A Request Directed to Sciforums' "Atheists"

[GeoffP]

Still offended?

Okay then. Carry on. Let me know when you're done.

It's fascinating watching your concern for conventional mores apparently unravel.

Why are you applying religion to something that has nothing to do with religion?

Fascinating. You don't understand parallels? Is Rod Serling going to pop out and smoke in front of me or something? Here's more of the same:

Because you keep applying religious concepts to it. Such as your attempted wordplay that followed your complaint of 'gross mischaracterisation'.. Do you understand the difference between atheism and Islam? Atheism is not a religion, ergo we do not practice it. Attempts to do so result in cults of personalities and blindly following self described 'voices of atheism'.

I am absolutely fascinated by the abstruse use of "practice" here. Do you mean 'practice', as I suspect you do, to mean 'public declarations of atheism and the reasons why one has selected this position'? Is it really this that you object to? We keep circling this toilet bowl you're trying to fill, around and around without conclusion. In fact, I expect, without reading further at this point, that you have probably doubled back and undone this position later on [Edit: yup], but for the moment I'll pretend that you'll stick to one stance here; and in fact your last sentence does seem to make that case explicitly: "attempts to ['practice atheism', by which I suspect you mean 'proselytise'] esult in cults of personalities and blindly following blah blah". So you seem to insist on the 'private practice' of atheism: quietly, reflectively perhaps, but by all means quietly.

In the name of Great Myuu, why would I think for a moment that was reasonable?

Atheism as an ethos has no reason at all to hide in the cupboard as you seem to be suggesting and which Kittamaru denied that you were saying earlier. Atheists have as much right to promulgate their lack of faith as anyone else has to preach to the unconverted. This uncovers a new issue: what is it about this conversion process that you fear so greatly? Explain it to me. Your earlier statements also project a visceral terror of atheistic conversion. Why would you object to such? Residual adherence to cultural memes? You speak of your family in some posts: naturally, I don't support attacking them on basis of their faith, but I don't object to the debating of faith or even of a specific faith per se. I don't think much can be gained by it in the case of those who really understand what faith is, since faith rests in an entirely different magisterium, but if theists wish to influence what are meant to be secular systems, there can be little doubt that such debate will occur. These concepts must rise and fall on the merit donated by the observer. Let me be specific here: atheists are under no compulsion to keep their views out of discourse, and I wholly refute any such stance as reprehensible and inimical to the mores of our society, so long as such views are not presented so as to give offense. That is final, and it is obscene to suggest otherwise or to misrepresent me on this subject, as I have no doubt you will do.

You are either and [sic] atheist or you are not (as in you don't not believe in a deity but do believe in a deity). I am an atheist, so I do not believe in anything spiritual or of the divine. I don't believe in any God. I have no religion. You are not an atheist because you still aren't sure if there is no God.

Strange constructions aside, it is called agnosticism. I expect you've never heard this outlandish term before, but here's a handy link full of information that you will probably not peruse: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism. Mea culpa for even suggesting it, I'm sure.

And once again, stop misrepresenting what I am saying. I get that you don't quite grasp what it is to be an atheist, what I am saying is that atheism is being represented by abuse and ridicule. There is a vast difference between what I am saying and what you are lying in claiming I am saying. At no time have I said the only way to represent atheism is via abuse and ridicule.

Except in your earlier post, where you made no such distinction. Look, Bells, if you're now going to claim that this was a language error, please just take your time and review before you press "Post Quick Reply". Just because it's called "Quick Reply" doesn't mean you have to fire it off before you've checked it. (That's an amusingly pertinent finding given the kind of errors you've been making.) And stop flipping back and forth: first, it's all public atheism, then Kittamaru tells me it's just the mean ones, then you come back on and make exactly the same error again.

Atheism is not a religion, ergo we do not practice it. Attempts to do so result in cults of personalities and blindly following self described 'voices of atheism'.

