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?
Another one bites the Dust
Moderator: Moderators
-
- Sage
- Posts: 519
- Joined: Thu Jul 24, 2008 2:38 am
- Location: America
Post #31
My vote goes to The A-Team, personally. It excludes theists, while covering the two main non-theist groups. Plus, it involves Mr. T. XD
- JoeyKnothead
- Banned
- Posts: 20879
- Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
- Location: Here
- Has thanked: 4093 times
- Been thanked: 2572 times
Post #32
ASkeptic or A/Skeptic - Like aseptic. It would imply the purity of atheist/skeptic thought/logic. Course it could be the reverse of skeptic, that might not do at all.Beto wrote:I'm not sure "skeptic" isn't too ambiguous. Any theist can claim skepticism about other faiths or lack thereof.
Atheptic hahahahahahaha
Atheiptic Alliance
Skatheists
Skepthics - ties skeptic, atheist, and ethics
Atheists and Skeptics Who Are Trying To Quit Picking On Theists Because Their Arguments Are Wholly Unsupported By Logic Science Or Empirical Proof?
CASTE
Civil Atheist Skeptics Theists Etc, - This could include theists, so we are an alliance of the whole spectrum. I kinda like that one.
Society of Civil Unbelieving Mentors - SCUM - mentors because we would be trying to lead by example.
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin
-Punkinhead Martin
- Goat
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 24999
- Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 6:09 pm
- Has thanked: 25 times
- Been thanked: 207 times
Post #33
"A" can stand for both athiest and agnostic. Good enough for meC-Nub wrote:
And I'm really upset that we aren't all 'atheists,' because 'The A Team' is an awesome name.
“What do you think science is? There is nothing magical about science. It is simply a systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results. So which part of that exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with being thorough? Using careful observation? Being systematic? Or using consistent logic?�
Steven Novella
Steven Novella
- Fallibleone
- Guru
- Posts: 1935
- Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 8:35 am
- Location: Scouseland
Post #35
Damn, I was going to suggest 'Herded Cats'.
''''What I am is good enough if I can only be it openly.''''
''''The man said "why you think you here?" I said "I got no idea".''''
''''Je viens comme un chat
Par la nuit si noire.
Tu attends, et je tombe
Dans tes ailes blanches,
Et je vole,
Et je coule
Comme une plume.''''
''''The man said "why you think you here?" I said "I got no idea".''''
''''Je viens comme un chat
Par la nuit si noire.
Tu attends, et je tombe
Dans tes ailes blanches,
Et je vole,
Et je coule
Comme une plume.''''
- OnceConvinced
- Savant
- Posts: 8969
- Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2007 10:22 pm
- Location: New Zealand
- Has thanked: 50 times
- Been thanked: 66 times
- Contact:
Post #37
I guess we can start up a poll on some of the names suggested. I'll do that.
That's a good question from Evales. I guess though it would be more for people who do not subscribe to any religion.
That's a good question from Evales. I guess though it would be more for people who do not subscribe to any religion.
Society and its morals evolve and will continue to evolve. The bible however remains the same and just requires more and more apologetics and claims of "metaphors" and "symbolism" to justify it.
Prayer is like rubbing an old bottle and hoping that a genie will pop out and grant you three wishes.
There is much about this world that is mind boggling and impressive, but I see no need whatsoever to put it down to magical super powered beings.
Check out my website: Recker's World
Post #38
I'm not entirely convinced "agnostic" suffices for admittance to this group, as I envision it. My issue is basically the same as with "skeptic". Different "flavors" of agnosticism can lead to either theistic or non-theistic mindsets. While I'm quite fond of the way Evales presents herself in the forum, I get the impression her agnosticism isn't on the same level as OnceConvinced's. I could be wrong, and either of you please correct me if that is so, but I think Evales leans towards agnostic theism, while OnceConvinced leans more towards agnostic non-theism.
I'm totally for theist "honorary members", as it were, but I'm not sure about "agnostics" in the broadest conception of the term. Any thoughts?
I'm totally for theist "honorary members", as it were, but I'm not sure about "agnostics" in the broadest conception of the term. Any thoughts?
- Cathar1950
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 10503
- Joined: Sun Feb 13, 2005 12:12 pm
- Location: Michigan(616)
- Been thanked: 2 times
Post #39
goat wrote:How about 'skeptic'.. because 'unbeliever' hits too many emotional buttons, and it covers both agnostics and atheists.OnceConvinced wrote:I wonder if can change the word "atheist" as some of us are agnostic.joeyknuccione wrote: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?
Or is this a specifically an atheist thing we're discussing here?
"League" is cool, if we could change it to something else.
League of Extraordinary Unbelieving Gentlemen...
No that wouldn't work either, because that would be leaving out the women.
League of Extraordinary Unbelievers
League of unbelievers
Is there a better word than "unbeliever"?
Or we could give a pat on the back to old TV shows, and call ourselves "The A Team"
I always thought the A room was for atheist and agnostic.goat wrote:"A" can stand for both athiest and agnostic. Good enough for meC-Nub wrote:
And I'm really upset that we aren't all 'atheists,' because 'The A Team' is an awesome name.
I like the 'skeptic' but this could include those that are faithful( a faith response) yet maintain a healthy skepticism.
I think of myself as a skeptic or agnostic and not an atheist while I think between theists and atheists it is athletes that seem to have the stronger position.
Yet God can mean many things including whatever is of ultimate concern or value or even a concept and a means of imagining beyond our present reach.
I hated to see them go too but you could almost see it coming.
I also see atheism as a useful assault on bad theology.
While I am not a theist and skeptical of any claims about ultimate reality beyond our shard experiences that are by nature limited it is possible we may sometime grow to understand why religion and god concepts endure and even appreciate the diversity.
Biology, psychology and culture might be a better approach to gods then theologies.
Post #40
I would never believe there is a God because of my experiences etc. But I'm glad I present myself in the forum as leaning towards theism because despite never being able to follow that direction I can see that others do. I just want to learn why.Beto wrote:I'm not entirely convinced "agnostic" suffices for admittance to this group, as I envision it. My issue is basically the same as with "skeptic". Different "flavors" of agnosticism can lead to either theistic or non-theistic mindsets. While I'm quite fond of the way Evales presents herself in the forum, I get the impression her agnosticism isn't on the same level as OnceConvinced's. I could be wrong, and either of you please correct me if that is so, but I think Evales leans towards agnostic theism, while OnceConvinced leans more towards agnostic non-theism.
I'm totally for theist "honorary members", as it were, but I'm not sure about "agnostics" in the broadest conception of the term. Any thoughts?
Last edited by Evales on Fri Sep 12, 2008 12:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.