I see posts defining atheists as a group. Is the concept of atheists as a group valid?

[Starboard Tack]

This discussion thread was locked as off-topic by longship (a host of the Religion group).

Personally, I think not. Groups are, by definition, formed by people who share common interests, ideas or beliefs. I don't see how atheists fall into that category. They are individuals who share only a lack of belief in deities. Does the absence of something provide enough cohesion to identify as a group, let alone a movement? Do we have an apolitical movement, or an asexual movement? Hardly!

The A&A group on DU is obviously not for all atheists, or agnostics, yet it is set up as a "safe haven". Maybe the original intent was for it to be a home for both atheists and agnostics, in general, but in reality, it is dominated by antitheists, who are a highly vocal minority of atheists. These same individuals also try to dominate the Religion Group with their vicious personal attacks on anyone who dares to promote religious tolerance.

I propose they rename their group to reflect what it truly is, maybe the "Antitheist Group" or "New Atheists" and 2 new groups be created, one for Atheists and one for Agnostics, because they are not the same.

My point is that there is no comfortable place on DU for the majority of non-believers. Those of us who have no interest in mocking people for their faith, or attacking fellow DUers for their beliefs or their tolerance of beliefs. A place for reasonable people who don't happen to believe in a deity. Is that too much to ask for?

[elleng]

1. No, in my opinion.

and I don't feel a need for a 'group.' I'm independent in thought and belief, always have been, and circulate with everyone.

[Starboard Tack]

15. I don't feel the need for a group either.

Yet we already have a group, which purports to be for atheists and agnostics, but it isn't. That is my point. Rename that group for what it is, but some of us find it offensive, in that it gives all atheists a bad rap. Atheists are as decent as anyone else. We are not haters and mockers.

[hrmjustin]

3. Sorry I meant to post that threzd in the ny room. Oops.

[bravenak]

4. I like the A&A group the way it is.

I haven't met and anti theists that i know of back there. I have seen some atheists in the religion group that sound like believers, but all the atheists are atheists as far as i can see. And one cool satanists.

Some atheists seem to spend more time protecting the feelings of believers than discussing atheists issues. And some people don't know what agnostic means (knowlege) or atheist (belief) even mean. I am an agnostic atheist. Most agnostics i have met are atheist. The anti theists thing, i have no idea what you are talking about. Sounds like a complaint that a religious person woukd make about atheists.

[AtheistCrusader]

5. "The A&A group on DU is obviously not for all atheists, or agnostics, yet it is set up as a "safe""

You're right. It's also not for atheists or agnostics who are also disruptors.

The recent individuals moderated out of the group (of which the hosts were extremely transparent about the cause and left the posts up for a while to be seen by all) weren't simply promoting religious tolerance. (Nor is what goes on in Religion any relevance to the membership of A&A.)


"My point is that there is no comfortable place on DU for the majority of non-believers"

Point them out. Did you seriously just use the word 'majority' there?

[Starboard Tack]

140. I take exception to your use of the word "disruptor" in this context

If you'd care to cite a specific example of where I, or anyone else was disruptive, other than challenging the intolerant attitude prevalent among the self appointed leaders of that group, I'll be happy to discuss it with you. Frankly, I don't give a damn bout the group, apart from the fact that it purports to represent atheists and purports to be a safe haven for atheists, when it is neither. Instead, it has become a safe haven for intolerant antitheists and bullies, who have manipulated the DU system to their own ends. There needs to be a place where easonable folk can have reasonable discussions.

[AtheistCrusader]

141. There are people that aren't even atheists or agnostics in that forum.

We have a resident luciferian Satanist and that poster is quite welcome.

[Warren Stupidity]

6. your point is that you wish to stir shit up, and you are still pissed at being banned

for your misbehavior in the atheist and agnostic group.

By the way, this op has nothing at all to do with religion. Why are you posting it in this forum? Please take it to your theist safe haven.

[hrmjustin]

9. Why is it not appropriate in this forum?

[rug]

49. By that measure, atheism has nothing at all to do with religion.

But then it is a meaningless concept without religion.

As it is, it has a hell of a lot more to do with the SoP than your predictable personal attack.

[edhopper]

7. Sounds like

A hurt feelings thingie.
Most atheist I know can be guite disdainful aboutbreligion. I like that there is a forum where speaking about the insanity of some religions and berliesd doesn't target you as a bigot.

