Thanks Joe,

I will wait for more replies and maybe comment back after a few days.

Since this forum in question has decided that I have no right, I need to leave the web for awhile and re-decide what is best for me.

I suspect there are others like me, yes some of my comments don't fully add up all the time (its obvious that I haven't studied this area for years on end), but they are always of my opinion, obviously that is not what people want to hear.

If there are atheists out there similar to me, without the degrees or words that go along with these 'high intelligence' of others! Maybe keep your mouth shut. I tried and generally got no where. We are still a long way off just accepting atheists as their own opinions.

I haven't read through the thread yet, but I will say that all opinions and ideas are pretty much welcome to be expressed here.

I have seen some Atheist vs. Atheist threads get just as heated as Atheist vs. Theist threads. Especially when subjects of science, politics, current events and social issues are brought up.

I see no reason for anyone to leave over a simple disagreement or opinion (provided that they are not a troll of course, and you are not a troll) .

I remember one thread about global warming that got pretty heated, one about what should be done to child molesters, one about vegetarians, and several others that got some stirred up.

More than once, the 9/11 conspiracy theory topic has been brought up here and gets pretty wild.

There are several Atheists on here that disagree about a number of things, including the role that Atheism should play in society and the exact definitions of Atheism.

Remember, you have negative and positive Atheists. One that says there absolutely can not be a god, the other that says there could be a god, but lack of evidence defaults them to the position of non-belief.

If you feel that some people are coming on too strongly, simply post in the Kill 'em with Kindness forum.

Feel free to stick around if you want to.

You gave me a severe lip twitch when you committed the same "True Scotsman" fallacy by saying "True atheist"

THAT is what theists do. "True Christians" or "True Muslims"

DONT DO THAT

A better way of looking at it is this.

People have lots of reasons for holding their positions, but the common ground people share if they share the same position does not change, even if their reasons for holding the positions vary.

Atheists can have different motivations for not believing in a god. Atheists can be more educated or less educated than others. And by some theists deffinitions all atheists are merely rebelling against their god.

Any differences between people who claim the same label, does not change the same core position all in that label hold.

A liberal Catholic has the same core belief that a right wing Baptist has. The belief that Jesus is the one true son of the one true god. Their behavior or education doesn't change that.

I have run into atheists who don't do a lick of homework as to why they don't believe. I don't say that they aren't "true atheists". I might say they are easy pickings to slick theists. But we both hold the position that a god does not exist.

I HATE the "true Scotsman fallacy" AND it annoys me more when a fellow atheist uses it. BUT, that doesn't mean they are not atheists because they use an argument I don't like. It just means they are using an argument I don't like.

Litmus tests are absurd. ALL humans no matter their label, including atheists, are capable of the same range of human emotions and actions, both good and bad. Labels don't change what those in that same label have in common.

Well...

Speaking as someone who used to literally shake in fear of hell as a child because of what my parents taught me I will admit it is emotional abuse.

I was ready to get baptised at the age of 5.  However, my mother thought I was too young to understand and wouldn't let me.  She relented when I was 7 after I told her of the enormous fear I had of dying and going to hell.

Of course Baptists don't think you have to be baptised in order to be saved and go to heaven but I didn't understand that at that age.

It's really pretty freaking wrong to do that to a kid.

Wat?  This is RRS.  We bully theists for a living on this forum. 

Dude.

Jeeze, I've ripped so many new bungholes for theists on this forum it's insane.

I know you're probably just joking, but in the slim chance you're not, I want to address this, because although we know that we're pussycats with a hefty dose of indignation and snark, there is an (undeserved) impression out there in the blogosphere that the RRS are a bunch of bullies. Again, I'll get to that later (the rumour mill), but I just want to say there's a huge difference between standing up to the bullies with indignation and snark, and actively being a bully oneself. I'm for the former, and against the latter.

Giving the bullies a taste of their own medicine is good, IMO, especially if done with flair and humour. Picking random fights with people (intentionally or not) isn't good, IMO, and especially if it's intentional. Unintentional, I can forgive, as long as the person is open-minded to realizing what's going on. But self-righteous jerks who don't care what bridges they burn (like Jean Chauvin, or dramaticlones, or trolls, or other internet haters) can go suck their own dicks (metaphorically speaking) as far as I'm concerned.