Which again decries 'practicing' atheism - by which I can only exasperatedly conclude you mean public or proselytising atheism - as being socially offensive. So which is it? I think this is the worst example of this kind of behaviour on SF. You seem to think you're not being offensive or absurd by allowing this intellectual space where presumably 'quiet' atheists can sit around and not believe in God, but this is a reprehensible position akin to that one finds in the worst theocracies. They may not present their ideas in the marketplace? They can't argue with theists about religion? Give me a break. Look, if you're really going to go on saying that I've just terribly, terribly misunderstood your statements - poor Bells! :cry: - then do me the favour of not repeating the same elemental error over and over again like a junkie that says they're all dried out. You're hung up on the supposition that I am decrying your supposed accusation against all atheists. Because this appears to be very complex to you, and because you won't bother reading my excellent Venn post above, I will specify once again for you: your post, as read, attacked all atheists who engage in proselytisation of their philosophy. At no time did I infer otherwise. You have gone back and forth on this so many times it's nearly impossible to make out what you actually do think on the issue. Hence this:

One final point. "Some" does not mean "all".

God, I wish I could believe you really knew the difference between those things. All right, we'll call this one out here, once and for all, and you can explain what you meant by all that. I'll ask you a very straightforward question, and you'll answer it with one answer: not a series of contrasting statements, not with waffling and not with whatever else you have planned. One answer. Here's the question:

DO you, or do you NOT, believe that all atheists who publicly express their atheist position are engaging in the abuse or ridicule of theists or theism?

There. Simple, no? Now you can just pick one answer instead of both, sometimes in the same post.

---

This will be shortly followed by complaints about my position on staff here and some more whining about how he is being victimised because he saw 'some' as being 'all'..

No, no, not at all. Actually, the complaint I'm considering comes from an entirely different issue and is due for submission in about 16 hours, roughly. You forgot? I mentioned it above, you know. Simply put, you can't engage in slander on here.

I just put him on ignore when he gets to this point. Starve the fire, so to speak.

Oh, immaterial Gods, that would be a boon. How can I encourage you to take this step in permanency, so that your repeated threats to ignore me completely come to blessed fruition?

 

[Kittamaru]

*sigh* The sad thing is... this whole rivalry has spanned YEARS folks...

I just gotta wonder when enough is enough... has this thread run it's course yet, or are we still beating the dead, necromanced-and-given-not-life, then killed again horse?

 

[GeoffP]

Actually, Yazata, yeah that does sound more Agnostic than Atheist to me (as you said). I am curious - why do you deem the challenge to be similar to that of a schoolyard bully? Tiassa has already given his explanation on what the challenge was (for those of us in sci forums who are atheists to step up and represent sciforums as a good place to be, rather than attempting to demean or insult those who believe in a theology), so other than the particular choice of wording, I'm note sure why it is so upsetting. It would be no different than me making a post calling out all Christians to stop acting like fools and to stop attacking/persecuting muslims or homosexuals or non-theists...

@ GeoffP - so you are saying the "generalization" is her statement that those being vocal about their atheism are ridiculing or abusing theists...

YES. What it does is reduce atheists to the quiet corner of the room, meant to be seen but not heard. That is a terrifying concept.

Okay, to that point, do you have evidence to the contrary? In the context of this forum, it would seem that Bells is absolutely correct; those like (Q) and Balerion (and, to an extent, I would even say Fraggle Rocker) tend to be quick to point out that any kind of theism is akin to belief in fairies/santa/easter bunny and use it as a grounds for claiming such beliefs to be cause for suspecting intellectual/mental instability of some sort.

Without reviewing their comments, you have: me. Now, I realise from your earlier post that you have a dim view of my character, but I am an example of the position that contradicts Bells in toto. I don't need to frag theists in my agnosticism, or whatever it is, and it is my suspicion that the others take exception only in respect to encroachment by theism on secular society. You will need to ask them, but my views are impeccable. I am a marked exception to Bells' ridiculous proposition and I can locate others as required. Of course some atheists do engage in abuse - but that does not mean that atheism should be silenced in the marketplace of ideas. It means you have to locate the problem cases.

You know, the really vicious, nasty ones, right?

Are there people in the "column A"? Most certainly. Are they effective in "spreading their message"... perhaps, but, as Tiassa pointed out in his first post, that "message" gets muddled by the apparent hatred/disdain/contempt for those not following the same belief.

They are not uniform, and neither are their offenses. It is not meet only that an atheist or a theist be silent.

You also saw a connection between the Boston bombings and the CIA and linked Alex Jones and tried to make that connection. I think that says it all about your leaping connections.