And I reject your initial premiss I don't call it a group, I call it the A&A forum. A place for A & As to talk with each other.

[Starboard Tack]

11. Well, it is a Group, by DU definition

You can call it a forum, but it is a group where the "insanity of religion" is encouraged. I have no problem with you having that group, but it needs to be renamed, because it excludes the non believers who don't approve or wish to indulge in such puerile behavior. It is a group run/hosted by antitheists.

[edhopper]

13. I doubt the posters there see it that way

Nice to see you learned something from being banned.
The fault dear Brutus.....

[kdmorris]

96. How about we determine who hosts our group

and what is being discussed there? You are more than able to create your own group to host for whatever you want. All you need is 10 people who think that YOUR methods are best in this situation. Happens every day. Start here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1259

Considering your behavior there when laconicsax was PPR'd, I'll take these "anti-theists" any day.

[Starboard Tack]

129. I agree. Keep your own antitheist hosts

And if you are happy with them, then change the name of the group accordingly. That's all I'm suggesting. That way, atheists and agnostics can have their own groups, without being associated with antitheists, if they so choose.

[kdmorris]

130. You (we) can't change the name of a group once formed

But you can name your own group something that reflects the way you feel about it. Like the History of Feminism being created instead of the Feminists group being renamed.

I'm sure you can come up with something mature and non-puerile so that everyone knows that you are the good and righteous group and we are a bunch of jerks.

[Starboard Tack]

142. If that's what you think then why do you have a problem renaming your group appropriately

I will support your suggestion of creating a new group called something like Progressive Atheists or Inclusive Atheists and your suggestion of your group being renamed New Atheists, Antitheists or Intolerant Atheists. I really think calling you a "bunch of jerks" is way over the top. Most of you are pretty cool. I read your posts regularly. Only a handful give the group a bad name, which would not happen if the group were renamed to reflect what it really stands for. Anyhow, that's for y'all to decide.

I trust that you agree, a group's name should reflect what it stands for. Or is that unreasonable?

[kdmorris]

146. I'll repeat

WE CANNOT CHANGE THE NAME OF THE GROUP. THE ADMINS WILL NOT CHANGE THE NAME OF OUR GROUP.

I did not say I had a problem with it one way or another, but it's not going to happen. And it's especially not going to be changed to call it whatever your negative view of us is. I don't get to dictate the names of the groups I disagree with and neither do you.

[Starboard Tack]

150. Sorry, I wasn't aware that the admins won't change the name of a group.

It isn't about me having a negative view of you or the members of the group. It's about the name of the group, or any group reflecting the membership. It's about a group purporting to be a safe haven for atheists and agnostics, shunning some of those very same people because they dare to question and challenge the motives of the groups leaders. What kind of safe haven is that?
What do you suggest? Do you think it is right for this group to keep its name? Maybe, the best solution would be to get rid of the group and create new groups that truly reflect what the members stand for and how they identify. I don't think it is fair that a handful of intolerant antitheists, who claim to speak for atheists, in general, give the entire group a bad name.

[kdmorris]

154. LOL you are a barrel of laughs

Just keep beating that horse.

I suggest that if you have a problem with it... create your own group, call it whatever you want and leave us alone. It's really that simple. You weren't shunned for daring to question... you were blocking from posting in the group because of your bad behavior in the group. But you've conveniently left out that part, eh? It wasn't the hosts that did it... as far as I know, most of us supported blocking you from the group including me. Because of your BEHAVIOR, not your religious views or lack thereof. I was actually fairly astounded at how much they let you get away with before asking us if we wanted you banned.

[cleanhippie]

157. Bwahahahahahahahahaha!

pure. comedy. gold.

[Kali]

158. I don't participate in any of the religion groups very often.

usually only if I get called to a jury or something catches my eye on the latest page. in this case I got here via the hosts forum and discussion of this thread.

as an outsider reading this thread, it seems pretty clear to me you are whining about getting blocked from a group and now you want to rename/label it in some slyly negative way all in the guise of having a "reasonable conversation"

the fact of the matter is if there are so many sharing your point of view that feel unwelcome in the group in question, you and they should start a new group and not be concerned in anyway whatsoever about the group you got tossed from.

this OP is a barely disguised, whining, meta thread.

