Shop Mobile More Submit  Join Login
×

More from DeviantArt



Details

Submitted on
December 29, 2009
Link
Thumb

Stats

Views
419
Favourites
0
Comments
23
×
  • Mood: Rant
  • Listening to: Alice in Chains - Down in a Hole
  • Reading: The Silmarillion
  • Eating: mom's porridge and beans
  • Drinking: Earl Grey
rationalwiki.com/wiki/Main_Pag…

Seriously, it tries to be like Encyclopedia Dramatica, but attaches "meaning" to the putdowns and attempts to further the agenda of a very sarcastic, disrespectful and antisocial branch of atheism. Many of my friends are atheists and I know that they don't act at all like the jerks on RationalWiki.

PROTIP: If you're going to start an Encyclopedia Dramatica rip-off, don't use it to preach your political and/or religious agenda. If you do, YOU FAIL.

So anyways, RationalWiki (more like CRAPtional DICKy, amirite?) appears to be staffed by a bunch of elitist, pseudo-intellectual douchebags who attempt to use internet/4chan culture to appear "witty" and "edgy," apparently to appeal to *channers and other people like me and ensnare us in their little anti-religious crusade.

The true motives of RationalWiki?</i>

If they stuck with bashing the Christian and Muslim fundamentalists then I'd be fine with that, but hell noooo, their main focus seems to be wiping out ALL FORMS OF SPIRITUALITY off the face of the earth. I grew up spiritual and not religious, since my mom was one of those New Agey types - I learned pendulum dowsing (divination,) guided meditation, herbal remedies, crystal therapy, and other staples of the "crackpot" New Age practitioner..RationalWiki labeled all that stuff as "woo" and thus in their "bullshit" category.

That and I am an otherkin (I believe I am a halfblood angel - yes, I actually believe that and I don't care what you'd say) so you can imagine atheists would all cream their pants at the opportunity to tear me down with their sarcasm. This amount of disrespect and snark sure doesn't make atheism look all that good to us theists, now does it?

So what if spirituality, in all its forms, was exterminated - temples burned down, texts burned, artifacts defaced, etc. - and the surviving believers either forceably "deprogrammed" or shipped off to Nazi-style death camps?

According to my biased, insane opinion which is probably false in every way, if spirituality didn't exist:

- All commercials would be like those fucking sick Axe Body Spray ads
- The only TV channels would be G4 and Adult Swim
- Every bookstore would carry porn
- Guns and all weapons would be banned
- Every bit of technology would be connected to the internet
- Prayers would be replaced with flamewars
- Internet forums would replace public parks
- Nature would be contaminated with rampant nanotechnology
- All living things would be genetically engineered to serve humans

Seriously, RationalWiki guys, you think Anonymous is on your side? You really do?
www.encyclopediadramatica.com/… - Then check this out and see just how wrong you are.
Add a Comment:
 
:iconwoollybears:
WoollyBears Featured By Owner Sep 13, 2014
I believe RationalWiki was founded as a troll-response to Conservapedia, another satirical Wiki (or so I hope). That would have been fine on its own if it weren't for the fact that several braindead keyboard-activists seem to take the RatWiki seriously. Atheism, to me, is the same as any other faith or belief - you can't prove it's right, you can't prove it's wrong, and you shouldn't adhere to it on a fundamental level. If only more people could understand that...
Reply
:icongreat-5:
Great-5 Featured By Owner Sep 23, 2014  Hobbyist General Artist
Unfortunately I highly doubt Conservapedia is satirical...as far as I know, they are dead-serious about it ._.

RationalWiki wouldn't be so bad if they just stuck to their guns and kept it as a satirical response to Conservapedia. However, that is clearly not the case...instead, they seemingly deviated quite a bit from their original motives and went to shitting all over any "unconventional" religious beliefs, labeling them "woo" and basically acting as if the world would be a better place if they were banned. If you actually read the articles you'll notice it seems they don't inherently have a problem with the "big three" established religions (Christianity, Judaism and Islam,) so there is kind of a double standard there. My theory is it is easier to single out and pick on the minority religions such as paganism, New Age and the Dharmic religions (Hinduism and Buddhism, although to be fair, the articles for those two aren't listed under any offensive categories...however in practice, virtually ALL their actual religious practices ARE,) mostly because you won't wind up with a ton of angry people sending you death threats. But still, that raises some doubt, as they have no problem picking apart Scientology (which unlike the others, I actually think is justified,) and those guys are batshit insane about suing anyone who speaks of them in a less than 100% positive manner. So you really gotta wonder where RationalWiki's true motives lie.

