Talk:Rational Response Squad

older entries

This reference page is in need of mention of the Various atheists and atheist institutions that are ALSO critical of the Rational Response Squad, in their methods of advocacy of Atheism and their dubious financial practices. I think the criticism from fellow atheist sites and organizations, should be fairly easy to find. -Anonymous

This article was deleted in October 2006, but has been restored in January 2007, as the following has changed:

• They are now mentioned in Newsweek.
• Their site has climbed heavily (up 4M) on the Alexa rankings since the original AfD.

• Comment Improving Alexa rank to 170,000 means the ranking has gone from abysmal to merely awful. Still not a decent ranking. Also, one mention in a Newsweek article and one mention in a Fox News blog would hardly seem to satisfy "has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." -- Fan-1967 14:37, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Counter-comment Yes, well, it was red-linked from the atheism article, and I was not the one adding it there, so I'm not going to remove it from that article, because I googled this and it seems notable, for example Richard Dawkins follows the news regarding this project on his website. Now, I may be falling into the trap of thinking newsworthiness is notability, but I don't see people complaining about other sites in Educational websites, just clicking randomly on stuff like Adherents.com, All Empires and so on, hardly any of them state their notability. I can only assume it is offensiveness of the content, not the actual notability of the site, that is the motivation to delete this. I have said what I had to say about this site, so if you should choose to delete it, I will not object any further. --Merzul 15:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Counter-comment It should also be noted that they encourage internet explorer users to switch to firefox (just visit their site in IE and you get a warning). RRS has about 50% of it's traffic on firefox, which doesn't send any data to alexa rankings. So... double their hits when you count Alexa.--Infidelaholic 09:53, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
• UPDATE RationalResponders.com now ranked as #1 atheist website in America and trending to beat Dawkins as #1 in the world within a few weeks. Ranked about 20-25,000 in the world. Wikipedia pushes Rational Response Squad page to "non-notable." Makes sense? No. --Infidelaholic (talk) 22:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• #1 Atheist site?I just looked it up in Alexa and while there are two peaks in the past three months, without a doubt RichardDawkins.net gets more traffic. The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science is actually a charitable organization with obvious humanistic goals. The Rational Response Squad with all due respect have a central position of classifying all "theist" belief as a mental disorder and have fallen out of favor with the RDFRS, which may explain why Brian Sapient is obsessed with getting a higher Alexa rating than Dawkens and has an active campaign on his website to get users to install the Alexa toolbar slating the results. I would highly recommend that anyone addressing the facts take into account the dispute between the RDFRS and RRS.

Largegoat (talk) 16:15, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

• What does that... have to do with anything? Are the rankings up or not? As far as I can tell, they are pretty steady and only 100 or so behind Dawkins in 3 month avg. The motivation behind it has nothing to do with the stats.Misanthropicchik (talk) 10:05, 10 February 2008 (UTC)Misanthropicchik
• Higher ranking... likely a result of an active campaign on the website, as well as plugging the belief everywhere they have reached number 1 prematurely is worthy of note and should add legit skepticism as to the neutrality of this guy making the claim. As of this moment however RRS's site is #21,707 vs Dawkin's site @ #22,859. If it can be held for 3 months it can be called a fact. It is noteworthy that the recent campaign happened right after the RRS were no longer moderators on richarddawkins.net Largegoat (talk) 13:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
• Trend over...
• [Dawkins #23,822] http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details/richarddawkins.net
• [RRS #24,134] http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details/rationalresponders.com For 31 days (Feb 21 - March 23 2008), managed to keep a higher 3 month average than richarddawkins.net on alexa. This trend has ended. Largegoat (talk) 22:05, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Warning message to supporters of the Rational Response Squad

I saw your interview with Richard Dawkins and when I saw the link on the atheism article, decided to create it. This article was deleted because it was seen as a blatant advertisement. It is possible that my writing is very bad and maybe my attempts to establish the notability made it look even worse; but one important reason for deletion was the misbehavior during the previous deletion process. Please let other people document your activities! If you don't respect the proper procedures we use, editors like me who are otherwise sympathetic, will also turn against you. --Merzul 00:59, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I can not assume this version was created in good faith. It is basically vanity plus so badly written criticism that it was asking to be deleted. It is impossible that a real person would write such childish criticism and include so many links. --Merzul 02:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Rash

Hanniballecturer 07:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Cleary the deletion was rash if their entry is already being restored. I would hope that this will be remembered in future decisions about this entry.

I was a major part in the deletion of the last article. I hadn't actually pushed for a deletion, but I am quite sure I aroused the attention needed for it when I came in several times to clean up the article (for obvious reasons, like the indication that the RRS is a bunch of funny people who believe a myspace page is a notable reference). A word of warning about this bunch, as I feel I am experienced enough to say, I have been following the RRS since their birth, even becoming a local celebrity in their ranks- the warning is that the RRS is blatantly biased, and incapable of understanding this bias by lacking the ability to discern between fact and opinion. It is a feat, to say the least, that this group is more criticized among atheists and "freethinkers," (including me) than among the religious themselves: http://consolatione.blogspot.com/2006/10/fundy-atheists-on-run.html (a blog by the creator of another freethought radio show, the creator of the show in which the RRS spawned from). My whole reasoning behind saying this is merely to bring a warning to the eyes of wikipedians, that these people will stop at nothing to halt the clarity, brevity, and impartiality of an encyclopedia, because they truly do believe that they are exalted. My warning is simple, and it will receive a backlash from them, no doubt, perhaps I will get a slew of personal attacks, criticizing my personal beliefs or labeling me a "liar," it is only expected.

