Hello, Atheists and Agnostics Group

[Skinner]

I understand that out in the "real world" there still exists a significant level of animosity between believers and non-believers, particularly among certain segments of society. That sucks -- believe me, I know. We all hope that someday soon we can all live in a society that is truly accepting of all worldviews. It is a sad fact that even Democratic Underground does not always live up to this ideal, and it is made more difficult by the fact that we exist in a society that does not live up to the ideal. But it is our intent to do what we can to make DU live up to that ideal. We believe that all of our members are capable of respecting the beliefs or lack-of-beliefs of everyone here. And by "all members" I mean everyone: Believers should respect those who do not believe, and non-believers should respect those who believe. We don't expect you all to agree, but we do expect you to disagree in a mutually-respectful way.

This is a friendly reminder.

The purpose of this Group is to discuss topics of mutual interest with relating to Atheism and Agnosticism.

The purpose of this Group IS NOT to discuss idiotic posts by believers, to ridicule or attack other members of DU, or to whip up feelings of victimization. Here is the mission statement of this group (emphasis added):

Although anyone is welcome to participate, the DU Atheists and Agnostics Group is a place where atheists and agnostics can engage in frank discussions about the effects of religion on politics, free of debate about the existence of a deity or deities. In this forum it is inappropriate to belittle those with religious beliefs or to engage in demeaning or hateful speech toward members of DU who may hold such beliefs. Those who do believe in a deity should be aware that the underlying assumption for discussions in this Group is that either "god" does not exist or that the existence of "god" is in doubt. If you are offended by such notions, you probably should not participate in this Group.

As the administrator of this website, it is my job to make sure that the mission statements of the various DU Groups are enforced. You should probably know that we intend to block individuals from this group who violate the mission statement of this group.

Furthermore, we expect all members of DU to treat each other and our differing worldviews with respect when participating anywhere else on this discussion forum.

Most people in this group and on DU are productive members of our community. But I am concerned that there is a very small number of people who have been deliberately whipping up feelings of ill-will between belivers and non-believers. At this point, there are some who are in danger of being banned from this website, and part of the reason for this post is that I hope we can avoid that outcome.

Thank you for your understanding.

Skinner
DU Admin

[Kolesar]

1. I don't understand why this thread was locked

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=263x10930 I did not see any of that "unbecoming behavior" of calling out other DU threads or other DU posters. Besides, I just posted something funny and was standing by for adulation.

I recall people posting in A&A that they were not going to participate here (in A&A) because they did not condone the "call outs". I can proudly say that I have not participated in such, although I have followed links and read threads in "other DU forums".

I suppose there is a sense of pride in winning a battle of wits at DU, but consider that only a few dozen people are even aware of these token battles. Come one year later and nobody will even remember the thread. I had had a similar experience which I dealt with by just hitting the "ignore" button on those posters purposely agitating on candidate Howard Dean. Finally, any time spent battling a highly personal contest on the web is time that would be better spent writing a letter to the editor on global warming. Peace and brotherhood!

[Skinner]

6. That thread was locked

because at least one of the songs was based on that tired old mods pick on the non-believers but not the believers canard.

[trotsky]

2. There is a post on a thread in R&T

that says Pat Robertson et al are obviously atheists, because essentially they're too mean to have religious faith.

I have alerted on the post twice, but it remains.

Can you please explain why I should not consider this a double standard?

[Skinner]

3. I apologize that that post was not removed.

It's not a double standard. It's a mistake.

We get tens of thousands of posts every day. We get hundreds of alerts. Sometimes, things get lost in the shuffle. Sometimes, the wrong call gets made. On a website of this size, it is inevitable that such things happen. Indeed, it happens every single day.

I have deleted the post.

[trotsky]

5. Thank you, Skinner.

It's just frustrating to see action taken pretty swiftly in one spot, but not in another.

I know you guys and the mods have it really hard. Sorry to contribute to that sometimes.

[Skinner]

8. You're welcome.

No need to apologize. I understand that it can be very frustrating. Every day on this website many things happen that are not fair. If there were a way to get rid of the gaps and inconsistencies of enforcement, we would do it in a second. But moderating a message board is ultimately a human endeavor, and we are none of us perfect. So we depend on some level of understanding from our members. We do our best to try to give our members the same level of understanding in return.

