Mental Incompetence is a Social Destroyer.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
I'm not so sure the change you notice is a function of this forum, vs a function of how fewer people in general are less likely to try and share views with "them", no matter who "they" may be.
Stonger partisan attitudes overall seem to, IMHO, lead to just the "crazies" who are willing to cross that aisle and share thought no matter which side of whatever aisle that may be.
@Homer Re: "...lead to just the "crazies" who are willing to cross that aisle and share thought..."
...*chuckle*... Well, I suppose you would definitely be one to know... *shaking head in amusement*....
Re: Homer - "Stonger partisan attitudes overall seem to, IMHO, lead to just the "crazies" who are willing to cross that aisle and share thought no matter which side of whatever aisle that may be."
...*bemused grin*... Sooooooo.... If I am understanding that correctly, he is basically saying the "legitimate" theists who might be interested in expressing themselves on here are reluctant to do so because we (the "Partisan Atheists") ask too many questions and hold people accountable for claims they make. Therefore, only trolls and "crazy people" are willing to interact with us. Because trolls and the "crazies" don't care if we are right or not, or if they are right or not. On the other hand, the "legitimate" theists DO care about who is right or wrong, and many (most?) of them DO NOT like having their beliefs/faith questioned. And (based on my personal experiences when I was still a believer) reading many of the statements we (atheists) make and seeing the questions we ask make the legit theists very uncomfortable, because they know we make sense.
So, all things considered, Homer, I do believe I'll take your comment as a compliment... *chuckle*... Thank you.... *grin*...
No you are not understanding me correctly at all.
I believe many people get so entrenched in their partisan ways anymore they don't care to hear what someone who is "on the other side" about their own beliefs has to say as we continue to tribalize over what we think. That it's "crazy" to listen to and communicate with "them" regardless of subject matter. IMHO, so only crazies try anymore. I see it in a whole lot of places, much more than this forum and subject.
I think I made it pretty clear I was talking about much more than an atheist/theist viewpoint. If you want to spin it into something specific to this forum, you are just wrong.
Logical fallacy 101; argument from ignorance: '"You don't agree with me because you don't understand"
From reading your many posts and the many replies, it's clear that members here have had your number for some time.
Cranky, I was trying to make a point about how partisanship hinders communication between people with different views, and how it leads to people just giving up and sticking with people who agree, vs communicating with people who believe differently. Not just here, but in all situations where partisanship seems to take hold. I explicitly stated that.
Then you two up and prove my point.
@Homer Re: "I was trying to make a point about how partisanship hinders communication between people with different views, and how it leads to people just giving up and sticking with people who agree..."
Ahhhhh... So, by your reasoning, we atheists should be joining various religious chat groups in order to engage theists in the exchange of ideas in reasonable discussions?... *tapping chin with finger*..... Hmmmmm.... Well, for one, most of the atheists I know here already come from a variety of religious backgrounds. And over the months, because of this AR site, we have all had the opportunity to learn from one another about many different belief systems based on first-hand experiences from the individuals who held those beliefs. Furthermore, I grew up in a Christian household surrounded by Christian people and Christian discussions. I don't need to join a Christian chat site to learn about Christianity.
Secondly, we atheists are here for the comradery with friends, and to hopefully teach and support those who have recently "lost their religion" and are seeking advice. Also, if theists visit and are genuinely interested in learning more about atheists, then we welcome the opportunity to pass along what we know. If they ask questions but don't like the answers they get, that is THEIR problem, not ours.
However, let any atheist here, no matter how humble and respectful they are, try going to a Christian or Islamic site and start questioning the bible or koran. Many here have actually tried it, and some lasted no more than a few minutes before getting banned.
Soooooo, pray tell, who are the ones actually being "partisans" here?
People who ban others for sharing differing opinions sure sound Uber partisan to me. I'm sorry sites do that.
I'm genuinely learning from atheists here.
Try it. Create a fake account in a christian forum, take the position that the bible is made-up, and demand proof of a god. You can take the aid test yourself.
See how long you last.
I have no doubt that happens, and it is a sad thing. Lol, I might get banned myself from some of those sites for expressing my own opinions honestly.
Homer "I'm genuinely learning from atheists here."
I'm dubious sorry, could you share lets say half a dozen things you have learned?
I've learned from you to consider that man tends to form their deity in their own image, maybe not your exact words, but they are rattling in there in my head now when I hear others describe God. To me, that doesn't mean a Creator doesn't exist, but it does give me pause to think about how man imposes that description.
I've learned from whitefire that some Christian families actually still do completely split over someone becoming apostate, and that saddens me. I'll further work to get people to be more inclusive of those holding differing opinions.
I've learned from David that he seems willing to share thought with a theist here in a nonconfrontational manner.
I've learned that Grinseed is very good at putting his thoughts into written word, something I really need to work on. I find it hard to get my thoughts going until I get more interaction with people.
