2025 RationalWiki 'Oregon Plan' Fundraiser

There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff—we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity.

Fighting pseudoscience isn't free.
We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $10, $20 or whatever you can today with PayPal Logo.png!
Donations so far: $7608.77Goal: $10000

Talk:The Scandal of the Evangelical Conscience

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

"No meaning"[edit]

What are the particular points of confusion? Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 04:16, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I assume you are talking to me, since you reverted my edits. You provided no evidence of quality in your post here. I provide evidence of poor writing: "have very effectively denied by stuffing their fingers in their ears and bawling, "DON'T LISTEN TO THOSE DIRTY HEATHENS WITH THEIR STATISTICS!"" This is just plain poor, whoever wrote it, and conveys no information. I just copied one of the main sections that was "red" when redoing my edits which you undid with no good reason. Blancmange (talk) 04:31, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
It indicates the extent of their arguments against the facts. As to the other edits, some were all right, but others turned the article into nonsense by removing crucial bits of information. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 04:35, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Missing basic facts[edit]

...such as "when it was written/published".--ZooGuard (talk) 19:24, 31 January 2015 (UTC)