Some sites like talking about people.  Here, we talk about religion, atheism, and science.

Meh.  Last I checked, he hasn't asked anyone to drink any Kool-Aid.  I've met the man twice, read almost everything he's written, and consider myself a fan.  I'm sure there are lots of people who have done the same things.  That's because he's a public figure and a very brilliant writer and scientist.  He's bound to have lots of fans.  If someone else wants to call that cultish, it's their prerogative, but it just sounds like he's popular to me.

Brian Sapient is the founder of Rational Response Squad.  He's not very active these days for a variety of reasons, none of which have to do with much of anything.  Like Dawkins, he's got his fans and his detractors.  It comes with the territory.

psst.... RRS.  RSS is a newsfeed thingy.

Anyway, search me.  I don't know of any members here who have an axe to grind.  In any case, it is against our forum rules to shit talk other atheist websites, so your guess is as good as mine.

Again, I can only speak for RRS.  We do not allow flame wars or internet drama about other websites.  If any particular members of RRS have a problem with RDN, it's their issue, and they can deal with it somewhere other than here.

It is against our forum rules to shit talk other atheist websites.  It is also against the rules to antagonize or otherwise harrass other posters.  It is against the rules to spam threads, hijack, and continually repeat yourself while not addressing criticisms leveled at your position.  In other words, you must play nice.  If you cannot abide by the forum rules, you will be banned from here, too.

Having said that, any topic that is legitimately involved with atheism, religion, science, and the other topics denoted in our various forums is fair game, and we have no policy regarding your level of outspokenness.  Just be careful not to confuse outspokenness with stubborn refusal to engage in civilized discussion.

Many of us here disagree with your views.  It is not terribly likely that you've got new material, so I wouldn't expect your thoughts to change many minds.  If you're ok with that, we're ok with it.  We have several long-time posters who hold positions directly opposed to the majority opinions, and what they all have in common is that they are all civil in their disagreement.  Please take a lesson early.

If there is ever a problem, it will be because of attitude, not content.  We do not censor any subject except as mentioned earlier.  If you're respectful of others, even when you disagree vehemently, you'll do fine here.

 Oh... one other thing.  The private lives of any and all members of this website are off limits as conversation topics unless and until the person in question brings it up first.  Be warned.

I suspect you'll be fine here, then.  Welcome.

If the RRS is a cult they're doing an awful job at it. They don't (and in most cases can't) follow the typical cult like behaviors, i.e. isolation, censorship, sleep deprivation, forced drug use. Even if they were a cult, who would be the leader? I've seen Sapient post here a maximum of 20 times since I joined (not including posts regarding Matt). Hardly the presence you would expect from a cult leader.

Dawkins told us this is not possible, we must believe his words.

The sapient has spoken and said this is definetly false.

They're a bunch of closet thiests.

If being an outspoken nihilist brings meaning to your life, then by all means express this view.

BRIAN: Are you the RSS atheists?

REG: Fuck off!

BRIAN: What?

REG: RRS! We're the RRS. Not the fucking RSS.

FRANCIS: Wankers.

BRIAN: Can I... join your group?

REG: No. Piss off.

BRIAN: Listen, I may not sound it but I'm really a nihilist you know. I hate the theists as much as anybody. I hate everybody! Well, not my mum, but nearly everybody!

JUDITH: Are you sure?

BRIAN: Oh, dead sure. I hate all god-people already.

REG: Listen. If you wanted to join the RRS., you'd have to really hate theists.

BRIAN: I do!

REG: Oh, yeah? How much?

BRIAN: A lot!

REG: Right. You're in. Listen. The only people we hate more than theists are the fucking DawkinsNet wankers.

RRS: Yeah...

JUDITH: Splitters.

RRS: Splitters...

FRANCIS: And the DawkinsResponse Squad wankers.

RRS: Yeah. Oh, yeah. Splitters. Splitters...

