 |
The World's Largest Coalition of Nontheists and Nontheist Communities!
Hi... I have a potentially contentious question/suggestion right off the bat...
(Feel free to look at my Profile for a bit about me and I'm an open book if ya wanna ask more.) That said, the reason I found you guys was a recent post on a United Church of Canada site called Wondercafe.ca. This post noted your (my?) Nexus home page proudly announcing your exclusionary practice: "As many of you know, we work hard to keep spammers and theists off of Atheist Nexus". The only reason I found was that plenty of other sites debated theism (or sumptin' similar). The post at WonderCafe (WC - lol) ended thusly:
"Isn't it interesting, that here at WC we welcome the participation of atheists in a reasonably well behaved and open discussion, while the largest atheist networking site obviously does not. So who is more open-minded?"
The idea of exclusion came up with obc before and my comment (I can likely find it) was something along the lines that wouldn't this make us like the worst of theists and that it painfully reminded me of:
“All three of our major religions in Britain -- Christianity, Islam and Judaism -- have a hateful idea at the very core. That idea is Exclusion: the "othering," if you like, of the unredeemed.” -- Matthew Parris
So while this is my first post, I'd like to suggest that you remove this restriction and if the real issue relates to talking religion, conversion or similar, that you make *that* the reason for banning. I'd also be interested in a more logical reason for banning ASAP, unless I get banned RFN. Thanks in advance. Brett (BrettA on pretty well any forum.)
"Isn't it interesting, that here at WC we welcome the participation of atheists in a reasonably well behaved and open discussion, while the largest atheist networking site obviously does not. So who is more open-minded?"
The idea of exclusion came up with obc before and my comment (I can likely find it) was something along the lines that wouldn't this make us like the worst of theists and that it painfully reminded me of:
“All three of our major religions in Britain -- Christianity, Islam and Judaism -- have a hateful idea at the very core. That idea is Exclusion: the "othering," if you like, of the unredeemed.” -- Matthew Parris
So while this is my first post, I'd like to suggest that you remove this restriction and if the real issue relates to talking religion, conversion or similar, that you make *that* the reason for banning. I'd also be interested in a more logical reason for banning ASAP, unless I get banned RFN. Thanks in advance. Brett (BrettA on pretty well any forum.)
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Фелч Гроган on -
Brett the liar: Then those lying, grubby, little, asshole Xians will do the same in the future
Told yas he'd hang himself. They really are that dumb. Only theists crap on about intolerance like this. Plus the necessity to name drop on the profile. At least this one changed s/h/its avatar.
-
Permalink Reply by Brett Aubrey on -
Well, Felch... *if* you are management, we can talk... but no, I'm not a liar, I have been an atheist since January of 1947 and indeed when people are intolerant (whomever they are, but Xians virtually all the time), I speak up. This is yet more evidence of your intolerance. Ya seem a little thick, 'Felch', and paranoid in the way most Xians are. And I dropped the names precisely because you announce your bigotry to the world, so I figured I'd get tossed pretty soon and hoped it wouldn't be 'til someone checked up.
Now please start a new thread called "Brett the liar" or whatever lie you want, or I might feel obligated to respond.
-
Permalink Reply by Фелч Гроган on
-
What intolerance ? The only people that crap on about it are fundies that lie their way in here and try to incite it. The only person that thinks you are believable is you. Your dumbness is stereotypical and reeks like my socks.
-
Permalink Reply by Brett Aubrey on
-
Duh... For the nth time, the intolerance of banning others simply because they are different from you (as stated ad nauseum *sigh*). You ain't like 98% of the atheists I know, and when I complained about this at another site, they reconsidered.
-
Permalink Reply by Фелч Гроган on
-
Brett "100% pure atheist": You ain't like 98% of the atheists I know, and when I complained about this at another site, they reconsidered.
What web site would that be ? Really, we would like to know. Get some tips off them to enlighten us. I'd also like to meet some of those elusive other 98% of atheists we don't know of. Perhaps you could get Margaret Downey to help us out with that, seeing as you're pals. And about you -
I'm a 100% good, kind, steadfast, confirmed, devout, committed, militant, fundamentalist, ultra-tolerant, rabid, logical, rational, empirical, *non-denominational* four square, life-long, evangelical, wholier-than-thou, born-again, saved-from-religion, Bright strong ATHEIST+. ... ( Atheistic family going back at least to the 1800s. )
I've participated in several forums, sites, etc., including RD.net, Rationalia (and OBC/Bella's predecessor - how quickly I've forgotten), Herd of Cats (~2 posts?), Yahoo! Answers R&S and more. Just looking at the Home page, I can see Margaret Downey (whom I've talked to and saw in Long Beach) and Richard (RD.net Canadian Bright Group Lead, IIRC).
I've never seen anybody quite so desperate to prove their credentials here. Amazing.
But, you aren't wearing any clothes. Either you're a genuine idiot that has left a trail of embarrassment behind him/her from every other site they've been driven out from, or, most likely, you are like your predecessor theist moles and are here on a fishing trip looking for evidence of our hatred and intolerance. It's a tired routine, and you will only find disappointment. Sorry, but there isn't an intolerant baby eater amongst the 10,000 odd of us here. The only intolerance is that which theists drag in when the door is left ajar.
You've been called. Party's over. Nothing else to see here. Move along.
-
Permalink Reply by Methis on -
You know what the irony is? You're actually being the intolerant one, now. Why must you insist on us changing our ways and resort to plain insults when you don't get what you want?