I hope this was concise enough. I hope the best for this article, even though I despise the group. GravityExNihilo 20:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

68.36.218.158 18:26, 26 February 2007 (UTC) You were banned from their site and have a personal grudge against the team. I think someone who's conceded that they 'despise' the group doesn't make for the best editor.

I don't find GravityExNihilo's edits are as awfully biased as you allegedly want to appear them to be. In fact I think GravityExNihilo's edits are the most unbiased and following wikipedia policies the best on this topic. I've seen atheists editing this topic being very much more biased and using questionable sources. So don't be evil to GravityExNihilo just because GravityExNihilo remove questionable uncyclopedical parts from the article. Lord Metroid 08:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

76.178.17.36 (talk) 22:48, 20 January 2008 (UTC) Your opinion on his writing is moot and you've studiously avoided dealing with my actual point: whether someone banned from the site really ought to be writing 'unbiased' commentary. Please actually deal with my point or don't bother writing back. In addition, the decision to delete the previous entry was obviously rash, as proven by this new entry. Concede this.

It's pretty obsessive to address a subject 11 months old. The hallmark of a good writer is to put aside personal bias. GravityExNihilo does this. I share the observation that the RRS are, to be polite, narcissistic douchebags who really can't discern between fact opinion. Any one who has disagreed with them will note a pattern of behaver

1) You are ignorant of the truth

2) Your trying to make dishonest memes, I'll sue you

3) You are a dishonest Christian

GravityEx has personal experience that others lack, which is ideal to write about the subject. There is no real evidence of bias in his edits, so with respect your point is moot. The point that the RRS would likely attempt to make this entry a vanity page is 100% valid. The recent two postings regarding beating Richarddawkins.net after their moderator status on richarddawkins.net was revoked is suspicious to say the least. So is addressing this resolved issue 11 months after the fact.

I would submit that the aims of the RRS probably should be added, mainly their position that religion is a mental disorder that should be treated. Their claim that they are qualified to deprogram "theists" would probably make a better blog than an encyclopedia entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.191.68.246 (talk) 18:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Recent edit

I recently edited this article because I thought it needed expanding. This is actually my first entry to Wikipedia and im wondering why someone changed it back. All I added was an explanation of the challenge itself and a link to there myspace account. I would appreciate if anyone could explain why it was changed back. Equagesic 03:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

It was changed back becaus it read like a promotion for the activity, ie spam. We try to avoid that on Wikipedia. Also Myspace and similar "blog" style links are also discouraged. Sorry if this is your first edit - please try again but perhaps you might like to review Help:Contents/Policies and guidelines first. Cheers, --Michael Johnson 03:56, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks i appreciate your help, but I'm curious in what way would it be better to explain the Rational Response Squad/Blasphemy Challenge Equagesic 04:02, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I've just added a few words that explains what the challenge is. Hope that helps. --Michael Johnson 05:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I Appreciate that! Equagesic 05:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Gravity, the blog in question is the estranged part time college student producer of the Infidel Guy radio show. Basically he booked guests, a simple and quick job. He garners little respect within the very large community of atheists that agree with the RRS. The Infidel Guy show was spawned from Jakes (Jake is the founder of atheistnetwork.com) show, The Atheist Freedom and Liberation Hour, which is in fact that same show that RRS were spawned from.

--Infidelaholic 09:38, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

UPDATE RationalResponders.com now ranked as #1 atheist website in America and trending to beat Dawkins as #1 in the world within a few weeks. Ranked about 20-25,000 in the world. Wikipedia ups Rational Response Squad page to "non-notable." And the smart people laugh. --Infidelaholic (talk) 22:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Rational Response Squad/Blasphemy Challenge merge

Sounds good, just make sure blasphemy challenge redirects to rational response squad. i think your right that they should be combined.CrimsonSun99 17:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I completely disagree, the Blasphemy Challenge was really a joint project and a unique one at that, and they deserve an independent article, both. Somebody trying to understand the blasphemy challenge is not necessarily looking to read up on an internet radio show. GravityExNihilo 16:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, who is the joint partner? There is no indication of one in either article. And are you saying the RRS is just an internet radio show? In which case why does it have an article? --Michael Johnson 23:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes it is, and that is why the article was deleted. The joint partner is "Brian Flemming" - who is the director of another (poor) movie called "The God Who Wasn't There," which really fails on the level of seeing religion societally instead of on Brian himself (but that's irrelevant here, sorry, I tangent some). It's on imdb, the deal was that people who posted videos, would. The blasphemy challenge, though, was an entirely separate thing, which was ignited by members of the RRS, and then really exploded as a youtube/ non-christian thing in general.GravityExNihilo 23:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I then guessed you meant Flemming. In any case is the RRS substantial enough to stand apart from the BC? Does it do anything else? --Michael Johnson 23:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

It does, it's a radio show. They have talkers, typically various atheists, sometimes a dumb Christian (as opposed to an intelligent one). The BC was just initiated by the listeners of the show.GravityExNihilo 00:52, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

The President of Liberty University Theological Seminary isn't an intelligent one (he has a doctorate)? Matt Slick who holds a Masters in Divinity from Westminster, and Rev. Fred Klett who holds a Masters from Westminster as well. Were they all dumb? How about the hosts of several Christian radio shows, were they all dumb? You're hatred for RRS runs so deep you make yourself out to look like a moron who can't reach a sound conclusion while you act off emotion instead. Ironic you should be one to claim the RRS is emotional as well. --Infidelaholic 09:43, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

"Members" section highly irrelevant.