HAW! Let's see you dare to go back and check that one. My gods, that's priceless.

 

[GeoffP]

*sigh* The sad thing is... this whole rivalry has spanned YEARS folks...

I just gotta wonder when enough is enough... has this thread run it's course yet, or are we still beating the dead, necromanced-and-given-not-life, then killed again horse?

Well, maybe you should pick a side again and just berate the other guy. That'll work.

 

[Kittamaru]

If what you say is true, GeoffP, then your issue isn't with what Bells is saying (or rather, trying to say), but with how she worded it. I ask; do you really think Bells intended to say that all atheists act as such, knowing that she counts herself as an atheist; or rather, do you think she meant to say that those who attempt to go and shove it down peoples throats act as such?

Come on GeoffP... I know you and Bells have a history... but please, don't let it color your view so much so as to miss the potential ally you have in front of you.

 

[Yazata]

I am curious - why do you deem the challenge to be similar to that of a schoolyard bully?

When somebody "calls out" somebody else, what else is it? It's a challenge to fight. (I've rarely seen anyone behaving that way in my adult life, since leaving high-school.)

Tiassa has already given his explanation on what the challenge was (for those of us in sci forums who are atheists to step up and represent sciforums as a good place to be, rather than attempting to demean or insult those who believe in a theology),

I've always tried to do that. Again, as I said earlier to Bells, I challenge anyone on Sciforums who doesn't believe me to search through my posts and try to find any post of mine where I've been unfair or rude to somebody just because they are religious. What you will find instead are numerous occasions where I took their sides when I thought that they were being abused.

I stand up to bullies.

so other than the particular choice of wording, I'm note sure why it is so upsetting.

My objections:

1. Behavior from a moderator what wouldn't be acceptable if it came from a rank-and-file Sciforums participant. It doesn't suffice for moderators to say 'do as we say, not as we do'. Moderators need to be role models, the adults in the room. I'm actually a little appalled that NO Sciforums moderator has uttered any criticism at all of how Tiassa started this thread. Even Fraggle, who always seems ready enough with an atheist rant, has remained silent on this one.

2. Attacking Sciforums atheists (or atheists in general, or "new" atheists, or something... intellectual precision has never been Sciforums' strength) for insulting and abusive behavior on the Religion forum (behavior that objectively speaking some of us aren't even guilty of), when Tiassa himself gleefully engages in equally insulting and abusive behavior over on the Politics forum towards those that he happens to disagree with. Again, the message seems to be that Tiassa can behave in any way that he feels like, with no consequences (or self-discipline) whatsoever, but those he disagrees with are totally and absolutely out of line if they behave in anything approaching the same way that he does.

In the context of this forum, it would seem that Bells is absolutely correct; those like (Q) and Balerion (and, to an extent, I would even say Fraggle Rocker) tend to be quick to point out that any kind of theism is akin to belief in fairies/santa/easter bunny and use it as a grounds for claiming such beliefs to be cause for suspecting intellectual/mental instability of some sort.

Sure, some of our atheists do get a little over-the-top. But why shouldn't we give theists and "religionists" the same advice that Bells and Quinnsong gave me regarding the Politics forum: just man-up, stop whining and make some good posts? Why is it supposed to be so different here on the Religion forum?

Now, admittedly, I have not seen every single post in every single forum that has been made here... but I have yet to come across an atheist who is "preaching" atheism without somehow insulting those who believe in God... so while Bells statement may be harsh, I would say it to be accurate, and thus not a generalization at all.

I've made quite a few posts in which I've expanded on why I don't believe in the existence of theistic gods. I've expressed my ideas on no end of issues associated with atheism. When theists make preachy posts, sometimes I've challenged them by asking them how in the world they know the things that they think they know. (I'll do that to atheists too, when they seem to be veering towards unjustifiable scientism.) I don't feel any obligation to always agree with people or else remain silent, just to avoid upsetting them.

It seems to me that the real problem on Sciforums (and all over the internet) is what I'll call assholism. By that I mean insults, emotional trolling, caricaturizing opponents and general rudeness. The solution is simple: don't be an asshole. (It isn't rocket science.)

We shouldn't be trying to associate assholism with views that we personally oppose, insisting that we are the good guys (hence free from any responsibility whatsoever for our own actions) while insisting that our opponents are all assholes (who must be opposed in any way posible). Some of the atheists do that. Tiassa is equally guilty of it.

