1. Primordial Fish Had Rudimentary Fingers

Comment #253298 by wonderist on September 24, 2008 at 9:24 am

"They are the forerunners of all birds, mammals, crustaceans, and batrachians."
Crustaceans??? I think not. Strange that such a glaring error made it past the editors.

2. Sleek Probe To Map Earth's Gravity

Comment #245488 by wonderist on September 11, 2008 at 12:08 am

To do this, GOCE has ion thrusters which act like a cruise control, making minute adjustments to its position to combat the effects of air drag at the edge of space. The sun's energy will charge and accelerate xenon atoms into ions to power the thrusters.

Andromeda, here we come, baby!

Is this the first spacecraft to use ion thrusters?

3. Dispatches: Holy Offensive

Comment #135132 by wonderist on February 28, 2008 at 3:01 pm

When your religion is based on fiction, it will be threatened by fiction.

4. Evidence can't shake your faith if your faith excludes it as evidence

Comment #132936 by wonderist on February 25, 2008 at 12:23 pm

I didn't want to bother registering at the original site to post a comment there, but I'll post it here for the benefit of RD site members.

There's a very simple refutation for this 'objection' that I credit to The Infidel Guy. It goes something like this: What evidence would convince me? I don't know. But an omniscient God would certainly know what evidence would convince me, and an omnipotent God would certainly have the power to present me with that evidence. The fact that he does not, and threatens to burn me in hell for not believing either means he's evil, or he doesn't exist.

In other words, you can turn this 'objection' into another opportunity to debunk their god.

5. The Pagan Christ

Comment #95246 by wonderist on December 7, 2007 at 5:38 pm

You can name certain things that it is pretty uncontroversial did exist historically. Perhaps the most important of these are people who themselves believed that Jesus existed in history. Perhaps the earliest first hand evidence we have of such a person is the writings of Paul.

Paul never wrote of Jesus as a historical person, only as a spiritual being. He never mentioned his birth, life, preaching, trial, or physical man-nailed-to-wood crucifixion, nor of his physical burial or physical walking-talking resurrection. He only wrote about him as a vision of sorts.

Paul is NOT a valid source for evidence of a historical person named Jesus. All the historical-type reports start with the Gospels, the first being Mark, written later than Paul's writings, and much later than Jesus' supposed life, and also anonymously, and hence not qualifying as contemporary evidence.

6. AAI Convention webcam

Comment #74988 by wonderist on October 1, 2007 at 9:44 am

247. Comment #74843 by bayareadude on September 30, 2007 at 9:32 pm

(And don't even get me started on the ridiculous theater crowd called the "Rational Responders." Being around them and their "look at us, we're the cool crowd" personae reminded me of high school drama geeks trying to get everyone's attention, but pretending to not care.)

You mean that group who interviewed Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and many others, and who helped to raise money for professional security so that the convention could go smoothly? Check out this video, which is a recap of the RRS' experience: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-w3vk8UTc0 They hardly seem like the assholes you paint them as.

7. AAI Convention webcam

Comment #74770 by wonderist on September 30, 2007 at 10:36 am

210. Comment #74748 by madShelly on September 30, 2007 at 8:46 am

Yorker, (I'm tempted to add 'you fucktard', are you going to go and provide legal funds for the first young person, (assuming it hasn't happened already) who throws a brick through a church window, spray paints a church, or burns one down in the name of your 'war'.

Are you not the least bit concerned about the anger that the RRS feeds on and generates. BTW, It doesn't matter how legitimate that anger is.
The potential for a RRS inspired zealot to eventually do something stupid is a pretty safe bet.
I am basing this opinion on what I saw on the boards some time ago, so perhaps things have changed, (I hope so, however RRS posts here would seem to suggest otherwise).
The RRS are 'loose cannons' in the oldest use of the expression.

Again, more unsubstantiated opinions. The RRS most emphatically does not endorse violence or illegal activities of any kind. This is just scare-mongering on your part, madShelly. Shame. There are no RRS 'zealots'. A zealot is not a rational thinker, and rationality is what the RRS stands for.

