Talk:Main Page

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Information icon.svg Do you have a general question about the site?
If it is technical, go to Technical support. If it is about the community or the content of the wiki, go to the Saloon bar.
This talk page is for discussing the contents of the Main Page only.
Warning icon orange.svg Please do not edit the main page on a whim.
If you want to play with things, mock it up in the testing area.

This page is automatically archived by Pibot
Archives for this talk page: Archive list


[edit] Baptist Ministries of Atlantic Canada

Baptist Ministries of Atlantic Canada is a website that endouvers to help independent Baptist of Atlantic Canada find one another. There common threat is a conservative doctrinal position and balanced attitudes. They are opposed to the KJV Only movement although many of them use the KJV. Some use the New International Version 1984 although almost with exception they oppose the New Internation Version 2011, which was done with a completely different philosophy. They do not hold to a succession of churches of anykind and beleive their only chain is to be chained to Scripture, not man made history.— Unsigned, by: Lesdennis / talk / contribs 18:03, 21 February 2015

Okay. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 18:07, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Would [1] be a better place to continue this discussion? (talk) 14:17, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
What discussion? Scream!! (talk) 15:44, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

[edit] How "widespread" is it really?

"One of the most widespread beliefs that does not reflect reality is that the world is only a few thousand years old."

Just how "widespread" is this belief? I don't deny that there are some, maybe even a lot. But I don't think it's as "widespread" as many belief. I'm Christian and believe that God created the world, but I don't believe in Young Earth. Nearly everyone I've talked to does not believe in a YE. Frankly, I'm not sure I can remember anyone other then that one idiot who debated Bill Nye who professed to believe in a YE.— Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

40% of Americans, according to one recent poll. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 13:18, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Its been fairly constantly hovering around 40-45% of respondents since 1982, when Gallup started gauging creationist/evolution sentiment in the U.S. ScepticWombat (talk) 14:31, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
It will depend on location and who you choose to keep company with, as well. We live in a conservative state dominated by the religious-right of the creationist variety, and yet a friend grew up in a liberal church and was surprised when she learned just how crappy the rest of the state is.--Miekal 14:55, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, it speaks volumes of the human tendency towards tribalism and confirmation bias and reminds me of an anecdote about a (stereo)typical New York liberal complaining over Dubya's re-election in disbelief: "I don't know anyone who voted for him!" - which says more about the social circle of said New Yorker, than about Dubya or the election. ScepticWombat (talk) 15:13, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
That wasn't Dubya's election, that was a (misleading misquote) of Pauline Kael talking about Nixon's election. Her actual quote made the exact opposite point; in reality, she said "I live in a rather special world. I only know one person who voted for Nixon. Where they are I don't know. They're outside my ken. But sometimes when I'm in a theater I can feel them", which is the exact opposite of the smear it was turned into with that popular misquote (that is, in her actual quote, she specifically says that she knows her social circles are atypical; whereas pundits transformed it to make it sound like she was ignorant.) Not that it really changes your point, but I think it's annoying how misquotes like that keep circulating and getting repurposed and re-attributed every few years. --Aquillion (talk) 04:38, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Has Rational Wiki being usurped by Satanists?

Well I'm very much a man of science and have never denied evolution. However I feel many social topics especially towards conspiracy theories and alternative social policy viewpoints is extremely hateful in a ironically irrational way. Maybe somehow there is a bad presence on this site, not atheist, not Christian, but possibly occultic and maybe satan worshipping, I understand many here don't believe in any concept of religion, but I feel there is a religiously satanic sect operating here on a grand scale. You can believe in science and nature but you also are allowed to embrace unrelated concepts also. Being a scientist does not make you a bohemian grove baby killer. — Unsigned, by: Tyrasian / talk / contribs

Troll (talk) 21:35, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

'Being a scientists' requires a better use of grammar.

Do not confuse neutrality/general mocking (in the sense of the medieval monarch and lordly household's fool [2]) with a malign approach.

What is your opinion of David Icke/the Masons? (talk) 14:22, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Actually, it is not Satan but Titivillus who haunts RW (and various other wikis). (talk) 15:17, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Hail Satan. \m/ (I really hope that emoji makes it to Unicode 8.0 final.) -Soviet Hologram God (talk) 17:20, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

One can be a scientist/of a scientific intent and have a religious viewpoint ('it is ethical/religiously good to understand the universe and improve life/be ecologically minded' etc).

