Atheism Discussion 2.0 - Roundtable Discussion in Progress

where did I say that they should have to explain themselves? The standard I spoke of for ALL religious threads (including this one) was that no one had to prove or defend their beliefs.

People are free to disagree or even criticize, but they need to keep it respectful both of others' beliefs (or lack thereof) and the people themselves.

Kimball Kinnison

 

DorkmanScott posted:

But if there's to be criticism of atheism, it has to be a criticism of ideas, not of actions. Because atheism, as has been explained -- again repeatedly -- is not a religion. It has no central doctrine and thus, unlike religion, one cannot point to a "passage" in a "holy book" as justification for why any particular action is taken. Atheism is ideas; the ideas can be criticized, but the actions of people who happen to be atheist are no more representative of atheism as a whole than the actions of people who happen to be vegetarian are of vegetarianism.

This is the crux of it. It has been repeated, ignored, repreated, ignored. repeated, ignored, ad nauseum. Until this simple fact is acknowledged and accepted then the thread wil continue to fall off the rails. Let's not talk about 'atheists' as a homogenous group.

It is clear to me that nancyallen wants to discuss specific examples of anti-theism. There is IMO an important distinction between an atheist and an anti-theist. Much of the frustration evident in this thread is a lack of understanding (willful or not is beside the point at this stage)of this distinction. For example, when Darwin Bedford is raised in the discussion, he is raised as being the poster boy for all atheists, as representing all that is wrong with atheism: the hatred, the intolerance towards religion etc etc.

The views of the atheists posting in this thread with regard to their active oppostion to religion were actually raised and answered in some detail in the thread. nancyallen actually asked a series of specific questions and those specific questions were answered rather comprehensively. Notwithstanding this clear disclosure, nancyallen continued with this anti-theist crusade as if we were all devout anti-theists with the words "Darwin Bedford" tattooed on our buttocks.

Now I realise this is a friendly "round table" but let's not try and re-write history. You really have to read the last 20-30 pages to get an understanding of why we are here.

 

What's clear to me is that she has no interest whatsoever in discussing them. She only wants to rail against them, regardless of anyone else's viewpoint or input. And that is inappropriate.

No, I think you really have to read that last 40-50 pages to really get that understanding, so you can see that every few pages the same thing started happening again. And again. And again. It would just start over as though the last few pages had never happened. And it's been going on for months.

You need to read all that to really understand how ***damn frustrating it's been, and become, and to notice that it's been a handful of posters doing it. Which still leads me to question if it's really the thread as a whole that's the problem.

 

I think this would be a really good way to go. I think it would be best to ignore the demands/insults/trolling of posters that are trying to derail the thread and have the thread move on without engagement in a battle of words. Questions of a legitimate nature would be welcome, of course!

I know I could do that. Perhaps if/when the thread gets started again, it could be one of the rules right up front. Just a suggestion.

It's been very frustrating and I've only just joined in the discussion for a few weeks. I can only imagine the frustration of months of this. I don't believe it's the thread as a whole that is the problem. But how to fix the problem remains the question.

 

Personally, one of my thoughts is to give a better initial guideline for the new thread, which should fix some of this. I think it will help to specify what's acceptable and what isn't, and help with rotating through topics to try to minimise getting bogged down in the same arguments.

Fire_Ice_Death's original post already had guidelines to try to prevent a situation like waht we've had, and seems to indicate that this has happened before, as well. So it'll be expounding a bit more on the directions he went. In which case, suggested other guidelines to include are always welcome.

 

Ok, cards on the table.

More than a year.
Of the exact same thing.
Which is why I started writing paragraphs of PMs to Mr44... And Lowie... And DorkmanScott... And just about every other person in this thread.

This thread can be a great repository for cracking your mind, yet it keeps getting dragged back to the Start position. And let´s be honest: it's being done by one poster. We're now joining in an anger management session for one poster only. I've said something similar before, which is probably why this poster started PM'ing Mr44, which is why he's saying that if he were to follow the request in that PM, he'd ban me.

