Talk:Rational Response Squad

message: 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)
thread_title: older entries

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Warning message to supporters of the Rational Response Squad 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I've just added a few words that explains what the challenge is. Hope that helps.  --Michael Johnson 05:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I Appreciate that! Equagesic 05:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)

text:  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)
thread_title:  Recent edit 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: Rational Response Squad/Blasphemy Challenge merge

message: 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)
replies: text: 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§ion=6to be biased, that goes especially for YOU.GravityExNihilo 22:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title: "Members" section highly irrelevant.

message: 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)
thread_title:  Wow. 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Controversies section 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Section Suggestions 

message: "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)
thread_title:  Not Really Relevant 

message: 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)
thread_title:  New Topic in Article 

message: 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)
replies: text: Done. Nightscream 13:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Formatting 

message: 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)
replies: text: Done. Nightscream 13:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  First Paragraph not NPOV 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: NPOV

message: 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)
replies: text: Well put. --Michael Johnson 05:51, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Why the phrase "what they consider" MUST be in the opening line

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Alright, seems fair. --PEAR (talk) 07:57, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  1st para advert 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Blasphemy Challenge Problem 

message: 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)
replies: text: * I disagree.  I think, given the point of the section, that it's entirely relevant. - Nascentatheist 01:23, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Response From Christians Section

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

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Interpretation 

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

message: This was discussed and a consensus was reached  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Rael

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: deletion

message: 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)
replies: text: 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:  - 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  deletion of section Response from Christians