It's just more assholism.

 

[Kittamaru]

Fair enough Yazata - and I thank you, honestly I do, for remaining civil and succinct. You are right - the larger problem is assholism, as you so eloquently put it - I'm a huge fan of George Carlin's rendition of the Ten Commandments- in the end, he condenses them down to a single commandment: Don't be an Asshole. Honestly, I can see God looking at that and going "Yeah, pretty much!"

The question now is... how do we correct it? The animosity is already there and, apparently, growing between members and moderators (and vice versa)... how do we resolve that?

 

[spidergoat]

Where does the question of socioeconomics and political outcomes actually enter your argument? ...

I think religion drives one's economic outlook. Islam tends to keep people in the dark ages, shunning western education and technology.

It must be accounted for.

There's plenty of room for irrationality in art and music. I like surrealism and dada because it doesn't make much sense. But we have to stop treating it as a virtue in science and practical matters.

 

[GeoffP]

If what you say is true, GeoffP, then your issue isn't with what Bells is saying (or rather, trying to say), but with how she worded it. I ask; do you really think Bells intended to say that all atheists act as such, knowing that she counts herself as an atheist; or rather, do you think she meant to say that those who attempt to go and shove it down peoples throats act as such?

Come on GeoffP... I know you and Bells have a history... but please, don't let it color your view so much so as to miss the potential ally you have in front of you.

You must be joking. An ally in what?

When somebody "calls out" somebody else, what else is it? It's a challenge to fight. (I've rarely seen anyone behaving that way in my adult life, since leaving high-school.)

...

It's just more assholism.

Excellent post.

Fair enough Yazata - and I thank you, honestly I do, for remaining civil and succinct. You are right - the larger problem is assholism, as you so eloquently put it - I'm a huge fan of George Carlin's rendition of the Ten Commandments- in the end, he condenses them down to a single commandment: Don't be an Asshole. Honestly, I can see God looking at that and going "Yeah, pretty much!"

The question now is... how do we correct it? The animosity is already there and, apparently, growing between members and moderators (and vice versa)... how do we resolve that?

Standardize the infraction system among all contributors. A pathetic, vindictive suggestion, I'm sure.

 

[Kittamaru]

You must be joking. An ally in what?

Whether you want to admit it or not, what you stated you wanted pretty well lines up with what Tiassa and Bells are talking about - namely:

I don't need to frag theists in my agnosticism, or whatever it is, and it is my suspicion that the others take exception only in respect to encroachment by theism on secular society. You will need to ask them, but my views are impeccable.

To me, it sounds like you all want Atheists to be able to voice their opinions without assaulting/attacking theists because doing so harms their position more than it helps. Or am I reading too much into your character?

Standardize the infraction system among all contributors. A pathetic, vindictive suggestion, I'm sure.

Not at all, and one that has been discussed; who watches the watchers though? At one point it was suggested that members should be able to issue infractions to moderators... how, perchance, do you see that going? Here's what I see happening:

Member A does something in violation of site rules to Member B.
Moderator X issues a verbal warning to Member A.
Member A becomes indignant and continues unabated, with Member C encouraging him.
Moderator X issues an infraction to Member A.
Member A and Member C both issue infractions to Moderator X.

And various similar scenarios therein.

 

[Balerion]

Member A does something in violation of site rules to Member B.
Moderator X issues a verbal warning to Member A.
Member A becomes indignant and continues unabated, with Member C encouraging him.
Moderator X issues an infraction to Member A.
Member A and Member C both issue infractions to Moderator X.

And various similar scenarios therein.

Aside from the back-and-forth, that's not any different from what happens now. Mods do as they please, interpret the rules as they please, infract and ban out of spite, etc. Seems giving members the same right only presents a problem in that it potentially subjects mods to the same BS they inflict on others.

I think Geoff makes a good point. Preumably, an admin would moderate the moderators, but I get that we don't have reasonably active admins here.

Perhaps in the case of mods, we should keep a book. If a mod recieves a certain amounts of complaints from a certain amounts of members, they receive an infraction. X number of infractions equates to a temp ban. X numbers of temp bans equates to demotion.

