I think that's referring to Rook, who is now an agnostic deist.

The Nightline was from Sapient and Tits Mckee.

The only original member still on the boards is Sapient.

Rook left, and apparently became a Deist

I don't know what happened to Yellow Number 5

Hambydammit left for his blog

Tits Mckee went who knows where to do who knows what.

Many original members left. I can only remember very few who are still here from when I first joined.

The activity of theists. We'll have some god person arrive and post silly and after they are assaulted by dozens of us, most disappear and never return. Only a few theists are able to handle this though all tend towards madness by the end. Jean Chauvin, Mr_Met being a couple that spring to mind. I can't blame them in honesty. Arguing with ten people at once would be arduous which I guess is why most will pick a single protagonist and concentrate on them. 

I do wonder whether we shouldn't be polite to cerebral god people in order to keep them around for additional conversation instead of driving them away. Tho' that's the fun part, I guess.  

I'm the dark haired guy.  The girlfriend with the big tits is anti-theist, her and I broke up about 2 years ago.  During the timeframe that you're talking about I was able to work on RRS fulltime.  I was on point at all times, today I have to work a full time job plus work on the side on top of that job.  I have some time each day to check the site, some days I'm able to spend an hour, but I don't have nearly the time I once had.  I still hope that someday I can launch publicity stunts like I used to, but for now I'm in a holding pattern. 

Because I don't have the time to promote like I used to the traffic is far from where it was.  However traffic is still stronger than most other atheist sites.  And on some days it is about what it was at it's most visited time.

I take my responsibility to the community that has grown here seriously.  RRS is a meeting point for atheists who believe we should respond to irrational claims like those made by religion.  It will continue to stay up and thrive.  I hope everyone reading this thread sticks around for the ride.  Currently we're saving up for a new server in the $3,500 range.  We need to buy that by next fall.  All donations appreciated! 

- Brian

He got a PhD and he uses it.  He doesn't do much online now. 

Some people choose to move on from time to time.  I like that new people are always coming in. 

It's on his latest entry on his blog. He also stated that he was no longer a mythicist in another entry.

I don't want to link to it because I don't know if Rook would want that. I'm assuming you already know what it is.

I don't, primarily because of the "Absence of evidence is not evidence" thing, and he seems to hold challengers (theists) of his positions to a higher standard of proof than he holds much of atheism -or himself(?). I didn't back away from the Abrahamic religions to be exposed to more of the usual "good for me and not for thee" thinking, a type of behavior everyone will find hard to avoid at one point of time or another, admittedly. I'd have to read more from him to be sure.

In his favor he does expose me to views I don't often come into contact with, either here, the rest of the internet, or the real World -even if they do read like propaganda more than actual views. Against his position, is that his methods of deconstructing theism appears to fallen out of favor, over time.

Are you guys joking, did Rook really become an agnostic deist? I visit this site every day, how the heck can I be so out of that loop?

LMAO!! You GOT to be kidding!  What does he have?? Evidence for the ARAB mythical god Jesus?

I find that SOOOOOOO hard to believe because he put forth some of the best stuff on the mythology of Jesus I've ever seen!  Being a deist is most definitely NOT incompatible with being a mythicist.   Deists REJECT scripture so it makes perfect sense if he were STILL a mythicist.

There's NO WAY he can believe all the lunacy the bible claims Jesus did so he must be inbetween somewhere at worst.  I mean if he was THAT crazy he'd be a ChistNUT!

Can you please PM the link to his blog where he says that he's no longer a mythicist?? I just find it incomprehensible since he was such a PASSIONATE mythicist.

Like I was saying just before your post... "atheists can't go bad?"

I suppose it could be surprising from the perspective of which atheist turned up a rotten egg in this case, but other than that...

Link to 'Rook' s blog - his name is Thomas Verenna.

http://tomverenna.wordpress.com/about/

He is still undecided about Mythicism:

I just checked out Rook's 'about' page: http://tomverenna.wordpress.com/about/

It's quite detailed, and it doesn't come off as unreasonable at all. Even his agnostic deism is the kind almost nobody could argue with beyond just repeatedly asking, "But why?"