I tried to get people to not post here, to let the thread sink. Didn't work.
I tried people to stop replying to Nancy. Didn't work.
Finally, I PM'ed Nancy - after the 'get your head blown off' comment, and found that she can be quite nice and reasonable!
But a mere month later we're back at square one.

The answer to the problem is this.
Nancyallen has to significantly change her tune, or stop posting here. If she won't, she needs to be made to stop posting here. As far as I can see, there are no other users whose behavior warrants all this.

And Nancy, this is in no way personal, it's all about the things (or should I say: thing) you post.

____________________________________________________________

Well! Lowie, that's your blank cheque for using your mod powers more often and more direct.

 

Something I would recommend that the mods do is go look up TrainingForUtopia and his antics in the Mormonism thread. He is a good example of how a "problem user" in this sort of thread needs to be handled.

Kimball Kinnison

 

Now that takes me back. Also, I note that Mr44 brought up the "detrimental influence" concept, and I think it definitely has some applicability here.

 

On personal comments I think it's best to just ignore them rather than allow yourself to be baited. On being upset over questions and criticism of atheism exactly what if any criticism of atheists and atheism will be tolerated? For that matter if atheists don't want discussion on them then would a thread for specific discussion on atheists and their actions resolve the problem?

 

Nancy, I asked you earlier what your motivations were for posting here. Your answer indicated to several people that your main point in posting here is to combat what you see as intolerance for religion. To make it plain, you're not going to achieve what you're looking for here. Most atheists/agnostics here will continue to post as they have, and (unless there's mocking or personal attacks going on) there's nothing particularly wrong with what anyone's been posting. To make it even plainer, you are the focal point of this thread. Everything basically revolves around you, for better or worse. That's what I'd say if I were moderating here, and that's my old moderator perspective talking. Realistically, this discussion cannot continue coherently if you and basically you alone are continually seeking something you cannot receive.

 

I don't have a problem with discussing individual atheists in this thread, although you run into the problem where people who are not necessarily familiar with the atheist in question will feel left out of the equation. But I'd be happy to talk about the approach of, say, Richard Dawkins, and what we agree or disagree with in his approach.

I DO have a problem with making blanket generalizations about all atheists everywhere at all times ever based on the actions of a select few. That is inappropriate and should neither get its own thread nor be permitted in this one, because it sounds like it's just a "basher sanctuary" to me.

Discussing the actions of a specific atheist is, I think, acceptable. Insisting that they are the actions or desires of all atheists is not. And if anyone can't see the distinction, that person should not be permitted to post in this thread.

 

Would the atheists here be happier if they had this thread as a 'basher sanctuary' and it was a theist no go zone?

 

Possibly, but I don't know that every atheist here would want that. I think, though, that the average atheist/agnostic here would prefer not to be on the defensive on a regular basis.

 

I honestly believe that any criticism of atheism at all is not tolerated here. By the same token I am given to understand this is the only place atheism can be discussed, so where can theists go?

 

It depends on what your idea of "criticism" is. Honestly discussing Dawkins or any other atheist would probably be welcome if the tone was of sincere questioning, not a seeding type of question that just looks for an answer to hit someone on.

Remember, atheists (and agnostics to some extent) are a distinct minority in the United States and in other parts of the world. It can be a lonely existence for atheists, particularly if you're young.

 

You see nancy, we dont have any problem with thiest posting in the thread. We just have a problem with mainly one thiest who posts in this thread. And as the others have stated it is you due to how you post.

You repeatedly ask the same questions over and over and over and over and over again. Even after your questions have been answered over and over and over and over and over again.

You repeatedly try to push your belief that all people who follow athiesm have a set moral guidline that we all follow. We have refuted your misguided beliefs multiple times, even linking, quoting, and mentioning non biased sites that have the same information that we have been telling you.

