It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Atheist Chat

page: 32
15
<< 29  30  31    33 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 10:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by shihulud
Why is it these religionites want to ban anything that doesn't agree?,

You are mistaken. Most of the staff are agnostic or athiest. Look, I'm disappointed too. None of you guys put up as good of a rebuttal as MM did. I considered her an asset to this site. Go look at my profile and you'll see that she contributed more comments than anyone else. Truely a respected foe.

I honestly don't know the details about why she was banned, but you have to do something outrageous to get banned from ATS. Trust me. It was nothing to do with being an athiest. There are lots of athiest here, and this thread is what, 31 pages long? Plus there are many, many more threads that are anti-religious here.

Now I have to respectfully ask that everyone stay on topic. Thanks.




posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 11:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Edn
If we have to sencor ourselves to make religous people happy then this isnt a place I want to stay in.


I think it's more a case that I personally don't understand why atheists bother with certain threads. What atheist would want to talk about cherubic angels, for instance?

Beyond 'it's all BS' and wishful thinking, what else can you say? I can't be bothered responding to bombardments with bible verses and bad logic, but of course, that's my position.


I guess we just dont seam it likely that she would break the T&C enough to get banned, it would be nice to nkow why but i gess that is "fround upon".


From what I can gather, she was 'frowned upon' for pulling threads off-topic repeatedly. But after going through some of her previous posts, especially the one which she mentioned about being a news item which I speculate was Budski's pedophilia/pope thread (which she was warned for), I think it appears she basically was expected to keep out of religious threads altogether. Her response appeared to be quite mundane, entirely on-topic, and, indeed, might I say appropriate.



[edit on 15-1-2008 by melatonin]



posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 11:10 AM
link   
reply to post by melatonin
 


To me, her response was mundane, restrained and pertinent to the points being discussed.
I didn't even know she had been warned during the course of the thread as she replied only twice, although I know a couple of other warns were given, one of them to me.

But, as dbates has respectfully asked, perhaps the topic at hand should be addressed - we accomplish nothing by getting warned or banned ourselves.



posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 11:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by budski
My intention in coming to this thread was to explore the meaning that atheism has for people, whether they have another form of belief system and to try and explain my own feelings.


I usually post Carl Sagan's Dragon in my garage analogy to explain my own position. Purely a rational evidence-based position.

My atheism doesn't define me the way that theism appears to define some people. In fact, my rational approach to the world defines my atheism. Atheism's not really any sort of 'belief system', just a position on one claim some people make.

ABE: to the last post, but also continuing on this post, my rational approach to the world also includes an intolerance to injustice, whether this be against expectations or not


But, yeah, we don't really know what went on behind the scenes. Maybe MM told onesac to go swivel. Who knows...we can only speculate.

[edit on 15-1-2008 by melatonin]



posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 11:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin

Originally posted by budski
My intention in coming to this thread was to explore the meaning that atheism has for people, whether they have another form of belief system and to try and explain my own feelings.


I usually post Carl Sagan's Dragon in my garage analogy to explain my own position. Purely a rational evidence-based position.

My atheism doesn't define me the way that theism appears to define some people. In fact, my rational approach to the world defines my atheism. Atheism's not really any sort of 'belief system', just a position on one claim some people make.


The Dragon in my garage analogy is great - I've bookmarked the page to read some of the links.


When I mentioned belief systems, I was thinking more of other belief systems not usually associated with religion or atheism as a kind of "replacement" or "substitute" belief system - I know I've used the wrong terminolgy, but I hope you see my point.

I was thinking more along the lines of descartes' use of a belief, to define a thought process or passion that lies within and could give the impression of a belief system, but which is not necessarily true.

I'm not sure if I'm explaining myself clearly - if not, my apologies, I still have the flu.

edit to add - yes, an intolerance for injustice is something I focus on myself, and can be said to be a supposed keystone of christianity - however this is clearly not always the case.

