Ooops. I flamed.

[Phillip McCleod]

And got hidden three posts in a row.

Facts have no place in capital-D Democratic politics. Never really did, but maybe I was crazy and held out hope that some percentage of DUers would accept criticism of what is fucked up. Nope.

I'm in trouble now on DU. Can't be good to have 3 posts hidden in a row.

Wish me luck.. hope to still be around in another week.

..

Please, tell me when dudebro motorcyclists ascended to sainthood? Apparently it's quite wrong to criticize DU, the Pope, and idiot motorcyclists all at once.

[BainsBane]

1. 5 since midnight

That takes sustained effort. Trash thread is such an easy function. You might try it sometime.

[Phillip McCleod]

2. thank you yes.

i guess i'm just on a rampage of truth-telling to unreceptive audiences tonight. better stop tho. can't continue without finding a new website to chat on.

How 'Democratic' and 'Underground'

fuck.

[BainsBane]

4. I never claimed to be an atheist

I don't call myself anything. I can't claim to know the unknowable.

[Act_of_Reparation]

6. What part of "safe haven" don't you comprehend? n/t

[BainsBane]

8. I didn't attack anyone's beliefs. I never have and never will.

[Act_of_Reparation]

10. Yeah, we see what you did there

I can't claim to know the unknowable.

You can go on not-claiming to know the unknowable in any number of threads where not-claiming to know the unknowable is not in violation of the forum rules. Here, it is not assumed certain things are "unknowable", and we are under no compunction to suffer through not-atheists' and not-agnostics' shameless assertions to the contrary.

I respect your safe havens. Please extend us the same courtesy and spare us your condescension.

[BainsBane]

15. Huh, I thought that's what agnosticism was

Agnosticism is the view that the existence or non-existence of any deity is unknown and possibly unknowable. More specifically, agnosticism is the view that the truth values of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, as well as other religious and metaphysical claims—are unknown and (so far as can be judged) unknowable.[1][2][3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism

I was called as a juror on one of your dearly departed friend's many hidden posts that night. I saw this in his journal. I didn't pay attention to where it was posted. The point seemed to be his determination to flame out, which I'm sorry to see he did.

[LostOne4Ever]

17. We aren't making any claims

The problem with your post is the definition of atheism not agnosticism. The terms answer two completely different questions. Agnosticism is not a middle ground between theism and atheism. You said:

I never claimed to be an atheist I don't call myself anything. I can't claim to know the unknowable.

In this post you are indirectly implying that atheist are making a claim of some sort; you are, in a way, telling us what we believe. Atheism is a lack of belief in any god(s). It can include an active belief that there are no gods (strong or explicit atheism) as a subset of atheism, but it also includes people who neither believe in any god(s) nor believes there are no god(s) (weak or implicit atheism).

This redefining of the word atheist to only include strong atheist is a common tactic of some believers to try tell us what we believe in order to say that atheism requires as much faith as theism does...which it does not. It is also a tactic a LARGE number of people try to take in order to feel superior to both theists and atheists. This comic sort of illustrates the point:



Agnosticism claims that knowledge of the existence god(s) is unknowable. It has nothing to do with if you believe or disbelieve in any god(s). One can be an agnostic theist or an agnostic atheist. I can't speak for everyone here, but I personally don't think you meant to violate the safe haven by posting that, but saying we are making a claim of any sort is a good way of ruffling feathers.

[BainsBane]

19. I understood atheist to mean a firm belief that no Deity exists

I consider that something unknowable. Others do not. I frankly could care less what anyone believes when it comes to God. In fact, nothing concerns me less. Public policy, however, is quite another matter. I very much resent the intrusion of religion into public policy in this country. I was raised to believe that religion is fundamentally a private matter and that one should never speak ill of another person's religion or lack of religion. I try to abide by that.

I have no idea which arguments or tropes are exchanged between theists and non-theists. I'm sorry you took my post as an attack on your views. My intent could not have been further from that. I explained how I happened to stumble upon this thread. I have no intention of making a habit out of posting here.

I expect that the recently tombstoned member took exception to my stand against Islamophobia. I do not take well to the use of any belief or subject position as a proxy for bigotry. My "religious beliefs," in that context, are that all human beings are worthy of respect, regardless of where they are born or what their view toward God happens to be. I'm not interested in debating that with anyone here. I'm simply clarifying my own views and prior history with that poster so you might understand the context.

[LostOne4Ever]

5. Looks like you have already been banned

But regardless, I hope you have better luck in finding a message board more suited to you.

[trotsky]

7. Yeah, you're gone now, but thanks a lot.

All it takes is a couple of posts like yours and now all the usual suspects have just reinforced their prejudice against atheists, particularly those on DU.

Sure, whackadoodle believers who defend gay-bashing or theocracy or the protection of pedophile priests are praised when they make points in favor of religion, but then are quickly disavowed when PPRed and conveniently forgotten.

But atheists like you, no, you'll be remembered and trotted out again and again whenever the "civility police" want to shame atheists for somehow being the only reason nice happy kumbaya discussions never prevail.

[Heddi]

9. I wish the frequently re-appearing, always MIRT'd "atheist" troll that flames out

would just go the fuck away.

Isn't it odd timing though that as soon as things kind of calm down and get....okay, whoah! we have a NEW ATHEIST POSTER WHO IS MORE ATHEIST THAN YOU MOTHERFUCKER! just ready to start the same shit the last one left off at

Of course, I don't think these people are atheists. They are trolls. And they do such a stunning job of riling up the peanut gallery and give great fodder for the "atheists ARE assholes" meme.

[trotsky]

11. I'm with you on that.

I have no idea whether they are an atheist or not, but they sure do play the part and yeah, isn't it odd how every reappearance gives certain folks lots of opportunity to cluck and tsk at those horrible, terrible atheists.

[Heddi]

12. if I were the conspiracy type, I'd say

that it is a planned thing, a sock/zombie probably of an otherwise upstanding member in good graces.

But I'm not that type of gal.

So I'll just be all Occam's Razor and say these are all individual atheists interested in discussion and going about it the wrong way and ignore the fact that these trolls are able to find the relatively well-hidden Religion forum right off the bat, post the same arguments, flame out in basically the same way, get banned, and return in short order. Because I'm not a conspiracy person. So it has to be different people with the exact same posting style, arguments, and flame-out.

[Curmudgeoness]

14. .............

[LostOne4Ever]

13. Thats why

One of my favorite stories since I have been here is that of Rebecca Vitsmun the atheist oklahoma tornado survivor and her family. Her comments to Blitzer stands as a shining monument disproving that meme.

[AtheistCrusader]

16. I was just paged to this thread.

Something about assholes. How can I help?

[Heddi]

18. rofl