He also links to a book (actually just the intro, as the book is in pre-publication review) he co-edited with Thomas L. Thompson on historical Jesus studies: http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/carp358009.shtml

                      I'll vouch for that,  I think I'm the only RRS regular who tunes in your show. Anyone else ? Speak up!

I think she posted that she was bigger than DD.

As for her naturalness, let's just say her head wasn't the only thing full of air.

I remember falling into that camp. Got out after asking "But Why?" too many times.

So my deism is refined enough, and just enough, to know that I imagine there being some being out there that might be defined as ‘divine’ or ‘supreme’.  Beyond that, I don’t have a clarification beyond a simple generalization.

I did not find on his website any further references to his deism. Hell, by this vague definition there may be billions of such beings. What I don't like about this position is, that it's so short and vague, that it can't serve as a topic for a long and pleasant discussion.

I love these Avernum and similar grid-based tactical games, too bad there is a finite number of them and most of that number are unplayable pre-1995 DOS games. Also, someone should invent a web filter to make all these console-style JRPGs disappear. 

I would program and design such a game myself several years ago, except that I failed as a programmer, when it came to pathfinding algorithms and addressing data structures for stuff like putting an item from inventory to the ground. 

And no miscommunication either.

Nialler,

Things have certainly evolved over the years, partly from changes in membership, and also certainly partly from changes in the posters themselves.

I'm a pretty good example of this, speaking from my own experience. I used to be a lot more argumentative and dismissive of people's POVs. These days I pick my fights more sparingly, and I'm much more forgiving to the other side. Also I used to have some difficulty getting my clear-to-me thoughts written down in clear-to-others words. I'm still working on my writing style, and think I could probably improve a lot, but I think I'm much better at communicating what I really want to say these days, by a long shot.

However, I don't regret the more flame-y days of RRS, and although I can understand your criticism, and I think it's pretty thoughtful as far as I can tell, I'm glad there was a place for people like me and the other RRS fire-brands. The minimal rules and tolerance of heated but coherent debate was exactly what a lot of people needed. I stand by RRS in those days, because despite the numerous accusations from many different sides, I could not see any *actual* unethical behaviour. And I looked for it. I followed several accusations to their source 'evidence' and was thoroughly unimpressed by the accusers, and it reinforced my appreciation for the core team, especially Brian's integrity under pressure.

These days, I retain my appreciation for minimal rules and open, honest, and even heated debate, although I engage in it much less than before. RRS is still the place I feel most comfortable. There are a few blogs where the comments sections are nearly as good, but forums are overall much better for what we do here.

I think the biggest act of improving the atmosphere here was the banning of Matt_Shizzle. There's a noticeable difference in the site before his ban and after, and it was a large net positive difference.

Thanks for your comment, and feel free to comment on whatever. You might find the atmosphere better for you these days than before.

Nialler,

There was a time (actually, it still happens) when people would be critical of the RRS without understanding who or what they were criticizing.

For example, if one or a few persons from the RRS forums accuses someone of being a hater or a theist, that does not mean everyone who considers themselves a member of the RRS agrees.

To be more specific, I was a member during your last visit and I didn't call you (or "anyone even remotely critical of RRS" ) a hater or a theist. And yet, there I was, an actual member of the RRS (forums, not core member, there's a difference there too).

So, when you say that critics of the RRS were accused of being this or that, you are not speaking of the entire RRS, although it sounds as if you are painting them all with the same brush. Our critics tended to do that a lot. The members of the RRS are not a homogeneous lot. Each person is individual and we tend to judge each on his or her own merits, and we also tend to expect others to do the same for us.

We tended to get a lot of people who would show up, flame the entire RRS membership for some perceived sin, and then turn into trolls when they were confronted. I'm not saying this is what you did, I'm saying it was a pattern we had come to expect, and we had our various ways of dealing with it, some snarky and dismissive, some taunting and whatnot, and some just ignoring it for the more interesting conversations.