[edit on 15/1/2008 by budski]



posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 11:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by budski
When I mentioned belief systems, I was thinking more of other belief systems not usually associated with religion or atheism as a kind of "replacement" or "substitute" belief system - I know I've used the wrong terminolgy, but I hope you see my point.

I was thinking more along the lines of descartes' use of a belief, to define a thought process or passion that lies within and could give the impression of a belief system, but which is not necessarily true.


OK, I don't really subscribe to anything I would consider a firm 'belief system'. I'm probably considered a liberal and somewhat socialist, but not overly so - I've voted tory in the past and think a mixed economic system is best (some free market, some regulated, some socialist for education, health etc).

I might be considered humanist, but I don't really follow such things closely or am a member of such organisations.

I'm also a bit of an environmentalist, but I also accept that our needs can outweigh that of a rat. I have no issue with nuclear power, and would never embrace a luddite future.

I also hold to feminist and multicultural principles. But, again, not overly so. Just in an 'all equal' point of view.

But, I think a theist could also hold much of these sort of positions, so I don't think any are substitutes for theistic belief. Indeed, I'm pretty flexible on some of them and am open to change position if and when required.

But I suppose rationalist freethinker is the best overarching description.



posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 11:39 AM
link   
reply to post by melatonin
 


Thanks for the definition.

Would I be right then in saying that it's a lack of belief which makes you who you are?

I mean my politics are pretty eclectic in the same way yours are, but for some reason I feel a need for belief (not necessarily in a divine being)

This of course may stem from my upbringing and childhood programming, but it's very much a feeling with no tangible evidence for its origin.



posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 11:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by budski
Would I be right then in saying that it's a lack of belief which makes you who you are?


No, not really. As I said, atheism doesn't really define me. In some ways that's why I haven't really been a big contributor to this thread in the past.

I am an atheist, but it means little more to who I am than saying I'm a Liverpool FC supporter.

I think my freethinking rational evidence-based inquisitive approach to the world is more defining. It has led me to my personal career in science (which is my sort of passion) and also to atheism. But it also underlies a flexibility in my position on most stuff.

I embrace ambiguity and uncertainity, it's where I work to clarify and remove ignorance. Indeed, I seek it and work to overcome it.


I mean my politics are pretty eclectic in the same way yours are, but for some reason I feel a need for belief (not necessarily in a divine being)


I prefer knowledge to belief is probably the best response I have here.


This of course may stem from my upbringing and childhood programming, but it's very much a feeling with no tangible evidence for its origin.


I do think childhood upbringing, but also intrinsic mindset can motivate much of this sort of stuff.

When someone has been brought up surrounded by certain beliefs, they are readily transferred and hardened over time. Where I see events as being mundane and purely chance events, others will see the hand of god. Where I see ignorance and a best answer of 'don't know', others see the work of the supernatural.

[edit on 15-1-2008 by melatonin]



posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 12:12 PM
link   
reply to post by melatonin
 


Thanks for your answers.
More food for thought, and always good to get as many points of view as possible.

Programming is something that I have struggled with, and will no doubt continue to do so.

I understand things on an "intellectual" level, but on an emotional or intuitive level I struggle.



posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 12:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by budski
I understand things on an "intellectual" level, but on an emotional or intuitive level I struggle.


Well, the first thing is to accept that we are open to biases from emotions and beliefs. You've done that. As a biological organism, we are open to unconscious motivations and emotions.

You need to watch for them, correct them, and do your best to overcome them. Not always possible, of course. It's why something like 80% of the population think they are above average in intelligence, heh.

I tend to find that people will compartmentalise particular beliefs from rational discourse. Thus, some scientists pursue evidence-based reason in their career, basing inferences on data and knowledge. But then find themselves in awe of the beauty of a frozen waterfall, and so bow down before an invisible magic-man and become christians (i.e. Francis Collins). The biologist Ken Miller does a similar thing, he argues against creationism and intelligent design fervently, basing his evolutionary position on evidence and rational discourse, and then starts rambling about quantum-based interdimensional agony uncles.

It takes these guys some firm compartmentalising of the faith-based and evidence-based approaches. I can't even imagine the mental gymnastics this must require.

But, overall, that's their problem.

[edit on 15-1-2008 by melatonin]



posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 03:55 PM
link   
And so we all meekly turn a blind eye to MM's banning and choose not to discuss for fear of contravening the T&C's.

Oh what a brave bunch we all are!



posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 04:04 PM
link   
IS asking why a member got banned a breach of the T and C's? There are like 5 members who have been around for a while that just recently been banned. Why can't we know the reason why?



posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 04:20 PM
link   
reply to post by hikix
 


Yes, there has been a spate of bannings recently, some of them quite vocal and active members of ATS.

None more so than MM who contributed regularly to threads and was well respected by the vast majority of members.

As I understand it, it is "frowned upon" to discuss the circumstances behind the banning of members.

Some members who are closer to MM may know the details but I doubt the site owners will ever divulge the reasons.
I suspect the truth will never become public knowledge.

Once over I would have been sure that the site owners had just cause, nowadays I am not so sure. :shk:

As I stated before; it is truly a sad day when such an illustrious member is banned and a sad reflection on ATS as a whole, especially when considering some of the so called "experts" who are given free reign. :shk:

MM will be sorely missed.
Who will be next for the chop?



posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 04:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Freeborn
Who will be next for the chop?


That will be the next person to not abide by the T&C after being admonished to comply with the rules they agreed to when registering.

As to the rest of this, do we guide the board now on popularity? A member that is well liked but doesn't abide by the rules, even when asked numerous times? If you want that type of board let me know, I can point you out to many buddy boards that have few to no rules for decorum.



posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 04:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by dbates
Now I have to respectfully ask that everyone stay on topic. Thanks.


Please return to the topic of this thread.
This is a second request to keep on subject.



posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 04:47 PM
link   
reply to post by DontTreadOnMe
 


Respectfully, this thread is called athiest chat. The topic of this thread is, as I understood it, an open discussion about what it is to be atheist. A part of that is understanding that atheists are often persecuted in today's world as they were throughout history. Discussing an atheist member's banning falls within that realm if you ask me.

Unless you want to define specifically what this thread's topic is, I don't think anyone has yet to go off topic.



posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 04:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by MajorMalfunction
I'm setting this thread up specifically for other non-theists to have somewhere to discuss our non-belief and aspects of what that means in our modern world.


Did MM's discussion of her non belief openly and without fear of repercussion get her banned?



posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 04:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
Discussing an atheist member's banning falls within that realm if you ask me.


The point is it wasn't her views as an atheist that got her banned, it was her conduct. In case you didn't know SkepticOverlord, an owner of the site, is an atheist. Thus there was NO persecusion of her because of her beliefs.



posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 05:00 PM
link   
reply to post by intrepid
 


Not at all.
I like and enjoy ATS hence my continued contributions and involvement.
I fully understand and support the need for moderation and Terms & Conditions.
I've never viewed ATS as a popularity contest or as a point gathering excercise.

I also fully understand the need to warn members occassionally and to ban some of them, for various reasons.

I do however, find it sad when a valued member of the ATS family, (I'm sure I've read somewhere that the members are ATS's most valued assets!), get's banned.
Unfortunately, there is no other forum to even mention this, let alone discuss it.
The members are also unaware of what contravention MM made and are genuinely fearful of inadvertently committing the same crime.

I have no desire to get banned myself and as such will post no more comments on the subject and allow the thread to continue in the manner MM would desire.

Apologies if I have offended anyone or caused this to go off thread.



posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 05:07 PM
link   
reply to post by intrepid
 


SO doesn't necessarily have an active hand in every banning does he? I understand that moderators are actively trying to minimize the blowback from MM's banning, but unfortunately it doesn't necessarily come from reliable sources at this point. Nothing against anyone specifically, but the role of a moderator is to keep the peace, by any means necessary. does that mean downplaying injustices? Mod's do need to keep a united front on this sort of thing right?



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 29  30  31    33 >>

log in

join