Atheists & Agnostics
Related: About this forumWelcome to the Atheists & Agnostics Group (New set of rules)
1. Initial caveat: while the Atheists & Agnostics group is a safe-haven with its own set of guidelines, everyone posting in A&A is subject to DU rules and the DU jury system. And although they should, jurors won't necessarily know that A&A is a safe haven, and may not respect the boundaries set up to govern posts in A&A. Anytime you post in A&A you take the chance that an outsider alerts on the post, no matter how acceptable the content is to the atheists and agnostics here at DU. If you'd like frank conversation about religion without the restrictions placed on us by potential religious alerts, we have several external chat groups in which you may participate. Contact a group host for more information.
2. Discussing a DUer's private information, whether an A&A regular, a religious believer, or members blocked from A&A, is STRICTLY prohibited. (Note that an exception can be made if the DUer brought the topic up themselves and you keep your comments limited to the thread in which the DUer posted the private information).
3. Discussing the Religion group, even if not explicitly named, is discouraged. The A&A hosts feel the Religion group is so toxic that our recommendation is to trash the group completely. If a thread posted in A&A references the Religion group, the hosts reserve the right to lock the post. If you find that the Religion group makes you angry every time you go there, stop spending time there and spend more in A&A. Discussion of or mentioning Interfaith or any other Group is strongly discouraged. We all hope that DUers will respect our safe haven and the expectation is that other safe havens will be respected here.
4. The hosts want to discourage negativity and encourage the promotion of the positive aspects of non-belief. If you read a good thread in A&A, rec it. If you encounter an atheist or agnostic in other areas of DU that you don't see in A&A, invite them over.
5. There are certain terms that are considered offensive to the members of the A&A group. If you use these terms or insinuate them, you'll be asked to self-edit. If you decline a self-edit, you will be blocked from the A&A group. A few of these terms are: "fundamentalist atheist"; "evangelical atheist"; "scientism"; "atheist dogma"; "secular indoctrination"; etc. Also if you like to refer to atheism or agnosticism as a "religion", don't.
6. As a Progressive community, we don't tolerate conservative viewpoints. Expressing those viewpoints is likely to get you blocked from A&A and eventually kicked off DU.
7. If you make A&A suck, you risk being blocked.
8. While as Progressives, we're pretty tolerant, we're not tolerant of religion apologists.
9. Posters that take A&A meta to other DU groups may find themselves blocked from A&A. If you have an issue with an A&A member, work it out with them directly or contact the hosts. If you have an issue with a believer you are urged to put them on ignore.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)These new set of rules for our safe haven group are the result of many weeks of email discussion on the part of your hosts. Our intent it to leave this post pinned as the new set of rules governing A/A. We will leave the thread open for discussion for a week. After that it will be locked and remain pinned. As usual, I hope you understand that our goal as hosts is to create a group that the members subscribing to the group want it to be. In that vein, even after this thread is locked, we do welcome discussion--both public and private--as to how we should do our job.
Curmudgeoness
(18,219 posts)I didn't know that the rules were being revised. But I don't see anything here that isn't probably necessary. I especially like #4, about inviting atheists or agnostics that we find in other places to join the discussion here.
Looks like you put a lot of work into this. Thanks.
Gelliebeans
(5,043 posts)for new rules or new and improved shall I say? You rock 
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)It sounds a great deal like capitulation to the whiny victimization from the usual suspects in Religion (most of whom are banned from A&A for being assholes, and are still sore about it) that has become more and more prominent lately. Religion is not a safe haven, and the apologists who frequent it should not be allowed, directly or indirectly, to dictate what we do or do not discuss here, let alone what gets even casually mentioned, and I frankly couldn't care less how we're spoken of by them. I've seen what atheists in Religion have to do and be to get the religionistas to suck up to them, and I have no desire to join that club.
If threads in A&A become toxic because of the mere mention of Religion or Interfaith, fine, but I see no evidence of that happening. In any case, the option to trash a thread here is as open to people as the option to trash the entire Religion group.
