Another one bites the Dust

[C-Nub]

This is, I think I should state, intended to be an open dialogue. I don't really have a central point, or theme, to make, but recent events have prompted me to wonder if maybe others do.

Thought Criminal and Daedalus, two of our "side's" most vocal members, have been banned recently. I actually support both bannings, for the record, but at the same time, they were both, when they were on topic, very good at arguing their (our) points. Since I like the idea of the atheist presence on these boards being represented strongly, I don't like seeing it when we lose guys like that.

So I think we should talk about that a little.



I was thinking also that it would be a good idea for us to establish, for ourselves, not really as a set group of rules, a code of conduct that we can all agree to and effectively self-police ourselves on. Not only as a generally good idea, as we've had some issues lately and we're in danger of being seen as a wholly contemptious group, but also as something of an experiment regarding atheist morality. I think we demonstrate the ability to set good, moral rules and abide by them without the threat of God or the use of the bible in any way, and to be honest, I think it would be kind of fun getting it organized.

We have something of an opportunity, with our population here, to not only tell Theists about ourselves, our natures and our morality, but to show them and prove much of what we say about ourselves to be valid. I also think it would make us look good in the eyes of the staff here, and buy us a little more forgiveness in situations where people do in fact post before thinking through exactly what they've typed, which I myself am certainly at least a little guilty of, from time to time.

So, I guess first off, collectively, as a group, do we feel that the recent bannings have been fair, and that we're receiving even handed treatment from the staff? I'm on the record as saying 'yes' to both, I think that we're being treated fairly here, and that there's little to no visible bias from any of the theist staff members.

And secondly, do we, once again as a group, wish to organize ourselves a little, and come up with a guideline for how we will monitor members of our own user grouip and their behavior, demonstrating that 'atheist law' and 'atheist morality' is not only possible for group situations, but also viable and functional as a large-scale option?

[Fallibleone]

So, I guess first off, collectively, as a group, do we feel that the recent bannings have been fair, and that we're receiving even handed treatment from the staff? I'm on the record as saying 'yes' to both, I think that we're being treated fairly here, and that there's little to no visible bias from any of the theist staff members.

In the past, I've always found it to be fair - much fairer than a lot of other forums. I was involved in the Thought Criminal thing but not the Daedalus thing. I was sad and disappointed that Thought Criminal had to be banned, because he had some good, strong points to make. But it got to the point where almost every report received involved him, and he didn't respond to interventions, so I don't really see what else could have been done. As for Daedalus, I can't really comment because I was out of the country. All I can say is that again, I found he had some compelling arguments. I was sad to see him gone when I returned.

And secondly, do we, once again as a group, wish to organize ourselves a little, and come up with a guideline for how we will monitor members of our own user grouip and their behavior, demonstrating that 'atheist law' and 'atheist morality' is not only possible for group situations, but also viable and functional as a large-scale option?

Well, we could give it a go. I have nothing specific against it.

[Zzyzx]

.
It appears as though the "non-theist side" loses members by banning whereas the "theist side" loses members by attrition (simply fading away). One side lost TC and D2, the other lost Biker, Easyrider, Twobitsmedia (who evidently left in a huff after being placed on probation) and Rusty (remember him?). Fundamentalists' "arguments" are so weak and ineffective that proponents must become discouraged in attempting to argue emotion, faith and fable in lieu of evidence and reasoning.

We should be aware that those arguing in favor of supernaturalism have tremendous disadvantages; 1) there is no evidence to support their claims, 2) most are accustomed to preaching to the choir with no opposition permitted, 3) prayers seeking something to say in debate are obviously unanswered.

When a non-theist seems to be a bit "over the line" I have sent PMs suggesting alternative approaches – and had done so with TC a week ago. Perhaps there would be some advantages in making comments public (such as demonstrating good intent); however, I prefer the personal approach (not that it seems to work particularly well).

It might be in our best interest to be very cordial toward the "rational religionists" who post with intelligence and thought. We may disagree with their conclusions, but some are downright pleasant to debate. Who will we debate if we "hammer" too hard and discourage the good people? Will some of us have to "cross dress" so we can debate each other?

[OnceConvinced]

For the record, I agree that Daelelus and Thought Criminal went too far. There was a lack of respect there for the forum rules. TC in his last few weeks I really believe was trying to make a matyr of himself and was trying to push the boundaries as far as he could. His inability to discuss sensitive matters rationally was his downfall, I feel. The mods gave him many chances and it was obvious by his posts he had no intention of listening to anyone.

