Atheism Discussion 2.0 - Roundtable Discussion in Progress

It is not my intent to bash atheism, rather it is to discuss aspects of atheism that cannot be discussed here. Aspects such as comments from Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris for example, which are typically criticized because atheist actions cannot be questions for they do not follow some religion or code. Such reasoning ignores a much more basic reason for atheist action in it being motivated by their feelings about religion. To have a thread where that was allowed would alleviate many of the problems.

Except that their actions arent athiest actions. They are anti-thiest actions. That is what you dont get. And you just seem to keep on ignoreing this cause you dont like it when we repeatedly tell you this. You STILL do not get that the only thing that athiests have in common is a belief that there is no "God".

And thus it begins again.

Edit: Grammer.

Two questions. Simple answer, yes or no.

1. Is any questioning of atheism allowed?

2. Would a thread discussing antitheism be allowed?

You know what? This is absurd.

Moderators, true or false: if the tables were turned, if an atheist had gone into the "What is Christianity" thread and behaved there the way that nancyallen has behaved in this thread, they would have been warned and banned within less than a week. And if they had continued their streak of coming back and doing the same thing, by this time they would be on a six month ban, minimum.

Go back and read the last 50 pages before you answer.

If you answer true, then why are we going through this roundtable farce when this is really just an issue with a problem user?

And if you answer false -- well, you're lying if you answer false. I've been a mod, Quix has been a mod, KW has been a mod, Spike IS a mod. we know how it works. So why isn't it working that way?

Look, I respect you both as mods, and Lowie and I have had a couple of brief but cool conversations. I'm not trying to start an impeachment here. But it seems to me like there's some kind of preferential treatment going on here and it isn't right.

1. Is any questioning of atheism allowed?


To what end? What do you want to achieve by questioning atheism?

Edit: Some of these questions seem to have a "Do you still beat your wife?" kind of nature to them, so far as I've seen.

I think that very much answers my questions to be honest.

nancy - I think a thread discussing anti-theism is a wonderful idea as long as you are able to differentiate between atheism and anti-theism. I'm happy to assist in this regard.

Speaking from experience, if you're aware enough of those concerns, you're probably not the type to make those mistakes too often. Just be yourself and don't hesitate to take action. I think you'd agree that inaction is a choice in itself, and sometimes things can go adrift as a result. I've been the beneficiary of the benefit of the doubt from you, of course, and I thank you very much, but at the same time, I think a key marker for whether action is justified is when you've got people who normally never agree on something all chiming in more or less on the same key.

Absolutely, it would focus on those who oppose the right to religion, those who attack, bait, belittle and stalk those who are religious.

But Nancy, those people aren't here. We can't answer for those who you have a problem with. We can give our own experiences and thoughts, but sadly, you don't seem too interested in those.

It's an antitheist question, but what are your thoughts on the petition to have parents who teach their children arrested? What about the 'Imagine a world without God' campaign?

Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris for example, which has been stated as antitheist and not fit for atheist discussion. Shielding atheists and atheism from any sort of criticism. Stalking those with religious beliefs and attempting to discredit them.

Nancy, you seem to take the most extreme examples and anecdotes you can find and then post them here, wanting responses, unaware of how radical those examples are. In politics, I have no illusions as to how radical I can be with my views, and don't expect everyone to agree with me. I know I can be rigid at times (too often, I'm sure), and also radical as a liberal. But, I'm aware of these things. I don't think you're aware of how you're perceived, or why.

Stalking those with religious beliefs and attempting to discredit them.

Nancy, with all respect, you're the one posting in a thread about atheism, which is (naturally) frequented mostly by atheists.

nancy - I think you just have proceed as you would any Senate thread. First of all, what is the background to the so called "petition", what is the context? Provide a link so that other readers can see that it is not a quote made out of context or from a secondary extremist website etc. Then post your thoughts and invite others to do the same. If you have a particular opinion or view, then back it up with something.

I've never heard of the 'Imagine a world without God' campaign or of any 'petition' to have parents arrested so it is difficult to comment without more background material.

From the Senate Welcome Thread:

FAQs:

1) What guidelines should I follow when setting up a new thread?

Aside from checking the Rules & Regs and the topics list in the Archive thread, the best litmus test is, "how much discussion can this point make"? We never like threads which start with an article and people are asked to discuss the information contained within the article; we'd prefer you told us what you think too.

Also, try to avoid being too one-sided in an opening post. Whilst you may feel that way, an attempt at objectivity feels less like it's made your mind up for you and allows people to form their own conclusions. These conclusions form the basis of our longest running, most successful debates and so it's a tried-and-tested formula.

If you're still not sure, find a long running thread and read the opening post. If you can emulate it, you might have success with your topic.

If in doubt, either PM a mod or another user who seems to be active in the Senate.

Believe me I know just how hated I am, I know just how much effort is put into forcing me from the forums. I do think however if the most extreme religious examples are subject to question then atheist, or antitheist ones should be as well if you don't want to be intensely dishonest and unfair.

No, I'm sure you can see that you're disliked. But I don't think you understand why you're disliked, or least have a somewhat warped perspective on it. You're being increasingly pushed away because you are, in short, disruptive to discussion here. Instead of sincere, open questions, your tone tends to border on no better than hostile. This forces everyone to respond to you, or else discussion would quickly dissipate into nothing.

nancy - why don't you ask Mr44 and/or Lowie to help you establish a thread by submitting it to them for comments/edit/suggestions before you post it? They need to earn their keep after all.

The opening post and first few responses often sets the tone for the thread. After that it is in the lap of the gods (figuratively speaking of course!).

edit: ps - can someone please tell me how I use those lovely quote block/lines that everyone seems to have but me? Thanks.

Wonderful! Thank you.

I was going to say almost exactly this. Thank you KW.

Sorry I'm coming in late - or rather early for me.

I've been thinking the same thing for a while now.


Look, if people read the last 50 pages or so, it becomes clear that honest, non-confrontational questions get answered and answered rather fully - and in a non-confrontational way. Some of those types of questions nancy has posed have been great because they bring up points that we can all discuss.

However, the 'beating your wife' style of questioning is inappropriate, no matter who is asking them. It needs to stop.

If you look through the earlier posts you'll notice criticism of Dawkins, even by atheists. So this claim is completely unfounded.