I've only removed the portion expressing how many myspace friends the RRS has, as of yet, though I'm suggesting removing the entire portion. The article loses its concise nature when it dribbles on about stuff that really does not matter. - For instance, you cannot go to one of the many Beatles articles on wiki and find, "The Beatles have 290,000 myspace friends!" - Completely irrelevant. Not to mention (this isn't my argument, but more a joke for those of us intelligent enough to laugh) that the RRS has "activists" which are adolescents whose main task, given by the RRS in telling him/her she is fighting for atheism, is to send as many friend requests to as many people as can be done. This was what I meant by a forewarning, members of the RRS are this incompetent, and nearly every one of *actually believes* that having a high myspace friend count declares them important.GravityExNihilo 23:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

You know I find it odd that a person who thinks RRS is incompetent is editing their wiki pages.Voiderest 09:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll have to agree with Voiderest, if I was white and hated black people and was the person moderating the "Black History" or other type page I don't think I would be very un-biased myself... Which is why I don't think that you should be even involved with edits hereCrimsonSun99 11:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I should also find it odd that "Voiderest" was also the name of one of the last few people from the RRS community to suggest that I was being a *bad word* for suggesting my argument against the RRS would be deleted. Go ahead and ask Rook- if he's not too busy begging for other people's money in the name of "academia." But if you feel as though I'm being incompetent myself, feel free to check the history of this article and see what I have done. I welcome you. -Oh, and P.S. CrimsonSun, although I truly appreciate your analogizing me with white supremacists (why not a nazi while we're at it?), I'm going to have to decline your offer with my sincerest "no, thank you." My opinions are my opinions, this article is NOT http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rational_Response_Squad&action=edit&section=6to be biased, that goes especially for YOU.GravityExNihilo 22:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Grav I wasn't a big poster on the forums when you were on it. I am a big part of it now, but I was not then. What makes you think I was, "one of the last few people" to think you were something for that suggestion? Now I don't know why you think your argument would be deleted when we keep topics like "RRS is a cult." Plus, when I asked you for your argument during that one on stickam you would not give it to me. You editing this topic is like a young earth creationalist editing a page on evolution. I am not against you being in the discussion or giving input on a section of criticism, but that is different from the main article.

I applaud you for removing the claims of fundamentalism, but because of your history with the group I am honestly wonder what your motivations are.--Voiderest 05:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

What you and what the RRS do not seem to understand, is that with issues of religion and politics, it is essentially vital to have both people who support and people who do not support the certain thing that you are talking about. Your analogy is weak, this is not a theory, if you want to use a more accepting analogy, I am like a person watching over the George Bush article when I voted for John Kerry. Your personal attacks really are not going to persuade me to stop watching over this article. If you would like to continue talking about it, wikipedia is not the place, as this is now a personal issue. You know my email/myspace/whatever means of getting a hold of me. If you want to know my motivations, I invite you only to look at the last article that was deleted and see why it was deleted for obvious reasons, I don't want to see the RRS misconstrue themselves falsely. (Just like saying, "we have 20,000 members!" when that is not important at all to the article).GravityExNihilo 09:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to attack you, but if in fact you used personal attack in your first post. The point of the analogy was that you are against the RRS and editing the wiki, you cannot blame me for questioning your involvement. BTW I don't know your myspace(s) so don't act like it I choose to have some argument here. However from the stand point of you thinking RRS would try to make themselves look good in a wiki I can see why you would want to watch it. Voiderest 06:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Wow.

That's the first time that has happened. I was just about to fix the passage calling them "fundamentalist atheists," but when I hit the edit button, it was already fixed. Thanks, to whoever did that.

Jesin 21:32, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Merge with Youtube Atheists

Two completely different things, doing this would be like merging youtube bloggers with blogger bloggers (sorry, I mean the google blogger by the latter). As such, I completely oppose it.GravityExNihilo 03:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

So do I, they are related in the sense that Rational Response Squad acted as a catalyst for the YouTube Atheists to start talking about Atheism. However they are different things. I fixed this by creating an wiki-interlink between the origin section of Youtube Atheists and this article. Lord Metroid 13:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I boldly merged the relevant information from YouTube Atheists and properly wikified it. Lord Metroid 14:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Controversies section