LORETTA: And the Rational Response Squad.

RRS: Yeah. Splitters. Splitters...

REG: What?

LORETTA: The Rational Response Squad. Splitters.

REG: We're the Rational Response Squad!

LORETTA: Oh. I thought we were the Really Sapient Syndication.

REG: Really Fucking Retarded more like! C-huh.

FRANCIS: Whatever happened to the Retard, Reg?

REG: He's over there. He doesn't post much these days for various reasons.

RRS.: Splitter!

No, RD.net is not a 'cult'. People like to toss around that word willie-nillie sometimes; it means something specific:

Cults are centrally structured, actively recruiting organizations that enforce strict dogmas, demand members conform to one specific framing of the world and expect unwavering faith/dedication to their leadership at all times. Cults very seldom ever kick members out, either (even brand new members), though some will maintain a zeitgeist where being removed from the cult is (fecetiously) hung over everyone's head as a 'threat' in order to further consolidate the leader's hold on everyone.

f you want to accuse an organization (like, say, RD.net) of being a 'cult', you'll need to be prepared to offer:

 - Who the cult's leaders are

 - What methods they use to recruit members

 - What doctrines they adhere to

 - What worldview they promote

 - Evidence for all of the above

I'm not trying to be a dick (welcome to the forums, by the way), but I despise hollow accusations (particularly serious ones). I'm a D&D player, so I know what it's like to be on the recieving end of wild and completely fabricated claims of, 'IT'S A CULT!!!!!' (though I'm lucky in that it's not as serious an issue as it once was).

There are some very clever people here but I have aggressively disagreed with most of them on at least some things. Also I think the people here don't neccessarily have that much in common. Most are atheists but not all  and the range of politics is extremely wide not to mention there are people from all other the world coming here.

I'm not sure a cult and an active forum would even work as everyone would just agree with each other which would be a bit dull

People love to make everything into a bigger deal than it is to make themselves look better, funnier or cooler. I don't see this place as a cult, just a forum to discuss ideas and vent about ignorance.

While I am aware of having may detractors and perhaps no supporters here I tested richarddawkings.net with the same material I have posted here. That started about four days ago. Unsurprisingly my access no longer works solely for asking clarification from a moderator. OK, I threw in a few needles too but in any scientific sense I played by the rules.

Here is the entire exchange.

[blockquote]

{quote="Ilovelucy"}Nosy Mouse

We have removed the link posted in your signature because it is in
contravention of the forum's rules about promoting hatred. I have also
issued you with an informal warning for personal attack made in one of your
posts, informal because it is your first offence. You should also refrain
from using terms such as "holohugger", which do nothing to further debate
but simply provoke and inflame.
Thank you
Ilovelucy{/quote}

You are not helping me here. So far as I am aware I have made no personal
attack on anyone. It certainly would help to know what you are talking
about.

As to the link, it is entirely factual. I have researched it quite
thoroughly although if it contains factual error I would be quite pleased to
have you point it out. The truth cannot be hate. I presume you realize that.
It is not reasonable to consider the actions approved by the vast majority
of the citizens after the consequences were known to be unrepresentative of
those actions.

Absent a better term I invented holohugger over a decade ago. Expressions
such as member of the holocaust confession are unwieldy. It quite well
describes the kind of person who, in the middle of a discussion of matters
of justice in the Demjanjuk case interjects holocaust as an imagined trump
card ending the discussion in their favor.

In any event, please provide the specifics of this alleged personal attack
so that I may avoid it in the future.
[/blockquote]

So yes, richarddawkins.net is a kult.

Let me be clear. I can no longer log in, period. A_Nony_Mouse is history. Finis. 30. Holohuggers have carried the day without recourse, period.

Yes, richarddawkins.net is a kult. Period.

Game

Set

Match

I did not prove it. I gave Dawkins the opportunity to prove it.