I've learned you all here get plenty of "drive by" posters trying to "save your souls", who quickly must go elsewhere to save more souls. I personally don't know much about what the true nature of my soul is enough to save my own. I'll hope to just share what I think and feel with those who think and feel differently, no grand goal of "saving" more a goal accepting people hold different beliefs and we can still learn from each other without trying to get each other to conform to their thoughts.
I've learned that communicating with this group of atheists is very challenging, that one has to be willing to take a complete challenge of everything one has come to believe as well as what the people here even think you believe before one may start to be heard. And that's ok. It's lead me to find even more groups, some not so challenging, lol, but the more the merrier.
There's 6, I guess I could figure out what I've learned from others here, but hopefully, for once, I've answered your questions to your satisfaction Sheldon.
Yeah, that's essentially my point. Group bias, tribalism, lack of openness set boundaries for communication. This is bad. People act like they want to talk about things but then when they're presented with new and opposing viewpoints they react badly.
If someone is homophobic, for example, it's now that they should be banned, shunned, hated, etc. Why? Maybe they have a reason. Maybe they had a bad experience. Try and understand them and you'll get a lot further with them accepting other ideas.
It's not about complaining that my feelings are hurt because I was banned. Nope. Nor is this about the issue of promoting any particular agenda such as the idea that human and non-human animals may or mustn't have sexual activity. Nope. It's about being able to discuss these things. It's also about considering people who believe something about Mormonism, Adam and Eve, Aliens, Tarot cards, etc… Those seem like good things to discuss on a site that deals with religious beliefs.
I'm currently suspended from Facebook after posting Wikipedia link to "Giant's Causeway" mentioning "Houses of the Holy" was photographed there + a link to the album cover. Reason: Nudity. Yeah, rear nudity doesn't seem to violate their "community standards"…
Censorship on a private, public-access site.
Bad morals, graven images… Same sort of dogma, AISI.
Dogma and censorship is a problem.
@Garrett...mommy didn’t change your depends this morning?
Waaahhhhhh wahhhhhhh wahhhhhh ...typing thru tears as you name another place poor widdle you were banned...
...and, sniffling in the snot ... and why can’t I talk about homophobia????? And interspecial sex???? Why is everyone soooo mean to me???? ... wahhhhhhh
Group bias, now that's hilarious, given you're advocating sex with animals what were the odds most people would disagree.
So you think a bad experience, whatever that is, warrants bigoted prejudice against all gay people? Even for your posts that is an astonishingly stupid claim. You seem to think your ideas should not be criticised, by making the asinine claim that every time they are reviled it represents dogma, even after people take the time to point out why they find your views immoral. I suspect you're trolling, simply looking for a reaction, but you're so bad at it you are the one who ends up getting angry.
Facebook has a right to censor and censure people for what they say on their site, since it's privately owned, and the owners of websites can be held legally accountable for what is posted on them. Did you not know this?
So everyone has to agree with your gushing validation of bestiality or you'll sulk like a child, I think we pretty much get that already. Again the reasons you have been banned from other public forums, would be unlikely to give Sherlock Holmes a nervous breakdown. You've behaved like a petulant child from your first posts. Though it's worth noting you haven't been booted out of this forum yet. If you grow up a bit, and stop sulking and insulting people because they don't share your repulsive views on bestiality, you might not repeat your mistakes here.
I agree with you. Attacking homophobes and racists, etc., just gives them a sense of martyrdom that further entrenches their prejudices. I've always though the best way to deal with those people is to express an interest in their views and ask them to explain them.
You didn't mention that the nudes on the "Houses of the Holy" cover were toddlers. People like Lewis Carol and Baden-Powell might have gotten way with claiming that pictures of naked children were expressions of innocence and beauty, but the world has moved on. I'm glad it has. Facebook has the right to ban whatever it wants. If you don't like it, start your own social media platform.
Censorship by governments and self-censorship are the real problems.
Well said, what's particularly galling about Garret's rhetoric is that throughout the world people are genuinely denied freedom of speech and expressions, often with violent or even murderous consequences, but this idiot thinks he is championing free speech by abusing its legal and moral limits in a country where we actually do have freedom of speech. It's cretinous nonsense posted solely for the very predicable outcome, he's clearly on an ego trip.
If a site does not allow nudity, why would you post nudity?
Just saying. It seems like you challenging different sites rules, simply to call foul...that is dishonest...not to mention silly. Sites have rules to protect themselves and others, disrespecting that, irrelevant of intent, in the name of censorship, knowing the site rules, is dumb and defeatist.
Garrett, you wrote, in part, “...censorship is a problem.”
"Rights" are granted by the state, no one is born with "rights". "Laws" are restrictions defined by the state. Basically, rights define what the state allows us to do, and laws tell us what we can not do and provide boundaries.
If one is to crow about their rights, then as responsible adults they must also respect laws.