I am quickly beginning to cringe each time somebody comes on to wikipedia to use it as a forum to complain about Nick Gisburne's situation. Does this have anything to do with the RRS, or is this guy just happening to be a fan of the RRS in which something happened to- because then it's not justified as being in here. We might as well say, "Johnny wrote a book that was banned from schools, and he likes the RRS." The section seems entirely non-notable, and ever since the deletion of YouTube Atheists, one has to wonder if this article will pick up those -not quite so good- editors.GravityExNihilo 15:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Nick is a member of the Rational Response Squad as seen advertised on his webpage. But your arguments are persuading so I deleted that section considering it was probably not justifiably notable although even as it stirred up some reactions on the internet. Lord Metroid 11:26, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Section Suggestions

Right now this seems to be basically about the Blasphemy Challenge and while it is what got the group noticed it isn't all the group is. I suggest there be a bit more about the founding in the intro and then adding of other sections and have those sections pretty well defined. Like in 'the section', Blasphemy Challenge, there is something on the YouTube suspension. From what I have learned it, most likely, is not related to the Blasphemy Challenge at all. I think the best way to come up with sections is look at the events, people, or criticisms.--Voiderest 09:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Void's Randomish List
I.People – Come up with notable “Friends” or members
1.The Co-Founders
2.The “Core Members”
3.Some High Level Mods “Thinktank” (Maybe)
4.“Honorary Team” (Maybe)
II.Events
1.War On Christmas/Easter (was mainly something by Brain Flemming, but could be considered a part of RRS)
2.Blasphemy Challenge
3.Atheist Blood Drive (more of something to come)
III.Criticisms – I was thinking it be more of a list with a possible responses
1.List of
2.Responses
3.The Critics (Maybe) For this to be in there something should have to happen. Meaning one or two people doesn't make a whole list, but maybe a quick run down of basic “types” or groups.
IV.Other Ideas
1.Orgs Linked To
2.Rumors? (probably not)
3.Community?
4.Mission/Goal?
5.Furture?

I would say a definite no on a "people section," seems too much of vanity, and it is not relevant information as it regards to people using a wikipedia article to find out who the RRS is. The article should really stay specific to the fundamentals, rather than delving too deep into the minor details that one can easily learn by investigating the RRS further (with the links provided).GravityExNihilo 15:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

The point about Wikipedia is that things have to be verifiable, by a reliable third-party source. So if the RRS does X and this is reported in paper Y, then we can mention it. However if the RRS does X, and we only know about it because you were there as an eye witness, then we can't mention it. Likewise with people. If Joe Smith is reported as a RRS activist in the media, then Joe Smith might be mentioned in the article. If Joe Smith simply says he is an RRS supporter, well then that is not notable and not to be mentioned. --Michael Johnson 00:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Voiderest, good ideas. It's about time this page gets cleaned up and becomes an actual representation of the RRS (with the occasional vandalism of course). The current article misses most of what the RRS is about with how it's currently written. The RRS team will work up "answers" to your outline and post it on our website. We'll let you know when it's up.--Infidelaholic 09:48, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Not Really Relevant

"However, a minority of videos by users participating in the challenge have been deleted from YouTube for claimed copyright violations"

This doesn't really have anything to do with the RRS or Blasphemy Challenge. Lots of people have had videos deleted by YT for copyright violations. The above statment would imply to those unfamiliar with YT that it is only atheists, and particularly ones involved in the Blasphemy Challenge, that are having videos deleted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.95.168.30 (talk) 10:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC).

New Topic in Article

I recently entered the new topic of "Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit in Evangelicalism." I thought this would give some theological clearity on how the "unpardonable sin" text is viewed in most evangelical and reformed evangelical churches. I've tried to cite my work under the refrences section. I believe this is a fair addition to this arcticle. I am very new to editing in Wikipedia so if I have made any mistakes, please notify me and I will try to correct them. Thank you. AbelRedemption 05:32, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I removed this entry. It's an argument against the relevance of the Blasphemy Challenge. If there is a significant voice of argument from this direction, that should be said under the Responses from Christian Groups section. I don't think there's any reason to have theology on the page. 68.18.213.23 10:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC) chuko

Formatting

There's something strange about the formatting on this page. Why is the last section underneath the references? Is there someone with a bit more experience who could pretty is up? 68.18.213.23 10:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC)chuko

Done. Nightscream 13:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

First Paragraph not NPOV

The first sentence of the article needs to be rewritten, because it fails to be neutral, in that it implies that everything that this organization fights is irrational, despite the fact that this is simply their opinion. Maybe put their mission statement in quotes? TheyCallMeGeorge 11:48, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Done. Nightscream 13:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Much better, thank you. TheyCallMeGeorge 16:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

NPOV

Stating the RSS's point of view as if it were absolute undisputed fact is in the clearest violation of Wikipedia:NPOV, the most important policy of this website. Giving the RSS's interperetation of the Bibile as the only interperetation or the only correct interperetation is both unfactual and POV. Some Christians have stated their disagreement with the RSS's exegesis. The revisions of my edits to this article severely compromise the neutrality of the text. 207.81.155.153 23:07, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your changes. On the other hand "standard evangelical Christian theology", which is proposed as balancing the RRS I do not see as representative of Christianity. This issue of relevance of evangelical or protestant church groups to Christianity is very much at the front of the Pope's recent reaffirming the primacy of the Roman Catholic Church. He claims to want to clear up recent "erroneous" doctrine. Therefore it is reasonable for us to be concerned that the so-called Christian responses are not in fact valid doctrine according to Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF). Do we have a CDF response to the RRS claim as truthfully that is looking to be the only acceptable face of Christianity when it comes to this kind of interpretation of foundation texts ?. Ttiotsw 14:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