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Skinner]

7. Your donation has been refunded.

ON EDIT: You are welcome to discuss and even criticize religion on this website, provided that you do so within the boundaries set by our rules and the mission statement of this group. As for criticizing Bush and his followers, that is pretty much the entire point of this website and doing so is encouraged.

[rexcat]

9. Skinner...

I don't know what the circumstances are for a request of a refund so I have contributed today to offset the loss to DU. It gets contentious at times and there have been many posts derogatory to atheists of late. I appreciate what you and the moderators face here on DU. Keep up the good work!

[Skinner]

10. That is very kind.

Thank you. It is true that there have been a lot of derogatory things said about a lot of people recently. It is unfortunate, and we are doing what we can to deal with the issue.

Also, for the record, that post above was removed in error. I am going to private message the text to that member so he has the option to re-post if he wishes. I am sorry about that.

[PinkUnicorn]

11. Family, Politics and Religion...

During my first aid training I was told these were the three things NEVER to discuss with a person who is injured or in shock, as the result will inevitably be bad.

By its very nature DU it has the politics angle covered, add a dose of religion/atheism and your a short step from it getting personal (family). It's unfortunate, but inevitable I suppose that blowups will happen given the coverage of the big three - especially given the amount of 'faith figures' screeching on the US TV in the wake of the hurricane and with a lobotomized circus monkey claiming a hotline to God as your head of state.

Hopefully things may calm down a bit now the big stick has been waved. Though treading on eggshells can be a bit unnerving, given what the Mods have to go through every hour I suppose DU is lucky they didn't go completely postal. :think:

[Az]

12. Its funny the cost our society places on us

You don't talk about Politics or Religion in a diverse society because it inevetibly steps on someones toes. But these two subjects (and family) are arguably the most important subjects a society can talk about.

But due to our social taboos we don't talk about them. And thus real dialog about the things that matter atrophy. This allows predatory factors in society to take hold.

Political and religious dialog are necissary. It is civility that enables it to occur. They are tricky subjects but our future demands that they be discussed.

[PinkUnicorn]

13. Agreed..

I agree fully, but from a first aid perspective you don't want a patient with a chest wound or major bleed going off his nut ;)

But under normal circumstances, I agree totally with you. Simply nodding and accepting anything fobbed onto you, _especially_ matters which can have a huge effect on you and society as a whole- such as religion and politics - must be discussed. If one submits to mindless obedience to any sort of system then you deserve exactly what you get.

As you mentioned its the civility. But by their very nature it's red flag material. From reading past posts, one could be called a 'Freeper' by a fly-by-night poster and very quickly a good discussion could turn into crap. Regrettably it seems that the label 'atheist' is gaining similar context.

I apologise, but its a bit tricky to wrap my head around as here (Aust) until recently religion has been generally a 'don't ask, don't tell, don't care' topic in politics/daily life thus I admit don't fully understand things like 'Atheists are not citizens' or 'Prahase the Laaawd' types.

[arwalden]

14. "This allows predatory factors in society to take hold."

:thumbsup: Indeed.

[TreasonousBastard]

16. Interesting point, but we do talk about them...

of course.

It's just some places where we prefer to make them taboo-- the dinnertable, weddings, funerals, the office...

It seems that no matter how civil our intentions, it almost always ends up in a fight, and there are times when such fights just aren't appreciated.

Now, if we all could actually learn to discuss these things without someone flying off the handle...

Nah, I'm dreaming.

[Az]

17. I'm dreaming too

And the one thing I have learned is if you want your dreams to come true you gotta work at them.

[beam me up scottie]

28. "work at them" ?

So, Az, is this what you meant when you said there would have to be "some cheek turning real soon" ?

[Az]

29. Really was hoping

to remind them of their own teachings.

[beam me up scottie]

30. Right.

I'm sure that was it.

[beam me up scottie]

39. "now that the big stick has been waved" ?

More like a fucking monolithic cross.:sarcasm:

[Taxloss]

15. Skinner, if I may contribute a thought or two.

This is from the position of an atheist Brit.

1.

The atheists here are an extremely intelligent, articulate, quick-thinking and witty group, IMHO. There is also a natural cynicism that attaches itself to atheism. These characteristics can lead to sharp remarks and quick tempers.

2.

