Home » Forums » General Forums » General Conversation

Have you guys noticed the traffic at RRS has gone down?

Posted on: July 10, 2011 - 7:11pm
JesusNEVERexisted
Superfan
JesusNEVERexisted's picture
Posts: 725
Joined: 2010-01-03
User is offlineOffline
Have you guys noticed the traffic at RRS has gone down?

I've noticed I don't see as many new responses as I did a year or more ago.  I also just don't seem to see quite as many new posts. That OBVIOUSLY does not reflect upon atheism/agnosticism because religion is dying out in America and the west and the evidence is clear. Christians talk about it all the time.

It's just that this site doesn't get enough exposure.  I saw RRS on Nightline during a debate on god with this dark haired guy from RRS and his girlfriend with big tits.  Is it true that him or someone else actually became a Christian?? No f*ckin way could it have been him! He was FERVENTLY anti-religious!

So how do you guys view the traffic on here and how are things at the site in general?

I was always honest and said I come and go just like others do here.

Click here to find out why Christianity is the biggest fairy tale ever created!! www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm www.JesusNEVERexisted.com

‹ Faith based slavery in a Louisiana prison Is there any secular fiction about Biblical mythology? ›

Posted on: July 22, 2011 - 6:57pm #51
Nialler
Posts: 94
Joined: 2008-02-27
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Nialler

jcgadfly wrote:

Nialler wrote:

Sapient wrote:

Kapkao wrote:

It should be pointed out that most of what "RRS once was" happened during and just after a time period of heavy theocratic activity in US politics (and to a lesser extent, Germany with it's Christian Democratic Union.) So, I think the high temperatures coming out of RRS members' comments reflect that particular threat to civilization more than anything else. 

We have a winner!

 

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.

Nialler, I'm going to go out on a limb and say you don't live in the US. If you did, you would never mistake this country for a liberal one.

Of course I don't live in the US.

 

But you have abortion available in the US and you have divorce available too. You have free-at-point-delivery healthcare coming in as well. And same-sex marriage is available too. The greater part of you people have voted for that. Believe me. The US is a liberal country. You lot are almost communist!


Posted on: July 22, 2011 - 7:55pm #52
Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 16463
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
natural wrote:Nialler,There

natural wrote:

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'.

I just went to a newspaper website in where an opinion was posted with the question "Why are atheists more aggressive".

As you said the "tone it down" people can both be atheist or theist, but to me just overlap in the "kumbia crowd".

I try to defuse these individuals by reminding them that how you interact with other people is a comfort level thing, not an absolute right or wrong thing. Just like there are people who like boxing, and other people like golf and some can like both depending on mood.

AND as others have said here, we are individuals so just because one person her has a certain personality doesn't mean all of us here are the same.

I try to get ahead of those who would from the start say " You hate me". I always try to make it clear to theists that I am addressing their claims, not them and can separate them from the claims they make. When you start your conversations with theists like that, for the most part, they understand that your blasphemy is not personal. Still, some don't get it, but to them I would say, there are others here if you don't want to converse with me. But if you do, then you have already know what you are getting into and cant complain when I have already explained myself.

I don't see other than the core group moving on to different things,  the site changing that much. And Brian Sapient has never, at least to my knowledge ever tinkered with the minimal rules attitude. I am thankful for that because sometimes I simply like to bitch and clobber a claim.

I think his attitude has been very accommodating to the full range of library types to the verbal boxers like me.

The site looks fine to me the way it is and was fine then too. I only hope Brian Sapient and donations from supporters keeps this site up for the for long haul future.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog


Posted on: July 22, 2011 - 10:43pm #53
BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Religion was a net benefit

Religion was a net benefit to civilization when things otherwise tended to be more chaotic and tribal, but it became an anchor on progress with its opposition to what 'the enlightenment' and other advances represented.

It now is a real problem for further integration and cooperation globally with its incompatible factions, and its viral tendencies to 'infect' people's thoughts and attitudes with irrational ideas which are roadblocks to progress.

It is time for it to be put back in its place, and not be regarded as a sacred cow, as the only and ultimate source of truth about the things that it is concerned about, such as morality, meaning and purpose. It has largely served whatever value it had for civilization, and its negative aspects are now more of a pain.