And who gives a crap if we "ain't" like "98% of the atheists" you know? You are completely dense to what you are being told: this is OUR haven, it's not a public square where everyone can voice their opinion, no, it's our own private corner of the internet where WE can voice our opinions on Life, the Universe and Everything. It's got nothing to do with intolerance, it's for reasons very similar to why I don't paint my walls green with purple splotches and if you don't understand what that's supposed to mean, perhaps you shouldn't have come here in the first place, for it's the company of intelligent (atheist) people that we so enjoy. I am very much led to believe you are not part of that.
As far as I'm concerned, you are not welcome to this community.
P.S.: theists could theoretically join, although they'd have to lie, and it would be possible for them to remain here and engage in intelligent discussion for as long as their opinions do not revert to theism. We want discussion without "because God wills it"-type responses.
I personally have been banned from a christian discussion group, where I was engaged in intense but polite discussion, for requesting a more reasonable answer than playing the "god-card". How's that for tolerance?
No, truly, we demand reason, and if the only way to get that is to weed out those who resort to god and/or insults, then so be it.
-
Permalink Reply by Chrys Stevenson on -
Brett said: Well, Felch... *if* you are management, we can talk.
This site has nearly 10,000 members. Management cannot possibly deal with each one personally. Why ever would you think that of all those members you deserve special recognition? Suggestions for changes to the site are treated far more seriously when they come from members who have made a positive contribution to the site over a period of time. In other words, they have earned the attention of management.
You, on the other hand, have arrived here and, without bothering to get to know anybody or understand anything about the site, you have gone on an irrational rant against the site and its members with all guns blazing. If you think that makes you special enough to attract the interest of management, think again.
Because we have no idea of who you are, where you came from, or what you stand for, your opinion means nothing to us.
-
Permalink Reply by Фелч Гроган on
-
I swear these guerrilla evangelism nutjobs must hand out assignments to infiltrate our sites to prove how stupid we all are.
-
Permalink Reply by Luke on -
I don't want theists on A|N. I get enough of their nonsense in the meat world. I come here for a rest. I want to be able to discuss issues with people with a naturalistic world view. I want to trust that they're not just setting me up for a round of proselytizing.
I think we are here trying to figure out our natural world. How to analyse and understand it, how to learn about it and how to function within it without supernatural corruptions and excuses.
How can I have open, unguarded discussions if I don't know whether the people I'm conversing with are driven by ulterior motives.
-
Permalink Reply by Chrys Stevenson on
-
There are many places on the internet where theists and atheists can debate. Frankly, many atheists aren't interested in the wearisome task of debating theists. Many atheists are ex-Christians and are heartily sick of people trying to reconvert them. Many of our members have suffered abuse and/or discrimination at the hands of theists and are not particularly interested in interacting with them further. And then there are some of us who just find the irrationality of theistic debate just plain annoying.
While some of our members do enjoy the cut and thrust of debate with theists, they can do that elsewhere. For example, the Atheist Foundation of Australia's discussion board has a forum called "Fantasy Island" specifically for theists to discuss issues with AFA members. Some of us engage in debates with theists on Facebook and Myspace. On the other hand, many of us feel there is little point in trying to deconvert theists and this is certainly not the aim of Atheist Nexus. What is more of an issue for us is keeping theists from trying to inflict their views on the rest of society. That requires that atheists should form communities and networks and that is our goal here. This is best achieved without the distraction of theists on the site.
Atheist Nexus was conceived as, and will continue to provide, a 'safe place' for atheists to meet and exchange ideas. It is not free from debate. As atheists are principally united only by a lack of belief in supernatural deities, there are plenty of points of difference which keep this site interesting.
-
Permalink Reply by Richard Haynes on -
Yeah, what she said.
-
Permalink Reply by Sentient Biped on -
This response may or may not be around, depending on how long the original poster stays on the site. It's understandable that A|N members feel threatened by someone who, in their first post on the site, judges the members and finds them wanting. This post has exactly the traits that would be found by a stealth christian coming to the site - specious arguments, then passing judgement.
To post with the title line noting that it would be controversial, then call people who object to the concept of changing an underlying principle of the site 'exclusionary' is suspicious.
I could just imagine, inviting men to a women's shelter and saying "if they start to act up, tell them to leave"
Same for nazi's in a synagogue. "They can stay if they behave". WTF kind of assertion is that?
Same for Fred Phelps in a gay community center.
So a White supremist walks into a Black church and tells the members they are intolerant and exclusionary unless they welcome even more white supremists into their church. Huh?
Then of course, Phelps calls the gay members intolerant when he doesn't appear welcome. Sounds like this poster.
Really, I don't care if the Church of Canada, or the Catholic church, or the LDS, Jehovahs Witnesses, or any other church, considers A|N intolerant. 2,000 years of hate, lies, murder, wars, theft, intellectual mendacity, and then christians whine a little about not letting the fox into the henhouse?
Felch, thanks for the comment about the simian (get it - gorilla?) christian site. The underlying suspicion that this is such a post came to mind for me as well.
As noted already, no one can post with the title noting that a statement will be controversial, then whine about the controversy that it generates. Again, if the intent is to grow a community of theists and atheists joining hands and skipping through the alpine meadows singing selections from the sound of music, there is nothing wrong with starting such a site. Go for it. I, for one, won't be there.
 |
 |
 |
 |
Latest Activity
© 2013 Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.
