Admittedly, some atheists seem to be remarkably dogmatic.

But it is a tactic here to go after atheists who don't buy into the take no prisoners attitude of the usual suspects.

Their methods are ugly and they are in no position to judge.

If they are already at odds, the chances are not good that the "called out" person is going to say "I say, I do believe you are right, frightfully sorry, old chap!" The cycle of hissing at each other just continues, nothing is solved, and nobody really feels any better. Anger and resentment are just stored up to fuel the next round.

If a person is in a place where they are behaving in a manner that you think deserves calling out, they will only leave when they are ready. If you don't have a prior relationship with them (family/teacher/friends/etc), you probably aren't going to be the person to help them leave.

be pressured into joining the "group-think"? What are you thinking of when you talk of calling out? An example what you have in mind would be helpful.

If you don't join the group in going after certain members or you question them on it they will say you ard not a true atheist and are masquerading around as one.

This is a tactic they use. They used it on a host that questioned them on bullying tacti s and insinuated for weeks he was a believer when he is not.

It was just done today nd I just called a member out on it.

who has "won"? I'm not saying you should never respond at all, but do not feel obligated to respond to everything, and take the high road. If that's what you mean by "calling out" then I misunderstood your intent.

is noticed.

As i edited above, I'm not saying never respond. Just try to take the high road when you do.
-
I hope you know that I'm not saying you're a bad person or anything for wanting to respond or getting frustrated. I think you do a good job of keeping a level head and not saying things you'll end up regretting.

I hope I'm not coming across as a holier than thou lecturer, and if I've done that, I apologize.

I am gkad you are here.

Besides, I probably have some of them on ignore and have no idea what they're up to.

You are a faithful and honest DUer.

Since they can't say "I despise you", they'll just say you're not a true atheist or even - gasp! - a theist! "Religionista" has been losing its gloss, probably from overuse.

As stupid a tactic as it is transparent.

words.

I want to read it. I promise not to post anything.

Isn't that a tacit admission that the object isn't discussion and understanding but to defeat your rhetorical enemies? I understand the impulse, I really do. I participated in it for a long time, and indulged myself with the theory that I was fighting the good fight, but it was kind of pointless. As long as that group is willing to use whatever tactics they can to win the battle, than there's just brief worthwhile discussions in between long and pointless rhetorical skirmishes.

Bryant

we have an OP who apparently thinks it's against the rules to be indifferent to his opinion and does rather a lot of foot-stamping about it. That's annoying, but it's also pretty pathetic behavior in anyone over the age of five.

Then there's Mr. Truth-in-Packaging, who called a another member a liar. She's a non-believer, and he insisted she's a theist.

These and other off-the-chart tantrums all go back to an incident in which one of the atheist hosts called out an atheist poster for stalking another member. It's been ugly ever since.

Sorry. This didn't nest right. It's meant as an explanation for Htom.

If they can't beat us over the head with their logic then we can't have a discussion.


Thats what I got from him.

After living openly as an atheist for slightly more than half a century, it's hard to resist laughing when some internet agnostic who stepped out of the closet last Tuesday questions my atheism.

And they think it is ok.

...make atheists invisible and deny our existence.

Except for the irony factor, I don't really see the collaboration by some atheists and agnostics in attempting to silence atheists and render us invisible as a difference in kind from when religious folks do the same.

Just different people doing it, that's all.

you a heretic by saying you are a believer.

An individual's need to attack others, either as individuals or as a group, is usually a reflection of their own personal angst and distress.

If you are able to embrace that idea, you will more often experience sympathy and compassion than anger.

And I'm glad to see you posting here even just a little bit

My spell check desperately wants me to call you centaur, lol.

Nice to see you around more as well.

it just doesn't understand Greek (like I do! )

I try to at least have a look around more often, mostly to see what activity has happened in existing threads. And this thread alone has inspired me to look less at the other groups, mostly because the topics I used to expect (such as court cases about Church and State) don't show up there much any more. If such stories are being posted, then they are by people I have on ignore, and that was usually because what they posted was anti-theist only. There was no balance left.

Last edited Wed Aug 6, 2014, 05:01 AM - Edit history (1)

and many on which most DU'ers solidly agree and can voice support. It's not hard to avoid the ones that aim to divide if that is what one wishes.

The ignore function is a great tool. I wish more people would use it instead of getting into these petulant snark fests that are all too common.

Just remember that when you are being attacked or see others being attacked.

You don't do that and there is a good reason for it.

RELIGION out of atheism.

There is no "Church of Atheism," is there? (Well, actually, there IS! But they have no "rules" that anyone is forced to follow.) No Pope of Atheism? No Un-Divinity School, or Non-Ecclesiastical College of Atheism?

I don't think there are any "rules" set out that differentiate a "pure" Atheist from an heretical one.

Ergo, I vote for just ignoring the people who are calling out their fellow atheists for not being sufficient in their unbelief, because that kind of "J'Accuse!!!!!" conduct is certainly disruptive. If it gets bad enough, it could be viewed as trolling for a fight.

There are other little corners of this board that do the same thing!

Respectful exchange of views? Sure. Differences of opinion? Great!

Crapping on people and insulting their perspectives? Big fail, there! We just aren't having it, and that's a good thing.

I would like to see stuff on eastern religions.

As Buddha was asked about gods and said they were irrelevant. He is not worshiped as a god, he is revered as a teacher. Some Christians don't know that. I am assuming you do know that.

I have no figures on Buddhist atheists. Sometimes it depends on the branch.

is already full of people calling out others for not being properly liberal, a good Democrat, feminist enough, and "just not agreeing with me".

And then there's guns...

If a few atheists want to get into a pissing match over who's better at it, why should any of the rest of us (more sensible atheists included) spend any time further stirring the pot? Who has time for that?

It's really none of our business.

I have made the case previously for not talking about others, other groups or doing things in here that will cause an increase in tensions. I would like this group to take the high road and I think the members here can do that.

I honestly do not want to participate in inter-group wars.

Kentauros, too.

but my sleep cycles were upside down. Drinking anything would have made doing that harder.

So, I may not be around all day, in order to get away from this computer entirely. Time to donate stuff I'm de-cluttering

Thanks for your help, too, hrmjustin. And it's not over yet