C-Nub, I'm entirely with you on everything you say. We need to show theists that we do not need God to be positive rolemodels. I think a code of conduct would be a good thing and perhaps we could be accountable to each other. Perhaps a user group may be in order and those that wish to be part of it can make themselves accountable to everyone else in that usergroup. We can do this via PMs.

So Easyrider has left? I didn't know that.

[McCulloch]

The Christians have a group, Brother's Keeper with the stated membership of Christians to hold each other accountable to following the rules of the forum and to try to be blameless from attacking any other forum member. Perhaps we should consider a non-theist parallel.

I would however object slightly to your use of staff members. Staff usually are a group of persons, as employees, charged with carrying out the work of an establishment or executing some undertaking. Since all of us are volunteer, the word hardly counts. We don't even get extra tokens!

What kind of self-imposed rules would you suggest?
Here are a few that might be a starting point.

1. No matter how strongly I disagree with someone, I will proceed under the belief that they genuinely believe what they believe and that they really think that they have good reasons to believe what they do. I will not treat their beliefs with contempt.
2. I will not simply object to what is said without giving reason and evidence.
3. Even if it is the forty-seventh time, I will restate the reasons for my position.
4. I will not use their bad behaviour, insults and personal comments as an excuse for me to do the same.
5. We will seek first to establish truth than to win debate.
6. We will win debates by force of reason, logic and evidence, and not by insult, evasion, equivocation, prevarication, obstructionism or sneaky tricks.
7. We will abide by the rules of the forum.
8. I will PM any other non-theist who has agreed to these principles if I believe that they have violated the spirit of these rules.

[OnceConvinced]

I think something like that would be good for us. What would you call the group though? It would have to be something that covers all non-theists.

[C-Nub]

First off, I'm pretty happy with the response here. Without meaning to blow smoke up anyone's ass, I think we have a good representation of our side's heavy hitters, so to speak, which I find to be pretty encouraging.

I think that it's important not to limit our 'self policing' to PM's. I've tried that a number of times, but part of our purpose here is to demonstrate to theists that we're capable of monitoring our own as well (better) than they are, and that has to be at least partially visible. If we are going to keep things to a PM, which I see the reason of, we'd have to post something like '___________, you have a PM regarding your conduct, please check it before replying here' in the thread itself.

I also think a name is pretty important. We need something clever, I would think, that explains our purpose, while hopefully maintaining a bit of tongue-in-cheek charm.

Dis-Ciples, perhaps, or 'The Church of the Non-Believers'. I don't have anything in mind, but something along those lines tickles me pretty good.

I think we should also make a point of addressing non-theists who don't subscribe to our little project here. Whether or not they agree to our 'guideline,' I think it's a good idea to address anyone who's behaving in a way that will eventually get them banned.


While I agree with the decision to ban TC and Daedalus, it shouldn't have been allowed to get that far. Those guys had knowledge and more importantly effort to contribute, and whether or not we agree with what they were doing, there's no denying that their energy and willingness to debate could have, if not for their bad behavior, made positive contributions to this community. It's possible, though arguable, that the interceding of a group such as this could have averted the need for staff action, and kept them as valuable (and civil) contributors here.

Anyways, I'm interested to see how this develops, and very pleased to see that people are interested. It gives me hope for larger atheist organizations, which as a community of non-believers desperately need to represent many of our values and fears in national and international politics.

[bernee51]

I think that it's important not to limit our 'self policing' to PM's. I've tried that a number of times, but part of our purpose here is to demonstrate to theists that we're capable of monitoring our own as well (better) than they are, and that has to be at least partially visible. If we are going to keep things to a PM, which I see the reason of, we'd have to post something like '___________, you have a PM regarding your conduct, please check it before replying here' in the thread itself.

I have yet to see how 'they' have self policed. I have been told in no uncertain terms my fate by some of the more strident Fundies - with next to nothing said by 'their side'.

That is not to say that I am all for encouraging civility on the part of debaters. I am also all for a no holds putting of views - as long as it is backed up with logic and rationality.

To often there comes across a feeling of 'untouchablity' when it comes to religious belief. Disagreement is interpreted as intolerance.

I also think a name is pretty important. We need something clever, I would think, that explains our purpose, while hopefully maintaining a bit of tongue-in-cheek charm.

Dis-Ciples, perhaps, or 'The Church of the Non-Believers'. I don't have anything in mind, but something along those lines tickles me pretty good.

The ONLY thing we as a group can be said to have in common is Atheism. Whatever name deceided upon should reflect that fact. 'They' like to speak of an 'atheist agenda' or 'atheist dogma' when we know that there is no such binding thing.