To hear Africans in already over-populated countries objecting to pleas for limiting family size saying Allah wants them to have many children, to hear the Pope arguing against condoms and other forms of birth control, to see Muslims punishing women for being raped and objecting to their oppression, is to get really pissed-off with this nonsense.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Posted on: July 24, 2011 - 9:38am #54
Nialler
Posts: 94
Joined: 2008-02-27
User is offlineOffline
 natural

 

natural wrote:

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.

Not the case with me, I have to say.
natural wrote:

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.

Errr, this was done by the people who ran this site, not merely by the contributors. Indeed, the RRS, which consisted of Brian (Still here), Rook Hawkins (departed to study and improve himself), Greydon Square (assaulted Brian and now outside the set, Kelly (departed for pastures new). All except Kelly piled on when I posed some arguments.
natural wrote:

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).

Then you should have spoken up. I don't recall that happening.
natural wrote:

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.

Sorry,, but the critics were right. The RRS was rapacious in its editing/censorship and in quelling dissenting voices.
natural wrote:
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.
That was explicitly not my experience of the RRS or its memberships.
natural wrote:

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.

That's absolutely true, but it is a lame excuse for treating every newcomer in the same way.
natural wrote:
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.
See my previous point.
natural wrote:

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.

I'm not. There is an ideological doctrinaire dogmatism abroad among some prominent atheists which tends to act against the interests of milder atheists such as myself. 
natural wrote:
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'.

No. It's not about shutting up; it's about making sure that common-or-garden atheists aren't misrepresented. Hell, we've had Dawkins behaving like an idiot for the last few years. The guy is little more than a simpleton when he has a microphone in his face and his responses are pavlovian. His most recent efforts have shown him to be a sexist of the old order and he is clearly unfit for purpose. A very bad scientist and a worse advocate for atheism.

 

An idiot by any account.

 


Posted on: July 26, 2011 - 2:51pm #55
Wonderist
atheist
Wonderist's picture
Posts: 2479
Joined: 2006-03-19
User is offlineOffline
Nialler wrote:No. It's not

Nialler wrote:
No. It's not about shutting up; it's about making sure that common-or-garden atheists aren't misrepresented. Hell, we've had Dawkins behaving like an idiot for the last few years. The guy is little more than a simpleton when he has a microphone in his face and his responses are pavlovian. His most recent efforts have shown him to be a sexist of the old order and he is clearly unfit for purpose. A very bad scientist and a worse advocate for atheism.

 

An idiot by any account.

 

The RRS has never claimed to represent 'common' or 'garden' atheists, so why would one attempt to hold them responsible for the misrepresentations that others commit (e.g. by painting 'common-or-garden' atheists as exactly the same as the RRS, when that's not the RRS' position)?

Not to say that you are definitely doing this, but it seems to me that by posing the situation in the way you did there, you seem to be 'speaking for' the common-or-garden atheists you're talking about. That seems problematic to me. What about all the common-or-garden atheists who might disagree with your position? Do you also speak for them, even if they don't want you to?

My position, which happens to be in accord with the RRS' position (which is one of the reasons why I stay here, not vice versa), is that atheists are so varied as to be almost ungroupable. The only substantive thing all atheists have in common is the fact that none of them believe in any gods. Everything else is debatable.

There may be trends here and there, but there is really no other defining feature than that. There are atheists, for example, who are explicitly anti-rational in their philosophy. In other words, they are aware of the difference between positions which emphasize rational thinking, and positions which de-emphasize it, and they consciously prefer to de-emphasize rational thinking. They may not believe in any gods, but they can believe in all sorts of woo that a more rationally-focused atheist would reject. They have made a conscious choice to reject rationalism, calling it cold and unfeeling, and even blaming it for war, devastation, etc.

I'm not in that camp. In fact, I'm in the pro-rational camp.

I don't (and the RRS doesn't) claim to speak for that camp of atheists. There are very few atheists we 'speak for', and the ones we do speak for are almost always just ourselves. In fact, I might go so far as to say that the RRS doesn't speak for me, and I don't speak for it. We simply share common goals, and so we join a community to cooperate towards those common goals. That's it.

Now, if some 'common-or-garden' atheist happens to agree with that basic idea, then they might want to join our community too, right? But if you are (or were) largely against "the RRS", then you'd be largely against such 'common-or-garden' atheists who broadly agree with the RRS, right?

So how would you be 'defending' such common-or-garden atheists from 'misrepresentation', by trying to knock down the RRS?