Yet after all of this you refuse to listen, see, read, pay attention to, or anything of the like. We cant really do anything else.

And for some reason you have the feeling that because other people on completely diffrent sites feel one way about religion, then all people must have the same hatred of religion. Just because we shoot down all of you repeatative comments, does not mean we are intollerable, it just means you need to get some better arguments. Or a least get some new ones if you cant get any better ones.

 

Would something like this be permissible?

http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/17916.htm

What is needed is a forum where theists feel they can go and discuss atheism. A place where they can reason out their fears of having their children taken away so they won't be taught religious beliefs, that there won't be any persecution of what they believe, perhaps assurance that atheism isn't as bad as they fear. As far as fairness goes it would be exactly as fair as atheists are.

 

"Christians - The Most Persecuted People Group on Earth"

Sorry, I can't get past the title without laughing my head off.

Christians are easily the most privileged, most powerful, and most widely-spread "people group" on Earth. Anyone who thinks otherwise -- especially those living in the US -- is living in some kind of delusional persecution fantasy.

I'll grant you that small groups of Christians are persecuted in some parts of the world. But by and large? They're running the show.

You keep bringing up "assurance". Why do you think the posters here need to babysit or comfort you.

At any rate, you'd get a better response if you simply came in asking "Do any of you agree with the idea that religious indoctrination is child abuse, or that children should be taken from their parents if their parents teach them religious beliefs?" And then when everyone says "no", you accept that and move on.

Instead, what you're doing is "YOU ATHEISTS ARE ALL THE SAME! YOU WANT TO TAKE OUR BABIES! WELL I AM HERE TO STOP YOU!!" And I'm sick of it, and so are the rest of us.

 

Would something like this be permissible?


No, but only because most of us here find the idea that Christians (a denomination that collectively numbers well over a billion followers in one form or another) to be persecuted to be ludicrous. Certainly there are small groups of Christians who are persecuted in various areas, but not generally because they're Christian. It usually happens in areas, like China, where other religions have taken a hit as well and must conform or go underground.

What is needed is a forum where theists feel they can go and discuss atheism.

What you seem to want is more a place to discuss your perception of atheism, a perception that doesn't jive with most of the rest of us here, or even most moderate Christians, I suspect.

 

What is that article trying to show?

If it was trying to show athiests percecuting christians, then i think you need a new argument. All but one maybe two of the examples were other religions percecuting Christians.

 

For me the answer is simple, allow theists a place to discuss atheism and atheists can bash religion all they like here.

 

There have been several theists that have posted in here without there being any need to moderate their behavior. It is a matter of how one questions far more than that one questions. And some of the issues, such as generalisations are matters that have been explained before and are elements of your posting that you have neglected to alter to fit within the rules of the forum. The warnings you have received have been based on conduct, and not content.

Further, the matter is that generalisations are not going to be considered acceptable anywhere. Its not a matter of creating rules such as the Christianity and Mormonism threads where some bounds of questions are kept out of bounds, but that generalisations against any group are going to be carefully watched. You have commented about trying to 'reason out' the issues of children being taken away from religious parents, persecution from atheism, and if atheism is bad, but from the conduct you have had thus far, you have not handled that with reason thus far, and you have tried to attribute the elements of atheism you 'fear' to people that don't agree with those views in order, it seems, to reinforce how you want to view atheism to justify your 'fear' of them.

 

For me the answer is simple, nancy: you take your obsessive crusade elsewhere, and let the rational folk have rational conversations.

Alternatively, you could come in, actually read and understand what's going on, and ask us what we believe, instead of telling us. And then when we tell you, accept that we're being honest about those beliefs.

Those are the two options as I see it. Either be productive, or go away.

 

Many thiests have came here and brought things up that have made very productive disscusion. it is only you that feels that any discusion that doesnt make religion look good is bashing.

 

A thread with the sole intent of bashing religion theists is just as inappropriate as the thread to bash atheism and atheists that you're proposing.