I remember this one muslim that happened onto the forums one time asking people to do some algebra or something so they could reveal some revelation of Islam to us.  You know how they do.  Muslims are always trying to prove to everyone how scientificy their religion is.  Pbhttt.

I lit into that person like a tornado calling Mohammed a pedophile and that the religion was sick.  I think I used the word ass as well.

Renee Obsidianswords laughed her butt off.

I don't think I'd do it now though.  I'm a lot more laid back with religion these days.

p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; }

Well, I have read the whole thread now and it is pretty obvious what the deal is.

You made a specific claim to the non-existence of god. Followed by several agnostics asking you what is behind that assertion. Mostly I tend to agree with you kimsland but they did ask politely. You have provided no answer but simply repeated your claim.

That does not make you any point with, well any community.

Really, I know of no definition of god which is logically consistent both internally and with the evidence (of which I know of none). That does not mean that such can't exist but merely remain undiscovered.

On with the reading...

Post 6 is fine, and an attempt to clear things up.

Post 7 by Darwinsbulldog is sympathetic to you. I mostly agree, except there are a few points I disagree with him/her on, but these are debatable, they're not egregious.

Post 8 is a reasonable rebuttal of some minor misconceptions.

Uh oh. Post 9 is more antagonistic flame-warring.

My impression: This is way over the line. If I were a regular on that forum, I would be thinking, "Who is this person to come in here and tell other members to 'go away', and accuse them of being anti-atheists?"

The problem, again, is in making assumptions and presumptions about the other people in the thread, and not questioning them to confirm/disconfirm your suspicions based on how they respond to your questions.

And, unfortunately, I think if you want more success in your endeavours to promote rational thinking, you are going to have to make time to argue fact vs. fiction. I know it can be frustrating, but if no one does it, it doesn't get done. Fictional beliefs need to be challenged. Challenging them takes time and energy. There is simply no way to get around this problem. It's literally a law of nature (specifically, thermodynamics). If you want something to get done, you have to expend time and energy to do it.

On the bright side, the more time you put into challenging irrational beliefs, the more you practice, the better you get, and the more enjoyable and even fun it becomes. It's actually quite a creative process. And it helps fight back against religion and other irrationality. Bonus!

Post 11 is fine. A bit over the top in terms of font size and colour, but no big deal.

Post 12 by darwinsbulldog, I have some disagreements over, but they are not major, and would only require a side-discussion to hash out.

Post 13, Xeno rightly (IMO) points out some strangeness.

Post 14, a bit of a taunt, but nothing to write home about. Fair, in my opinion.

Post 15, BlueDevil takes the high-ground and tries to re-engage. Good on him/her. Rightly points out fallacies (IMO). That's something worth engaging with, and discussing. Falsely claims that you claimed absolute certainty, but I would chalk that up to misunderstanding (unless you do actually make this claim).  Generally clarifies his/her position, which he/she would obviously have done in a much less antagonistic way if you had simply asked for clarification first, instead of making premature assumptions.

Post 16, wolty chimes in, but reasonably. I get the impression that they are willing to let your initial posts/behaviour slide, if you also let it slide. Good on them. They seem fairly used to dealing with fiery threads without letting it get out of control. Just my general impression so far.

Post 17,

Uh, oh. Not a good sign.

Continuing...

p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; }

I have linked them to us. I have no clue if anyone from there will show up but it is at least in the realm of contemplation.

I've skimmed along to post 35, because I would be repeating myself if I commented on everything.

It does seem a bit premature to relegate you to essentially troll status. Presumably, you've pissed off some mod or two.

However, it could also be interpreted as taking preventative measures. Allowing you to continue posting, but restricting your access to one sub-forum. It's possible they are waiting to see how you respond to see if you are open to discussion, or if you're going to continue along in the same vein.

Remember, you have, at this point, ignored their forum rules about backing up claims with evidence. Personally, I would have given you a lot more lee-way, and would certainly have given you a warning before taking a measure like that. But it's their forum, and they have their own way of doing things, I guess.

So, they went further than I would have (I would be discussing it with you as I'm doing now), but I don't think they've done anything out of line yet, such as banning you.

