A Request Directed to Sciforums' "Atheists"

One doesn't have to be an atheist to benefit from freedom from religion. This is why I pointed out the Danbury Baptists. It doesn't matter what anyone thought of atheists, because freedom of religion necessitates freedom from religion. It's the very basis of the argument.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Okay.

Thanks, Balerion.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

...You're welcome...

Is this one of those things where as soon I turn around, I get shot in the back?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Hah!
Almost right. Only I take the red one when I arrive home, and then spend the night playing with it.
But only on weekends. Usually.

No, you can't. You can only arrive at a compromise which allows you to pretend you are what you are.

There is no justification for us. We just are.
Fascinating, yes. But not important.

 

Although this thread made for some interesting reading.

 

They have been attacking me personally without provocation, they started it. These are moderators who abuse the rules here without any consequences and then have the nerve to hand out infractions and bans.

 

You're going to resign? Excellent. Very good move on your part.

 

Wow, you just keep fabricating more and more lies. I have done no such and have no intention of stalking you like you are stalking me.

Notice that the believer will do anything to stifle free speech, to censor others, the very same free speech they wish to exercise themselves. Hypocrites.

 

So you refuse to admit your own wrongdoing then (Q)? Fair enough. Consider this thread your final warning on the consequences of intellectual dishonesty.

I would like to pose a question to those members who still frequent this board - do you have any desire for this thread to remain open? Is there any discussion left to be had that can be had in a rational manner? Or should this simply be closed and left to sink into the abyss?

 

Seems to me that everything that could be said has been said, at least twice.:shrug:

 

Ha, maybe more. I do believe if the purpose of this thread was to find where atheists and others views about the religious and religion are, it did accomplish that. I personally was hoping for an agreement/ideas about how we agnostics/atheists could respect the beliefs of others while RESPECTFULLY disagreeing.

 

It is difficult. I am agnostic / atheist or whatever, but I have no problem with any religion unless they try to convert me or force there beliefs to be taught in schools as science. I don't think atheist should try to convert people either.

Well that is just great! I suggest closing the thread and you got me participating!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I am out of here...

 

Yes, I think that I'd like it to remain open. Despite the intellectually incoherent and emotionally trollish nature of its beginning (and I point out again that it was a Sciforums moderator responsible for that), it did end up addressing what is in my opinion an important (if heated) topic -- The seeming contradiction between, on one hand, the commonly-heard assertion that atheism is nothing more than disbelief in religious deities, and on the other hand, all the rhetoric about how "religion" (nobody ever defines that word) is an unambiguous evil that at the very least deserves our contempt. The second and much stronger atheistic belief doesn't seem to follow at all from the first one and may not even be consistent with it.

Sure. Yesterday alone, I was arguing with Fraggle about whether there are metaphysical beliefs built into science. There were some very interesting posts about the intentions of the American founders regarding freedom of religion. All kinds of stuff. It's a bit like free-association at this point, but this is one of those 1000-posts-long threads and they are always like that. People are drawn to threads like this because they are so active... and truth be told for the emotional drama, it's been a bit of a soap-opera, a telenovela.

I don't know what good that would do.

 

Why do I find myself usually(not always) agreeing with you even when I thought I didn't. I think I will christen thee the 'voice of reason' or maybe Yoda instead of Yazata.

 

I would never close a thread just because the conversations therein have been repeated. There are always new participants, new variations on old arguments, etc..

If there's any cause to close the thread, it would be that it was against the rules to begin with. I mean, if I started a thread that replaced the word "atheist" with "Christian," what do you think would happen to it?

 

With me as the primary mod here? Truthfully, I'd allow it.

 

You shouldn't. The central thesis of this thread is, basically, "Hey, atheists are stupid." It only exists to bait and insult people. And we, as atheists, have been defending ourselves against an endless stream of straw men, misrepresentations, and insults.

 

As long as the thread stays away from implying theists (or atheists) are stupid or otherwise insulting them (challenge the idea, not the person), then I'm fine with it.

 

You realize that Tiassa challenged the person, to use your term?

 

Indeed, with (Q) being one of them - the challenge was to stop lashing out and attacking the theists on the site, especially outside of the religion subforum. It has been a subject of much contention - at times, some of our more... vocal... atheists would attack theists for their views, even when said views had nothing to do with the subject at hand (case in point, (Q)'s stalking of S.A.M.)