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)I confess to going to the Religion group maybe twice a month for the specific purpose of seeing what they are saying about Atheists. There is a prolific poster there who seems to find articles and Op eds that say the darnedest things....about atheists and atheism. Why should I spend hours scouring the internet for the current state of prejudice against us when someone does it for me?
I try to only point out some of the absurd articles that completely misrepresent atheism or outrageously condemn it for something. But I'm only human and like to gossip about the bizarre things I personally go thru over there....especially when they are emerging "trends".... like the redefinition of words.
But I will make an effort to keep anything from over there coming over here if it annoys people.
But y'know.... you don't have to read my posts. And I certainly don't want the place flooded with complaints about the Religion board.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)Our attitude toward this isn't about capitulation. It is about hopefully about keeping the toxicity out of this forum. I think we here are capable of having wonderful conversations without making it about what the toxic people in Religion are doing.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)The recognition that it generates some contentious and sometimes ugly exchanges is one of the main reasons that it is a separate group to begin with. But that's nothing new, and certainly nothing to warrant a change in our posting behavior here. But the toxicity is mainly because of certain people there, and the utterly bogus and nasty positions that religion and religious apologetics lead them to take. The recognition of that is one of the main reasons that THIS room exists, and I frankly think that there is no reason for us to stop recognizing it or discussing it now, nor any reason to think that toxicity is inevitable if we do.
LostOne4Ever
(9,286 posts)- [font style="font-family:papyrus,'Brush Script MT','comic sans MS',fantasy;" size=3 color=teal] Good point to bring to the attention of new posters. It is important they realize that...though its also sad in a way that they have to be informed that our safehaven is not really safe. [/font]
- [font style="font-family:papyrus,'Brush Script MT','comic sans MS',fantasy;" size=3 color=teal] Seems pretty common sense.[/font]
- [font style="font-family:papyrus,'Brush Script MT','comic sans MS',fantasy;" size=3 color=teal]I think there should be an exemption for threads about atheism or posts from there that are overtly bigoted statements made against non-believers. If the thread is about Agnostics or Atheists doesn't it kind of fall under the umbrella of this group?
I feel that just like the LGBT and Feminist groups, bigotry is a concern to us and should be fair game. I could understand that prohibition if the thread/post in question has nothing to do with us
That said, I understand that some posters have been complaining and if it reduces the number of headache you have to endure I can live with the prohibition. [/font]
- [font style="font-family:papyrus,'Brush Script MT','comic sans MS',fantasy;" size=3 color=teal] Sounds fine, but we can vent occasionally right? [/font]
- [font style="font-family:papyrus,'Brush Script MT','comic sans MS',fantasy;" size=3 color=teal]I highly support this! Can I suggest, because it was an issue recently, a prohibition against posters from telling us that we have any certain beliefs or what we believe?[/font]
- [font style="font-family:papyrus,'Brush Script MT','comic sans MS',fantasy;" size=3 color=teal]Love this![/font]
- [font style="font-family:papyrus,'Brush Script MT','comic sans MS',fantasy;" size=3 color=teal]Definitely![/font]
- [font style="font-family:papyrus,'Brush Script MT','comic sans MS',fantasy;" size=3 color=teal]Okay![/font]
- [font style="font-family:papyrus,'Brush Script MT','comic sans MS',fantasy;" size=3 color=teal] Totally agree! [/font]
kdmorris
(5,649 posts)I think you should make it clearer that, while we are prohibited from using personal information, others on DU ARE NOT. You run the risk of someone else using your personal information that you've posted in A&A against you.
I am not ashamed of having twins. I love them with all my heart.
But when a person who has been blocked from A&A can openly admit that they read my post here ("read somewhere about your chasing them around and growling like a dragon"
AND keep asking about them in a creepy, faux-friend, passive-aggressive sort of way, it really discourages talking about personal information at all.