No, Dawkins is NOT separate from the website he owns. He is totally responsible and perosnally responsible for everything it does.

I am not playing guilt by association here.

I am saying the Kommandant is responsible for his command. This is Dawkins, period unless he wishes to cop a plea of incompetent management.Dawkins is pro-Jewish not atheist. Dawkins is pro-Israel not a scientist. Dawkins is a holohugger. I have no problem if Dawkins will publically repudiate these assholes and reinstate my account. That is for him to do. But this IS HIS website and everything done on it is his personal responsibility. There is no question of that.

For what it is worth, I am already logged in as other handles and I will present the entire issue at a later date to the forum participants so that no one misses the facts of what happened. I did the same thing here as something like "two weeks ago" for what that is worth. 

I am smarter than the average nude.

My vote is very clear. In any discussion of WWII, if the mere invocation of the undefined word Holocaust trumps any rational discussion, then there cannot be any rational discussion of WWII.

In the example which is the cause of this judeophilic elimination of access to the discussion.

You will note the specific application of the word holohugger which in fact I did invent. The Toronto Star did attribute the invention of the descriptive term to Ingrid Rimland but despite our efforts they refused to issue a correction.

You have read the reason I invented the term and how I have always applied it.

I have read many expressions of dislike, disgust and associated imaginary adjectival complaints.

I have yet to read a single factual reason to object to the term.

If you have a factual reason, please be the first to present it and successfully defend it. In practice I have NEVER received even a presenation of a factual objection. I have never needed to invoke the successful defense part. Again, be the first.

Given the "BUY MY BOOKS" and "TALK ABOUT ME" plastered onto every link, I don't think he gives a rat's ass beyond the royalties it brings in.

That does not make him any less responsible for the the website.

If you do a whois you do not find him connected with it. I have seen that before. It is an elementary legal dodge. It means one only talks about the website in a manner that is false only if he is not the owner.

In Britain, should he be directly connected with "defaming" me, he must prove it is true in a court of law should a law firm solicit me to represent me in a "gimme" lawsuit. England has a lot of them. At the moment its odd version of libel has made it a "vacation destination" for filing lawsuits which in fact have nothing to do with England.

 No offense taken, Latin.  The thing is, this isn't an internet gossip forum.  It's an atheist forum, and if a person's private life (even if it is public) has nothing to do with atheism, science, or critical thinking, it's gossip.

If someone wants to talk about prostitution or porn as it applies to atheism, fine.  If someone wants to talk about a specific prostitute, it better have something very specific about atheism too it, or it's gossip.  For instance, if someone was running a "Prostitution for Atheism" website, that would be a good topic for the board.  If someone who happens to be an atheist is a prostitute, then talking about them for no other reason than to talk about them... well...  there it is.

The fact that there is a lot of talk about Kelly on the interwebz these days is not particularly relevant to anything I can think of.  Regardless of the truth or falsehood of any rumor in particular, her views as publicly stated on the board have always been in favor of the sex industry as legitimate, so there's no chance of anyone crying "foul" on that count.  Furthermore, it's obvious to anyone who cares to look that Kelly hasn't posted in, what... close to a year?  Isn't it obvious that she's doing other things with her life right now?  Regardless of what they are, what does it have to do with anything?  This isn't the Kelly board.  Nobody's beating the boards down to talk about what Yellow #5's doing in his spare time, or Todangst, or Tomcat, or Mr. Gawn, or any of the dozen or so people who've been active here and moved on.

This isn't a gossip forum, and as far as I can tell, Kelly's moved on for the time being, and it's the same as any of the other folks I just mentioned.  People come and go in internet land.  If Kelly comes back, and wants to talk about her life, that's her prerogative.  Until and unless she does, she will be given the same respect as any other member who's decided to take either a temporary or permanent hiatus.