The atheists here are a clear minority. That is keenly felt. But we will not be quiet; in consequence, yes, in religius debates the same atheist names appear again and again and again, not because we are engaging in a pattern of trolling, but because we are outnumbered and must work triple shifts to come close to countering a lot of the unfair talk that is bandied around about atheists.

3.

As a longtime follower of American politics and society, I was aware of the intense power of the religious right and its importance to the Republican grip on power over the past few years. I expected liberal Christians to be outraged by this horrible perversion of their faith. But they aren't! They are UTTERLY FAILING to deal with their co-religionists! It is one of the most pathetic and grotesque political retreats from reality I have ever seen to write off all RW Xians as "not real Xians" and leave it at that. It is a criminal abdication of responsibility to simply re-draw the line to suit their comfortable little hole. That makes us angry, and I think American atheists have a right to be angry about that. It is a very serious issue, as serious as homophobia or racism in a countr that is bleeding away its secularity. And liberal atheists have a right to call out liberal Christians and say: what are you doing about your co-religionists? without being fobbed off with "they're not real Christians". It's a patent falsehood, a meaningless get-out clause and if you want the source of a lot of the anger here, it's that phrase.

That and the casual assumption that atheists are worse people than Christians. But you already knew about that.

[TreasonousBastard]

18. Allow me to interject a small point here...

as a liberal, and quite nontraditional, Christian, I have to say that I have absolutely no control over what other alleged Christians say or do.

I do disagree with the politics and the theology of Fallwells and Robertsons out there, and work with many Catholics, Baptists, Methodists, Unitarians, Quakers, and others to negate their message and promote peace, justice, civility, and common goals among all religions and those without religion.

A large part of the problem is that we simply do not have the microphone. We are at the disadvantage of by not having a particular political goal or TV network, we just can't get our message out there as easily as they can.

[Az]

19. Acknowledged

But as we have even less voice in Christian communities we only can appeal to the liberal Christians to raise their voice. We know you don't have the microphone right now. But we are going to remind you occaisionally to go get the dang thing.

[TreasonousBastard]

26. Here's the problem with the microphone...

right now it's plugged into a Republican amplifier and they are using it to spin everything their way. The fundagelicals who don't agree with them are being squelched, too.

But, beyond that, there is a fundamental problem with genuinely religious clergy getting too involved, and that slows the rest of us down a bit.

Your typical priest, preacher, rabbi, imam, or whatever is usually overwhelmed with the local business of dealing with a congregation. There's the building fund, the weddings and funerals, the hospital visits and all the other stuff they do as part of the job. Most are spiritual first, and political second, if at all. Most have very little interest in getting the microphone, because that's not why they wear the robes.

So, that pretty much leaves it to the Taliban types to get the PR and set the tone. They have the will and the energy to go to war, and seem to have little interest in tending to flocks.

No one's happy with this, but there's little we can do at he moment. There are a few voices out there, but then internal church squabbling shuts them up as often as not.

No one's happy about that either.

[Taxloss]

20. Even if you don't have the microphone, your voice is greater.

These fundamentalist zealots will never listen to the Godless; we have only two roles that we can play: converts-in-waiting or evil scapegoat. You have far more leverage. And you exceed us in numbers, power, representation and political strength. You don't have the microphone? Take it, make your own, or create a new show. The atheists and the gays will be the first to be dealt with if your ruling classes have theocracy on their mind. But they won't be the last. Liberal Christians should remember that.

[TreasonousBastard]

25. Quite frankly, they won't listen...

to us, either.

Most of us are well aware of the danger of the sort of fundamentalism brewing in this latest Great Awakening. In the past, these "awakenings" were often populist and William Jennings Bryant's politics were the polar opposite of the evangelists today. It's unfortunate that he is more often remembered for the monkey trial, and not his pacifism and how he resigned as Secretary of State over WWI.

No, I don't think he would have been a good President, but he campaigned for the little guy and the busted farmer-- he was a fundamentalist Christian Socialist. Yes, there are even such people now, although difficult to find.

But these guys now-- none of them are in it for principle. It's all about the money and power. If you, me, and the Pope were in a room with Dobson, we could talk all day about ethics, morality, and the Sermon on the Mount from our different perspectives and all he'd do at the end of it is ask us how big a check we'll write.

This too, I hope, shall pass.

