Censorship

[thomastwo]

I never expected a sympathetic welcome on an atheist forum. I never expected folks to agree with what I think.

But, I did have the impression that you were a free-thinking, fair-minded group who wouldn't need to resort to censorship to get your points across. I hope I'm not proved wrong in that.

[Victus]

thomastwo wrote

I never expected a sympathetic welcome on an atheist forum. I never expected folks to agree with what I think.

But, I did have the impression that you were a free-thinking, fair-minded group who wouldn't need to resort to censorship to get your points across. I hope I'm not proved wrong in that.

The thread you're upset about is meant to be a straightforward hall-of-fame style list of demonstrations of the absence of self-awareness on the part of theist members of the forum. Beyond that, posts of any sort are unwelcomed in the thread. If you really want to comment on the posts, then create a parallel thread of comments on the unawareness thread.

[Sternwallow]

T. Stupidest Cow wrote

Actually, I think this is a pretty fair statement of the reality of this forum but is evading the larger point. An atheist site qua atheist site has no point whatever, unless it engages with theists. It has no other reason for being. How long can you sustain a forum on chanting "theists are dumb; we're so smart and morally superior"? In 50 different variations?

The main point, if any of letting theists post here is that it is not their beliefs that must be countered, it is their actions, their behavior toward us. That is why we appreciate and need free speech, not because we want to think of ourselves as avenging angels.

I grant you, as a moral equal, every right to believe as you wish, and even to offer information, but that does not include a right based on emotional intangibles to control my beliefs or my behavior and it certainly does not obligate me to agree that you have any actual information to impart.

But to claim that there is nothing to debate, when clearly there is, is dodging the issue. Either your (speaking corporately, not of you individually) atheism is grounded in reason or it isn't.

Your irrational beliefs are not the debate, they are the reasons disproving your (or any theist) authority to impede or injure us.

You just can't get over the simple truth that atheism is unavoidable when there is no evidence for either the positive or negative alternate proposition. This is where your logic first fails you and beyond which your thinking cannot progress.

When members continually demonstrate a child's understanding of the issues; when they clearly do not have a notion what the Bible teaches ...

You have amply shown that the Bible itself, teaches that it is not to be used for either instruction or inspiration.

... and try to build a case (for or against whatever) on nonsense, then the forum can only become a bickering mob when those who disagree weigh in. (Let's leave aside the nonsense of other religions. You have a beef with Christianity-- that is what your families, neighbors and culture are, even if only superficially) It is hard to see the point of an atheist site ...

Only atheists need be concerned over the point of an atheist site. In this case, the point is our defense against invading marauding barbarian cattle.

... that has to dodder around until it becomes evident that the members share an interest in Schwartzenegger movies, beer and scrapple recipes. If you want to talk beer, aren't there beer forums?

That was a very convoluted and largely irrelevant rant-fragment, Bovina, but I think even a poor thinker can dig the rancid meat out of it.

You can't stand that we have a beef with Christianity (or any other intrusive, dangerous or harmful ideology) nor that we are happy and satisfied with an absence of gods and afterlives.

You seem to think that we are somehow vulnerable to your attempted verbal bullying and, in your frustrated arrogance, you imagine that you are the chosen representative of your God who will romp in here and straighten us out with your rhetoric and erudition. You are blind or demented not to see the hateful futility of your efforts here these (often enumerated by you) three+ years.

Because of that arrogance, you bring the wider public conflict of bullying theism down into our sanctum. You seem to expect us to appreciate that. The debate is now both here and out in the public policy.

Proposed: "Theists will use any means, fair or foul, to control the beliefs of their fellow humans". Discuss.

I happen to be agnostic about beer at baseball games. What is it to you if I wish to discuss the logical implications of that position in one of these threads?

Bad cow.

[ubs]

Irreligious wrote

That's the nature of the beast if we don't share the same view of reality. The alternative is a heavily moderated forum.

Agreed. You might be able to have a forum that was only moderated in the sense that you had to be an atheist to participate, but it has to have a core of a dozen or more people that want very badly for it to survive.