Or just do what I and others have suggested, and fire the troublemakers now. Or, simply stop flaming, trolling, and insulting people. The source of the conflict is the behavior--which is no better than the res of ours, and in many cases much worse--yet you're the ones doling out punishments.

 

[Kittamaru]

Aside from the back-and-forth, that's not any different from what happens now. Mods do as they please, interpret the rules as they please, infract and ban out of spite, etc. Seems giving members the same right only presents a problem in that it potentially subjects mods to the same BS they inflict on others.

I think Geoff makes a good point. Preumably, an admin would moderate the moderators, but I get that we don't have reasonably active admins here.

Perhaps in the case of mods, we should keep a book. If a mod recieves a certain amounts of complaints from a certain amounts of members, they receive an infraction. X number of infractions equates to a temp ban. X numbers of temp bans equates to demotion.

Or just do what I and others have suggested, and fire the troublemakers now. Or, simply stop flaming, trolling, and insulting people. The source of the conflict is the behavior--which is no better than the res of ours, and in many cases much worse--yet you're the ones doling out punishments.

Balerion, I'm going to be blunt; if you and yours had your way, we wouldn't have any (active) moderators left, our supermods would be banned, and I'm sure you'd find some reason to gripe about the admins should they peek in to do anything...

 

[Write4U]

Unfortunately, the misrepresentation here is yours: She is saying, quite succinctly, that SOME people try to "practice atheism" through "conversion through ridicule and abuse". She is not saying, at all, that the only way to "practice atheism" is to do so... just that some do.

I know you are capable of seeing that distinction yourself GeoffP... so why is it that you are attempting not to do so?

Yes some atheists are militant. But most religious people are militant.

But does anyone see a difference between a militant atheist like Dawkins (who admittedly talks a lot) and an Ayatollah who issues a fatwa (a death sentence) against someone who is critical of Islam and condones martyrdom for the greater glory of Allah or a fundamentalist OT adherent who condemns atheism as the door the Devil uses to corrupt the soul (whatever that means)?

I see a difference.

 

[GeoffP]

Whether you want to admit it or not, what you stated you wanted pretty well lines up with what Tiassa and Bells are talking about - namely:

Yes/no. The simple point was that I objected to the grouping of all atheists who voice their opinion into the 'militant' category. Bells' language seems to go back and forth on this issue, and it is not known what she really thinks: I suspect that she considers most vocal atheists to be the abusive militant sort. This is simply not so.

To me, it sounds like you all want Atheists to be able to voice their opinions without assaulting/attacking theists because doing so harms their position more than it helps. Or am I reading too much into your character?

Is this an oblique retraction? That would be satisfactory, yes.

Not at all, and one that has been discussed; who watches the watchers though? At one point it was suggested that members should be able to issue infractions to moderators... how, perchance, do you see that going? Here's what I see happening:

Member A does something in violation of site rules to Member B.
Moderator X issues a verbal warning to Member A.
Member A becomes indignant and continues unabated, with Member C encouraging him.
Moderator X issues an infraction to Member A.
Member A and Member C both issue infractions to Moderator X.

And various similar scenarios therein.

A cabal of posters and mods, each with a vote on a violation. Each would get 1 vote, 5 members and mods in total, selected from among the most active people on SF. Failing their availability, anyone else could be selected. How many tickets/moderation requests occur daily?

But no system of governance survives the corruption of its members. Perhaps the simplest solution is to have problem mods step down; just food for thought. And if you're looking for someone to watch the watchers, I'm available at 100% integrity and no cost. Can't say fairer than that, now can I? as some of my ancestors probably said. Alternatively I could recommend several posters who would probably do a better job even than I.

 

[Bells]

YES. What it does is reduce atheists to the quiet corner of the room, meant to be seen but not heard. That is a terrifying concept.

I swear, you make me want to stick burning coals in my eyes.

To clarify, so that you stop misrepresenting what I say.

Those who attempt to convert people to atheism and who are abusive and insulting (ie Dawkins, Harris, etc) do more harm than good because it is such individuals who practise atheism (read many of the links I provided in this thread, written by atheists who also share the same concern that there are some who virtually treat atheism as though it is a religious dogma and an organisation) like it is akin to a religious movement. By now, you should know how much I detest evangelical or fundamentalist outlooks. People like Dawkins, Harris, etc, are evangelical. And frankly, they do more harm than good.

