Religion

cbayer

(146,218 posts)

64. Sorry to tire you, but we see this so differently that it

Mon Oct 20, 2014, 06:18 PM

Oct 2014

is hard to really make sense of it.

If you support something that you don't believe will work, what could be the motivation for supporting it? It wasn't nice of you to make it possible at all. You may have thought it was "nice", but it wasn't. It was a set-up, and done in bad faith.

Whether that is the reason that the room has not done well is not clear, but the continued use of it's lack of activity as a weapon is what is really tiresome. There were clear attempts by those who "supported" it to undermine it almost immediately. That is why the AA host put up new rules.

I don't think DU3 stops "safe havens" from being bad. I think it provides for something different than what they were. I take issue with the hosting system and the lack of recourse if an individual is being systematically abused by a group, but that is outside the purview of the juries.

A good portion of the people you have banned were banned because you didn't like the kind of atheists or agnostics they were. They challenged the status quo. I was knee jerk banned and given no time at all. You want to review what went down there? Take a look at my complete posting history in that group - every single one of them, then tell me I was a fucking tool. Tell me to my face.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

83 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Let It Be: Three Cheers for Apatheism [View all] cbayer Oct 2014 OP

+1 Good read. pinto Oct 2014 #1

Awesome! I sincerely think DU could use an Apatheism group. NYC_SKP Oct 2014 #2

I think you may be on to something, and I am also serious. cbayer Oct 2014 #3

Would it be a safe haven? NYC_SKP Oct 2014 #5

I'm not even sure what a safe haven is, to be honest. cbayer Oct 2014 #8

I'd be happy to support your new forum. Warren Stupidity Oct 2014 #54

That's an interesting idea. rug Oct 2014 #4

Thanks. How do you think it would differ from the Interfaith Group? NYC_SKP Oct 2014 #6

It shouldn't need to be but the Hosts determine if it's a safe haven or not. rug Oct 2014 #7

I think you're right. NYC_SKP Oct 2014 #9

As a safe haven much insight from others edgineered Oct 2014 #16

I fully agree about the slippery slope of a "safe haven" becoming a club. cbayer Oct 2014 #17

If peer pressure means edgineered Oct 2014 #18

In theory safe havens do not stifle different viewpoints but they do enforce civility. rug Oct 2014 #28

And in practice, some do exactly the opposite. cbayer Oct 2014 #29

Indeed. rug Oct 2014 #33

I think you're right. NYC_SKP Oct 2014 #49

Interesting idea that you might have a group with a zero tolerance policy for uncivil cbayer Oct 2014 #58

If the SOP requires that, say, callout (subtle or overt) are disallowed, then hosts can block. NYC_SKP Oct 2014 #59

I think if this were going to work, it is worth cbayer Oct 2014 #60

I would wholeheartedly support such a group. trotsky Oct 2014 #36

I don't get it. What would you talk about in that group? Goblinmonger Oct 2014 #39

Apatheists don't care which belief system, if any, another person embraces. NYC_SKP Oct 2014 #40

If you read my comments and this article you would know cbayer Oct 2014 #41

Let me just talk support for the group first. I'll do apatheism later. Goblinmonger Oct 2014 #43

Almost all of the support for that group came from a small group of the cbayer Oct 2014 #44

The people you have designated as the enemy supported the creation of the Interfaith group. trotsky Oct 2014 #45

Just because we thought it would fail did not make it fail. Goblinmonger Oct 2014 #46

No, it's different. cbayer Oct 2014 #47

We didn't "establish" the group Goblinmonger Oct 2014 #51

If you were to be really honest about this, you would know cbayer Oct 2014 #61

And were you to be honest about this, you would know trotsky Oct 2014 #62

I am being honest and, frankly, your repeated claims I'm not are tiresome. Goblinmonger Oct 2014 #63