This is just some food for thought.

As for moderating tone vs. message: I'm very skeptical of people telling atheists to moderate their tone. If you're not familiar with the recent Gnu Atheist activity, you might be interested to become familiar with it (google, e.g.) to understand why I and others feel this way. There is a persistent pattern of people (even other atheists) telling outspoken atheists to 'tone it down', when they really mean nothing more than, 'shut the hell up'. Again, I'm not saying that that's what you were doing or are saying. I'm saying it's a very common pattern that makes us suspicious of 'tone trolling'.

Question; have you even bothered to read your own post to yourself? If a person is an "outspoken atheist", then clearly it's necessary that they tone it down before they deteriorate their own credibility and the credibility and image of like-minded atheists, regardless if someone else is "tone trolling".

If an atheist is truly "outspoken", and said atheist wants to win a few hearts and minds towards the cause of secularism, pro-science views, etc... then they should consider becoming less outspoken. It's possible we define "outspoken" differently. I define it as having crossed a few important lines in one's speech -to have gone to some excess or another in expressing their views. A few people might react positively to someone being outspoken about one cause or another. However, unless it's neoliberalism vs conservatism (as I understand it, most political arenas in North America have a sharp ideological divide), the reaction will mostly be negative. "That guy's so damned annoying", "Please, shut up already", "Who cares what that person thinks", and  my favorite "Just ignore them" are just some of the potential reactions one might expect to being thought of as "outspoken".

Again, every crowd is different (as Bobspence1 pointed out), but keeping in mind the one exception I gave (politics), many will lose interest in an idea or point of view expressed too abrasively.

 Getting back to the original topic, I think a lot of people still lurk. At least I lurk. As far as posting goes it's more a matter of whether I think anything new can be said on a topic, so that pretty much limits me to the science section. I think ya'll have the whole anti-theism thing pretty well covered.

Mostly I'm busy doing research and studying, though.

Possibly in your view we have, but debates don't typically result in *a* winner. The hope is that there will be multiple winners.

Your view here is to say the least simplistic.

Theism has never ever threatened to destroy civilisation; indeed, there is a very good case to be made that theism augmented the drive towards civilsed norms by using its resources to develop society through investment in arts, science (yes!), architecture, literature and various of the other contributions to a modern society. Yes, many of these things were funded by churches for their own vainglory, but to throw out these achievments id to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

The temperature has not been any higher of late than it has ever been; indeed, it is rather lower in the last decade than it has ever been. Do you ignore the twentieth century entirely in your analysis? The US is a very liberal country in case you haven't noticed. Divorce, abortionsame-sex marriage available (in some states); a liberal country indeed.

Don't conflate debate about these issues with signs of a thesit conspiracy.

But religion in general as a "threat to civilization"? Don't make me laugh. Some fanatics in some religions may wish to destroy or modify Western civilisation, but to extend that to all members of all religions is to portray yourself as exactly the type of doctrinaire dogmatist that is typical of, well, the most rabid theists.

Whatever 'bump' Xianity may have given what passed for science at the beginning, as demonstrating the 'Glory of God's creation', religion arguably held back the progress of knowledge and more liberal thought and practice for a millennium.

As soon as the honest pursuit of knowledge started to come up with things that didn't fit the doctrines so well, both Christianity and Islam went a bit cold on it.

So yeah, if it gets more control again, it could be a much bigger threat in this more complex world...

Ok, cool.

Nice.

Alright, I'll bite.

So... Christianity got its current 2 billion following from rubbing everyone the wrong way -making everyone else a martyr? What about the crusades, Spanish Inquisition and Black Legend, the cathars... did that add significantly to their number? What about nonviolent assholes like the Phelps clan, Billy Grahams, David Barton, or WLC? Have they gotten their own millions of followers from their aggressive tactics? Billy Graham might have at one (more physically able) time, but did he do so from aggressive tactics?