Navel Gazing

Schuhart

Half growing out of recent discussions. Has anyone ever been banned from the Atheism forum? Do we have standards? Has anyone breached them? If someone was to say atheism is a gateway to moral depravity and should potentially carry a death penalty, would we be all offended and demand the miscreant be drummed out of decent debate (even if that's what I understand Plato said about us).

coffee_cake

Schuhart wrote:

Half growing out of recent discussions. Has anyone ever been banned from the Atheism forum? Do we have standards? Has anyone breached them? If someone was to say atheism is a gateway to moral depravity and should potentially carry a death penalty, would we be all offended and demand the miscreant be drummed out of decent debate (even if that's what I understand Plato said about us).

I imagine we'd just tell them why they're wrong

if they're a hit-and-run poster, they'd be mostly ignored I guess

Zillah

I've been warned gently for being a bit...strong...in my disagreements with theists before. Thats about the size of it.

Dades

You might remember Pocari Sweat a while back. He was banned once or twice.

I also banned someone for about an hour, and then reinstated them as I had misread one of their posts. Who said Mods are Omnipotent.

But I'd say mod action here is below average.

hairyheretic

The gods like to see an atheist about .. it gives them something to aim at

Zombrex

Well its pretty hard to insult an atheist over atheism

"HA! There is a God! He does exists! Ha, take that dose of reality!"

I suppose that claims that atheists are selfish, arrogant, immoral etc would probably be met with swift action by the mods. But most people keep those types of claims to the Christianity forum, so what you go'n do

Schuhart

Wicknight wrote:

I suppose that claims that atheists are selfish, arrogant, immoral etc would probably be met with swift action by the mods. But most people keep those types of claims to the Christianity forum, so what you go'n do

I suppose it’s fair to distinguish two situations. One is simply incoherent CAPS ON TROLLING, which would get you banned out of any forum for just being annoying. But it is fair to say in the religious area there’s another layer – which is that old question of respect for beliefs/deity.

For the sake of argument, I was temp banned out of the Islam forum for suggesting that God would take as much notice if someone pointed their backside to Mecca five times a day. I don’t regard that banning as unfair, because at the end of the day religions have some beliefs that they expect you to refer to with an amount of courtesy, even if they don’t mind you expressing an opinion that you don’t share a belief in them.

But I suppose (to the extent this thought is going anywhere) it’s just to highlight that difference that we don’t really have a batch of beliefs that need the same courtesy. I know that’s a remark that begs for a response of ‘well, duh’. But what could be surprising is to consider the ground where that takes us.

I’ve linked here the part of Plato’s Laws where he suggests that someone who persists in unbelief should be executed, largely for fear that they might lead others astray and into immorality. Am I right or wrong in saying that if a theist wanted to pursue this line of argument – essentially that we should be suppressed because we’re bad for humanity – we’d actually see it as a valid topic for debate. I don’t think – correct me if I’m wrong – we’d say ‘this is pure insulting and we’re collectively outraged and why don’t you take this stuff back to your theist forum and discuss it there’.

I’m not suggesting or thinking that any forum needs to change in this regard. I just think it’s an interesting contrast. Some significance probably could be drawn from it, but I’m actually not sure what that is.

Scofflaw

Schuhart wrote:

Am I right or wrong in saying that if a theist wanted to pursue this line of argument – essentially that we should be suppressed because we’re bad for humanity – we’d actually see it as a valid topic for debate. I don’t think – correct me if I’m wrong – we’d say ‘this is pure insulting and we’re collectively outraged and why don’t you take this stuff back to your theist forum and discuss it there’.

There are very few things that I'd find offensive, I think, as an atheist - with one exception - totally incoherent posters. They're not trolls, but have an almost total inability to either grasp what the other person is saying, or post a coherent argument themselves - indeed, post coherently at all. Oddly enough, I'm not talking about Captain Capslock, whose position, while bizarre, is consistent - and whose misunderstandings are generally hilarious. I'd be delighted to see him in the A&A forum, but I don't think he ever graces us here. The rest of them - preemptively ban them all! Let God sort them out!

Other than that, I can't see what could be offensive to me as an atheist. I'd be perfectly happy to see the thread Schuhart suggests started, although I imagine we'd get a better response if we posted it in Christianity. Do you think any of them would rise to the bait?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Schuhart

Scofflaw wrote:

I'd be perfectly happy to see the thread Schuhart suggests started, although I imagine we'd get a better response if we posted it in Christianity. Do you think any of them would rise to the bait?

I don't doubt we'd get more theist traffic in Christianity. But I suppose that might also bring a constraint to how it might be discussed - as presumably all that would be at issue is what Christianity says about atheism. That, I take it, would bring us into that OT stuff about our deeds being vile that inspired that widely circulated atheist video on youtube. But I don't see anything in that debate about suppressing atheism per se (Note: I'm an ill-read gob****e, so I acknowledge there may well be a Bible quote that seeks our blood that I'm not aware of).

Similarly, if we pursued it in an Islamic context it would probably centre on the idea that most scholars would say that, in an ideal Islamic state applying Sharia law, a Muslim who converts to another faith should be put to death. But, as I understand it, that penalty would apply just as much to a Muslim who becomes a Christian or a Hindu as to a Muslim who rejects all religions. So, again, the focus is lost.

Which (thoughts just occuring to me as I write) might indicate another issue. It would seem to me that Plato's views could only be discussed here - as a sort of general perspective that atheism is an inherently bad thing. But, indeed, we would then probably be lacking significant input from theists, which would make the discussion too lacking in balance.

That said, it might well be interesting to take a thread for a spin here and see what happens.