[rug]

159. Meta ia allowed and often posted in this Group.

[Starboard Tack]

161. Well Kali, I can see how that may appear to you, as someone who doesn't participate here

However, I doubt you would like it if a group of extremists claimed to represent you. AQ and the Taliban and ISIS all claim to represent the Muslim world, yet they constitute a fraction of a percent of that world. If you spent a little more time in the Religion group, I'm sure your take would be a little more nuanced. But thanks for the tip on this being discussed in the hosts forum. I'll have to check it out. Obviously, there is some whining going on. Something I don't do btw,

[genwah]

8. You want a group, " mocking people for their faith, or attacking fellow DUers for their beliefs or

their tolerance of beliefs." Really?

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/5xvILvxYbFA" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

P.S. Some folks aren't joiners. Is there an anarchist's group? A misanthropes group? Anthropophobia Group?

[A HERETIC I AM]

87. Did you mean for your YouTube link to look like this, perhaps?

[genwah]

105. Yes, thank you. I don't know why that didn't work. I'm still trying to post pics here,

but DU's machinations are not high on my list of priorities right now.

[A HERETIC I AM]

107. Easiest way for YouTube links;

Just copy and past the URL in your address bar when the video is open in YouTube, MINUS the "HTTPS://" part. (It's superfluous)

[genwah]

108. Thank you. Not to impose further, but if I may ask, how do pictures get posted?

[A HERETIC I AM]

109. Easy!

You basically do the same thing as with a video, as long as it ends with a ".jpg" tag or similar ('bmp', 'gif' and others will work too)

Just copy and paste the entire URL as long as it ENDS with the .jpg tag.

If you're on a Windows computer you can left click on any picture and select "View Image Info". That will open another window in which the url of the pic will appear. Copy and paste it to the body of your thread post an that's it. I always click "Preview" on a DU post when I'm putting a vid or pic in to make sure it appears the way I want.



Does that help?

[abakan]

111. Oh No I Want More...Link please? nt

[A HERETIC I AM]

112. .....

Click the YouTube logo at the bottom right of the video.

[abakan]

117. Oh No...

It was genuine...I forget about YouTube. Thanks for the video I was totally engaged...

[Igel]

10. Groups can be identified all sorts of ways.

If you're in the right (or wrong) setting, you can be defined as a group by outsiders. "People of the Book"--Jews and Xians--are not exactly a homogeneous category. And unbelievers get lumped together for treatment, Taoists and Buddhists and Hindus. Good luck with a positive trait that they have in common.

"Felons" are a group. They're a hodgepodge.

Yugoslavs were a group. So were Iraqis. As soon as the strongman that kept that patchwork of ethnicities that resulted from very old migrations and Ottoman-Empire repopulations and ethnic cleansings was gone, what many felt to be "groups" broke up. In some ways what they had in common was antipathy towards something. That's enough.

Such groups aren't remarkably stable. I appreciate that a lot of atheists (I haven't seen numbers, so I'll leave that vague) no more want to mock believers than believers take pains to mock unbelievers (at least to their faces, let's leave it in vague apodictic comments made by speakers to groups).

Group allegiance and boundaries are interesting. They're also flexible and can evaporate almost as quickly as they come about. And nobody's in just one group. We're all in many.

[hrmjustin]

12. I would support a second AA group.

If AA doesn't speak for all atheists and agnostics then I say a new room should be started.

[edhopper]

14. You mean one where any one

Can discuss atheism and agnostism?
Hmmm where would we find such a forum?

[hrmjustin]

17. I think the OP means a place were he and other Athiests will feel comfortable.

It is not for me.

[Warren Stupidity]

25. no the op means a place where he isn't banned.

this has nothing to do with other atheists. So far the only other person aiding this flamebait is you.

[hrmjustin]

27. My support of a group is not going to make or break a group.

I am not important here.

[Warren Stupidity]

31. your rallying behind this nonsense belies your cries for "can't we all just get along".

you are as partisan and divisive as anyone else, you just like to cloak it in interfaithy ecumenicalism.

[hrmjustin]

38. Warren when did I ever say I wasn't a partisan?

I am a proud believer. I am not nuetral here at all nor do I claim to be.

What I do have is sympathy what Atheists have to go through in real life in this nation and world.

So sorry to burst anyones view of me but I am not neutral here nor did I ever claim to be. What I am for is a place that we can discuss beliefs in a room where we behave.

Thus I post ops in interfaith and not here unless it is a holiday.

[Warren Stupidity]

40. Seriously? No recollection? No whining about the horrid behavior of those awful atheists?

Selective recall perhaps?