Personally, I disagree with your claim that you've met only with brick walls. In my opinion, they've handled themselves quite well, and have been trying to engage you in conversation. There have been a couple of taunts and teases, but if you consider some of the accusations you've made in the thread, I don't see how you can fault them for that.

And again, making a threat like "I would really like to know before telling the world to avoid this site," really sets off my bully radar senses. You probably mean it in some sort of exasperated way, or like a joking way or something (though, perhaps you really mean it), but if that is the case, it is falling flat. On a straight reading, it sounds like a sincere (but weak) threat. I don't think you are coming across the way you are intending to come across.

But, I could be wrong. And if I've misinterpreted you or misrepresented you, please be aware that it was not intentional, and this is only my honest first impressions.

I will say this, however: If your goal is to convince other people of your views and that thread is representative of your methods of convincing others, then I believe that you are going to continue to meet strong resistance from skeptics all over the place, and I suspect will end up burning a whole lot of bridges, while ending up frustrated that no one seems to be listening.

I believe you're sincere in what you say, but pragmatically speaking, I don't think the way you are saying it is having the effect you are looking for. I don't consider you irrational (to answer the question of the OP), but I do think your techniques could be improved.

Hi folks,

just wandered over here from the AFA forums. Thanks Natural for your examination and feedback.

@Kimsland being sent to Fantasy Island is a defensive move by the mods (I am not a mod) at the AFA, as you have been coming across to us as both aggressive and accusatory. However it is not the policy of moderators to silence dissent, merely to remove flaming behaviour to a quarantined space. Those who feel prepared to deal with it choose to enter that space and engage there. The rest of the forum is a more relaxed space. Quite a few people who have been quarantined in this manner have reentered the full forum after calming down a bit and demonstrating acceptance of the forum rules.

As to the AFA's definition of atheist, I don't really agree with it. I prefer the simple "lack of acceptance of the existence of deities". However the AFA definition has proven to be very functional politically in Australia so I don't argue over it.

Now that I have an account here I may wander around and see the sights. I try to keep my name and avatar wherever I land. You will also find me often over at rationalskepticism.org. Nice meeting folks, see you around.

Thank-you 'natural' for your very thorough analysis; and for your helpful ideas and points on how I should better my words to a more 'rational' response. Note: After re-reading and before submitting this post, I honestly do feel your posts were helpful in my understanding regarding how to debate effectively, thank-you again.

After much thought on the matter, I have made my decision on this matter.
I certainly respect your (and others) points of view on responding, answering, and providing documented factual information to back up my position on religion, plus to always try to be rational in my words.

Here's my answer:

I don't believe in god, I feel that anyone can have this same understanding of what is true, at any stage in their life.
I am not interested in arguing/debating with anyone who thinks this point of view is questionable, or not.
I believe that people can rationally believe that a god does not exist through common sense alone.
I fully believe that any religious viewpoints are irrational, and therefore not interested in debating with crazy people.
I do not believe that you need to take a year or two of thorough learning to become an atheist, I actually feel we are born this way (obviously) Lol
I still feel that fighting fact with fiction is a waste of time (even for atheists)

So what's my argument?
God is not real, and if you feel any different you are mad (or weak etc etc.)

Quite obviously some (hopefully not member 'natural') will say, What a waste of time that was trying to enlighten and educate me.
I say that the only way that anyone would believe in god is by stupidity and weakness, and any other decision is normal (ie being an atheist). Since both atheists and theists alike commonly do not agree with this (ie someone saying they are atheist without providing proof), then I feel sorry for both of your wastes of lives in this obvious point of view.

Am I being arrogant? Or am I not welcome on an online rational discussion forum? Probably.
But I joined because I am an atheist, not to debate the point. (except to any religious nutto)

I therefore decline responding again, until such day that atheists are accepted into this world (young or old) without any debate. When will that be? As soon as god damn possible, because I can't stand this irrational fictional pathetic 'god' talk in our society any longer, except as 'history' of what people once thought out of pure ignorance.

Thanks for the reply, kimsland.

I certainly don't feel like I wasted my time. I didn't go into this expecting any particular outcome, and was simply satisfied to state my case regardless whatever you decided in the end. I also learned a few things myself in the process, which is always fun.

