Talk:Project Reason

Someone may need to edit the first paragraph for objectivity and/or integrate other sources into the text. At the moment, it's taken right off The Reason Project's website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.100.24.170 (talk) 04:57, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Recommend Deletion or not

This organization is still in the creation process. I don't think it should have a wikipage until it actually forms or is of some importance to the public. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.78.207.135 (talk) 15:32, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this page should be deleted. It's not even a complete organization yet, there's no reason for it to be on WP.173.19.26.163 (talk) 21:43, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Unless someone can come up with an argument for retaining this I propose to merge it with Sam Harris and redirect. The only refs are non-notable websites. NBeale (talk) 14:16, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

The project is relatively new, and low-key, but it was written up in the Nature Journal; got a short blurb through Current TV and also was mentioned in Newsweek. Not exactly an extremely prolific media presence, but it is sponsoring a number of studies and investigations that are notable; unfortunately, media coverage tends to focus on the more recognizable individual personalities involved with the project. What is the threshold? Xenophrenic (talk) 21:53, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Sam Harris is world famous for the cultural works he creates, including books, TED speeches and blogs. His next book, whatever that might be, would therefore be notable. This organization is one of this notable person's cultural works and is directly related to his earlier works. Not everything Sam Harris does is necessarily notable, however, anything which can rightly be considered as a part of his cultural corpus should be included just the way a new book by him would be considered significant.

Another way to ask this question is to say - would Wikipedia be remiss in leaving its readers ignorant of this individual's major work? The answer has to be yes, Wikipedia would be remiss. It at least deserves to be mentioned / linked in the main article on Harris. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.12.136.199 (talk) 15:58, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Status of organization

It appears as though this organization might now be defunct. The website is no longer functional. Donations are no longer being accepted. Can someone confirm this? BabyJonas (talk) 21:53, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

It appears you may be correct. It would be nice to have a reliably sourced date and reason for the change in status. Xenophrenic (talk) 16:48, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

According to this reddit thread quoting a 2016 email from Sam Harris, the organization is no longer a public charity and its assets have been distributed to other organizations: https://www.reddit.com/r/samharris/comments/85vt3u/what_ever_happened_to_sams_nonprofit_project/ Furthermore, the form 990s available on GuideStar indicate that contributions amounted to less than $1,500 that year, having been at about the $50,000-level for the previous two years; also, about $160,000 of its approximately $185,000 in assets had been distributed by year end. Access to guidestar requires registration, but here's the link: https://www.guidestar.org/profile/26-1643643 A.T.S. in Texas (talk) 03:02, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

It should be noted that this once prominent Atheist organization (Project Reason) created by Sam Harris was retired in 2016. I just discovered that info at <https://shadowtolight.wordpress.com/2016/01/15/is-project-reason-gone/>. That said, I suppose it might be worth maintaining the listing (for historical purposes) given that several brilliant and notable atheists belonged to the organization at one point. I will be fixing dead links pertaining to atheism at several sites over the next month and, in this particular article, the reflist contains a dead link (reference 2), an essay by a typical and irrational anti-atheist , and I don't know how to update the reflist:

References

https://bigthink.com/guest-thinkers/how-atheists-bow-down-to-the-god-of-reason/

KingOfAtheists (talk) 12:24, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

I deleted the reference you pointed out by deleting the 2nd "ref" tag pair that followed the first sentence of the article for the following reasons: 1) link rot (not a sufficient reason by itself, but …) 2) it's a blog by a non-authority on the subject matter 3) it states no facts about Project Reason other than that to the author's (non-expert) knowledge, something called "The Reason Project" existed at that time of writing (2009). I reformatted your Talk comment (sorry) because the reference that you created on the talk page seemed to be floating by itself and the indentation and spacing was a bit confusing. There's probably a better way to point out the reference you mentioned without making it part of a Reflist to this section, perhaps by stating the title of the blog post and then footnoting it. A.T.S. in Texas (talk) 14:34, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Hey, ATS, good for you in getting rid of that imbecile 2nd ref essay. I once demanded that it be removed, but the slimy Wikipedia editors stood by it, stupidly arguing that the airhead essay was worth keeping since it reveals "an opposing and considered viewpoint" of what we know belongs to every typical religious wacko. Then, like a bunch of no-balls choirboys, they had the gall to scold me for using bad language. I mean, after reflecting about what they said, I guess I kind of saw their point, to let the world see the anti-atheists for the zero IQ dummies they all happen to be, but I hate it when village idiots at your site spend more time whining and bitching about my using bad language and less time considering my usual brilliant arguments. Hell, you should know what I mean since you must suffer living in a 5th rate rotten state that is filled mostly with toothless backward inbred religious retards, from ranchers to cowboys who are only experts in counting piles of manure LOL. Bottom line: when it comes to beating down sick stupid anti-atheists, nobody does a better job than me, I've been doing it for years, mostly at non-Wiki websites, especially at Twitter, and removing their dumb arguments whenever possible, and I can suggest many more Wikipedia listings that MUST remove their anti-atheist nonsense, ASAP!!!!! After all, when you WP guys allow anti-atheist arguments on your site, you cater to religious retards, and lose all respect from smarter people like me. I mean, you and me, we obviously see how idiotic that essay happens to be, but how do the ignorant average joes read it???? Duuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuhhh??? There are so many average dopes who can't see that anti-atheist arguments are always without merit, no matter what the source, period. Hell, I salute you for doing what should have been done ages ago. We can't trust people to understand the Truth, that there is NO god of any kind, and never has been any type of god, like some kind of big dick santa claus in the sky, and so it's just best that we hide the anti-atheist vomit from public view. We are on the same page on this one, buddy boy, and if I ever am forced to visit that TX shithole again, in your honor, I'll buy you a bourbon, what we call "red darkie bourbon," brewed from the blood of anti-atheist scum LOL KingOfAtheists (talk) 17:05, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Critical thinking category