[hrmjustin]

46. I don't get your logic. if you see me going after athiest based on tone, would that not say I am not

neutral Warren?

[rug]

50. No he doesn't. Try reading words instead of imagining them.

Maybe the original intent was for it to be a home for both atheists and agnostics, in general, but in reality, it is dominated by antitheists, who are a highly vocal minority of atheists. These same individuals also try to dominate the Religion Group with their vicious personal attacks on anyone who dares to promote religious tolerance.

In fact, you just demonstrated his point. Once again.

[Starboard Tack]

18. There isn't one. Only a safe haven "group"

Which excludes anyone who questions its tolerance of believers. Those who challenge and question are labeled "disruptors" and exiled, unless they toe the line. I don't want a "safe haven". I would like to see place where frank discussions can take place.

[edhopper]

21. And why doesn't this forum

Meet your needs?

[Starboard Tack]

143. This group is about religion

It is a free for all, where very little of substance gets discussed due to the animosity which prevails between a handful of fundamentalist antitheists and everyone else. This group has become a joke, thanks to these disruptors who cannot tolerate any consideration of working together with people of faith to further a liberal, progressive agenda. I am seeking a solution to this. Maybe I'm wrong in taking this tack, but I thought it worth throwing out there to see what other members think.

Obviously, there exists a core group who will ridicule my suggestion and attack me personally, but this isn't about me. It's about Democrats, specially liberal/progresive Democrats working together, without religious prejudice, to defeat RW policies, especially those policies that emanate from the Xian right.

[AtheistCrusader]

35. "Which excludes anyone who questions its tolerance of believers."

Untrue.

[Warren Stupidity]

16. I would support a second interfaith group, one for the majority of believers

who can't stand or get along with the horrible people who post in the interfaith group.

Well really I wouldn't support that, because such a proposal would be a deliberate shit stirring crap-fest.

You might reconsider your support which, by the way, as your are no sort of atheist or agnostic, would be about as relevant as my supporting a proposal from another man to create a new feminist group.

[hrmjustin]

20. The fact is you can support the creation of groups that you don't post in.

Posters who don't post in interfaith supported its creation.

Perhaps you should reconsider what you just posted sir!

[A HERETIC I AM]

113. Is it possible.....

that the reason the Interfaith group gets so little traffic is because it is entirely redundant?

[hrmjustin]

114. Well several AA room members post in there.

Interfaith has been getting more traffic lwtely so no I can not agree.

[A HERETIC I AM]

115. Here's a way to see who the dominant poster of OP's is in any group or forum;

Click on "Author" at the top of any group thread listing page. That will sort the active threads by Op author.

In the Interfaith group, your name covers 3 and a half pages.

[hrmjustin]

116. Thats nothing, try this room.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1068

[AtheistCrusader]

34. DAMNIT

I just posted that analogy. DAMN YOU SIR.

[AtheistCrusader]

33. Would you suggest creating a new 'interfaith' group if I come into the Interfaith room, take a huge

steaming dump on the floor, get banned from it, and then come back here to Religion to whine about my ban?

Because that would be awful nice/gracious of you, to enable me making disruptive posts everywhere.

[hrmjustin]

45. First off you would not do that.

Second you can propose whatever you want and if there was support for it I would not object and support it.

[okasha]

63. If you got banned from Interfaith

and ran true to form, you'd dash straight back to AA and brag about it. Then you'd come into the Religion group and proclaim that you were innocent as a newborn babe and Interfaith folk were lying when they said atheists who respect the SoP are welcome.

We all know the drill now.

[AtheistCrusader]

119. I might comment in AA if it was a BS ban.

If I deserved it, no. Hence my not posting in interfaith. Not territory open to me.

My thread about the Urban Dictionary kerfuffle is meant to amuse, since I clearly worded my post so badly a jury instantly nuked it with confidence. It was my fault for not elaborating.

[okasha]

120. Just letting you know what the established protocol is.

[AtheistCrusader]

121. I see. It sounded like an accusation.

And a template I have seen before, myself...

[Warren Stupidity]

22. apparantly they don't communicate, so apologize right now!

[rug]

55. Why don't you just explain why Team Bayer™ is anything but a personal attack?

[okasha]

68. Have to disagree with you, rug

It's also a figment of the poster's imagination. You know, one of those delusiony, cognitive dissonancy things.

[rug]

71. That's even worse, attacking imaginary things.

Must be an exorcist.