Oh, and about anger. Yes, some people are angry. This does not make them irrational. Emotions are rational, when they drive you to action. Our number one enemy is apathy. People don't do anything because they are *not* angry when they should be. Emotions should be tempered and directed by rationality. We *should* be passionate about changing the world. And we should channel that passion into rational activities, such as the RRS has been doing. We *should* be angry that America is in danger of becoming a theocracy after being founded on reason. We should be angry when nuclear war is on the line. Emotions are our fuel, rationality is our engine. Start your frigging engines, people!

While you, (or perhaps all of us to some degree) may appreciate that they fire 'hot loads' and score 'hits' on our 'enemies', I am a little concerned about what is going to happen when that cannon blows up in peoples faces, including the members of the RSS squad themselves, who I suspect, despite their attitude, are actually decent people.

Instead of 'suspecting', why don't you actually talk to some of these people before you pass judgment on them?

If people want to channel the anger of young people, they aught to held to a high standard in both their approach , attitude and tactics.

Um, they do. It's called rationality. I 'suspect' that you haven't really interacted with the RRS members.

Professor Dawkins, who I have a great deal of respect for, loses some of that respect, in embracing the RRS. Every time the RRS do something obnoxious it reflects on him (and everyone else who is a 'Proud member'.

You realize 'guilt by association' is a logical fallcy, right? And you're the one claiming we should hold a high standard. Sheesh. Try being rational yourself.

Incidentally, given the number of American youth, (stadiums full) that are drawn to Evangelical rock concerts/extravaganzas the idea that all that appeals to young people is crassness & vulgarity seems to me a bit off.

Nobody here or on RRS has claimed that *all* that appeals to young people is crassness & vulgarity. Misrepresentation.

8. AAI Convention webcam

Comment #74763 by wonderist on September 30, 2007 at 10:05 am

191. Comment #74667 by eXcommunicate on September 29, 2007 at 10:56 pm

I like how everyone latched onto the T-shirt comment and not the crux of the argument. The point is, in this world and the way it works, to be taken seriously they should take their entire presentation seriously. The t-shirt thing is rather minor when compared to the constant verbal assault they throw around willy nilly. They attract criticism because they put their faces in the fire, and they seem to enjoy it. As they are one of the prominent faces of atheism, it is not "elitist" to wish they would not act like assholes. I actually liked their "Blaspheme Challenge" because it was a vehicle for others (not the RRS) to make a statement.

More negative, deconstructive criticism. It is *your* opinion that they did not take their presentation seriously, because it is *your* hang-up that collared shirts are the most important thing in a presentation. Trust me, there are plenty of people who don't give a rat's ass what you wear, and *they* will judge presentation on what you actually say. It is *your* opinion that the verbal assault is 'willy nilly'. There are other people who disagree with you, myself included. So, are you here to say that *your* opinion is the correct opinion? Care to back that up with facts, not assertions? Rational argumentation, please.

How many appearances on national television have you garnered? None? Oh, what a surprise. Perhaps it's because national television couldn't care less that you have a collared shirt, and are more interested in whether you are cutting edge and in-your-face. How many times have you had a Slashdot article written about your exploits? None? What a surprise. (You get the picture.)

Here's my rational argument in support of RRS: They get things done, and I have facts to prove it. What's your rational argument against them?

9. AAI Convention webcam

Comment #74758 by wonderist on September 30, 2007 at 9:53 am

188. Comment #74664 by Bueller_007 on September 29, 2007 at 10:16 pm

What a crock. Find my earlier post where they literally told someone to get fucked because he decided not to include RRS in his approach to dealing with the false DMCA claims put on YouTube by CSE Ministries.

Yes I did find your earlier post, and what a surprise, it's a misrepresentation of what actually happened. First, watch this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OPTIXVEe0Ng), in which the ExtantDodos claim everybody is totally disorganized and should send emails to the links in the video description. Note that there is no mention of the RRS, even though the RRS were the ones who were organizing all the various people under Operation Spread Eagle, and the RRS was the group that got the story to Slashdot and Wired. Note how the video makes it seems like there's no one doing this organization, and no one getting things noticed by the media. That was a misrepresentation of the RRS, which were doing both.