Harris, for example, did not do atheists a favour when he suggested that all Muslims and anyone who looks like they could be a Muslim be profiled by the authorities who may see them catching a plane. As such, Harris exclaimed that anyone who looks like they could be a Muslim should be pulled out by the TSA and searched, questioned and all that follows. From his blog:

We should profile Muslims, or anyone who looks like he or she could conceivably be Muslim, and we should be honest about it. And, again, I wouldn’t put someone who looks like me entirely outside the bull’s-eye (after all, what would Adam Gadahn look like if he cleaned himself up?) But there are people who do not stand a chance of being jihadists, and TSA screeners can know this at a glance.

Needless to say, a devout Muslim should be free to show up at the airport dressed like Osama bin Laden, and his wives should be free to wear burqas. But if their goal is simply to travel safely and efficiently, wouldn’t they, too, want a system that notices people like themselves? At a minimum, wouldn’t they want a system that anti-profiles—applying the minimum of attention to people who obviously pose no threat?


​

Alan Greenwald wrote a brilliant article about what is wrong with the 'movement' when he focused on Harris and his frankly offensive and bigoted views (it's so bad that even Hitchens had to offer a rebuke).

As Madeleine Bunting put it in discussing Harris and the new atheism movement and its popularity:

This is popular stuff - a plague on both your houses - on both sides of the Atlantic after a war on terror in which both sides have used their gods as justification for appalling brutality. But it tips over into something much more sinister in Harris's latest book. He suggests that Islamic states may be politically unreformable because so many Muslims are "utterly deranged by their religious faith". In a another passage Harris goes even further, and reaches a disturbing conclusion that "some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them". This sounds like exactly the kind of argument put forward by those who ran the Inquisition. As one New York commentator put it, we're familiar with religious intolerance, now we have to recognise irreligious intolerance.​

Does this clear things up for you?

Or do I need to draw you pictures of why I think the so called new atheism is evangelical and dangerous and how and why those who spout this kind of crap under the name of 'atheism' tarnish all atheists? I don't want my lack of belief in a God to be somehow connected with twats who advocate killing people for their religious beliefs. I leave this segment of the discussion with the words of Theodore Dalrymple:

This sloppiness and lack of intellectual scruple, with the assumption of certainty where there is none, combined with adolescent shrillness and intolerance, reach an apogee in Sam Harris’s book The End of Faith. It is not easy to do justice to the book’s nastiness; it makes Dawkins’s claim that religious education constitutes child abuse look sane and moderate.

Harris tells us, for example, that “we must find our way to a time when faith, without evidence, disgraces anyone who would claim it. Given the present state of the world, there appears to be no other future worth wanting.” I am glad that I am old enough that I shall not see the future of reason as laid down by Harris; but I am puzzled by the status of the compulsion in the first sentence that I have quoted. Is Harris writing of a historical inevitability? Of a categorical imperative? Or is he merely making a legislative proposal? This is who-will-rid-me-of-this-troublesome-priest language, ambiguous no doubt, but not open to a generous interpretation.

It becomes even more sinister when considered in conjunction with the following sentences, quite possibly the most disgraceful that I have read in a book by a man posing as a rationalist: “The link between belief and behavior raises the stakes considerably. Some propositions are so dangerous that it may be ethical to kill people for believing them. This may seem an extraordinary claim, but it merely enunciates an ordinary fact about the world in which we live.”

Let us leave aside the metaphysical problems that these three sentences raise. For Harris, the most important question about genocide would seem to be: “Who is genociding whom?” To adapt Dostoyevsky slightly, starting from universal reason, I arrive at universal madness.​

HAW! Let's see you dare to go back and check that one. My gods, that's priceless.

You're an idiot. Honestly, do you know nothing? THIS is priceless:

Yours is just cliché.

/Waits for the "you're a moderator, how dare you say that to me"..

 

[Gremmie]

Atheism is not a Utopian vision. We are not peddling paradise through the guise of reason. Science is not based on absolutes.

Why is it that nobody cringes when mockery is flung towards the abnormal practices of cults? The major religions have a huge influence on society and behavior, and they are continually reinforcing misconceptions. I’m not afraid to admit that I’m not only an atheist but also an anti-theist. Now, that it's illegal to burn and torture us to death, we can finally stand up for ourselves.