But is 'being a scientist/scientifically orientated' compatible with seeing Satan in the shadows of an organization? (talk) 16:21, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

And here is Titivillus himself [3]. (talk) 18:10, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

You're allowed to embrace unrelated concepts also but they have to be falsifiable. I'm putting what I originally said back on here. Thanks WellWell (talk) 06:19, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Hah. I knew who this was. By the way I wasn't lying about being gay. I'm not an idiot you know. Nor am I a Science major. I just know bullshit when I see it. WellWell (talk) 06:15, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I assume this editor has been misled by all the references in favour of Satan which can be found on the site - and by all the athiests who believe that, although God does not exist, the devil does. (Now I think about it some more sarcasm doesn't really come over well in text.)--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 17:47, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

RW is being run by Santa-ists hiding behind a computer auto-correct-misnomer. (talk) 09:24, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Block log

It's funny to see joke blocks on my Watchlist from time to time but really, do people do anything other than play around in the blocklog these days? --Let Them Eat Cake (talk) 23:07, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Main Page layout

It may be 'a random featured computer glitch' - but the header is 'random featured article' rather than 'showing' the title of the article in question (in this case pseudo science).

Can someone poke the programming' to sort it out.

Reasons why computers will never take over

  • No 53. In their current incarnations they need a power source (sentient Babbage machines and Comptometers are difficult to imagine)
  • No 54. Computers give up on 'one character being wrong'; humans can sort out jmulby up wrods and mmispellt woerds. (talk) 17:57, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
That must be why I haven't taken over the world: I need a power source too. (talk) 15:32, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

[edit] EvoWiki

Just wondering, but when are they going to allow people to edit EvoWiki?

Sign/IP and date your comments. (talk) 21:35, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

[edit] This site is biased

This site is biased to Christianity. It apologize for bible scientific errors in denial. while focus on Quran scientific errors. I think both have the same mistakes. like the falling of the stars on earth.

It is strange how a christian will wear a secular rational HAT to criticize Quran. Then he will wear an apologist denial HAT to favor his parents inherited Religion at birth. — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

Biased to Christanity? I totally agree. The apologetics is amazing, just look at Examples of God personally killing people ! Also, why did you capilatise HAT? Is it an acronym? Super Dude,What does mine say? Sweet! 08:42, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
I Just read and compared the 2 articles. 1- Biblical_scientific_errors"...The Bible makes it clear that stars are tiny objects in the sky that will fall down when Jesus comes back:... However, other verses in the book of Revelation clearly use "stars" in a figurative sense (for example, see Rev. 9:1 and Rev. 12:3, 4), so it is possible that the writer did not intend to make a statement about literal celestial bodies..." The above is an apologist stance.
2- Qur'anic_scientific_errors It has an aggressive stance.— Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs
You'd be better off bringing your woes at the respective article's talk pages if you really want to improve them. If you just want to complain, then meh, rationalwiki is neither neutral nor ever claimed to be. Super Dude,What does mine say? Sweet! 09:41, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
I find the disrespect toward our lord HAT on this site deeply offensive. (talk) 15:36, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
And why should anyone give a fuck?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 15:38, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
"This site is very biased against {Insert Personal belief of poster} which makes RW irrational because everything I believe in is perfectly rational. It is much more friendly to {Insert barely connected subject poster did almost no research on} so I feel like {Insert emotional justification of self righteous anger that is not even close to sane}. Asking me for facts will only get more {Insert vague emotional response that continues to blather on and on}." -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 16:19, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Someone should make a template from that. Is there somewhere a beginner-tutorial for wiki-template-writing?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 16:26, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Magnetic Field Decay.

Can someone please disprove or point me to a page that disproves that since the Earth's magnetic field is decaying, the Earth must be no more than 8,000 years old.{{unsig|

Direct from wikipedia:
"The rate of decrease and the current strength are within the normal range of variation, as shown by the record of past magnetic fields recorded in rocks (figure on right). ... It has gone up and down in the past for no apparent reason."
More directly, why does decay imply a starting point at any particular point in the past? An increase would imply a starting point from zero, and you could estimate when that was. With a decrease, you can't do that unless you also claim some maximum value. Queexchthonic murmurings 15:05, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Beware...

The autumn equinox. (talk) 12:37, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Can we get a article of Gill Broussard and planet 7X? The end times pastors love this guy and mike from around the world. Research them both. Oh And make a page about September 23 that is the new apocalypse day. (talk) 02:23, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

[edit] CJ Pearson

Well, is anybody going to talk about him. — Unsigned, by: / talk

Personal tools