As a follow up. I was playing nice and just asking questions. But a modergod must have noticed when on the atheists cannot be Jews thread when I asked if we should expect "Atheists for Jesus" to come next. Thread is titled Strike the Root if anyone wants to look at what Kult Objekt said after A_Nony_Mouse was banned.

For the record I made no secret of it. I gave an email address which is from a mail forwarding feature on my website. It wasn't like I was using gmail.

And if anyone is interested I am starting to post in forums here where there might be theists of the Jewish persuasion. If anyone wants to post a disclaimer about me have a go at it. I am making no secret of it.

I'm not suggesting you'll receive a factual objection to the term. Of course, the term was clearly designed to be inflammatory, so my objection is that it refers to the killing of lots of people systematically (I don't care if it's 10,000 or 100,000 or 6,000,000). Killing ONE person systematically is awful. Continuing to use a term that has proven to limit your avenues of discourse shows that you're more interested in being inflammatory than correcting what you perceive to be untruths.

Now, I find the discussion about the holocaust itself repulsive, but you do have one point: that Israeli politicians use the holocaust to their advantage when engaging in asymmetric warfare. Their retaliations are out-of-proportion policing measures, and using one set of killings to defend another is pure nonsense. But the same argument could be applied to many nations. It strikes me as odd that you fixate on this one point of contention, but I, myself, tend to fixate occasionally on subjects (like atheism), so I can't really hold that against you.

As viciously insensitive as I consider your treatment of the holocaust, I'm a big believer in open discussion. I'm not sure why you've decided that only one type of lying killer should be considered bad, but if any of us are to know, we'll have to have an open discussion about it.

I think he's trying to use the term Holohugger to refer to people who "cling" to it when he presents his "factual" argument against it. Regardless of weather it's true or not, he's certainly not going to win anyone over by insulting them. It's comparable to an atheist trying to convert someone while calling them a stupid theist the whole time. There's an old saying, "You catch more flies wish honey than vinegar."

Looks like I rank right up there with flouride as SDog thinks should be banned.

As long as the crackpots love me I'll never feel down.

No more inflammatory than being called a neo-nazi, jew hater, or antisemitic. Those are approved inflammatory words. Not only are they inflammatory they are also defamatory in both the everyday and legal meanings of the word. Pardon if I do not see a problem with using the word in response.

Systematic as opposed to what? Random? As in the execution of a mass murderer? Putting systematic and holocaust together is supposed to make it worse somehow. But this is a change barely two decades old. Originally the "evil" description was industrial. That was back when Metropolis was a metophor like Star Wars today. WWI was "industrial" too. It was a change for the worse back then. As the connection of industrial and holocaust started getting nothing but quizzical stares they Holocaust Industry (available from Amazon.com) started using the word that applies to mass murders like Columbine. Noting of course events like Columbine do appear random.

But of course 1 or 6 million is the same in this reality. The worst penalty is death in either case. However that robs the faux uniqueness of the holy holocaust from its adherents. The adherents are holohuggers. They are similar to treehuggers and what is clearly understood if I say Jesushuggers.

In the Dawkins case it arose in the context of Demjanjuk and the question of justice in the matter of charging a camp guard as an accessory to murder. I asked if the guards at Gitmo and Abu Ghraib should also be charged as accessories to torture and in the case of a man dying during torture, as accessories to felony murder. Needless to say I was getting no credible response until one person raise the holy holocaust with the clear implication that the magnitude of the crime outweighed all considerations of justice. Thus Demjanjuk should be charged while "our" guards should not be. Again, I did not bring it up.

Additionally the URL that is talked about had nothing to do with anything holocaust but was rather www.giwersworld.org/antisem/ So here one sees a contrived use of holocaust to refer to the acts of Israel which are supported by 81% of Israelis noting Israel is 80% Jewish one can only ask after the extra 1%.

Viciously insensitive. Is not this entire website as well as it stated purpose viciously insensitive believers? Is what we may discuss based upon what others choose to get worked up about?