Where does this notion come from that religion is privileged, that it should be uncritically accepted, untouchable, and unchallenged? Are we to ignore or pretend that the conception of this so-called all-knowing god is only good?

Well, we must be doing something right because our numbers are growing. Let’s just hope that when atheists become the majority that they don't treat the pious in the same manor that the pious have treated them.

[video=youtube_share;GUI_ML1qkQE]http://youtu.be/GUI_ML1qkQE[/video]

Balerion, I'm going to be blunt; if you and yours had your way, we wouldn't have any (active) moderators left, our supermods would be banned, and I'm sure you'd find some reason to gripe about the admins should they peek in to do anything...

Kitt... I like ya dude, so don't take this the wrong way.
SF is "good old boy" not in the literal sense, in the political sense.

I took shit for being an LEO in a thread... We apparently all cover for each other, which is complete bullshit, and a big fuck you, to the two mods that definitely inferred and implied it.

Seems to me, if you are a poster, watch what you say... If you are a mod, the skies the limit.

It's bullshit. We need to fix this. We have mods that have become bullies, and demigods. Fuck that, and you know who you are...

I expect the "usual suspects" to go for my jugular in a minute or so... Bring it, couldn't give two shits.

We need new mods, this is ridiculous...

Kitt tries, I admire that... Fraggle, you know your stuff... Enmos, you don't post much, but, I like ya... Stryder, you're posts are mostly informative, and useful... The rest of you have agendas, and are bullies.

When I first came here, Gendaken was still a mod... What a twat. But, at least she was genuine.

I understand this site is not a democracy, but come on, mods vs.posters?

I expect a reasonable question from Kitt now... An insulting,abusive rant from Bells... Who will basically call me a fucktard... And, probably a ban from Tiassa... A guy I used to highly respect.

WTF happened here... I guess absolute power corrupts absolutely...

 

[Kittamaru]

Gremmie, I have seen you be a very reasonable guy, and I've come to respect you. I don't think we've gotten to the point of "mods vs posters" so much as some mods and some members have bad blood between em. As to who is at fault there... I would say it's an even 50/50 split. On that vein - the fact that you expect Bells to be abusive and Tiassa to ban you... that worries me. Is that really the view you have those two?

*sighs* I dunno... I've been doing what I can to try and step between a few members and mods to try and let things settle, especially after all the bullshit with Syne... lets face it, tensions were high already, and the Syne thing just made those tensions run way past the boiling point... but if mods and members alike aren't ready to let go of past grievances, there is shit all I can do... but lets face it- are we REALLY going to start holding grudges over the internet (or, perhaps I should say, are we so petty as to CONTINUE to do so?)

 

[Bells]

I expect a reasonable question from Kitt now... An insulting,abusive rant from Bells... Who will basically call me a fucktard... And, probably a ban from Tiassa... A guy I used to highly respect.

*Raises eyebrows*

Wait, what? I called you a fucktard? Can you please link this abusive rant where I basically called you a fucktard?

And you keep going on about being banned by Tiassa.. He hasn't even given you a warning, let alone a ban, has he? So I cannot imagine why you keep jumping and down about his banning you when you aren't even at risk of even being warned, let alone banned. It's as if you are begging to be banned to prove you right or something.

 

[spidergoat]

Yes some atheists are militant. But most religious people are militant.

But does anyone see a difference between a militant atheist like Dawkins (who admittedly talks a lot) and an Ayatollah who issues a fatwa (a death sentence) against someone who is critical of Islam and condones martyrdom for the greater glory of Allah or a fundamentalist OT adherent who condemns atheism as the door the Devil uses to corrupt the soul (whatever that means)?

I see a difference.

Yes, one uses their words, the other kills people.

 

[cluelusshusbund]

Kitt... I like ya dude...

Hay Gremmie... thanks for re-postin the Video Trooper posted... its a 48 minute page turner that i missed earlier :thumbsup:

It was so refreshin :bravo: after readin some of the "advice :itold: for atheists" in this thred... especialy from some of the "atheists" :bugeye: who i suspect have religious beliefs ther hiddin in the closet :spank:.!!!