What exactly does your newfound anti-Protestant POV (really just a doublethink articulation of your tired old anti-Christian POV) have to do with the editing of this article? I'm sorry, but I just don't see the connection. Is there a connection? Or are you just suggesting that we insert some material based on your OR (and--I'm sorry to correct your ignorance--faulty) take on the Pope's POV? I don't see how that follows. 207.81.13.44 20:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Why the phrase "what they consider" MUST be in the opening line

Hi. I just reverted the edit which removed the words "what they consider" from the opening line "group of atheists who have taken on the mission of confronting what they consider irrational claims, most notably those made by Christianity." Whether something is irrational, even by definition, is an opinion. Not a fact. You can cite the definition of the word, but when you do that, you may agree that a claim falls under it, but your opponent may not. That is the essence of the conflict between the RRS and their opponents. They consider given claims to be thus, but obviously, their opponents, like The Way of the Master, do not. While I am an atheist myself, and have a registered account with the RRS (those are my photos from the May 5 debate in the article), whether I agree that TWOTM's claims are irrational (which they clearly are) is beside the point. Whenever an article touches upon a viewpoint conflict in which its subject or subjects are involved, the article itself cannot take a position on that conflict, even as a question of fact. To take another example, how about the Flat Earth Society? That their position on the shape of the earth is clearly wrong is beside the point. An article about them cannot use the word "wrong", because WP articles cannot take any ultimate position on the truth or falsity of the claims of its subjects. It is for this reason that the Flat Earth Society article never says that that group is "wrong". It only states what their position is, and what the position of their opponents is. That's why an encyclopedia is a reference source. It only refers to what others say. It does not take a position on it itself, even if by all reasoning one side is clearly right and the other wrong. Nightscream 05:11, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Well put. --Michael Johnson 05:51, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

1st para advert

I've removed this line The Rational Response Squad website features these videos, as well as requests for donations, and sells atheism-related merchandise three times but it has been returned again. The reasons I have removed it is because it is non-notable, and can be considered an advertisement for the website. Firstly website features these videos is hardly notable in itself, as websites always include some content. Secondly requests for donations, and sells atheism-related merchandise is again not notable, many organisations request donations and sell material related to their cause on their website. Put together it reads like a (polite) advertisment, ie "come to our website, view our videos, make a donation, and buy stuff!" Sorry but the line is definately not encyclopedic. --Michael Johnson 05:39, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

And I've removed it again, as it's not really relevant. As an example Infidels.org also pan-handles for donations and sells merchandise, and this isn't mentioned on their article. ornis (t) 05:51, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I feel it's important because one of the most popular criticisms of organized religion is "they're just doing it for the money", the RRS' monetary motive needs to be noted as well. --PEAR (talk) 06:56, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

So you admit that you just stuck it in to push your POV? In any case "just doing it for the money" LMFAO... I guess you weren't paying attention to those arguments about violence, oppression, misogyny, homophobia, anti-intellectualism, racism and plain irrationality? ornis (t) 07:05, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Wow, your POV is very obvious. No, what I was saying is that in the spirit of WP:NPOV if we're going to criticize one side for something we should be sure to make note when the other side is guilty of the same thing. --PEAR (talk) 07:39, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

OK now you are engaging in original research. We just cannot include material because we believe it proves a point. The point (in this case that RRS has a money motive), or at least the accusation, must be sourced to a reliable source. Come back with one and in it can go. --Michael Johnson 07:47, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Alright, seems fair. --PEAR (talk) 07:57, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I personally don't have that strong an opinion in the passage's inclusion or deletion either way, but I do not see it as "advertisement". That's just me. Nightscream 18:06, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Irrationality is not an opinion. A decision based on anything other than ration is irrational. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.193.100.103 (talk • contribs) 21:45, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Blasphemy Challenge Problem

I have a problem with this article saying that the blasphemy challenge was simply used to promote Atheism, because it wasn't. It was meant to get people that already were Atheists to come out and claim themselves as Atheists. Vastly different from promoting Atheism as it did not tell people to convert to Atheism or that religion is bad, etc! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.118.72.107 (talk) 02:01, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

Provide a source to support that statement, and the article can be changed. --Michael Johnson 02:40, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

You know, I think the source we already have bears out anon's statement to an extent. See what you think, but by my reading of the article, it seems to suggest that it was more about getting atheists to "come out" as it where, than to spread atheism. ornis (t) 02:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Michael, even if there is not a source for Anon's assertion, doesn't the converse (that it was to promote atheism) also require a source itself? Nightscream 20:13, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually you are all right. I've just spent a few minutes actually reading the sources, always useful. :-) --Michael Johnson 01:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Response From Christians Section

Removed unnecessary explanation of evangelical theology. Completely irrelevant and unnecessary. Those interested in studying theology can study it elsewhere. 68.42.26.138 11:47, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

• I disagree. I think, given the point of the section, that it's entirely relevant. - Nascentatheist 01:23, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