It is patently absurd for people to claim they are honestly upset over people who they never met and who died before they were born. That is simply not human nature. That is contrived. That is fake. And if it is neither those who do get emotional over it need medication and counseling. It just ain't normal. We don't see that even in openly ancestor worshipping cults.

Back when I was first "exposed" as a non-believer in this matter there was a short discussion of it. It ended very quickly. I merely applied the same manner of reasoning as I do to god believers. Perhaps they just lost interest. Fact is the most ardent believers don't know any more about the subject than a Baptist whose only knowlege came from Sunday School as a kid.

Of  course I do not take the "testimony" of others in either case. I do require a person defending it to personally defend it. I do not take pictures as true because of the caption. Dig out all the other believer gimmicks and you will find they are the same in both cases and the basis for belief is just as lame in both cases.

And the EVIL of those who do not believe it just as great in both cases.

I do not have a comprehensive list I can rattle off but the logical fallacies such as circular reasoning are the same.

And then the final question. In the grand scheme of things which has the greater potential for harm if in error? Belief in god or in the jewish holocaust? Believers consistently choose the latter. Sort of strange no? God may forgive but the ancestors won't? How primitive.

Read the first post on the dawkins link, strontium dog. His sig is an anti-fluoridation.

I'm an old fart and I barely remember the fluoridation debates. But I do remember it was available in since the mid-50s Crest toothpaste if anyone wanted it. I have noticed it reappearing but as yet I haven't come across a reason why.

Of course. Being against something that died before you were born is the safest thing in the world. But the greater it is imagined the greater the pretend moral superiority. That is one of the reasons Buffy was so popular. No matter what happened or how portrayed anti-demon is always on the side of the good. (And the other part is if a weak little girl can do it then I can do it.)

If I might digress ... Digress away you say? Don't mind if I do.

Today the French take their national image from Caesar's recounting of his conquest of Gaul and in particular his description of them. Wine, women and song. However that description is of the smallest of the three great tribes that ruled Gaul. It just happened Vercingetorix was one of them.

Back in classical Greece they modeled themselves upon the description of the ideals found in Homer's Iliad. It was a national symbol even though a cursory inspection of the mythology around it reveals its lineage is questionable at best and the ideals are the very definition of idealized.

What does that have to do with us?

For the victors in WWII the total romanticization of that war serves as the Iliad for us. The more idealized that war the more we are publicly exhorted to live up to those ideals. Any honest appraisal of that war taken from even the rhetoric during the war comes off as silly today. Yet it is the ideal.

Take for example the word of lifelong and expert political leaders and statesman who, in all humility, know infinitely more than I can ever know about such matters. In just the last 15 years or so they have assured me, assured us all, that Hitler was no worse than Milosevic, Saddam Hussein, Yassar Arafat and Ahmadinejad. What can I say to refute such wisdom?

Note Hitler is the definiting element as was Paris or Priam of Ilium. WWII has become at least the US national fable that defines the nation no matter how silly it gets. If Ahmadinejad is the latest Hitler I expect him to become the defining factor in the entire middle east. I expected at least one mass grave in Kosovo instead of none at all. If Hussein was a Hitler then Hitler violently suppressed all discrimination based upon religious differences.

The boy has his delusions of grandeur. Born long after Nazism ended but imagining it under every bed and hiding in every closet just ready to resurrect as vampire zombies and march on the world unless he throws an idiot tantrum at every nazi thing he can imagine.

His empty life needs a Nazi now and then to fill his drab, empty life. At least Don Quixote knew he was delusional and simply preferred it to real life. This boy thinks he has a real life and does not know he is delusional.

I agree with Will, as I usually do...

People don't want to believe we're capable of that kind of behavior. Especially to the extent of designing entire complexes for the sole purpose of slaughtering each other.

It's one thing to shoot a bunch of people and walk away, it's entirely different to work them to death and watch them starve and suffer the entire time.