[Az]

27. Just remember that Dobson on his own is just one voice

Robertson on his own is just one voice. We don't have to target those individuals. We don't have to silence them.

Each and every follower of Robertson and Dobson are individuals with their own minds. Every follower everywhere has their own mind. It is by backing people like Dobson that they come to power. We don't have to directly challenge these power mongers. We only have to give voice to an alternative.

At first it will only eat away at the fringes. Those already open to new ideas. But as the numbers grow it gains social structure and power. And then we have a microphone of our own.

And then Dobson can remain as pig headed as he wants to be, but its just one man's voice then.

[A HERETIC I AM]

57. "(A) country that is bleeding away its secularity"

EXCEEDINGLY well put.

The entire post....WELL SAID!

[FM Arouet666]

21. Sorry, I have been away a few days, did I miss something

This groups has always been very sacrilegious, pretty much the stated objective. I hope that those which are in jeopardy of loosing DU privileges are afforded a warning. I would hate to get tomb-stoned without a chance to redeem myself.

What, exactly prompted this warning? All the cross posting perhaps?

I have noticed a lot of cross posting, much of which has prompted an atheist affront. Is it acceptable to mention another post, without linking to it or mentioning the poster by name? The intent being to evoke replies within this group, without necessarily prompting an attack in the posted group. However, this allows a post to exist in another group which we, in this group, may find unpalatable and inadequately addressed.

On edit.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=263&topic_id=8545&mesg_id=8545

I just read this post. I have no way to respond to this without an example. A cross linked post would allow other atheists to provide a critical response. I think most of us in this group are not looking for battles, but we do not want posts to be protected from criticism, if criticism is due.

[CarbonDate]

22. I'm not sure.

I could speculate, but I'm going to assume that it was something that I missed. Still, just in case we need it, it might behoove us to find another forum on which to post as a backup plan. Does anybody know any good spots?

[Tafiti]

23. Don't panic.

It's really not that big of a deal. All the threads that got locked were against the rules, i.e. cross-posting calling out specific threads and their authors.

Rules are rules. Some were stepping out of bounds here and there, so I think Skinner is just repainting the boundary line so it's a little clearer.

We're not going anywhere.

[FM Arouet666]

24. That is what I figured

Most locked posts and group warnings are pretty obvious in the reasons why. But it is a bit unusual to have Skinner drop the axe. I, for one, would like to keep my head.

[BiggJawn]

31. Well, if THIS doesn't throw a chill into me....

...
Nope. Not gonna say anything else on this subject.

[MindPilot]

33. Well, I will. Even here we non-believers are second class.

Hey Atheist! Stay over in your own area, separate and unequal. Don't say anything that might offend the delicate sensibilities of the poor repressed xians.

Again we are being told we have to respect their stupid fairy tales, and hold our tongues when we should be dispelling the myths. Religion in general--and Christianity in particular--is the driving force behind the destruction of our country and indeed the world. Anyone who tolerates these brain dead god-freaks is by extension aiding and abetting the BFEE.

Why should I have to respect and tolerate ideas that are anti-science, anti-human, anti-freedom, regressive and intolerant themselves?

[salvorhardin]

34. Exactly right

The double standard is astounding. Free to speak of belief, but not of disbelief. Free to spread rumour and innuendo and loony PCTs but not free to challenge such. Here as elsewhere fear and superstition reigns but the ones who would challenge it are barely tolerated, cast out if they speak too loudly.

On edit: No one else has said it so I will. Modem Butterfly's tombstoning stinks.

[Az]

35. Their side took the first hit

Jimbob was the first tombstone in this exchange.

I don't think we will see the return of Jimbob, but I hope we see the return of our butterfly.

[beam me up scottie]

38. How DARE you try to justify this by comparing MB to that dominionist troll

MB showed more integrity and courage than all of the suck ups and apologists combined.

She was labeled and targeted and finally sacrificed.

IMHO, of course.:sarcasm:

[Emperor_Norton_II]

41. That's what happens in purges

Those who don't toe the line and are vocal about it get the axe. Then anybody who dares speak the name of the axee in public get it next, and so on.

Always wondered when the people who weren't God-fearing would be purged. It's a big tent, but I guess it's not big enough, eh?

[CarbonDate]

43. Absolutely correct.

How long, I wonder, before we all get tombstoned?