Unlike your post, which curiously edits out important context, I'll fill in the details which you missed:

Here is the first comment to the ExtantDodos, in the comments of their video:

1. Where is the link to the Hovind press on our homepage that actually got this story known in the first place? RATIONALRESPONDERS DOT COM (the group that got the controversy out there)

2. Where is your counter suit that you'd easily win? We hear you wont file, if this is so, I declare Shenanigans!

Here's the reply from ExtantDodo:

"Where is the link to the Hovind press on our homepage that actually got this story known in the first place?"
As this video is focussed on informing groups unaware of the current state of events, having people send emails to you seemed rather moot. Since you asked, we will add a link in the description.

"(the group that got the controversy out there)"
This is not a game. The presentation of a united response is needed if national groups are to take notice.

Notice that ExtantDodo promised to add a link to their description. Notice that that link was not added.

Here's the reply from RRS:

"This is not a game. The presentation of a united response is needed if national groups are to take notice."

I agree which is why we were flabbergasted that you had not linked us. We've spent countless hours on the phone with heads of national orgs, the press, the feds, and more that we can't talk about. We had everyone united, with the exception of your team. Seems we're good now. My apologies, and well wishes.

So, let me recap. The ExtantDodos chose not to link to perhaps the most useful site that they could have linked to, considering that Brian Sapient already has the support of the EFF. This is not about the ExtantDodos not philosophically supporting the RRS, it's about them not being responsible to the people and spreading false information about the situation.

Now, let's see how YOU chose to misrepresent the situation. Here is your post:

108. Comment #74452 by Bueller_007 on September 28, 2007 at 11:41 pm
This is the kind of "rational response" you can expect from the RRS. After a group called Extant Dodo had videos deleted from YouTube due to false DMCA claims and decided to take action against Eric Hovind, RRS felt wronged because they weren't given credit:

http://www.rationalresponders.com/those_who_accept_evolution_unite_today_important

"DODO... we're pissed. Start giving us credit if you're gonna cover this. We have strength in numbers, use it. Also, if you're making videos asking people to make sure that CSE doesn't get away with it... WHERE IS THE LAWSUIT WE HEARD YOU WONT FILE?" - Brian

"It's not hard, all you gotta do is put us in the fucking links on the side, asshole" - Kelly

"Where are you Extant Dodo, fucking sleeping? Way to fight for your fucking rights ass face." - Kelly

Now THAT is "atheist solidarity", right there... And apparently, someone who has been *directly affected* by the false DMCA claims does not have the right to disassociate himself/herself from the likes of these people and try to handle the problem his/her own way.

RRS are little more than petulant bullies.

All three of the bolded parts are misrepresentations. I could call them lies, but I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt. It was not about 'feeling wronged'; the RRS gets wronged dozens of times per day, I think they've gotten used to it. It was not about 'the right to do it their own way'. The ExtantDodos put out a video misrepresenting the situation and while claiming to be helping to organize people, failed to point out perhaps the most useful site they could have pointed out. Operation Spread Eagle collected all the videos that were taken down and gave people important information they would need to take effective action against the CSE. The links the ExtantDodos provided were just general links, like information@eff.org, which were not specific to the CSE situation, and were unlikely to be of much use to the people who were affected. Rather than organizing people, the ExtantDodos were essentially scattering them to the winds.

But here's the worst part. You specifically edited out portions of the original post you quoted. Here's the original post with you omissions highlighted:

"I bet Extant Dodo got a full night sleep all last week." - Kelly after we saw his video and his lack of linkage to Operation Spread Eagle.

"seriously I want to make a video right now, I don't see him getting this in wired, or slash dot." - Kelly

DODO... we're pissed. Start giving us credit if you're gonna cover this. We have strength in numbers, use it. Also, if you're making videos asking people to make sure that CSE doesn't get away with it... WHERE IS THE LAWSUIT WE HEARD YOU WONT FILE?

I declare Shenanigans!

"It's not hard, all you gotta do is put us in the fucking links on the side, asshole" - Kelly

(Oh... by the way, Kelly just finished a 24 hour shift with 6 hours of sleep in last 3 days, it's 7 am our time, and we're still working.)

as soon as I wrote that....

"Where are you Extant Dodo, fucking sleeping? Way to fight for your fucking rights ass face." - Kelly

As you can see, Kelly wasn't pissed that the ExtantDodos weren't supporting the RRS. She was pissed that they were effectively sabotaging the RRS' efforts while doing little themselves.