• • Yes, the section is very relevant and important. --RucasHost 12:25, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Interpretation

"according to RRS' interpretation of the bible, this is an unforgivable sin": Erm, it says it explicitly. Mark 3:29 "but whosoever shall blaspheme against the Holy Spirit hath never forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin". Couldn't really be clearer than that could it? 86.139.183.249 23:09, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

To the extent that the RRS' opponents disagree with them, no, it's not. Nightscream 00:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

And one has to wonder if simple denial of the existence of the Holy Spirit is really "blasphemy." 67.135.49.158 19:18, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

This is precisely why the section on the standard evangelical interpretation of the verse was given, because it gave clarity under the Christian response. But, sadly, that segment was deleted before any discussion was given. AbelRedemption (talk) 04:32, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking along the same lines. When Jesus said that he was addressing religious people who believed in the Holy Spirit but denied that the Holy Spirit was working with Jesus. I really don't think a person who doesn't believe in the supernatural at all is guilty of "blasphemy against the Holy Spirit", much less a person uttering a sentence consisting of various "four-letter" words and the words "holy spirit." (Not that I would do it. :-) ) Blessings. -Steve Dufour (talk) 16:24, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup

I did a minor clean up of the article. I removed many points given UNDUE weight. --Statsone 14:15, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Rael

This was discussed and a consensus was reached [1] and was not noteabe at the time. RucasHost was part of the discussion. It does not need to be in this article and does not need to be discussed again. --Statsone 20:28, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

That's not relevant to this article, that was a discussion about Raelianism being on the lead in to the Atheism article. --RucasHost 21:26, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

This reference page is in need of mention of the Various atheists and atheist institutions that are ALSO critical of the Rational Response Squad, in their methods of advocacy of Atheism and their dubious financial practices. I think the criticism from fellow atheist sites and organizations, should be fairly easy to find. -Anonymous

Before u delete

Hey im the guy who put that part up about the blasphemy challenge being hate speech. Mostly the stuff at the top. DO NOT DELETE that because u guys know damn well its true. U guys make this sound like the rational response squad is there to help and nurture the little athaist blah blah blah blah these guys on youtube who put up the videos are like mirrors of the nazis if they debated and asked honest questions thats one thing but being an obnoxious hateful ass is another. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.34.164.133 (talk) 23:19, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

It was deleted, because it's not "true", but your opinion. Personal opinions of editors are not permitted in Wikipedia articles. The article describes what the RRS is, which is an atheist group that promotes atheism and speaks out against theism. "We" aren't making anything "sound like" anything. If you want to contribute to Wikipedia, then please do so within its policies and guidelines, including NPOV, Citing Sources, and Original Research, and by signing your posts. Nightscream (talk) 00:20, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Cueball (talk) 20:51, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

The RRS is criticized by atheists on Richarddawkins.net and rantsnraves.org. Among the criticisms is their lack of credentials and and presenting them selves as experts in mental health and history. As there is a paragraph on Christians being critical, perhaps you could write something on that subject. However the claim of encouraging others to deny the holy spirit is a form of hate speech is your opinion. I for example can deny the existence of Zeus and Thor and not have it be considered hate speech. Their position that religion is a mental disorder however might fit the definition, however you'd have to follow wikipedia guidelines on that subject. --Largegoat (talk) 05:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Having been attacked myself on their blog for disagreeing with Kelly's assertion that religion is a mental disorder, and for criticizing the uncivil attitude displayed by Darth Josh, one of the RRS higher-ups, I recognize what you're describing, but I was unaware that there was anything said about them on Dawkins' site. Has Dawkins himself said anything about them? If so, do you have a link? If you do, something might be able to be added to this article. Nightscream (talk) 05:28, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, I should be clear that they were criticized by users on the forum. I can provide those links. There seems to be very little publicly available regarding the RDFRS position regarding the RRS. I was first made aware of the RDFRS distancing them selves from the RRS when Reed Branden (http://unorthodoxatheism.blogspot.com/ & http://twosmokinhotfreethinkers.blogspot.com/) published an attempt by Brian and Kelly to spread a rumor that was having an affair 04Jan2008. While there have been blogs calling for others to drop all links to the RRS (http://godbegone.blogspot.com/2008/01/its-time-to-drop-rational-response.html), I have nothing official from the ::RDFRS.

-The Rational Response Squad-

http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=39712&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&sid=99051359a6861c037e2693f4c37a2e0e

-Continuing the "Dialogue" Rook Hawkins-

http://www.rantsnraves.org/showthread.php?t=8250

-The RRS Gets On My Nerves-

http://www.rantsnraves.org/showthread.php?t=7740

-Marks of a cult [trollville]-

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/13360

-RRS get's on sanshou's nerves-

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/12795

-To NAMI Stigmabusters on Rational Response Squad--

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/sapient/philosophy_and_psychology_with_chaoslord_and_todangst/10223

