:43:56 PM, Unitomic wrote:
I've found it to be a very useful site. However, it shows such an incalculable anti-theistic (anti-creationist more specifically) view, that I am beginning to wonder if it doesn't itself suffer from the very fallacies it claims to be against.

It's like the liberal version of conservapedia.

Intolerable Liberal Bias is still bias.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2015 9:03:42 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/19/2015 8:43:56 PM, Unitomic wrote:
I've found it to be a very useful site. However, it shows such an incalculable anti-theistic (anti-creationist more specifically) view, that I am beginning to wonder if it doesn't itself suffer from the very fallacies it claims to be against.

It dos suffer from the same ones, but it can be a good starting point for researching something