Also, the quotes from Kelly were not posted to the ExtantDodos, they were comments made in private, later posted on the RRS website to show the RRS members how frustrated Kelly was with the ExtantDodos.

So, a final recap. The RRS spends days and sleepless nights fighting to organize people against the CSE. And all you can do is complain when they get frustrated. Well, you think you can do better? Go do it then!

10. AAI Convention webcam

Comment #74662 by wonderist on September 29, 2007 at 9:53 pm

Thanks for the encouraging comments. :-) I don't know the exact numbers, and I don't want to misrepresent that it's an enormous site. The number of active posters in the forums is more like in the hundreds. Including lurkers and infrequent posters, it is definitely in the thousands. They have 5,574 YouTube subscribers.

Here's a tidbit from their home page:

There are currently 52 users and 393 guests online.

11. AAI Convention webcam

Comment #74655 by wonderist on September 29, 2007 at 9:00 pm

I'm a long time lurker here, and long time active member of the RRS (user name 'natural'). I have read all the comments in this thread and have not seen any valid constructive criticism from the naysayers. It has all been negative criticism, such as, 'I think they should dress differently,' or 'I think they're amateurish slobs.' There have been no constructive suggestions that have not been accompanied by digs at their character or other such snobbery.

Many of you are reading the RRS wrong. They are not here to please you. They are not here to be everybody's friend. They are here to take direct action against irrationality wherever they find it, with theism being the number one target.
Therefore, when you propose 'I don't like the way you do things,' and that's all you say, they reply 'Fuck off, if you want things done differently, do them yourself and stop complaining to us.'

You see, there is no pleasing everybody. If the RRS goes light on someone, they get complaints 'You went too light on them.' If they go hard on someone, they get complaints 'You went too hard on them.' So, the general policy of the RRS members is to do it their own way, but to maintain rationality as much as possible.

The RRS doesn't go around complaining that other groups don't act as aggressively as they do. And they don't like it when others complain about how they should act.

This is not to say that they do not accept positive constructive criticism. There are many examples of the RRS accepting constructive criticism. Here's an example in this video.

Here's another example in this thread. Let me quote from it:

When you say that you are better than people who don't do what you do, are you referring to someone such as myself? I am asking for clarification because I have a different view if that is true. I feel that people such as myself as necessary to the spread of atheism, because when there are people like yourselves taking the "in your face" approach there needs to be those who stand on the sideline to support you for doing what we can not. I could never go on national television to debate with well learned scholars, as you have, and hold my own in a debate. I support you in what you do because I know that you are right in what you do, and that's all I can do. I just want to know if you really feel above those who support you above all the rest, if that makes any sense.
-- Sam

No, we support you in your passive approach.

We're referring to people who employ poor logic or dishonesty in an attempt to attack our position. You illustrated the opposite of that here by asking questions first to clarify before you attacked. In my book, that puts you in my "we're better than you league" (for now). ;-)
-- Sapient

If you come in to their chat room or forum and proceed to lay out all their flaws, and tell them things they already know, presuming they don't know it, of course they get pissed at you (pay attention, v4ri4bl3).

The founders of the RRS have been dealing with criticism for a long time, and frankly, if you act like a pompous prick when you do it, they quite literally have no time for you. They are very busy. Why don't you get busy? If you think your way is better, go and do it your way, prove the RRS wrong by being better than them, not by complaining to them.

I am not a spokesperson for RRS, just a long time member of their board who has gotten to know them, bit by bit. I'll say it frankly, the naysayers here don't know what they are talking about. Their generalizations of the members of the RRS is nothing short of snobbish bigotry. There are thousands of members of all kinds of personalities from all walks of life. There are teenagers with not much more than a basic understanding of critical thinking, and there are professionals and academics from fields such as biochemistry, genetics, philosophy, psychology, and on and on. There are assholes, and there are kind old ladies.

This is not about style over substance. The RRS has style, even though it might not be *your* style. This is about valid critiques. If you want to critique the RRS, lay down your case. Facts, not assertions, please. Rational arguments, not personal opinions, please. Opinions are welcome, but they are only opinions, they are not valid critiques.

And finally, if you don't like the way they do things, go do it yourself. The RRS will support you all the way, even if your way is not their way. It is going to take a thousand varied approaches to change the entire world. The RRS is just one way, but you can't deny that it is a very effective way.