Sorry to tire you, but we see this so differently that it cbayer Oct 2014 #64

That's not why we put up the rules. Goblinmonger Oct 2014 #65

So, explain to me how those particular rules helped keep the group "safe". cbayer Oct 2014 #66

We didn't want people violating our safe haven Goblinmonger Oct 2014 #70

Ok, that makes sense. cbayer Oct 2014 #73

Yeah. Other than that's not what i said. Goblinmonger Oct 2014 #75

I have issues with some individuals. cbayer Oct 2014 #77

No, cbayer, you don't get to rewrite history. trotsky Oct 2014 #79

He won't. But there will be a thread in A&A about it. rug Oct 2014 #67

I'm flattered you care so much to do a study. Goblinmonger Oct 2014 #71

Feel free to do your own. rug Oct 2014 #72

You're already blocked, soooooo Goblinmonger Oct 2014 #74

Oh, I know exactly why. And it's definitely not your revisionist version. rug Oct 2014 #76

We supported it because YOU skepticscott Oct 2014 #80

"It was basically established by a group that wanted to separate the "others"." Rob H. Oct 2014 #53

A&A is mocked, ridiculed, criticized, and attacked in this very group. trotsky Oct 2014 #55

That's interesting. There are A&A posts mocking and ridiculing this Group daily. rug Oct 2014 #68

Oh, please. Curmudgeoness Oct 2014 #52

What utter nonsense skepticscott Oct 2014 #78

comparing atheists to Nazis again? Lordquinton Oct 2014 #81

You think ghettos are all about nazis? cbayer Oct 2014 #82

The definition everyone seems to work with Goblinmonger Oct 2014 #48

I can agree with that. cbayer Oct 2014 #56

Non-practicing pantheist here... alterfurz Oct 2014 #10

I often use the blind men and the elephant analogy and think cbayer Oct 2014 #13

RE: "there's no way you can prove God doesn't exist: you just have to take it on faith. " Maedhros Oct 2014 #57

The key word is apathy Cartoonist Oct 2014 #11

There are two key words - apathy and theism. cbayer Oct 2014 #12

It's about apathy toward others' beliefs, not apathy toward belief systems. NYC_SKP Oct 2014 #50

The author is an atheist still... MellowDem Oct 2014 #14

"Pretending you're something you're not to spare the feelings of a majority." beam me up scottie Oct 2014 #20

One can be religious and not believe in god or gods. NYC_SKP Oct 2014 #21

None of your wiki dial a definitions proves atheism is anything other than non belief in gods. beam me up scottie Oct 2014 #22

I'm responding to your claim: "If you don't believe in gods you're an atheist." NYC_SKP Oct 2014 #23

Do tell. What, in your expert opinion, does non-belief in gods make one? beam me up scottie Oct 2014 #26

Agnostic is one choice. NYC_SKP Oct 2014 #27

And there it is. beam me up scottie Oct 2014 #30

Be well. Best wishes. NYC_SKP Oct 2014 #31

Hey guess what, NYC_SKP? trotsky Oct 2014 #37

The link you provided disputes your claim. Warren Stupidity Oct 2014 #35

I think Bertram Russell said that he called himself an agnostic when addressing philosophers and rhett o rick Oct 2014 #15

I like your take on this and think you are representative of a significant number of others. cbayer Oct 2014 #42

Oops! I thought I was a secularist. By that definition, I'm not. Apatheist is what I am. freshwest Oct 2014 #19

You're a lover, you're loving and understanding and tolerant. NYC_SKP Oct 2014 #24

And this is why I so admire you, freshwest. cbayer Oct 2014 #25

Apatheists exhibit the lowest levels of hypertension of all "ists". NYC_SKP Oct 2014 #32

And I love me some Honey Badgers. cbayer Oct 2014 #34

I did not know that 11 years was "relatively old." trotsky Oct 2014 #38

Well I guess if atheists have to exist then it's good that they don't care about religious privilege Fumesucker Oct 2014 #69

Relgious groups force me to care. AtheistCrusader Oct 2014 #83