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?

[JoeyKnothead]

I have a lot of pent up anger about religion due to some past experiences, and I've let that color some of my attitude in these forums. I am trying to be more civil, and I think this idea could help me a lot. So add me to the list.

Just for the record:

If anyone PM's me about my conduct I will certainly take the advice.

I am starting to understand the importance of civility in presenting the 'atheist face'. Shout out to McCulloch for that one.

[bernee51]

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’m not sure that it is scorn that is required or called for. Scorn implies disdain or even contempt. I even find the call for ‘tolerance’ of the views of others to be somewhat lacking in terms of genuine understanding. Tolerance implies certain superiority on the part of the ‘tolerator’. For example, calls for tolerance of say homosexuals come with an unspoken “I know I’m right and they are wrong� – it is a value judgement. Rather than tolerance I would encourage acceptance. Acceptance cannot come with any embedded value judgement. Though the ‘acceptor’ may not agree with the position of the ‘other’, it is accepted that the ‘other’ truly believes what they claim to believe. This does not mean blind acceptance – there always remains the ability, or even responsibility, to challenge – mindfully.

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.

The only ‘rule’ (for me at least) is mindfulness – being ‘in the present’. This entails attempting to ‘act’ in the moment rather than ‘react’ in response, not to the immediate stimulus, but to the habitual though processes and feelings which arise as a result of the stimulus.
Easy to say – difficult, if not near impossible, to do - at least consistently.

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 fraught, 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.

Not only realizing this (the fallibility of science) but also freely admitting same is a strength. It is not claiming the ‘moral high ground’ of revealed truth.

The ONLY thing we as a group can be said to have in common is Atheism. Whatever name decided 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?

As atheists yes.
Many of the other ideals we may have in common may not necessarily reflect or require atheism.
Many ‘opponents’ like to try to establish a commonly held ‘atheist dogma’. I’m sure they get sick of me indicating that there is no such thing – other than a common non belief in god(s)

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?

Indeed – defending disbelief however is perhaps not the only reason.

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.)

What we know, or have realized, is that god belief is not a pre-requisite to living a moral life. Meaning and purpose comes from life itself – not from something ‘out there’. What we know, or have realized, is that god belief and/or the religion founded in its name is, by definition, divisive.
That said, beliefs, ‘worldviews’, are held primarily because they bring meaning and legitimacy to the lives of the believers in the face of the obvious inequalities and suffering perceived. As has often been claimed by believers – without their belief their lives would have no meaning and purpose. They rely on their god for this. Until they come to a realization of meaning without god they are never going to let the concept go.

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.

This is not atheist dogma – it is ‘humanist’.

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 propagate knowledge, and keep it safe from that which could destroy single worlds.

For the most part, for most of humanity, evolution remains an involuntary process, stumbling forward blindly by trial and error. What is yet to be fully realized is that the evolutionary process has itself evolved. Humans now have the capacity and ability to intentionally evolve. Evolution occurs across the various ‘spheres’ of our existence – it is in the sphere of the mind, the noosphere as Chardin called it, that the intentionality of evolution is most evident and available to all.

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.

Look at my (current) signature. There lies the key. We attach so much to our sense of individual being. This is, and can only be, a construct – a product of the mind, the noosphere. We are first and foremost conscious beings. What we do with that consciousness is totally within our control. It is what we each do with consciousness that determines our individuality. It is consciousness that we can intentionally evolve.

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.

Perhaps they will use the experience to ‘evolve’ and return as a different ‘self’. Or perhaps not.

[Zzyzx]

.

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.

That seems like a very good start. I have nothing to add.

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

He seems to drop by every week or two and make a few posts, but is largely absent compared to his daily flurry of posts in the past.

[C-Nub]

I would add something to the effect of "I will, by my words and actions, demonstrate that atheists are of sound, reliable moral character despite (or because) our lack of faith."

A group like this should try to set and maintain a standard of basic principles, like those rather articulately described by McCulluch.



Just so that everyone knows, I thought it would be a good idea to at least get a theist perspective on what we're doing, so I've invited CNorman to give his opinions on this. I can't see anything about what we're doing here that would be offensive to people of faith, but I like to keep my bases covered. On top of that, CNorman is one of the guys that's been calling attention to the need for progress in these areas. Assuming no one objects, I'd like to ask him what he thinks.

[OnceConvinced]

Just so that everyone knows, I thought it would be a good idea to at least get a theist perspective on what we're doing, so I've invited CNorman to give his opinions on this. I can't see anything about what we're doing here that would be offensive to people of faith, but I like to keep my bases covered. On top of that, CNorman is one of the guys that's been calling attention to the need for progress in these areas. Assuming no one objects, I'd like to ask him what he thinks.

I've got no problems with that. CNorman to me appears to be a good middle man, because he is not atheist or agnostic and is not Christian.