Lily wrote

An atheist site qua atheist site has no point whatever, unless it engages with theists.

I disagree. Especially when the POTUS comes from a family with a history of anonymity towards atheists, a community - a place where you can speak freely about your experiences and don't have to, out of courtesy, pull your punches, has tremendous value.

I think if theists had been barred at the start when energy was intense the level of discourse might have remained higher. We would have found common ground with each other and more importantly we would have learned to argue amongst ourselves without any evidence of descent threatening a feeling of membership.

Theists introduced an element of dysfunction that has proven almost impossible to overcome without starting over, and without the momentum provided by Georgie...

Another wave will come as the ocean of stupid never sleeps. The point is to learn from what has transpired, and next time build a better mouse trap.

Of course, there was also the near death blow of Tenspace's undercurrent of anti social behavior climaxing in his final criminal activity and other bullshit that was mostly the result of absentee ownership...we may have fallen in any case. Still strict zoning may have helped.

[Eva]

lily and thomas, it seems like the epitome of bizarre to me that both of you are claiming censorship in a forum that allows free and and pretty much unimpeded posting by anyone, except for the obvious spammers and bad trolls.
any limitations on posting are limited to certain threads, and have been applied uniformly to all members. smelly does a pretty good job with that.

your claims of censorship are baseless, thomas. thank your god for that.

[Mog]

Lily wrote

Actually, I think this is a pretty fair statement of the reality of this forum but is evading the larger point. An atheist site qua atheist site has no point whatever, unless it engages with theists. It has no other reason for being. How long can you sustain a forum on chanting "theists are dumb; we're so smart and morally superior"? In 50 different variations?

But to claim that there is nothing to debate, when clearly there is, is dodging the issue. Either your (speaking corporately, not of you individually) atheism is grounded in reason or it isn't. When members continually demonstrate a child's understanding of the issues; when they clearly do not have a notion what the Bible teaches and try to build a case (for or against whatever) on nonsense, then the forum can only become a bickering mob when those who disagree weigh in. (Let's leave aside the nonsense of other religions. You have a beef with Christianity-- that is what your families, neighbors and culture are, even if only superficially) It is hard to see the point of an atheist site that has to dodder around until it becomes evident that the members share an interest in Schwartzenegger movies, beer and scrapple recipes. If you want to talk beer, aren't there beer forums?

Its not that there is nothing to debate, but there is nothing more to debate with you. I don't know about the rest of the atheists here, but generally speaking, I prefer to debate someone who at least has the illusion of being able to change her mind on something. Instead, when you are beaten logically, you throw a fit and call whoever you are debating an idiot.

[dogpet]

thomastwo wrote

I never expected a sympathetic welcome on an atheist forum. I never expected folks to agree with what I think.

But, I did have the impression that you were a free-thinking, fair-minded group who wouldn't need to resort to censorship to get your points across. I hope I'm not proved wrong in that.

There has to be some censorship Thomas, or the place would descend into chaos & we would be unable to enjoy our collective ridiculing of all things lunatics such as yourself claim as supernatural. The mistake you make is to assume your notions should be given more respect than our pictures of shit, or ricky's dreams, when in fact you are only left to roam free because you have yet to corner an idiosyncratic delusion such as sevens', which would warrant promotion to your own thread. My advice would be to try harder, perhaps tell us of some special knowledge you possess that we all need to know, or a new twist on your tired christian fairytales.

[Eva]

oh i know what's happening here!
christians are not used to so much freedom!!
so, in their convuluted minds, when they have so much of it, they actually think they don't have it!!

wow...christianity really REALLY messes up minds......

[Irreligious]

Lily wrote

Actually, I think this is a pretty fair statement of the reality of this forum but is evading the larger point. An atheist site qua atheist site has no point whatever, unless it engages with theists. It has no other reason for being. How long can you sustain a forum on chanting "theists are dumb; we're so smart and morally superior"? In 50 different variations?