[okasha]

72. No windmill is safe.

[longship]

95. I hate to tread into this, but I am with rug on this. Personal attack. nt

[cleanhippie]

62. LOL! +1

[libodem]

23. Militants

Are unreasonable no matter what group. They run off the moderates. I'm not religious. I'm not stone cold rational and logical like my dad was. I am attracted to that thinking though and I admire it.

I'm a nut I think. I'm curious about all things spiritual and philosophical and psychological and scientific. I'm not a very adequate atheist either.

I might be a secular humanist. I don't think any of the other feminists care much for my 'bitch stance', so they have judged me 'not one of them'.

Yep, I'm a humanist this week.

[edhopper]

24. If the concept of atheist as a Group isn't valid.

Why do you call for a new atheist Group?

Or is the reason for this post just to rag on atheist in the A&A Forum, where you aren't allowed.

[Warren Stupidity]

26. a better question is why this post is allowed in the religion group.

[edhopper]

28. Because

Atheist aren't as quick to alert here as some others.

[hrmjustin]

30. That is not always true. I get alerts in the mail from people all the time showing me failed alerts.

[AtheistCrusader]

36. And that proves what?

Not a damn thing, because it doesn't show the alerter's name.

Some people in the past (until they got banned for it) alerted on their own posts with shitty cause explanations to insulate the post against a credible jury consideration.

Not beyond reason to think some people might be doing it in groups now, since the software no longer allows it.

[hrmjustin]

44. It proves they do alert.

I don't know who alerts more but both sides alerts enough.

[AtheistCrusader]

48. It proves SOMEONE alerted.

Not 'they'.

[hrmjustin]

51. Whatever.

[Warren Stupidity]

37. fascinating. Please do provide these jury results.

[hrmjustin]

41. I delete them. I don't keep stuff because being on mirt I get 10 to 30 pms a day.

Sorry, and if you don't believe me I can't help you.

[Warren Stupidity]

43. how convenient.

[hrmjustin]

47. Sorry but I delete them.

I don't keep pms.

[Warren Stupidity]

66. and of course belief without evidence is fine with you

with those unafflicted by that problem, evidence is sort of required.

[hrmjustin]

139. I just got this.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=140344

[rug]

59. Is there something inherent in atheism that makes atheists not as quick to alert?

Or are you talking about individual posters?

[edhopper]

76. Individual posters

But it was a quick guip of a reply and I might be talking out of my ass since I don't alert and don't get alerted on.

[Starboard Tack]

151. How the heck do you know that?

I seriously doubt the veracity of your claim. I get alerted on constantly, and I'm pretty sure those alerts are coming from the same antitheists who call me an apologoist or religion and call my atheism into question because I espouse tolerance.

[rug]

54. It would be a good place for people who don't believe in assholery.

Although, with evidence, the opinion may change.

[edhopper]

74. So you would stay away from that group

As well.

[rug]

75. For other reasons. I would not be interested in discussing with others why I don't collect stamps.

[edhopper]

77. As well as

Not minding assholery?

[rug]

78. No, the SoP would be nonbelief in assholery.

I see too much evidence to the contrary to buy into that fairy tale.

[edhopper]

82. Evidence

Perhaps in the mirror?

[rug]

88. Sometimes

I like to see it when one of them sneaks up on me.

[edhopper]

91. More imaginary friends for you I guess

When a much more rational explanation is at hand.

[rug]

93. I have yet to see an inanimate object act like an asshole.

The more prevalent observation is of animate humans.

But, feel free to ascribe human traits to objects. I won't call you deluded.

[edhopper]

94. I said you ascribe assholery

To imaginary people you see in the mirror, rather than the more obvious source.
Nothing about inanamite objects.

[rug]

97. You said:

82. Evidence

Perhaps in the mirror?

Wait, was that a veiled insult?

[edhopper]

99. I don't think it was veiled at all

Anyway enough of this folderol.
I'll give you the last word.

[MellowDem]

127. Maybe if you were treated like shit for not collecting stamps...

Or stamp collectors were given massive power and privilege. Well, hypothetically speaking, I would care then.

[rug]

149. Have you been treated like shit?

[Tikki]

29. I don't know...It's like saying.."Why go to church" if you are an Atheist!!

Same reason many others go to churches.

Define all churches...


Tikki

[Trajan]

32. I actually lean towards anti-theism

So I rarely post anymore ...