As for the name of the group. I don't think we want to call ourselves a "church". Maybe something like "Brotherhood of Non-Believers"? I'm sure we can all chip in with some suggestions. I'll give it some thought myself.

If we do start up a user group, perhaps we could nominate C-Nub as the group moderator, seeing as this is his suggestion. Or are there perhaps some other nominations?

[C-Nub]

Not to sound too terribly ignorant, but what's a group moderator? Are you going to make me work? I have a doctor's note that says I don't have to do things that are 'work'. Allergies. Or phobias. Or... uh.... Medical Marijuana. Yeah. The last one.


I'm at a loss for good names, and hope someone else comes up with something good.

If CNorman is generally welcomed, which he understands he might not be, my current plan is just to post his reactions to everything thus far in a 'quote' bubble so we can get a theistic perspective on what we're doing without having to 'tolerate' fundies.

Fundies, by the way, (I mentioned this in a PM recently) happened to be the name of some novelty undergarments I saw for sale in a sex shop once. They didn't look very fun.

[C-Nub]

Okay, I read through that thread and I do indeed have a few comments. You have my permission to quote this entire response verbatim. In fact, I would prefer that you do just that. I hate being edited.

My first observation is that you guys are way ahead of the game already. I can't imagine the theists around here discussing a project like this, or even acknowledging a need for one on their side. Which there patently is.

Second, none of you guys are the problem. I have had cordial, civil, productive, and fun conversations myself with every single member who posted to this thread, and never once felt a hint of the kind of sneering contempt that I invariably caught from TC, Daedalus, and another member who shall remain nameless, but is probably next out the door (and who did not post to this thread). Those three have been giving atheists a very bad reputation here for weeks, maybe months. The strength of their arguments had not one-tenth the impact on this forum that their disdainful attitudes did, and that was wholly negative.

That is not to say that any of us are blameless. Everyone who posted to this thread has also occasionally stepped over the line. I have too, most certainly. Occasional lapses aren't a problem; that's normal when spirited discussion is going on. Means nothing. You backtrack, you apologize, you move on.

It's when the sneer is constant, unrelenting, applied without exception or discrimination, and the apparent point and intent of virtually every post from that member that it's a problem.

McCulloch's rules are wonderful; right on the money and to the point, every one of them. The problem is that they are already being essentially followed by all of you. Rules like that will only be acknowledged as necessary by those who don't need them. The members who need them aren't going to think they're important.

Odd observation to put in here, but it fits: when I was a Christian preacher, the oldest and best-known private joke among us preachers was that the ones you're preaching to always think you're talking to someone else, and the ones who take your words to heart don't need to. Never seen it fail.

I think your discussing this problem as openly and honestly as you are right here is already setting a great example. By all means, set up a code of conduct for nontheists (why do I have to be the one to remind you that not everyone on your side cares to be called an "atheist"?); I think it's a great idea, and enforcement of it, even with nothing more than "peer pressure," would pull the teeth of a lot of fundies' arguments about bias and such. But then you can expect some criticism and defensiveness from your own side.

To which I will say, "Welcome to MY world." If you don't piss off the extremists on your own side, you're not doing it right.

And lastly, thanks for the kind words about me that I read in there. Nice to know I am respected as much as I respect everyone on this thread.

No surprise, really; Jews have gotten along better with atheists than with Christians for centuries. You guys aren't trying to fricken SAVE us.

Thanks for the privilege of joining your discussion.

--Charles

[Beto]

Given the quality of its prospected members I would gladly submit to the authority of such group, and I'm sure the added responsibility would make me think several times before posting anything.

I wasn't happy about the banning of TC and Daedalus, but have since realized they brought it on themselves, and that the banning criteria is fine as it is.

[JoeyKnothead]

C-Nub mentioned speaking/inviting CNorman in, I'm cool with that. He is a good dude.

As for a name, if anyone laffs at me I will poke you with a sharp stick, I'm only trying to help

Atheist Assembly?
Attentive Atheists?
Atheist Avengers?
Assembly of Atheist Apologists?
Atheists Acting Civil?
Atheist Hall Monitor's Guild?
League of Atheists?
Hall of Atheists?
Atheist Logicians?
Civil Atheist Network?
Atheists Who Bow Down To The Great joeyknuccione?

[Homicidal_Cherry53]

I would add something to the effect of "I will, by my words and actions, demonstrate that atheists are of sound, reliable moral character despite (or because) our lack of faith."

I would object to that. Thus far, I like what I see in terms of the general ideas and rules, but being that I am a moral relativist, I don't really feel comfortable following such a rule. I have no problem with a group like this that attempts to reinforce the rules of the forum and encourage courtesy, but going out and trying to make atheists look good? Remember, the Christian members of the forums will judge us based upon Christian morality so to me, this statement is basically saying "I will try to prove that I have good Christian values." I really don't think that this is the best guideline for the group.

Still, it is a very sound idea, and I would join if this group was created and the rule I quoted above was dropped.