[CarbonDate]

44. Like my new avatar? I think it's nifty. n/t

.

[Emperor_Norton_II]

45. Very becoming. -nt-

[salvorhardin]

46. I think it's just spiffy

You don't mind if I use it do you?

How's my sig image looking these days?

[CarbonDate]

47. Sig image looks wonderful.

You're absolutely welcome to use my avatar yourself. The more the merrier.

[salvorhardin]

40. That sort of sidesteps the issue

Does sacrificing the most vocal members of either side solve the problem that the atheistic viewpoint, hell, even the secular, is coming under attack on the left now just as it did on the right? This is not a left vs. right issue. It is between those who recognize the value in a secular society and those who favor theocracy (as long as it is their theocracy).

[Zenlitened]

55. But remember, religious believers who get tombstoned are all actually...

... (cue dramatic music)... "rabid agnostics" offline or in other venues.

That's the how the meme works around here.

We've all seen how the religious absolve themselves of any wrong-doing with the "not a real christian" excuse.

But when it's one of their own given the boot, the excuse is just amped up a bit: "He was actually an agnostic/atheist, trying to make religion look bad."

And then everything is right in the world again: religionists good, atheists bad. Mean, mean atheists, fooling us like that.

:crazy: :crazy: :crazy:

[BiggJawn]

37. We got "Swarmed".

Same tactic the Dominionists use against elected officials, School Boards and Retailers.

Make a bloody NUISANCE of themselves until they get their way just to shut them up.

You're right, there is a double standard in this culture. *I* have to "respect" someone's belief in the Supernatural, but yet my belief that their belief is fantasy gets stepped all over.

I even tried once to suggest that if someone concocted a story today about the Divinity of Winnie-The-Pooh, who knows where that might wind up in 2,000 years?

I was called a "Blasphemer". I guess it was lost upon them that that was probably EXACTLY what the followers of "Christ" were called by the followers of Jove and YHWH so many ages ago...

But you wanna know what REALLY burns my cookies?

Scientology is granted more rspect than Atheism is...

[Bluebear]

42. Here's a photo to ponder

from today in Pt. Arthur TX

[BiggJawn]

48. Well, OBVIOUSLY somebody's sinnin' in port Arthur....

And EVERYBODY gets to pay for it.

[trotsky]

64. Winnie-The-Pooh

You make an excellent point there, even more so when you consider just how few people were literate or understood even the basics of critical thinking back around the supposed time of Jesus.

It was literally like the telephone game back then, with rumors taking on credibility with repetition and growing more fantastic with each telling until someone finally wrote things down, a couple of generations after the events.

[JNelson6563]

32. This tells an interesting tale

All I can say is I hope the DU rules are followed so that we don't provide an excuse to shut this forum down. I'd wager there are regular hunting expeditions in here for that very reason.

Now, if only we can get the idiotic and/or vanity posts in GD to stop.....

Julie

[FM Arouet666]

50. Valid point.

What's done is done. I am pissed about it, but we have to move on. I would hate to see this forum get dumped.

[CarbonDate]

51. I disagree.

What good is this forum if we have to live in fear of getting tombstoned for speaking our minds?

[FM Arouet666]

53. I still have mixed feelings

Your right, there is fear, I have pulled a few punches lately because of the warning post. However, there is a line between justifiable criticism and christian baiting. It can be difficult to discern the difference, and Skinner has indicated that some have crossed the line.

All we can do is try to define that line more clearly and continue to post. But, I must admit, I am not clear on where this line is given the examples posted in this tread. And, yes, that creates fear and causes some self censoring.

[beam me up scottie]

54. I agree.

And many of us do live in fear of getting tomb-stoned.

Some of us, like MB, don't let it stop us.

I'd rather be a dead poster who's remembered for courage and integrity than a live apologist who sucks up to the majority.

[onager]

36. OK, this was mine...

Skinner, in re the "song" thread:

That thread was locked because at least one of the songs was based on that tired old mods pick on the non-believers but not the believers canard.

I believe this refers to my riff, "One Post Over The Line."

I didn't mean to imply that the mods were "picking on" us.

Let me put this in context, and I'll be as brief as possible.

At the time, I was frustrated because a couple of the Xians seemed to be calling out the entire atheist group. This is in the thread where the one Believer claimed to be an atheist for about 40 nanoseconds.