I've returned the Category:Critical thinking to this article. Another editor previously removed it, saying cryptically "not what cat is for". I've looked at the cat, which contains similar organizations like Association for Skeptical Enquiry, so I re-added it. I've reviewed the Critical thinking Wikipedia article, and also the deletion discussion for the category for further information on "what the category is for", which seems rather broad. If there is a valid and more specific reason for removing the category, feel free to remove it again, but can we have an explanation here? Xenophrenic (talk) 16:48, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

The cat is for things like cognitive bias and logical fallacies not blatant POV pushing. Apollo The Logician (talk) 16:50, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Wow, that was fast. What does "not for POV pushing" have to do with this article, unless the "Point of View" is that rational thought process and critical thinking should prevail and be promoted over superstition and illogic? From the lead of the critical thinking article: intellectually disciplined process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating information gathered from, or generated by, observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication, as a guide to belief and action. You haven't made clear why the category is wrong for this article. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 17:07, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

It means not labelling something rational or not rational in accordance with your own personal opinion. Just to be clear though I am not saying Project Reason is irrational I am just objecting to blatant POV pushing from people who have an axe to grind on the subject. Apollo The Logician (talk) 17:11, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

When "the subject" is irrationalism, I don't see how "having an axe to grind" against it disqualifies this Wikipedia article from its association with critical thinking. You haven't made a convincing case for the removal of the cat. But I'm not going to spend more time advancing the discussion about an organization which doesn't appear to be presently operating. Stay well, Xenophrenic (talk) 18:25, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

It's only a discussion if multiple people engage in it. Simply refusing to address what is being said and repeating yourself ad nauseum in response to contradiction is not discussion.

Please sign your posts. Thanks, Xenophrenic (talk) 22:06, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Not sure what in the world I was thinking; I've changed my mind and struck my stated intent to step away from this conversation. So, back to business: this article (1) links to the Critical thinking article, and (2) the mission statement of the organization declares that it encourages "critical thinking". Therefore, I'm returning this article to the "critical thinking" category. The fact that you personally are "just objecting to blatant POV pushing from people who have an axe to grind on the subject" doesn't matter here, and in fact, policy says your personal feelings must not matter here. If you have an intelligible reason for why this article is wholly unrelated to the subject of critical thinking, please do convey it. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 22:06, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Creation science followers would say it is science should we call creation science, science? No, clearly not. So you see what a group claims to be is irrelevant. That is hilariously ironic considering you are justifying keeping the cat due to your personal opinion that it is rational. Now what is the difference between your personal opinion and mine? Is it just that the opinion is yours and when it is you it is ok? And again you repeat yourself ad nauseum in the face of contradiction. If you are not going to address what is said then don't bother replying. Apollo The Logician (talk) 22:15, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

And again you repeat yourself ad nauseum [sic] in the face of contradiction.

Congratulations. You've succeeded in sidetracking the discussion. Please quote where I have "repeated myself ad nauseum [sic]". This I must see. Thanks in advance. Xenophrenic (talk) 01:47, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Ironic considering that is exactly what you have done by asking me that and ignoring anything else I said. I am not going to bother reply to a broken clock if you don't reply to what I said above.Apollo The Logician (talk) 09:57, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

No quotes of this alleged "ad nauseum [sic]" repetition? No surprise there. I haven't ignored anything you've said. I've replied to what you have said, and I've been sincerely trying to understand what your concern is with the category we've been discussing, but I guess I'm just not getting it. Ping me if you'd like to resume the discussion in a productive manner. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 15:06, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

No, as I have said it is you who is sidetracking the discussion I am not going to bother with that, I am also not going to both hilariously and ironically then accuse someone of not being productive. So you didn't ignore this then? "Creation science followers would say it is science should we call creation science, science? No, clearly not. So you see what a group claims to be is irrelevant. That is hilariously ironic considering you are justifying keeping the cat due to your personal opinion that it is rational. Now what is the difference between your personal opinion and mine? Is it just that the opinion is yours and when it is you it is ok?" Apollo The Logician (talk) 19:05, 5 February 2017 (UTC)