I believe it is a-ok to be anti-theist ... nobody should have the ability to stifle anti-religious criticism ...

Is there a safe haven for anti-theistic commentary?

Didn't think so ...

[Warren Stupidity]

42. you are welcome in the A&A group.

[Warren Stupidity]

67. and the religion group as well.

[F4lconF16]

85. Yup, I am the same way, though

my reasons for rarely posting are different, I think. There's nothing wrong with being anti-theist, and it's nice to hear from those who share my views. What Warren said, the A&A group would welcome your commentary, I am sure.

[Heddi]

39. Oh NOW I get it

This is your first week's project for your "Ironic Writing For Beginners" class, right? Right...?

[progressoid]

52. Like an Apathetic Atheist Group.

[Heddi]

53. They can call it the Eh-theist group. The Meh-theist group

eh.

[progressoid]

57. Meh-theist!

I'm going to a family reunion this weekend. Quite a mixed bag will be there. I think I may have to use that! Meh-theist!

[Heddi]

58. Meh-theist. When you just don't believe that you give a damn

[Warren Stupidity]

65. would their leader be a mehtheist-head?

[progressoid]

101. And would anyone show up for the meetings?

[MellowDem]

124. Which makes you wonder why they would want a group if they're so apathetic about it?

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

56. Only those who actually go out of their way to join 'atheist' groups.

Unless you're talking about some sort of Venn Diagram sort of 'group' meaning 'the set of all people who fail to consciously believe in the supernatural'.

(There could be an asexual movement out there, btw - I believe 'asexual' has a very specific meaning in gender studies, and doesn't merely refer to anyone who abstains from sex, either voluntarily or involuntarily, but specifically refers to those individuals who naturally have no desire for or interest in any sort of sexual contact.)

I guess I'm not in the 'majority of non-believers', because, as an atheist, I've never found the religion group to be an 'uncomfortable' place.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

60. "Highly vocal minority of atheists"?

The religious are very touchy about the slightest criticism of their beliefs.

Atheists generally believe in running their lives by proven facts, not faith. Criticism of irrationality (as in myths) is shamed. As in "You have no right to question my beliefs."

I could have faith that the moon will start orbiting the earth backwards, from west to east, and that the earth would orbit the Sun backwards, and rotate backwards, from West to East, and believe with all my might, but it won't happen, for example.

[muriel_volestrangler]

61. "Those of us who have no interest in mocking people for their faith, or attacking fellow DUers ...

... for their beliefs or their tolerance of beliefs."

'Us'? 'Us'?



I refer you to the earlier list of the number of times you've been hidden in this group, and the A&A group, for mocking people and attacking fellow DUers. It's your principal interest in this group. You have no interest in a "comfortable place for non-believers". You attack them. You do not "promote religious tolerance"; you whine about your attacks getting hidden by juries, and call those juries "intolerant".

[BootinUp]

64. Radicals on DU? You kid...

[Warpy]

69. Well, isn't this special.

Another Christian trying to tell people he thinks he's supposed to hate how they're supposed to think.

No thanks, buddy.

[Warren Stupidity]

80. you're about to get slapped with the extra special outraged "BUT IM AN ATHEIST" card.

it's a family specialty.

[hrmjustin]

81. What is yours?

[Warren Stupidity]

83. honesty, even when it has unfortunate consequences.

you should consider the friends you keep here Justin.

[hrmjustin]

84. That is rich coming from you Warren.

[Warren Stupidity]

86. are you saying I'm dishonest Justin?

Haven't you been quite upset at claims of dishonesty?

[hrmjustin]

89. I am saying judge your friends before you judge mine.

I have a question for you. Do you believe the op is being dishonest about his beliefs.


And no I am not saying your a liar.

[Arugula Latte]

70. Aww, your little "I'm an atheist, BUT" schtick just didn't cut it in A&A, huh?

Now I haz a sad.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

73. If you're not interested in mocking

Why do you mock Mormons? Or is this another of the convenient double standards you want applied to yourself (and only yourself)?

You couldn't follow the rules, so were blocked from the A&A group, and posts like this just reaffirm our decision. You make DU suck.

[cleanhippie]

92. "You make DU suck."

Nailed it.