My theory as to why religions such as Buddhism, paganism and New Age stuff get the short end of the stick is that unlike the Abrahamic religions, their religious rituals tend to be more active and involved. For instance I notice it seems Christians are a lot like atheists in that they just seem to *be* what their beliefs are...there is next to no mysticism involved, as it is either "Satanic" (in the Christian's case,) or "woo" (in the atheist's case.) By contrast the other religions have stuff like meditation practices, magic rituals, energy healing and other stuff, etc. that skeptics go ballistic over. Although I just realized that Christian prayer might fall under that category too, but since it's a mainstream practice that so many more people do, I guess it's not "woo" to them. What really irks me is the self-righteous fixation so many skeptics have on forcing the scientific method down everyone's throats, and claiming it can be used to prove or disprove FUCKING EVERYTHING. They fail to realize that the very nature of the supernatural is not scientific at all (which I think is the mistake a lot of New Agers make, claiming the latest energy healing methods or something similar are "science" when they are actually religion, and that may be what attracts so many naysayers) and thus cannot be proven nor disproven with the scientific method...instead, evidence comes from peoples' life-changing accounts, and stuff you can't explain logically and rationally, but you just somehow know is true, deep down inside. I actually love science and I believe it has a definite place in the world, however I dislike it when spiritualists claim their beliefs are "scientific," and I REALLY hate it when skeptics use that against spiritual people like me, and claim that they can disprove stuff with the scientific method, that cannot be proven or disproven that way at all.
Reply
:iconazndragonlord:
azndragonlord Featured By Owner Jul 25, 2014
Yes, the word of a half angel brony otherkin is sooooooo much better then educated liberal atheists who want the seperation of the church and state

NO FUCK RICHARD DAWKINS FUCK BILL NYE FUCK PENN AND TELLER FUCK CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS FUCK THEM

THE BRONY GREAT-5 HAS ALL THE ANSWERS IN THE WORLD CAUSE HE IS GREAT-5
Reply
:icononetimethingthing:
onetimethingthing Featured By Owner Jul 26, 2014
Calling rationalwiki "educated" is like calling McDonald's "healthy."
Reply
:iconchiminix:
Chiminix Featured By Owner Jul 17, 2014  Student Traditional Artist
RationalWiki... the epitome of liberal arrogance.
Reply
:icongreat-5:
Great-5 Featured By Owner Jul 18, 2014  Hobbyist General Artist
Wow, I totally forgot I wrote this journal. But I couldn't agree more...liberal militant atheists seriously need to get their head out of their arses. Also, ever noticed how about 90% of all atheists on dA are also obnoxious internet trolls? My point exactly...disrespectful beliefs breed disrespect in other ways.
Reply
:iconchiminix:
Chiminix Featured By Owner Jul 18, 2014  Student Traditional Artist
Militant antitheists are the worst
Reply
:iconepsiloneagle:
EpsilonEagle Featured By Owner Dec 30, 2009
Bah! If someone wants to be atheist that's fine, but when they start to try and force their beliefs, or lack there of, on everybody else that makes them just as bad as the fundamentalists who do the same thing. While I admit that there are a lot of problems in the world caused by religion and that spiritualism does not affect morality (IE. an atheist is fully capable of being as moral or even more moral than a religous person), I also believe that people have beliefs so that they could believe in whatever they want, not so that they could be bullied into believing what someone else wants.
Reply
:icongreat-5:
Great-5 Featured By Owner Dec 30, 2009  Hobbyist General Artist
Totally dude. It really pisses me off how most people see these intolerant, disrespectful people as open-minded, when they're really not at all better than the fundamentalists they're opposed to! It's all hypocrisy in my eyes.

Awhile back one of them (the sarcastic atheists) trolled me and said the very existence of my religion offended him. Apparently he believes it's the atheists' duties to be like some sort of Simon Cowell to all the other religions.
Reply
:iconepsiloneagle:
EpsilonEagle Featured By Owner Dec 30, 2009
Yeah, pretty much.
Reply
Add a Comment: