Atheists & Agnostics
Related: About this forumCan we talk about the group rules?
A couple things are bugging me, wondering if it's just me or if this applies to anyone else.
1. The "safe haven" aspect of this group.
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.
Am I the only one who has always felt that the way that's defined is just a little... off for this particular group of people? I think it's safe to say the majority of atheists are atheists in no small part due to a respect for principles of skeptical inquiry, and generally we have no particular great need to be "protected" from people challenging our positions. Rather the opposite, bring it on. I'm all for an area where we can't be blatantly trolled or constantly mindlessly evangelized or anything and if that's where the safe haven protections extended and then ended that would seem about right... but no challenging the premise of the non existence of a deity? Really? Isn't that more the kind of environment that those with dogmas they can't rationally defend need to cocoon themselves in?
2. The whole Interfaith Group issue
Any and all discussion of the Interfaith group is prohibited in original posts and replies to original posts... ... Please respect the safe-haven nature of the Interfaith group, even if you don't agree at all with what they're discussing.
Can someone explain to me how posting *outside* a group can possibly constitute a breach of their safe haven? Would they not also have to be *outside* that haven to read any such posts and thus, one would think, having no reasonable expectation to be sheltered by it? Since when did the establishment of a safe haven group suddenly create posting restrictions about the subject on *the rest of the board outside that group*?
(Please note how I am not discussing the interfaith group or anything occurring inside it, but rather the rule in this forum that applies to it. I don't read that group, don't visit it, and have no particular intention nor inclination to post about it... but the fact that such a rule exists here in this group is jarring.)
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
JNelson6563
(28,151 posts)Ok. Want to debate with believers? Go here: http://upload.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1218
Do you want to discuss another safe haven group? Please do so within the confines of that group.
Some who participate in other safe havens are banned from posting here. They can't defend themselves or make counter-points to attacks in this safe haven.
If you don't care for these rules, you are not compelled to participate here.
Julie
"Do you want to discuss another safe haven group? Please do so within the confines of that group. "
Really, so missed this in the pinned post at the top of *this* group then did we?
Our advice is to stay completely out of the Interfaith group. It's not our place to go there.
One might think there were a bit of mixed signals being sent around here, don't you think? Also, the "*sigh* response and invitation not to participate here if I don't like the rules I got for discussing the rules of THIS group in THIS group seems to be at odds with what you advise, now doesn't it?
Some who participate in other safe havens are banned from posting here.
I would imagine they earned that ban, no? If it was for trolling or other over the top behavior explain to me why I should be concerned that they can't come in here and respond anymore?
If it was for simply posting something that challenged a premise here, see my first problem with the "safe haven" rules.
Was there something else about this I was missing?
JNelson6563
(28,151 posts)Go somewhere else to do it. If it's a big thorn in your side perhaps you should trash the forum and, as you have advised in this very forum before, "seek help".
The rules are established. Agreed upon by the hosts as well as most of the participants. Don't like it? You know what to do.
Julie
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)Particularly the BOLDED SECTION AT THE END? No, I don't want to bitch about or in any other way discuss the Interfaith group. Pay attention.
And here we go again... first it's if I don't like something about a group I should go to that group and discuss it... oh I want to talk about one little aspect of THIS group? If you don''t like it go away!
You should run an advice column or something.
JNelson6563
(28,151 posts)Seems to me things have been more than thoroughly explained to you by several in this thread. Are you being deliberately obtuse? Sure seems like it.
It seems to me you want to talk about more than one aspect of this group and that is going on in this very thread. Ok. But you also want to talk about other safe havens and that isn't ok here. So you have choices. Go elsewhere for the discussion about other safe havens or get over it.
DU is an obscure internet forum, this group a small corner where we don't have to be preached to, saved, argued with, etc.. Why you are making such a big deal out this is a mystery to me.
You have convinced no one of your point of view, the rules stand and you are unhappy with the situation. I see you as having two choices here: Get over it or go elsewhere. Unless I am missing something...
Julie
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)"But you also want to talk about other safe havens and that isn't ok here."
No. Once again I direct you to the OP and the bolded section at the end of it. I have ZERO interest in discussing other safe havens here. I do have an issue in discussing, among other things, the rules in THIS group ABOUT discussing other safe havens however, because I have an issue with the general principle involved there that I thought warranted some examination.
Pay. Attention.
If you cannot be bothered to do that there are plenty of other threads for you to not pay attention to while replying to. (See what I did there?)
JNelson6563
(28,151 posts)I have ZERO interest in discussing other safe havens here. I do have an issue in discussing, among other things, the rules in THIS group ABOUT discussing other safe havens however, because I have an issue with the general principle involved there that I thought warranted some examination.
I see. You have no interest in discussing other safe havens here, you just want to be able to. hahahahahaha
Julie
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)Let me turn your sarcastic little statement around and see if you can figure out the problem.
"I see, you have no interest in getting gay married you just want people to be able to. lolz Ok. hahahahaha."
Yeah, because its *crazy* to think that someone could have an issue with anything on principle alone... what a stupid idea that anyone could possibly care about gay marriage who DIDN'T want to get gay married themselves! HAHAHA. That's so funny. There's no such thing as straight people for gay marriage just like there's no such thing as people for the freedom to discuss other groups who don't personally have an intent to do so! teeheehee.
Want to keep going?
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)or whatever, without judgmental replies. Those of us who are in mood for some religious debate can do so in the Religion group.
I like the rule forbidding the mockery of the Interfaith Group because I feel it makes that group a lot more "safe" for the faithful who post there.
Warpy
(111,237 posts)because I lack faith. I'm an extremely infrequent poster in the Religion group.
This is my safe haven from the "debate" the OP wants. There are other groups for that sort of thing, and he'd be wise to seek them out.
And if he really wants a gloves-off free for all, maybe one of the #atheist channels on IRC would be more appropriate.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)...where not talking about a group outside it has anything to do with how safe it is *inside* it. Just not following that.
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)I think it could also promote animosity between the two groups.
backscatter712
(26,355 posts)The Religion forum is the debating forum - that's where I go when I'm feeling like having an argument.
And I stay out of the various religious safe-haven forums - Interfaith, the two Christian forums, etc. That's their place, and I'll respect their safe haven.
awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)much more productive than Religion
http://m.
Mad Maddie
(11 posts)Hi. I'm new and haven't had the chance to read much on the forum so someone please feel free to correct any wrongful assumptions I'm making here.
It seems to me that since this site is called Democratic Underground, then the very nature of its existence is political (duh). I can understand the need to want to argue over the existence of God, but the fact that this group and other religious groups exist within the context of politics, I would assume that the question on the existence of God is a non-issue for members. We're passed that point of theological debate and it seems to me that the purpose of the group's rules are just to keep us "safe" AND on topic - which is how faith-based policies have affected us.
I would even argue that it would be inappropriate to have a religious debate in the Religion group simply because all of these religious groups exist under the umbrella of politics, not theology.
Well, if my math is correct, this should be my 10th reply I am required to make before I can create new threads. Yay!
Apophis
(1,407 posts)Or the new atheists-need-not-apply group.
kdmorris
(5,649 posts)I don't see it as "cocooning" ourselves or "adhering to a dogma". But there are very few places on the internet or on DU that I can go to just say "Why do people keep trying to shove god/religion down my throat?" without someone posting shit trying to save me or calling me bitter or mocking me. Hell, my whole family is religious (my original family - not my husband and children). I can't even get away from it in real life. From having my mother tell us that "Prayer is the only answer to life's problems" to having my husband chastised by my mother on Facebook because he said that someone could do something useful instead of praying.
As far as the Interfaith group, I was happy that they got their safe haven group and I'm happy to not pull posts from there over to here to mock them or disagree with them. Not the least of which is because I don't want someone pulling one of my posts out of here venting about how religion has made me have a bad day to mock ME.
Everyone deserves a place that they feel they belong and if that group serves that purpose for the people that post there, more power to them. We already have bitter fights on DU about "one group vs another", so I don't particularly want to come here and see a bunch of "Those people in the Interfaith group are all x" or other types of ridiculous posts. I don't agree with all their posts and I've butted heads with a few of them, but I really would like to see DU be a much more civil place than it is right now. And...if that means that they have a safe haven group and we have a safe haven group and we do not engage in war with each other - I fully support that philosophy.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)The point is that, seeing as we don't, the prohibition against questioning the fundamental premise of the non existence of a deity strikes me personally as weird and unnecessary.
"...without someone posting shit trying to save me or calling me bitter or mocking me."
Like I said, I have no issue with the safe haven aspect of the group extending to banning trolls and stupid evangelizing attempts. But banning the mere discussion of whether a deity exists is, to me, a step too far and not appropriate for a properly skeptical community, and far more than required for creating a "safe" space.
so I don't particularly want to come here and see a bunch of "Those people in the Interfaith group are all x" or other types of ridiculous posts.
Fair enough, I don't either. But beyond the initial spurt of people acting out when the group was formed do you really think that would have carried on as an enduring topic of conversation taking up this group? Making a whole specific rule for it seems like overkill, and the general principle of "you will not discuss anything going on behind that curtain over there" just doesn't sit terribly well with me.
kdmorris
(5,649 posts)Have you seen the on-going fight between the Men's Group and the History of Feminism Group? So much so that they had to declare a truce and belatedly enact the same rules we currently have in effect - after an incredible amount of damage was already done.
Yes, there are always going to be people who keep that fight going. I'm sorry that you feel that
"Making a whole specific rule for it seems like overkill, and the general principle of "you will not discuss anything going on behind that curtain over there" just doesn't sit terribly well with me."
It would seem that most of the people who have replied to your post disagree with you, me included.
As for the other rule, I still agree with it. I don't come here to debate whether god exists. I come here to discuss the effect of religion on my life, to give and get support that is often lacking in other areas of my life and to occasionally read a funny cartoon that a like-minded person has posted. Debating the existence of god is what the Religion group is for. And I don't go there BECAUSE that debate is contentious, heated and often nasty. I don't think it goes any further than needed to create the safe space we all enjoy.
Again, it appears that most of the people here (the community that created these rules) disagree with you that it's too much or inappropriate.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)Speaking as a man, that seems... pointless. (And that said, clearly I had not seen any exchanges between them)
As for the other rule, yes it does seem to be the consensus. As for that being what the religion group is for, I believe the Religion group is actually for discussing *religion*, which is not the same thing, although yes obviously a good deal of that discussion end up getting monopolized by the theist vs. atheist exchanges. But that's not what the group is for, it's just one thing that happens there among many.
I would have likes to see the "Atheists and Agnostics" group be a place to actually discuss atheism and agnosticism with people... sure in a "safe" environment where you can kep the obnoxious trolls out but at least let honest questioners in to have a go. The way the rules are set up you can really only seem to have that talk with other atheists and agnostics though which seems, well, almost as pointless as the men's group to be honest. I mean, they should already know right?
But whatever, if I'm in the minority the rule is unlikely to change. Seems a shame though.
Iggo
(47,547 posts)I'm with you there, brother.
mr blur
(7,753 posts)
TreasonousBastard
(43,049 posts)between other safe-haven groups that reminding everyone to not use this or any other group to organize attacks or concentrate on dissing other groups is a good idea.
I'm a host for the interfaith group, but speaking for myself, not necessarily speaking as a host, there is often a fine line between discussing a topic and arguing over it. We are comfortable with acknowledging atheism and respecting the beliefs (or disbeliefs, as the case may be) of atheists but we are not comfortable with arguing the relative values of atheism vs. deism or seeing insults flying around from any viewpoint. That's not why we exist.
While we would have no problem with someone picking up on an idea and reasonably discussing it here, we would have a problem with putting said idea up to ridicule.
In essence-- the rules exist not to stifle discussion, but to civilize it.
JNelson6563
(28,151 posts)Good points, well said.
Julie
TreasonousBastard
(43,049 posts)we've all seen factions go to war here and the concept of "safe havens" is an important part of reducing that to manageable levels.
JNelson6563
(28,151 posts)Some however seem unable to grasp this simple concept. Or pretend to be unable....not sure which at this point.
Julie
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)My initial response to cbayers OP was pure opinion about the OP and not directed at cbayer in any way. That should be obvious to anyone who read my response.
My second response to cbayer was only to her response to me, and was measured and civil.
So what was it? 
TreasonousBastard
(43,049 posts)and rather than keep trying to justify your (admittedly not terribly bad) behavior you might simply resolve to never enter a protected group and insult them by talking about "absurd claims" as one of your first posts.
While there certainly can be some valid discussion of "absurd claims", knowing your views already and seeing you enter with that sort of comment shows us that you're likely testing the waters and seeing how much you can get away with.
You now know how much you can get away with, as does everyone else watching.
Welcome back when your point of view changes to discussion among equals rather than as teacher and student.
(We're careful who we allow as teachers.)
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)must be equally as valid as everyone else. And since I offered no offense to anyone personally, it seems that your group is treating non-believers, whom are allegedly welcome there, as separate-but-equal partners who have to operate by a different set of arbitrary rules designed to protect the delicate sensibilities of those who do not share the non-believers point of view. It is exclusionary.
There is another group of people who are treated this way; LGBT's.
Maybe that is why I am such an equal rights for LGBT's supporter. I can identify with their struggle, as I have experienced the same kind of discrimination at the hands of a majority who simply does not like me for who I am, not only here on DU, but constantly IRL.
It's really too bad, especially on a Liberal/Progressive site like DU, to see behavior that matches, both in reasoning and action, that of Religious Conservatives/Republicans/Tea Party.
On a personal note, both yours and Kentauros' replies (Kenaturos' I had not even seen until this morning) can be viewed as very condescending and belittling. And I would LOVE to know who you all allow to be "teachers", just what are they teaching, and how behavior that treats others differently while preaching (no pun intended) "welcome back when your point of view changes to discussion among equals" while not treating people equally.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)Can we please have an end to the admonitions to "trash" the Interfaith Group and to avoid going there? If the hosts here want to remind people not to troll other safe havens for things to come back here and trash them about, that's perfectly appropriate (especially since people have been banned from A&A for doing just that), but it really isn't for the hosts here to say what someone who happens to visit and post in this room (among many others) should read or do elsewhere on DU. There are no "members" of A&A, and none of the people who post here aside from the hosts can or should be considered in any way a "representative" of this group or accountable for by the A&A hosts when they post in other groups, and it is not reasonable for any other hosts to act as if they are (and they should be so informed if they complain). This room is not used to organize disruptions elsewhere, and no one goes around wearing tag lines saying "I'm from A&A and I'm here to bother you".
Yes, this may just be intended as friendly advice, but once would suffice for that. After the third or fourth time, it sure starts to sound like something more.
JNelson6563
(28,151 posts)Some like to read and obsess about what the "other side" is saying. Apparently can't help themselves, live for the confrontation I guess. For those I DO strongly suggest they trash the group that is the cause of their distress, whatever it may be. And I will do so repeatedly if the obsession remains in the forefront and discussion is insisted on.
I can only think of banning the obsessive as an alternative and that's not an appealing choice.
Julie
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)No apologies for that. But I have no desire for confrontation in safe havens, nor any insistence on discussing them in here. As I said, I'd prefer to hear as little about them as possible, and to say even less.
JNelson6563
(28,151 posts)Though I have almost no interest in ever reading the religion based groups I, like you, have zero interest in reading about them here (and obviously I have nothing to say about them).
In other news, spring is slow in coming to TC, I hope tghe snow is gone by the time you and the Mrs. return!
Julie
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)that you have nothing to say about them, saying something about them? 
Snow is gone here, and seems to be for good this winter. Memorial Day weekend is looking more and more likely for a (too short) visit. Let us know if you'll be around!
JNelson6563
(28,151 posts)I will rephrase..."I have practically nothing to say about them".
Let me know when you're coming! We'll have cocktails again and I'll bring something from the pie co.!
Julie
awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)I have no care about what goes in in Interfaith and Religion. I have enough on my plate as it is.
backscatter712
(26,355 posts)Out of courtesy, I stay out of Interfaith and the other religious safe-havens, but there's nothing preventing us from reading their forums and them from reading our posts here. Keep that in mind when you post.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)and I'm not posting anything here about things that have been said in there. But I'd frankly like to know if people are trolling here for things to trash us about in there, and what the response is if that happens, so I prefer to keep eyes and ears open to everything.
rexcat
(3,622 posts)one of their host's has come over here and put his two cents in on this thread!
TreasonousBastard
(43,049 posts)do you disagree with anything I've said, or do you believe I'm trolling this group?
Since Interfaith was mentioned, it seemed appropriate to join the discussion.
rexcat
(3,622 posts)not me! I don't necessarily disagree with what you said but I was not responding to your post. I was responding to another regular poster here in A&A. If I am not mistaken you are not a regular contributor to this forum and you are a host of the Interfaith Forum as you stated so trolling and stalking might be a consideration with emphasis on "might be." This is a safe heaven for atheists and agnostics and for me your presence and comments to me are not appreciated. I am really not in the mood to defend my comments to someone who is more than likely religious, such as you, in this forum!
This entire thread was between A&A regulars discussing the newly posted rules in this forum. Since you announced that you were a host in the Interfaith group it is my opinion that you were speaking as a host despite your denial in your first post. If you had not announced that you were a host in that forum I would not have known your status over there and your comments would have been more acceptable.
on edit: as someone responded to Cleanhippie in the Interfaith Forum I will respond to you: Please leave me alone!
TreasonousBastard
(43,049 posts)
Gore1FL
(21,126 posts)They felt like they were being unnecessarily forced to face facts, otherwise. The idea was supported by members here. Religion is more of a free-for-all. Interfaith was for those that wanted a forum like that, but without us.
Fight in Religion, if you must.
Don't post in Interfaith
Feel free to read and giggle at both.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)I don't visit interfaith, have no interest in doing so, and have no interest in discussing anything that happens there here.
I was raising a question about THIS group's rules and why/how they were implemented the way they were. Interfaith got used as an example only because it is explicitly called out in those rules.
JNelson6563
(28,151 posts)Is there something you still are not quite understanding about the rule or are you just shit stirring?
Julie
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)Mostly I don't understand how they pop up in response to what I'm writing.
As for others, I believe I'm replying to them directly and they can probably speak for themselves.
Gore1FL
(21,126 posts)In an effort to stop the whining of those who felt persecuted... We were part of the interfaith "solution."
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)Did you not read one word of that post before replying to it?
Gore1FL
(21,126 posts)I just don't know how to explain it any further.
We supported the existence of a group where we would not go. That's why our SOP specifically says not to go there.
I'm going to post something, then I'd like you to tell me, in your own words, what it means.
"I don't visit interfaith, have no interest in doing so, and have no interest in discussing anything that happens there here. "
Ok, go. Your own words please.
Gore1FL
(21,126 posts)You don't want to go there or read there but wonder why we can't discuss it anyways despite the fact that you have no interest in doing it anyway.
Yet for some reason you wish to discuss it--or at least this group's policy towards it...
And here is the answer (still) to your original question:
We don't go there or discuss it because we supported the group being set up such that we wouldn't go there or post about it.
If you are not interested in visiting or discussing it, then why have you spent 13 posts on this thread alone discussing it and the policies of this group to not go there and not discuss it.
If you are not receiving the answers that you desire I recommend 2 possible strategies:
1> Ask the question in a different way to better communicate what you are actually asking
2> Don't be rude to those who are actually answering the questions you asked.
You don't want to go there or read there but wonder why we can't discuss it anyways despite the fact that you have no interest in doing it anyway.
Yet for some reason you wish to discuss it--or at least this group's policy towards it...
We don't go there or discuss it because we supported the group being set up such that we wouldn't go there or post about it.
If you are not interested in visiting or discussing it, then why have you spent 13 posts on this thread alone discussing it and the policies of this group to not go there and not discuss it.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1230&pid=14350
Since actually typing out that explanation twice would depress me too much.
Gore1FL
(21,126 posts)My recommendation still comes down to:
1> Ask the question in a different way to better communicate what you are actually asking
2> Don't be rude to those who are actually answering the questions you asked.
Apparently know one knows what you are trying to communicate. This is understandably frustrating for you. Because the problem seems universal, I contend that if you followed the above steps in order to provide a basis for better understanding.
Thanks
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)There have been several perfectly comprehensible responses to my original questions. Two respondents stand out as not appearing to be terribly interested in paying attention to what they're responding to however.
Gore1FL
(21,126 posts)rather than continue to be uncivil.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)Seems like it turned out to be a personal playground instead.
Gore1FL
(21,126 posts)I seem to recall someone asking for atheist support for a group we wouldn't go to ourselves. This allowed theists to gather in a place separate from the Religion forum.
I assumed this was the interfaith group. If that's not it, which is the voluntary no-atheists-allowed one?
Edited to change title--I hoped to include a link from long ago, but alas, I could not find it.
Edited again: Here is the link: http://www.democraticunderground.com/12307658
Curmudgeoness
(18,219 posts)That answer was spot on, and polite. I also agree with these rules that you are taking issue with. It seems that you don't understand the reason that this group exists. Atheists and agnostics, for some reason, are constantly asked to defend themselves, and that gets tiring and boring. This is where was can enjoy The Atheist Pig cartoons, or discuss our problems in the religious community, whether it is our family or friends, or the "one country, under god" community. I absolutely want this to be a safe haven. I do not want to have the trite discussion about the existence of god. If I wanted that, I would go to the Religion forum. Maybe you just don't see the purpose of Religion (it really is not just for discussion of "religion"---note that A&A is located in the Religion & Spirtuality" topics, and that makes little sense either).
As to the prohibition on discussion of the Interfaith group, and respect for their safe haven status, there are some people who would constantly be discussing that group here if there was not a ban on doing it----and that is disrespectful. You may think that it only needs to be "said" and not in the rules, but I have seen enough to know that this rule is important. I do not want believers criticizing us in other groups (safe haven), and that cuts both ways.
So, put simply, you are in the minority.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)I also understand the reason the group exists, I simply don't agree with how far it has gone in its implementation. I think it is being *overly* protective and as a result the forum has become, to put it bluntly, boring and lacking any real sense of purpose. I look in here on a regular basis hoping to find a topic in the Atheists and Agnostics forum worth spending any time discussing, and I always come away disappointed... and it seems obvious to me that the overly protective rule structure is responsible for that. As an Atheist the fact that the forum with my label on it is such a dry lifeless place makes me just a little sad. Every. Single. Time. I find a thread that touches on atheism that is actually interesting and engaging it's in the Religion forum. I find that depressing.
But most seem to prefer it that way, so I suppose that's how it'll remain and I'll spend far more of my time in Religion where yes, most people disagree with me but at least the conversations have a point and some life in them instead of one post complaining about something then a half dozen people finding various ways of going, in effect, "yep" or "me too".
I think it would be *really nice* if there was an environment halfway between "swarmed by the blindly religious" and "tucked away where nobody questions you at all" where you could keep the trolls and mindless evangelizers out and still have a serious debate with people and this would be the ideal place for that to happen... but yeah, the majority seem to prefer the chorus of "yups".
Curmudgeoness
(18,219 posts)Sorry, had to do that. 
I agree with you that there is not a lot of controversy and great discussion here, but I do think that is what Religion is for. I have learned a lot here about atheism and agnotism, the different categories and the differences between the two. I have found books to read because they (or the authors) have been mentioned here. And most importantly, I have found that I am not alone in the way that I think....because to be blunt, I am the only atheist that I know (at least who will admit it). There are days that all you hear is Jesus and praying for you and bless you, and it is good to come here and know that I am not alone.
And that is what I see this group's purpose.
Yup.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)is calling people out specifically and discussing what is going on in the Interfaith safe have group. How does that possibly bring about what you are saying disappoints you in this group? Seriously? You don't like it hear because you can't say:
1. "such-and-so" is a real douchebag; OR
2. That thread in Interfaith is really fucking stupid.
If that's all you want to talk about, then I'm glad you don't find that here.
And if you don't like what's posted here, start some threads about what you WOULD like to talk about. Unless it's 1 or 2 above.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)but it clearly isn't a conversation.
And you do know I'm one of the hosts, right? I think I have a pretty good grasp on how the hosts are applying the rules and what we established them for.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)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.
Tell me any possible way to read that that doesn't involve debates about the fundamental premise of the existence/ non existence of a deity being prohibited. Which effectively means "no disagreeing with or debating atheism in the atheism group".
Which goes just a wee bit beyond "no calling people out or discussing other groups"... and kind of dries up conversational possibilities that don't involve everyone just nodding their heads in agreement at each other.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)What that means is that this is not the forum to come in here and talk about whether there is a god or not. The assumption in here is that there isn't (atheism) or that there is no way of knowing (agnostic). We don't want theists coming in here and saying, "Yeah, but what about...." This isn't the forum for that. If we want those discussions, we can go to Religion for it. Some of us do go there and others don't.
When we have blocked people from this group for violating that, it has been rare and it has been when theists have come in and having discussions. In short, coming in with the attitude that they are going to change our minds about our atheism/agnosticism. We don't want that in here. I don't think that is unreasonable.
We added the "no calling people out or discussion other groups" after Interfaith was created because we didn't want a "war." And we never said "no discussion of other groups." We just want those that are safe havens to be respected. If people want to come in here and complain about something in Religion, I don't know that is a problem as long as specific users aren't called out (that is generally because the most likely to be called out are blocked from this group and can't defend themselves--and again, I don't think that is unreasonable).
What that means is that this is not the forum to come in here and talk about whether there is a god or not. The assumption in here is that there isn't (atheism) or that there is no way of knowing (agnostic). We don't want theists coming in here and saying, "Yeah, but what about...." This isn't the forum for that. If we want those discussions, we can go to Religion for it. Some of us do go there and others don't.
When we have blocked people from this group for violating that, it has been rare and it has been when theists have come in and having discussions. In short, coming in with the attitude that they are going to change our minds about our atheism/agnosticism. We don't want that in here. I don't think that is unreasonable.
I get that you don't think it's unreasonable. I don't think it's unreasonable either, just misguided. It is also however NOWHERE NEAR what you claimed two posts ago when you said the only thing the rules prevent was "calling people out specifically and discussing what is going on in the Interfaith safe have group"
You get that right? That was a completely inaccurate claim which is why I just asked you to explain what I bolded in that statement.
As for the effect the rule implementation you just described has, which is how I originally understood the rules by the way until you claimed otherwise, well just consider this.
This thread, right now, is the most active thread on the entire first page of this group. The reason, rather obviously, is that it at least gives people something to debate. That's sad, but that's just scratching the surface.
It's the most active thread in this group in FIVE MONTHS. That's really sad considering that less than 70 posts isn't a crazily high activity bar for a post to set.
Getting MORE sad... the last post to reach this level of activity, in OCTOBER? It was a "welcome back beam me up scotty" thread. I'm not saying there's anything sad about the thread, I like a good welcome back post and a community rallying up around a member just fine... but it wasn't exactly filled with engaging discussion and debate. It was 68 posts worth of "Hey... welcome back... we missed you.. hey bmus is back!" So we haven't actually found a *discussion* with this level of activity yet and if we want to we have to keep going.
...back to JULY. EIGHT MONTHS. And that was... wait for it... an argument over the group rules. That time it was someone wanting the forum to be just for atheists, and for agnostics to get their own forum. They kind of had a point in that half of all agnostics are theists so it doesn't make sense to have the agnostics in a group where atheism is the default assumption and no discussion of it is allowed... but they also posted a fairly stupid OP that didn't even understand what atheism was so they lost my sympathy.
But dude. EIGHT MONTHS of this groups activity and only three posts at this activity level. One chorus of "good to see you's" and two arguments over the rules. You don't see where that might be viewed as indicative of an issue?
(Last three going back before that? A thread saying we need a new host. Something that got self deleted by it's author but appears to have been about some bogus new-agey Einstein quote which was almost sure to rub most people in this forum wrong but OMG! There was activity! Aaaaand... a discussion about... the religion forum.)
Are you seeing my point here yet?
Edit: I will concede the discussion of what was going on in the religion forum actually fits your conception of this group's purpose and did manage to generate somewhat decent levels of activity. Demonstrating that it is possible for those types of discussions to support decently engaging threads... at apparently the rate of one every 8 months or more.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)was that your OP was about the addition to the rules that we just recently made and not the rules in their entirety. My mistake on that.
If you want to start some debate, then start it. I'm happy with this group as is. Many others seem to be, too. My perception is that most people want this to be a relaxed place where we can come and just laugh or whatever. We don't come here to debate stuff. There's activity on it every day. Sure there aren't the drawn out debates you get in Religion, but a lot of members here don't go to the Religion forum for that reason. At least that's my perception--not that debate is forbidden just not the way this group usually rolls. But, hey, start it up if you want. As long as it fits the concept that this is for atheists/agnostics and not for "conversion" (that's a big catch all to include what we have discussed), it's all good.
This group has it's own life. I'm just here to make sure people don't kick sand in the eyes of the members. You may not like the life it has taken on, but it is what it is. You can try change it if you want, but my guess is that if you started up threads to debate stuff, they would sink and not get a lot of responses. I could be wrong, though.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)You may not like the life it has taken on, but it is what it is. You can try change it if you want, but my guess is that if you started up threads to debate stuff, they would sink and not get a lot of responses.
...mainly because people wouldn't be permitted by group rules to respond to atheism themed debates in a dissenting manner since they're not allowed to question the premise being discussed. And there's very little motivation to engage in any extended fashion in an exercise in head nodding and agreement.
Which was kind of my point to begin with. If people want to do that they need to go to religion, leaving very little to happen here.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)If I can't come here to grumble and mock, feh.
Iggo
(47,547 posts)Then I look at the feminists vs maninists dust-ups and the old lgbt vs feminists brouhahas and I think I'd rather not see any atheists vs interfaithists melees.
But I also get where you're coming from.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Where is the fun in that?
Iggo
(47,547 posts)Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)I've had my share there, too.
ChairmanAgnostic
(28,017 posts)I'll have another wine.
And I believe that submitting one's self to a god has come to dominate today's main steam media.
Not that many years ago (in the age before W) religion or one's beliefs were rarely or never raised. Agnostics and atheists like me, had it a tad easier then. If no one raised it, we could sit and hide mostly in peace.
After w succeeded in erasing the separation between church and state, two things happened. The true believers took apparent control. Over media. Over the DOJ. Over judge selection. Over our political process. Even worse, a second group joined them, using faith and religion for feckless, false and fraudulent reasons, like selling the Iraqi invasion.
Between both groups, it made it harder for a nonbeliever like me just to live in this country.i even ran for local office. To my distaste, I dodged the question of faith, especially since the questions were posed as "To which church do you . . . . " I am ashamed that I did not state clearly that I had no religious beliefs.
awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)you need to be protected. Most of DU would love to be rid of our ilk.
on edit: if believers feel they need a safe haven like the Interfaith Group- so be it. I will not seek them out there, as long as they don't seek me out here. We both have a home base.