Am I missing some obvious hard-and-fast line between common-or-garden atheists and members of the RRS community? If so, I truly don't see it, and would appreciate your help in seeing it, if you are so inclined.

Also, regarding Dawkins, I honestly can't see your stronger comments against him as anything other than personal opinion and bias.

Dawkins, too, has never claimed to represent all atheists.

That's one idea I really don't understand. What do you base that on, other than just your personal intuition?

Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!

Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!


Posted on: August 12, 2011 - 6:58pm #56
Nialler
Posts: 94
Joined: 2008-02-27
User is offlineOffline
natural

natural wrote:
mmon-or-garden' atheist happens to agree with that basic idea, then they might want to join our community too, right? But if you are (or were) largely against "the RRS", then you'd be largely against such 'common-or-garden' atheists who broadly agree with the RRS, right?

So how would you be 'defending' such common-or-garden atheists from 'misrepresentation', by trying to knock down the RRS?

Am I missing some obvious hard-and-fast line between common-or-garden atheists and members of the RRS community? If so, I truly don't see it, and would appreciate your help in seeing it, if you are so inclined.

Also, regarding Dawkins, I honestly can't see your stronger comments against him as anything other than personal opinion and bias.

Dawkins, too, has never claimed to represent all atheists.

That's one idea I really don't understand. What do you base that on, other than just your personal intuition?

There is rather too much to argue here but I'll do it by reference to your last few paragraphs.

Yes, Dawkins implicitly takes on the role of atheist sokesman and the atheist "commmunity" (scare quotes inserted for a purpose) allows him to do that. You have all of this "Horsemen of the Apocolypse" stuff and he never decries it not does he ever deny that he is a member. He is also a proud member of the "Brights". This is all of it ridiculous and ludicrous and posturing shit. Forgive that last word.

Anyone who would subsribe to, or otherwise describe themselves as a "Bright" is an idiot in my view. I have advanced degrees which I won't detail, and the reason I won't detail them is because they are completely irrelevant to any discussion which involves membership of the "Brights" - it appears that membership doesn't involve an IQ test or a test of knowledge. Nope. A simple statement that you are a "Bright" is enough.

Idiocy in the extreme.

The proud members appear to me to adore flaunting their atheism and wearing it as a badge. It is possibly the first thought they have when they wake up in the morning: "Hey, I'm an atheist".

This is imbalanced. I wake up every day beside a Christian wife. I don't trumpet my atheism; I just *am* an atheist. I don't bedfellows to confirm my atheism and to support it; and, hell, I don't to pretend that I am the intellectual superior of those who are theists. I just get on with my sorry life and leave others alone.

To call myself a "bright" would be an ineffable act of supreme arrogance and a judgement on all those outside that label. In Dawkin's case it is an act that also screams of extreme stupidity. By the way, check his record of publication. He's a superb writer of popular biology; he's a bad scientist.

 

Personal? Nope. Just factual.

 


Posted on: August 14, 2011 - 2:31am #57
Jean Chauvin
Theistard
Jean Chauvin's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2010-11-19
User is offlineOffline
Hello

Hello,

It's gone down because i haven't been on here. lol. I told you. I bring this site up. Atheists do not know how to handle me. They can't take my intellectual kung pow!!!. And thus, dumb Christians come on here and it's booooorrrriiiinngggg!!!!!!. lol.

but i'm back. And watch. the site eventually will go back up!. People like to see atheists hurting and crying like little girls. And I forward to do it again, In jesus's name of course.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


Posted on: August 14, 2011 - 6:41pm #58
Ken G.
Posts: 1352
Joined: 2008-03-20
User is offlineOffline
Jeffrick wrote: Anyone else ? Speak up!

I'm speaking up !


Posted on: August 14, 2011 - 7:05pm #59
Ken G.
Posts: 1352
Joined: 2008-03-20
User is offlineOffline
Natural wrote: RRS is still the place I feel most comfortable.

  Yeap ! I agree, the only thing that has annoyed me lately was that Jean Chauvin character, with all of his stupid and very hurtful comments that he made (The Earth Quake in Japan comes to mind), I don't understand why we should "Kill them through kindness", shit, tell them that they're assholes and that the best thing for them is to GROW UP, and to stop trying to Con or Scam or whatever they do to people, they hurt our society, tell them !

Signature ? How ?


« first‹ previous12