Several atheists responded to the original post and simply offered any help we could to the person who SEEMED to need it.

In response to that, the Xers started another thread smirking about our "effusive" welcomes to the Theoretical Atheist.

The thread contained cute disclaimers like, "I can't elaborate because the thread would be locked."

I posted a very civil message inviting their comments on atheists.

My post was deleted within seconds, but the snarking on atheists continued.

And it does stink that MB got tombstoned, while some of the most vociferous and (IMO) unpleasant posters on the other side are still running loose.

[FM Arouet666]

52. A difficult situation.

I tend to agree, atheists and skeptics have a different standard applied. I think that this is due to the opponents propensity to complain to mods, where we tend to continue to argue and attack. Atheists have to move on from here. Continue to post against those which post anti-atheistic or anti-science posts, avoid ad hominem, and if you perceive unfair treatment let the mods know. What else can we do?

[EvolveOrConvolve]

49. As a barely occasional poster, I think it is very very unfortunate

I left the Republican party because it was made known that I wasn't welcome. I still consider myself a fiscal conservative (or fiscally responsible), and Dems seem to be the party that's more fiscally responsible. I'm a big supporter of gay rights, and the R's stances on gay marriage really turned me off. Several other issues like the environment and abortion also attracted me to the other side of the aisle. I don't regret the move.

I was also under the impression that Dems would accept me as an atheist. On that count, I was wrong. It's almost worse because I expected Dems to be the party of inclusiveness, and they are not. With the exception of a few people, they haven't made me feel welcome at all. I went to an informal meeting of Dems in my state, and they opened the meeting with a prayer. I felt extremely uncomfortable, but didn't say anything figuring that I would be accepted anyway. Boy howdy was I wrong! They didn't want to hear about the issues that were important to me, mostly because they dealt with church/state separation issues. The whole "inclusiveness" bit was like an Amway sales pitch; they sign you up and expect you to pay your way, but then don't support you as a person.

The lack of acceptance is pretty subtle, but it's there nonetheless. And that same lack of acceptance can be found at DU, even though there are some great people here. A poll I read recently had liberals and conservatives ranked about the same when asked the questions "Would you vote for an atheist or agnostic?". The percent was about 15%, IIRC, and is very telling.

Don't get me wrong, I love DU, and couldn't live without it. But it's frustrating when atheists/agnostics aren't allowed to even defend themselves. That frustration is only increased by the sheer numbers we face when defending ourselves. I won't even post on the subject anywhere, because pointing out the absurdity in a Christian's post is called "hate speech" and alerted on immediately.

The problem Skinner, is that when we, as atheists, speak frankly about religious beliefs, believers take that as demeaning and hateful speech that belittles their religion. In their eyes, our opinions probably are demeaning, but in our eyes those opinions are simple statements. So by the very mission statement, nearly all our posts are in violation of the rules.

Skinner, even though I think the situation is a bit one-sided, I do see and recognize the excellent work you and the other admins and mods do. I'd be lost without DU, and I appreciate greatly all the hard work you guys do. Just please understand that many atheists no longer feel welcome in the Dems "big tent", and that that attitude is starting to seep into DU.

[trotsky]

56. For a "barely occasional poster," you give us some very wise words.

Christians complaining that the party is trying to marginalize them, when it's patently clear the opposite is much closer to the truth. Defending ourselves or trying to point out why religion & politics are ALWAYS a bad idea will inevitably offend some religionist, and so here we are.

You should post more, EOC!

[CarbonDate]

59. Here's what's actually happening:

The Dominionists already have full control of the Republican party. Now they're starting in on the Democratic party. They'll talk about how the Iraq War (or whatever the bread and butter issues of the day are) and labor laws are way more important than seperation of church and state and that fighting for that seperation will cost Democrats elections, etc. etc. They want to continue the two party system, and they'll have the two parties debating on health care, foreign policy, and labor laws, but the one thing the two parties will agree on is that this is one nation under God and that whatever our nation's failings, at least we have Jesus.

And they'll succeed. We're seeing it already on Democratic Underground. We really are the last line of defense until this nation falls to theocracy.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

62. Thanks for the kind words trotsky

I feel very welcome in the A&A group forum. Unfortunately, the environment is pretty hostile for atheists in some of the other forums here at DU. Most of the hostility is overt, and easily dismissed. The subtle hostility is harder to combat, and that's where we need to take our stand.