Garret Smith, you want to take advantage of the rights granted to you, but casually dismiss any laws or restrictions society demands.
@Hoser Re: "believe many people get so entrenched in their partisan ways anymore they don't care to hear what someone who is "on the other side" about their own beliefs has to say...."
...*in my best Yoda voice*.... Yeeees.... Strong is the irony in this one....
(Oh, and thank you for proving my point... LMAO....)
You hold an unfalisifiable belief that you can demonstrate no objective evidence for, can produce no rational argument to support, that you have repeatedly use known logical fallacies to defend, and yet refuse point blank to consider that belief critically with an open mind. Instead constantly reasserting the vapid maxim that yet you still believe, while trying irrationally to pretend that non belief (in this context only), carries at least an equal burden of proof....
...and you're implying that those who point this out are partisan, and or entrenched?
It's officially, that's the funniest post ever.
I totally consider that belief critically with an open mind! Does considering that belief, seeing the lack of objective evidence, and still believing make one closed minded? No!!! It means I accept something that is not objective as the basis for my belief, I'm going with the subjective, and am perfectly happy with it, completely aware I can't falsify that belief. I'm satisfied I'll get myself to whatever end I have in store in life without issue understanding I have an unfalsifiable belief. Thank you for your concern.
I have not asked anyone to accept what I do for themselves, nor am I trying to judge others for their choices. I am not asking for any atheist to prove their disbelief to me. I express complete acceptance to your requirement of falsifiability to believe. Live long and prosper!
We are partisan, but we don't need to carry it to the point of not being able or willing to communicate with each other.
I observed I see partisanship getting to the point in society where fewer and fewer people are willing to communicate, where they tend to not be willing to cross over to even share thoughts and perspectives. I tried to share that observation. Do you agree or disagree?
The "entrenched" part I'm trying to talk about is that I can't even get anyone to talk about my observation about society in general, how we are tending towards this on the whole, and it somehow immediately is steered towards an atheist/theist battle. It holds true in other areas of society as well, just try to go to a political forum and try to communicate openly! I've seen those things splinter into separate message boards where only the like minded share while they openly wonder whatever happened to so and so who used to think differently.
Oh well, just trying to share my thought.
Well that's odd because your posts never reflect this claim?
Please explain the objective difference between the deity you believe is real and an invisible leprechaun?
Then please demonstrate the best objective reason you have for believing any deity is real.
Yes, of course, by definition a subjective believe held in the complete absence of objective evidence involves bias, and by definition bias is indicative of a closed mind.
QED, that's closed minded by definition.
Ok, the difference between God and a Leprechaun is I don't believe in Leprechauns. I have been in disbelief, I found joy in belief in God. I find no joy in the belief of a Leprechaun. Sue me.
Definition of closed-minded
chiefly US, disapproving
: not willing to consider different ideas or opinions : having or showing a closed mind
I consider and understand the different idea and opinion, I'm very happy for those who hold such ideas and opinions. I choose to believe otherwise.
Good to know, but I asked for an objective difference.
I couldn't have asked for a better example of being closed minded, an a priori dismissal of any and all ideas contrary to your religious beliefs, QED. This is of course precisely what I have noted again and again in your posts. You believe no matter what, you often say this in as many words, as if you're proud of being closed minded, and of course that is what faith is, being utterly closed minded to contrary or new ideas, and christianity has championed this for centuries.
Thank you for thinking you can require me to only accept objective vs subjective in my own belief and calling closed minded for doing so. I will take your counsel under advisement.
Thank you for lying about what I've posted yet again, but I never claimed I required anything of the sort. Just how do you claim one would enforce such a requirement exactly?
Your belief is demonstrably subjective and biased, and therefore it is by definition closed minded, my opinion, expressed or otherwise, is entirely redundant.
I tried to share my subjective basis of faith in this forum, yet you keep on asking me for objective evidence of it. I say I can't provide that because I understand it's not objective, then we go round in a circular argument to where I'm once again being asked to provide the same objective evidence that I already said I can't provide for quite a while now. It sure looks like I'm being required to share your view or be called a lying closed minded Homer. I sure don't want to be a lying closed minded Homer, but I sure don't want to think that I cannot place my belief in the subjective, because apparently I can and do without issue. Call me whatever you wish, judge me as you wish.
One good outcome of this all has been for me to challenge myself to find others that feel as I do in subjective belief, that it can indeed be a basis for said belief, and that free exchanges between theists/atheists about faith and spirituality can occur without the constant arguing. More of an understanding tone of mutual growth that occurs when people who have differing beliefs/disbeliefs come together in a more proactive manner. I hope it will lead to me being a better Homer and maybe help others being a better whatever they are striving to be.
The group is called the Unitarian Universalists. Atheist, Christian, Jew, Muslim, whatever belief or lack thereof. Hundreds of thousands getting together for common goals. Thank you for helping me seek them out. Everyone is welcome.