I have no problem with your position that you're not interested in spending time debating theists or crazy people. That's entirely up to you, as it should be.

One really good thing that's come out of this: At least you and we now both know where each other stand.

Should you change your mind at some point, you are still welcome to post here, as is anyone who sticks to the established forum rules (which is not hard to do). I think the key rules you would need to pay attention to would be the rules against empty personal attacks (basically insults without any argument to back them up), against personal harassment (repeatedly hounding a particular person beyond simply dealing with the topics of the posts), and against trolling (derailing threads, instigating flame wars, etc.).

If you really felt the need to vent and rant, you could always make a post in the Trollville forum, and go pretty much as wild as you like. It's even less restricted there.

As long as you stuck to the basic rules, we would have no problem with you. However, we have occasionally had some folks on here who tried to stick to the rules but simply couldn't keep themselves under control. If that happened to be the case, we would have to enforce the rules, for the sake of the rest of the forum members, and that might eventually lead to a ban. But we would give ample warnings ahead of time to let you know what's acceptable and what's not. It would then be up to you to keep it within reason. I just want to make you aware of this, because it has been an issue in a few exceptional circumstances in the past. We rarely ban people, but we will if we have to.

With all that said, I'm just going to reply to one thing you said that I disagree with. You don't have to reply if you don't want to, of course.

You're free to believe that, but I disagree. Those aren't the only two factors, stupidity and weakness, although they are definitely factors.

If those were the only two factors, then religion would not be such a big problem as it is today. Religion would be like random superstitions like being afraid of black cats crossing your path, or believing in the Loch Ness monster. Stupid, but basically harmless.

Religion is bigger and badder than simple superstitions. There's something more to it than just stupidity and weakness. Somehow, it is organized. You never hear of Loch Ness Monster believers trying to get Nessie inserted into highschool biology classes. But with religion, you get organized creationism. Nobody ever killed anyone for breaking a mirror (bad luck), but with religion, you'll get people killing others for drawing a cartoon of Mohammed. Religion is more than just stupidity and weakness. It is organized stupidity and lethally enforced weakness.

That is the real big challenge of religion, and that's why I believe that it is important to do what we specialize in doing here at the RRS, which is to directly fight back against irrational dogmatic beliefs like religious beliefs. And that requires, IMHO, engaging in debate with the people who hold those beliefs. Not everyone is interested in doing that (e.g. you've said that you aren't), but lots of us are interested and focused on that, because we think it is vitally important to figure out those mind-tricks of indoctrination that religion has evolved, so that we can help people who are stuck in religion to escape it.

That's why I disagree with your statement that belief in god is only because of stupidity and weakness. I've talked to enough ex-theists to know that religious beliefs are worse than that. They are like a virus that 'infects' the mind. Some people, like yourself, seem immune to the god virus, but others aren't, and it isn't just because of stupidity. Otherwise, the majority of the people on the planet wouldn't be religious! They would simply see how stupid the idea is and stop believing. But things like the fear of hell prevent most people from doing that. There are hundreds of different mind-tricks that religions use to keep people believing.

Consider yourself lucky that you're one of the few who are naturally immune to the god virus. Not everyone is.

Umm dude, I'm not seeing the Ray Ray banana theory...

I think this discussion highlights the problem of simple assertion.

I may conclude there is no such things as a god, an angel, a devil, a ghost or a goblin. In fact I do conclude that. That does ot stop me from being intellectually rigorous and declining to assert those things as absolute truth. That does not make me weak or stupid, I just care about the process of reasoned thought and I will not break it for some emotionally laden end or a sense of self righteousness.

On the other hand I am also aware that the bulk of the people around me don't understand the subtleties and it is very frustrating having them jump about saying I can't prove god doesn't exist or saying that I have left the door open for them to be right by not 100% refuting them.

The big thing in Australian christianity at the moment is about how their "religious freedom" is being destroyed because we won't let them force kids in state schools to say prayers. Faced with that level of perverse discussion I agree that it is not politic to quibble about 100% certainty that their religion is wrong, but I don't have to. I can point out the dreadfulness of their argument and of their moral outlook without even worrying about weather their deity is real and as described.

Sorry, 1:14am, I am rambling a bit. Off to bed for me. Night all.