Atheism Discussion 2.0 - Roundtable Discussion in Progress

Discussion in 'Archive: The Senate Floor' started by Fire_Ice_Death, Sep 17, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. nancyallen Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Nov 19, 2007
    star 4
    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.
  2. SWBob Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jun 19, 2003
    star 4
    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.
  3. nancyallen Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Nov 19, 2007
    star 4
    Two questions. Simple answer, yes or no.

    1. Is any questioning of atheism allowed?

    2. Would a thread discussing antitheism be allowed?
  4. DorkmanScott Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Mar 26, 2001
    star 6
    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.
  5. Lowbacca_1977 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jun 28, 2006
    star 6
    nancyallen, a large number of your posts have been accusatory, not inquisitive. A general rule is that for a discussion to be productive, intellectural honesty is key and asking questions in a manner to get answers that reinforce one's preconcived notions is not insightful for either party involved.

    For example, there is a marked difference between presenting a particular school of thought within atheism and then getting other atheists to share their thoughts on the subject, and assuming that atheists can answer for the motivations of other unaffiliated atheists.
    If you cite Dawkins and expect atheists here to justify it, you will get exactly the responce you have gotten. Which is that we can't, because we are not him, or in his particular school of thought. However, to present those quotes to find out how others feel about his statements on atheism can be much more productive.

    It would be similar to the distinction between asking a Christian to justify how Muslim terrorists use faith to defend terrorism, or asking a Christian for their view on using religion to justify actions against others based on how Muslim terrorists justify their actions through religion. This may be disregarded as nuance, but there is a key distinction here, and that distinction is the difference between trying to learn more about the views of others and trying to characterise the opinions of others to fit a preestablished world view.
  6. KnightWriter Administrator Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Nov 6, 2001
    star 8
    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.
  7. nancyallen Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Nov 19, 2007
    star 4
    I think that very much answers my questions to be honest.
  8. Lowbacca_1977 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jun 28, 2006
    star 6
    I'll own up on this. I've in large part taken too soft a stance on some things in its earlier stages, mainly as I was overly hesitant to move into disruptions that didn't fall more explicitly into the rules violations (things like language, threads lacking substance, direct flames) both from inexperience and from concern over perceived bias. The latter in particular has proven itself to be a foolish concern.
  9. LostOnHoth Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 15, 2000
    star 5
    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.
  10. KnightWriter Administrator Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Nov 6, 2001
    star 8
    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.
  11. nancyallen Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Nov 19, 2007
    star 4
    Absolutely, it would focus on those who oppose the right to religion, those who attack, bait, belittle and stalk those who are religious.
  12. KnightWriter Administrator Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Nov 6, 2001
    star 8
    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.
  13. Lowbacca_1977 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jun 28, 2006
    star 6
    I would almost speculate that it would work, depending on how its focus would be constructed, as an atheism subtopic, just as we've already looked at secular humanism and ancient Greek and Roman atheism. The key would be what it would be intended to actually discuss, and that it wouldn't be intended to just complain about them. There would need to be a clear idea of what would be discussed.
  14. nancyallen Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Nov 19, 2007
    star 4
    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.
  15. KnightWriter Administrator Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Nov 6, 2001
    star 8
    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.
  16. LostOnHoth Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 15, 2000
    star 5
    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.


  17. nancyallen Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Nov 19, 2007
    star 4
    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.
  18. Lowbacca_1977 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jun 28, 2006
    star 6
    A bit more fuller, but it would be a possible subtopic. A key thing I would stress, though, is that you would then need to not try to attach those views to atheists that haven't said they support them.

    You mean the same Richard Dawkins whose ideas were actually the topic and focus of this thread starting on May 2nd?
  19. KnightWriter Administrator Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Nov 6, 2001
    star 8
    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.
  20. LostOnHoth Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 15, 2000
    star 5
    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.
  21. Lowbacca_1977 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jun 28, 2006
    star 6
    You mean this ^^?
    Click on quote, next to post reply, and it'll show you the code you need.

    And yeah, thats part of the job description, making sure that topic starters have the neccessary substance
  22. LostOnHoth Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 15, 2000
    star 5
    Wonderful! Thank you. =D=
  23. DorkmanScott Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Mar 26, 2001
    star 6
    I was going to say almost exactly this. Thank you KW.
  24. dianethx Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Mar 1, 2002
    star 6
    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.
  25. king_alvarez Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    May 31, 2007
    star 3
    If you look through the earlier posts you'll notice criticism of Dawkins, even by atheists. So this claim is completely unfounded.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.