[orpupilofnature57]

79. Don't tell Bill Maher or my wife that .

[intaglio]

90. So you are saying that atheists and agnostics do not share

common interests or ideas? Please note your incomplete definition of a group only has belief as an option not a requirement of being in a group. Unfortunately for your rather simplistic ideas both atheists and agnostics share a deep skepticism (an idea) about the actual existence of any deity, although there is a spectrum of acceptance of the possibility, and both ends of the spectrum share an interest in identifying the fraudulent claims of faith from the actual reality of the world.

You also claim that "the majority" of non-believers do not have a place to post, free from criticism. Firstly, how did you arrive the idea that persons who feel excluded are a majority? have you conducted some sort of poll? Next well, sorry to upset you, but a group dedicated to mutual backslapping is neither interesting nor useful, if you show up with a weak idea it will be criticised. Oh, and if you think the A&A group is bad you should check out the "History of Feminism" group.

The safe haven, you are aware of the deep prejudices and the falsehoods disseminated about atheists/agnostics? If not you should be. I will again post the link to the Financial Times article on this subject Atheism in America.

Regarding "vicious personal attacks" could you please identify these? I have seen none but I have seen false claims about faith dissected for the fraud that those claims are; there is also a tendency to highlight the cafeteria Christianity that cherrypicks the Bible for only the parts that please the poster showing how this is just self deception.

Regarding attempts to dominate - I suggest you start to look at who the majority posters in Religion and A&A are

[Act_of_Reparation]

98. This would be the opportune time for those concerned with cooperation to step in and say something.

Any minute now...

[Warren Stupidity]

102. one has - and has proudly stepped up to support this shit stirring bullshit.

[hrmjustin]

104. He has the right to propose it.

[Act_of_Reparation]

132. Your defense of his proposition is that it wasn't illegal to have posed it?

Interesting.

[longship]

110. It has been tried here before.

But there's a faction here that likes to throw chairs.

Some defend. Some do not. Some ignore.

I rather like the discussions between believers and non-believers when they are respectful. I have had many here. Apparently some see that as a personal affront and respond in kind. How they expect to accomplish anything by such (so-called) tact, I do not know.

One wonders.

[mr blur]

131. Oh, just stop your tiresome disingenuous twaddle.

Really, you don't fool anyone, except perhaps yourself.

[longship]

133. I rest my case. nt

[mr blur]

155. If only... nt

[Act_of_Reparation]

136. I was born once, but not yesterday.

There is a faction here, one that is obsessed with controlling "tone". They are terribly concerned that the attitudes and tactics of a handful of people are going to tear teh liberalisms apart. Frankly, I think they're a tad melodramatic, but I generally agree that, in a debate, a respectful tone is more useful than an overtly hostile one. The problem is -- and everyone knows it -- is that they are completely hypocritical. Half take no interest in what's said from their side of the fence, while the other half are shit-slingers themselves.

This thread, right here -- wherein one of their own posted grossly generalized and offensive tripe -- was the perfect time for these people to put their money where their mouths are, and they uni-fucking-formly failed. Not a single one of them stepped up to the plate to chasten StarboardTrack for his latest abomination... and one actually rose his defense.

I must, however, confess my lack of surprise, as this is just another blip on an uninterrupted trend of shameless duplicity. Today, they are silent. Tomorrow, an atheist will say something that pisses them off, and they'll back to their conceited self-congratulatory backslapping, praising themselves for their moral superiority while seemingly oblivious to today's transpirings.

[longship]

137. Thank you. Some want peace here. Some don't. nt

[Act_of_Reparation]

138. Not enough to set the example, it would seem.

As I have made clear before, I have no problem adopting a civil tone for discussion in this group. With few exceptions, I would say that I have done precisely that. In my experience, however, that civility is rarely reciprocated from those who otherwise claim to want more of it; and those same people seem to miss every opportunity to chasten their own for failing to live up their stringent standards of behavior.

[Warren Stupidity]

145. You appear to obtusely not get it.

Your ability to not see this op as clearly not in the SOP is stunning.

[longship]

147. Huh?

And this one is?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1218140252

And this one is?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1218140254

Let those without sin cast the first stone, my good friend.

We host with a light touch, which is increasingly becoming a difficult task these days. Interesting that one would so overtly advocate for ones own SOP alert. This especially when one simultaneously advocates for no hosts.

[hrmjustin]

148. .

[Warren Stupidity]

152. Am I a host of this forum? Am I slinging meta shit about this mess in the hosts forum?

Are you a host of this forum? Do you see that there is a difference?