The "so and so is a bad person, so they must be an atheist" meme is really coming on strong, and I don't just see it at DU. I post on several other nonpolitical message boards and I've seen the same thing recently, almost as if a single brain controls the thought processes of Christians. An oldie but goody variation on the theme is the "Hitler actively promoted atheism" BS. I'm sick and tired of being marginalized IRL, and I won't put up with the shit any more. My business suffers because the fact of my atheism got out. People I've considered close and wonderful friends have abandoned me, and now the looks I get from them is horrific.

So I'm beyond caring about offending Christians. I won't troll the internet looking for a fight, and I certainly won't intrude when Christians are chatting about things that they may consider sacred or important. I won't, however, stand down when Christians insult atheists, whether purposefully or not. I consider it an education campaign first and foremost, but I'm not scared to debate the issue.

Thanks for the welcome trotsky, I really do appreciate it. :toast:

And I promise I'll try to post more than I have in the past.

[Az]

63. We definately need the voices

Silence = Death

[salvorhardin]

58. I second what trotsky said

You should post more.

[GOPFighter]

60. This is a tough rule to abide by

"In this forum it is inappropriate to belittle those with religious beliefs or to engage in demeaning or hateful speech toward members of DU who may hold such beliefs."

Yes, I understand why it is important to show some modicum of respect for each other in DU, but what if this country was 90% atheist and a bunch of atheist zealots in control of this country were trying to squeeze out all religions in the country and make this an atheist country. Let's also assume that DU was largely comprised of atheists (but not as zealous as the opposition). Wouldn't the Christian minority in DU, in real danger of losing their religious rights, be frustrated and angry at their fellow DUers at times?

[Az]

61. One more try

Angry does not mean belligerant. Angry does not mean unreasonable. Angry does not mean uncivil.

No matter how justifiably angry we may be it does not mean it is open season on everyone that is not us.

Yes, we believe their beliefs are deluded and in many cases foolish. But if you walk up to someone and tell them to their face they are deluded and foolish you are not going to be having a conversation about the things that you believe they are foolish about. You are going to have an angry spitting ball of fundie on your hands and nothing productive will happen.

We moderate ourselves doesn't mean we can't be angry. I am livid. I am pissed at what is happening to our nation and our world. But if I want to make a difference its going to take more than insulting believers and calling the things they are most passionate about names. Thats gets us no where and actually loses us territory.

Demand your rights. Do not back down. But do not give them the freaking moral highground by acting like a bunch of children calling each other names on a playground. The minute you do that you have lost.

We do not have numbers. We only have reason, science, and facts on our side. And unless we carry those with diginity and courage they will be ignored. We are their champions. Act like it. Too many have suffered for anything less to be acceptable.

[GOPFighter]

65. Quite right!

But it's the anger and frustration that sometimes lead atheists, and other minorities, to lash out at those who just don't get it. Sure, we know in our heads that this is not the right way to change minds or build support for our cause, but dammit, sometimes you run into someone who is so dense and certain of their convictions that it's almost impossible to hold back. In life that can get you a screaming match, on DU it can get you tombstoned.

Right now I'm dealing with a woman in our homeowners association who is an amalgam of all the things that make my skin crawl: a proud xtian, and a RW conspirist, certain the federal government is hard at work turning our country over to the UN. She sees liberal sonspiracies in every facet of everyday life....and I have to work with her. If that's not enough, she's wealthy and influential in the county (she's a developer). She is tearing apart our association and I am trying to stop her. Unfortunately, many in the association are just as screwed up as she is (can you imagine working with people whose every sentence begins: "I've prayed about this and the Lord has lead me to..."?). Probably the best I can do is limit the damage she does, but I know if I ever let go of my temper and attack her directly, she will win (because I would be also attacking all the other screwy people like her). Still, there are lines which I will not let her cross without a forceful response, and that is where the danger lies. This has been going on for about a year.

I still think much of this fundy nonsense is a phase America is going through. We let down our defences and they slithered in. The more emboldened they get and the more power they achieve, the stupider they sound to the average American. They've traditionally been scorned and will be again once America purges ourselves of the zealots who are sacking our treasury and our rights in the name of god.

[Skinner]

66. Locking

See here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=263x11400