And how long could we sustain an atheist forum in which the atheists consented to be lectured to by theists whose persistent chant is that "atheists are uneducated; we see more clearly and are morally superior to atheists?" In 50 or more variations? Hmm? That sounds like a Christian forum to me. Is that what you want here?

Lily wrote

But to claim that there is nothing to debate, when clearly there is, is dodging the issue. Either your (speaking corporately, not of you individually) atheism is grounded in reason or it isn't. When members continually demonstrate a child's understanding of the issues; when they clearly do not have a notion what the Bible teaches and try to build a case (for or against whatever) on nonsense, then the forum can only become a bickering mob when those who disagree weigh in. (Let's leave aside the nonsense of other religions. You have a beef with Christianity-- that is what your families, neighbors and culture are, even if only superficially) It is hard to see the point of an atheist site that has to dodder around until it becomes evident that the members share an interest in Schwartzenegger movies, beer and scrapple recipes. If you want to talk beer, aren't there beer forums?

Can you think of one point of contention that you've ever conceded to the atheists here or anywhere? One thing? If th answer is no, then isn't it clear to you that you're not looking for debate, but for our submission, instead?

ubs wrote

I think if theists had been barred at the start when energy was intense the level of discourse might have remained higher. We would have found common ground with each other and more importantly we would have learned to argue amongst ourselves without any evidence of descent threatening a feeling of membership.

Maybe, but I don't think so. What would you actually have talked about? How many ways can you say, "I am morally superior", "I am so much smarter" ...?

Theists introduced an element of dysfunction that has proven almost impossible to overcome without starting over, and without the momentum provided by Georgie...

See? Now those are two entirely different matters and you are implicitly conceding my point. Theists have been here from the beginning. There was never a time when they weren't here. Remember the Raving Atheist? While I think the forum, even then, was somewhat separate, the back and forthing between the blog and the forum was pretty intense. As far as Bush is concerned, yes, since you all think pretty much alike, your antagonism to him was a rich source of conversational fodder. But, again, all that gave you was a focus for your largely similar political views. Bush bashers were not all atheists. Would you have kept them out and ridiculed them? If so, how do you envision creating a distinctively atheist political blog? What might that look like?

Of course, there was also the near death blow of Tenspace's undercurrent of anti social behavior climaxing in his final criminal activity and other bullshit that was mostly the result of absentee ownership...we may have fallen in any case. Still strict zoning may have helped.

You are on much firmer ground here. Given the fapping adolescent, a mod no less!!!, cuntgate (another fapping, adolescent mind, there), and the incredible reality jolt Ten's theft provided, the forum was bound to go through some hard growing pains. It doesn't help that Chris has walked away. Really, with mods who participate/ed in the worst excesses of the forum and no adult making any decisions about what boundaries are necessary to make the whole thing work in a meaningful way (providing an outlet for over-aged males to talk dirty doesn't seem like enough), it is a bloody miracle that this place still staggers on.

[Eva]

soooo, you think you can run things better here, moocow?....you know know, give thing a more bovine flavor or something, isn't it??

Eva wrote

soooo, you think you can run things better here, moocow?....you know know, give thing a more bovine flavor or something, isn't it??

Virtually anyone willing to set boundaries could run things better. Of course I could run it better. But better for whom? It would be better for those who want to discuss anything seriously. It would be far worse for those who want to talk dirty. It would be better for those who would like to be able to address a subject and be wrong about it-- without facing ridicule. But it would be worse for those who live to heap ridicule. It would be better for adults who would rather not have dirty-minded adolescents messing the place up. But where would the dirty-minded adolescents go?

Better / worse are in the personalities of the members.

[Eva]

ahhhh, you are so awesome lily....of course you could do it better...why did i bother to ask...? only censorship applied by someone as cool as you would be good for all...

fuck you.

[Captain Relativity]

Eva wrote

fuck you.

Hey, you forgot the "...you odious bovine cunt" part.

Eva wrote

ahhhh, you are so awesome lily....of course you could do it better...why did i bother to ask...? only censorship applied by someone as cool as you would be good for all...

fuck you.

I knew you wouldn't get it!