How about the hosts of this forum step up and do the job that they so recently and vociferously demanded they were needed to do? How about either they do that, or they admit that they serve no useful purpose at all and resign en masse so the admins, as they so clearly suggested would be the right thing to do, can take over effective hosting of this forum?

How about them apples?

[rug]

156. Actually, you're slinging shit right here and right now.

And you've been doing it all day.

[muriel_volestrangler]

162. Can't you see those are reactions to the hosts' inactivity about this thread?

It's pretty obvious why this thread was started - Starboard Tack got a post hidden here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=139936 , and so, in a fit of pique, started this thread to whine that all the other atheists or agnostics are poopy-heads who deserve to have their group renamed something insulting. He's pissed off that, after juries hid at least 3 of his posts in A&A, the A&A hosts lost patience with him, and blocked him. And he's had a vendetta against them ever since.

If you host with a light touch, then you'll get threads like those, because you appear to condone such threads.

[ret5hd]

100. Disband Alcoholics Anonymous...ALL they believe in is not ingesting alcohol (nt)

[Warren Stupidity]

103. some of them are very angry too.

[awoke_in_2003]

106. Haven't been in AA in a bit...

did you get blocked?

[Promethean]

122. Yes he did.

He came in and started making posts claiming to be an atheist then making statements that are among the most insulting we get from theists. People were patient with him and explained why what he said has negative connotations and instead of stopping he doubled down on his rhetoric. Then he made a post similar to this one in this forum making a big stink about how we were mean to him and booted him from the forum.

[Marrah_G]

118. They are a group in the same way red heads are a group or football fans are a group

They are not an organizational group.

[Starboard Tack]

144. Then they are not a group, they just have something in common

You are correct, there is no organization that includes all atheists and agnostics. So, why do we have a group with that name that is a safe haven?

[Act_of_Reparation]

153. "Something in common"...

Like skin color? Gender? Sexual orientation?

Your premises demand revision, methinks.

[MellowDem]

123. The only reason "atheism" is a word is because of the massive power and privilege of religion...

Power and privilege that many people deny exists, many in DU included. A few "concerned" atheists I've noticed, in the style of S.E. Cupp, always trying to define atheism in a way conservative fundamentalists do, always coming to the defense of religious power and privilege, and never acknowledging it's existence, always quick to blame victims of religion, always fast to reinforce the worst stereotypes given to atheists as true.

What makes atheists a group at all is the power and privilege of theists in society. The fact that you don't understand that isn't surprising.

Most atheists may be anti-theist.

Atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive.

Anyone who claims that a new group should be formed for people that disagree with them, and then tries to even name that group, is arrogant and full of privilege.

[MellowDem]

125. New group: Atheist-Theist Alliance Group

Where atheists can come to the defense of the downtrodden minority... theists.

[MellowDem]

126. New Group: Theist's Rights Movement

Where the movement to grant equal rights to the oppressed minority that are theists is discussed.

[enki23]

128. Is the concept of religion, as a group/concept valid?

I think we need a new group for the (I imagine) majority of people who call themselves religious but only post about how awesome and smart atheists are. Jesus would have loved atheists. Just like he loved dirty, dirty absolutely-in-no-way-is-this-sarcastic sex workers. Even though they're all going to burn in hell, I think they're smart (the sex workers, also the atheists) and I wouldn't say a mean thing about them. Especially not that they are wrong about things, or stupid, or something. Because they aren't. Ever. None of them. They are awesome. To say otherwise would be not like the majority of people who are like me.

I need that group. The "religious people who just praise atheists for being smart and nice even when they're wrong or use their, I imagine, cultural dominance to hurt people and get away with it but that's okay even though they are going to hell or something" group.

[TM99]

134. Hard to say these days.

In my youth, I definitely would have said no.

But today? Probably. There are now Facebook groups for atheists. There are websites & forums just for atheists. There is even the American Atheists Association.

I think there can certainly exist atheist groups as there are all kinds of groups of people with only one thing that may define them and otherwise all members of the group are different.

Here at DU, I guess I agree. I know that I would not be welcomed in the A&A group which is ironic as I am not a theist or 'believer'.

[gcomeau]

135. A group is simply a collection of things or people classed together.

The classification can be anything. Including "set of people not believing a diety exists".

So yes, atheists are a group.


That doesn't mean they're some kind of ideologically homogeneous organization with a single agenda or something... but they're still a group.

[old guy]

160. No.