Since there is an entry on response from Christians, it might be reasonable to address criticism of the organization. The only "response" I'm aware of is an attempt to get the IRS to investigate their finances since they seem to have no business license and have stated publicly their intent to arrange to have donations processed through registered 501c3 organizations to fund their organization. Criticisms include assertions they are experts in the field of history and psychology despite having no credentials, their recent addition of an Academy which teaches what they claim as college level history, their claim that religion is a mental disorder and should have a separate entry in the DSM, and the finical structure of the organization that accepts money for subscriptions and a separate chip-in fund for hosting and equipment suggesting nothing paid to subscribe to the site goes to the site. However it's difficult to get them to say anything solid on the subject as they will claim it's a "counter meme", a simple marketing slogan to get people's attention, yet it's the focus of a thesis Kelly is writing.--Largegoat (talk) 18:34, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, if it's just forum posters, then that's not reliable as a source. And btw, in the passage where you mention them spreading a rumor about Dawkins having an affair, you left out Dawkins' name. I only gleaned who it was that was target of the rumor by clicking on the link. Thanks for all the info, though. Nightscream (talk) 20:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

This reference page is in need of mention of the Various atheists and atheist institutions that are ALSO critical of the Rational Response Squad, in their methods of advocacy of Atheism and their dubious financial practices. I think the criticism from fellow atheist sites and organizations, should be fairly easy to find. -Anonymous

That issue was already addressed with Nightscream, and he made it clear so long as there are no secondary sources such information can't be added under wikipedia guidelines. It sucks but those are the rules. If someone recently reported recent FTC complaints against NYC Atheists for billing Rook Hawkins as;

1. a public historian
2. who translated the bible from Greek,
3. and was invited to write a book for an academic series

that would be groovy. Having primary sources such as e-mail from Thomas L Thompson regarding Rook's claim to be published in the Copenhagen International Seminar, E-mails from the communication director of NYC Atheists might not be acceptable as they are primary sources. Until that time, there is Encyclopedia Dramatica --Largegoat (talk) 06:49, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

The real names of the RRS members

The co-founders of the RRS are Brian Sapient and Rook Hawkins, (aliases used for anonymity).

I'm not sure if it conforms to Wikipedia policy to use such anonymity aliases of real people. 82.181.37.203 (talk) 14:31, 26 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.181.37.203 (talk)

Since their real names are not known, what do you suggest we use instead? Nightscream (talk) 15:12, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know, Sapient's real name is known, I'll try to dig up some sources. 213.243.169.251 (talk) 09:38, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

These [2] [3] copies of legal documents identify Sapient as [name removed at request of Sapient and approval by Jimbo Wales]. 213.243.169.251 (talk) 09:48, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Here's [4] one more from the EFF pertaining to the same legal case. If there'll be no objections, I'll add Sapient's identity into the article. 213.243.169.251 (talk) 10:03, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

As I pointed out in my last edit, there are indeed objections with regard to WP's policies on Biographies of Living People, which requires special care with such articles, particularly with regard to personal information like dates of birth, places of residence, real names, etc. If the subjects do not want their real names used, I believe WP policy would indicate that they not be. Nightscream (talk) 17:49, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Greydon_Square for example has his real name listed. Near as I'm aware it was made public due to run in with police last year and it was published in a newspaper. Whether he wants it listed is unclear but as it's published in a newspaper that would seem be within the guidlines. In the EFF vs Uri Geller court documents we do have it on record that Brian Sapient does wish to remain anonymous. So on the one hand, it is a matter of public record. On the other, the public record is clear about the desire to be anonymous. My opinion is since there is a court case[5] which is connected to the article and readers might want follow up on it, you can't avoid using Brian's real name. This would presume that the EFF website is a secondary source siting the primary source of the court records. The EFF site might be considered a primary source, in which case boingboing [6] and c-net news [7]sited the EFF page in question. I am unaware of any secondary source that lists Brian's name, only links to the EFF page[8]. Largegoat (talk) 11:19, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey, Nightscream. Thanks for contacting me regarding the page. Perhaps I was over hasty in deleting some of the intro; it's seem a bit like an advertisement so I paired it down. As for you other concerns, they seem a little off. I gave two sources in connection with "Brian Sapient": the first authenticated the claim that he was a co-founder of the RSS and the second provided his real name. As for "Rook Hawkins", his real name is now common knowledge, but I wanted to be thorough since I expected objections like this so I sourced it nevertheless. I checked the link you posted regarding reliable sources and I couldn't find the words "social," "networking," "MySpace," or "Facebook" anywhere. All I found was a statement that "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves," which is exactly what the Facebook page I referenced was: a self-published source by the RSS on the RSS. Finally, given that Brian's real name is found in sources the article already was using, and that the RSS has itself publicized "Rook's" real name, I don't see how the preference for anonymity has any standing. I'm reverting the name info but I'll leave the "mission statement" this time. Eugeneacurry (talk) 04:02, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Whether the words Facebook or MySpace is not the central point. Again, the point is that social networking sites like Facebook or MySpace are not considered reliable because anyone can start a page on those sites and pose as the people in question, a point that I notice you didn't address in your message to me. Such sites can be cited if they can be authenticated as the official site belonging to the person or group in question, as with say, a mention or link of the social network page on the person/group's official website, but I searched through the RRS, and could not find one.