I think we should also make a point of addressing non-theists who don't subscribe to our little project here. Whether or not they agree to our 'guideline,' I think it's a good idea to address anyone who's behaving in a way that will eventually get them banned.

Agreed.

While I agree with the decision to ban TC and Daedalus, it shouldn't have been allowed to get that far.

Without wishing to comment to broadly on the admin's decision I do feel, in TC's case in particular, to much was made of the comments for which he was eventually banned.

Those guys had knowledge and more importantly effort to contribute, and whether or not we agree with what they were doing, there's no denying that their energy and willingness to debate could have, if not for their bad behavior, made positive contributions to this community. It's possible, though arguable, that the interceding of a group such as this could have averted the need for staff action, and kept them as valuable (and civil) contributors here.

They certainly were able to mount solid arguments and were very knowledgable. The forum will be the poorer for their non participation.

[C-Nub]

I have yet to see how 'they' have self policed. I have been told in no uncertain terms my fate by some of the more strident Fundies - with next to nothing said by 'their side'.

You know, I can't say I've checked on them doing it at all, and can't recall a specific point of it. Still, we prove a pretty valid point if we can admit that we don't do enough of it, as they've pointed out, and actually do something as a group to rectify the situation. We can demonstrate a group morality, as in a society, and address a problem that we have all (probably) been guilty of doing a time or two, and we do it without any reference to the bible at all! NEATO!

That is not to say that I am all for encouraging civility on the part of debaters. I am also all for a no holds putting of views - as long as it is backed up with logic and rationality.

I agree with you. I say there is a place for scorn, but it's got to be very well judged. I don't know if rules can actually be drafted that cover when it's appropriated to do so and when not. I don't think it should be attempted, really, to a certain degree we just have to trust our judgment, and even that has to be handled with at least a little diplomacy. The goal of the forum is civil discourse, and being members here, I think we accept something of a contract to that effect, at least an implied one.

To often there comes across a feeling of 'untouchablity' when it comes to religious belief. Disagreement is interpreted as intolerance.

Yes, but we have to be careful not to do the same thing because of science. It's never, ever lived up to any standard of infallibility as a 'whole'. The history of man's supposed knowledge has been frought, in every time, through time, with error. We have to expect that of our own era, if we're going to plead rationalism, it's just too statistically probable.

The ONLY thing we as a group can be said to have in common is Atheism. Whatever name deceided upon should reflect that fact. 'They' like to speak of an 'atheist agenda' or 'atheist dogma' when we know that there is no such binding thing.

Really? That's the only thing we have in common? I don't mean to be sarcastic, but we're all here, aren't we? We feel about disbelief that it needs to be defended and / or encouraged, explained and respected. That's why we're here, right? Some variation of these themes?

It seems as if we're all largely intelligent, rational people, and I think we know something that more people should realize. (More or less for the good of mankind, you know, overcoming the burdens of a past retarded by mythology.)

There is an atheist dogma, but it's implied, not recorded. If we are to die, then what matters is the species, and what we could be in terms of universal importance. We have the capacity to become galactic, greatly increasing our immortality as a group. We are, at least thus far, the only species with any sort of capacity to understand anything about the universe. Other intelligent species, apes, dolphins, um, ants, have no understanding of atoms or cells or stars for what they are. They understand the world only as they have evolved a need to, and we have not. We can propogate knowledge, and keep it safe from that which could destroy single worlds.

Without wishing to comment to broadly on the admin's decision I do feel, in TC's case in particular, to much was made of the comments for which he was eventually banned.

There's a case to be made for people with that point of view. Unfortunately, civility, no matter how articulately we define it, will always remain a highly subjective affair. Perhaps some of us are too sensitive, and then again some of us too callous in regards to what is potentially, to one degree or another, hurtful. It's a tough line to judge. I have no idea how to do it, so I'm not going to venture a theory, but I'd sure like to hear some.

They certainly were able to mount solid arguments and were very knowledgable. The forum will be the poorer for their non participation.

I agree a hundred (and eleventy) percent. We lose a great deal of good content and solid, credible arguments because of their departure.

[Furrowed Brow]

Just caught up with this and have now read Thought Criminals considered judgment on childcare. I know I fall on a vague border between incompetent and just competent enough at most things I do; especially as a parent. I'm not sure if Thought Criminal is a parent but if he is I guess he must be brilliant, and even if he is not given his sense of certainty he is certain too make for a far more competent parent than me. I wish I too was so convinced of my ability to rationalize my actions. With the power to see things so cleary it must all seem so very simple.