As for the issue of privacy, again, if a BLP subject requests that their name not be used in an article for reasons of privacy and safety, and keeping it out of the article does not harm a reader's ability to understand the content, then Wikipedia will keep the name out of the article even if it's used in the article's sources. This is a widely adopted policy with plenty of precedent. The real name of the Star Wars Kid, for example, is kept out of that article because Wikipedia does not wish to perpetuate the humiliation felt by that fellow that led to his notability, even though his name is in that article's sources. Another example is Brian Peppers, whose article was deleted for similar reasons. Quality and inclusion of sources is one principle, but like all other principles, it is not the only one; it is one of many that must be balanced along with others. Just to play Devil's Advocate, I double-checked this with Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales, who affirmed this himself.

As for the link you included establishing that Sapient was co-founder of the RRS, I apologize; I didn't realize that that was the info you were trying to support with that link. I'll keep that one in.

Also, the "Our Team" page lists only Sapient as a co-founder, and Rook Hawkins as a "core member", not a co-founder. Nightscream (talk) 01:51, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

deletion

This article is about a small online community, doesn't seem to have any encyclopedic relevance, and seems to be primarily maintained by members of its own community. For these reasons it should be reconsidered for deletion. Nathan Orth (talk) 06:30, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

You have as much right to nominate it for deletion as anybody if you wish. However they do seem to have had their five minutes of fame, and appear therefore to have passed notability. --Michael Johnson (talk) 21:08, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Inactivity

Would it be worth mentioning that the group seems to now be inactive and that two of the three core members are no longer apart of it? --Mrheadhappyday (talk) 01:01, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

If you have reliable, verifiable sources for that, sure. Nightscream (talk) 01:56, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

How about Brian Sapient, Rook Hawkins, and Kelly O'Conner? any issues with primary sources? Rook broke away in January 2009 to do his own thing under his real name. Contact info on tomverenna.wordpress.com. At about the same time, Kelly moved just outside Vegas under the name Kasey Grant and tried the Bunny Ranch where she announced she had "all but left" the RRS. As of 9 Oct 2009 Kelly and BS broke up and she deleted her accounts and posted in her blog that KellyM78 is dead. That "blog" entry has since been deleted, but you can contact Kasey/Kelly at www.kaseygrant.com. BS wrote on the subject at www.rationalresponders.com/rumors_about_me_answered_facebook which links to his facebook. Since Kelly deleted her blog entry 9 Oct 2009 where she makes it clear she left the group and planned on focusing on her prostitution, you might have to double verify it. But at this point it's rather a fact that the core three went their desperate ways. It's just a question of how you want your sources served up, or if it's relevant enough for wiki. --Largegoat (talk) 01:34, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia's view of primary, secondary and tertiary sources is explained here.

Great, if anyone cares to add it, it's a verifiable fact. See here http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/18577

"...Now that my co-hosts have moved on to other efforts..."

Rook is now Tom Verenna with one book "published" on Lulu, and Kellym78 is now Kasey Grant focusing on pornography.--Largegoat (talk) 18:54, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

"If you have reliable, verifiable sources for that" -- So what that basically means is that if there is no reliable, verifiable, Wikipedia approved source that an organization is dead and its founders have moved on, it will be considered by Wikipedia to be current and active forever. Just ignore the complete inactivity of RRS's YouTube page for 2 years and the virtually complete inactivity on their website and forums. 69.34.52.193 (talk) 14:25, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

deletion of section Response from Christians

I think it's unfortunate that this section was removed (without regard to Wikipedia policy). The deleted content cited Cybercast News Service and The Christian Post. The readers can be expected to realize that these are not the mainstream news . This can be explained in the text if that's a concern.

Having the Christian/conservative perspective can only be helpful. Don't you think that God gave us the brains to filter out the nonsense?  ;-)

As a last point, I'll call out another (Christian) source that wasn't cited:

• The 'Blasphemy Challenge' encourages people to curse God on video Christian Today

Fabrickator (talk) 19:39, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

CNS News is a Generally Unreliable source per WP:RSP. It's not a section to include for the sake of it, but because it would be required to meet WP:NPOV: representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic - where "reliable sources" is a link to WP:RS. That means sources that clearly pass RS for more than their own opinions. Do we have those? - David Gerard (talk) 20:00, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Things do not appear to be so black and white as you make them out to be. In the case of CNS News, I am reading on multiple WP pages that statements from CNS News should be attributed. I don't have a problem with doing that. They claim to have done a "Praise the Lord Challenge", presumably they made some claims about the response they got to that, but as I'm reading it, providing the attribution avoids the objection you have raised. Fabrickator (talk) 21:37, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

That "may" is not a blanket enablement. It still has to pass DUE at the very least - David Gerard (talk) 07:55, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Removed this again. CNSNews: "There is consensus that the Media Research Center and its subdivisions (e.g. CNSNews.com, MRCTV, and NewsBusters) are generally unreliable for factual reporting. Some editors believe these sources publish false or fabricated information. As biased or opinionated sources, their statements should be attributed." It's being used here for factual claims, and it can't really be used that way as a source of an event being worth noting. Christian Post doesn't have an RSP rating, but RSN discussions do not regard it as a Wikipedia-quality source at all. And look at the source itself - this is below blog-post quality, not a source of noteworthiness for a claim. Did any solid mainstream RSes cover the claims in this section? If not, they may just not be worth noting - David Gerard (talk) 23:50, 28 November 2022 (UTC)