I just think I would caution others that anyone can read these threads and therefore, you post personal information at your own risk. While this is a safe haven, this is not a bubble, or a private board.
The rest is fine.
JNelson6563
(28,151 posts)It inevitability results in mud-pit quality discussion that really fits religion group or private discussion much better. I know some live for the battle, rock on. Preferrably not here.
Of course keep dragging that stuff in here, people get emotionally involved and boom! Hand those who lurk, finger poised on the alert button, conveniently low-hanging fruit.
Julie
LostOne4Ever
(9,286 posts)AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)Nonsense. "Inevitably"?
There are public attitudes and theist attacks on atheism that get brought up "over there" and we should discuss...rationally.
That can only be done over here.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)But that isn't what happens. What normally happens is "did you see what X said?" "Can you believe how much of a tool Y is?" If it were just generic discussions about public attitudes toward atheists, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
And there are places off site for those types of discussions.
mr blur
(7,753 posts)We might as well just ask 'them' for a list of things we aren't allowed to mention here while accepting that we are constantly being trolled by those banned from posting here. And alerted on. And having posts hidden. 'Religion' is in fact not a Safe Haven even though we are expected to treat it as one. What you really seem to be suggesting here is that we must modify our behaviour because certain others are not willing or capable of modifying theirs.
I understand that it can't be an easy task being an A&A host but I guess I'm just tired of being expected to compensate for other people's inadequacies or sense of entitlement.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)(i.e. not a reflection on Julie or Evolve--they can state their own reasons) I don't give a flying fuck about their sensibilities. I did not work on #3 to make sure they felt OK about things. The wording of #3, to me, is about trying to avoid the toxic bullshit that goes on in Religion coming over here. I hope we can minimize that. Over my decade or so on DU, I have realized that no amount of discussion is going to change the toxic attitudes of the regulars there. And when some of them go away, new people with equally toxic attitudes show up.
mr blur
(7,753 posts)Let them talk to themselves in their echo chambers.
LostOne4Ever
(9,286 posts)[font style="font-family:papyrus,'Brush Script MT','comic sans MS',fantasy;" size=3 color=teal]Thanks for the explanation![/font]
EvolveOrConvolve
(6,452 posts)As hosts, we believe there is literally ZERO value in the Religion group. There's no way the toxic interaction in the group is going to change the mind of those that are firmly set in their religious beliefs. Yes we get treated like shit there. Yes there are some posters that go out of their way to be purposefully cruel towards atheists and agnostics. Yes there are what I would consider truly bad people in the religious posters in Religion. But we can't do a thing about those people, and the DU jury system rarely helps.
The first step for a person escaping an abusive relationship is to leave the house and get a restraining order and stop allowing the abuse to continue. Consider #3 a restraining order. If you'd like to remain in the relationship and allow the abuse to continue, you're free to spend as much time in the Religion group as you want. But we're done allowing the abuse to affect what happens in A&A. We're entirely serious when we say you should trash the Religion group and put on ignore those believers that push your buttons.
A&A was quickly becoming the Religion group's Meta-Forum, and I'd prefer to read more engaging material like NeoGreen's Meme of the Week threads or onager's funny-as-hell TV/movie threads or beam me up scottie's passionate posts excoriating liberals believers for their naked hypocrisy on religious matters. We have a long list of well spoken, kind, and articulate atheists and agnostics that post in A&A, and I'd rather spend time with them than even a minute with the toxic believers in the Religion group. Life's too short.
FWIW, the hosts spent many weeks and months discussing the situation, so please believe that the new rules weren't enacted without a lot of thought.
mr blur
(7,753 posts)As to your last point - goes without saying, really. 
LostOne4Ever
(9,286 posts)[font style="font-family:papyrus,'Brush Script MT','comic sans MS',fantasy;" size=3 color=teal]It makes a lot of sense and I want to thank all three of you for your hard work![/font]
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)Whoa!
You sound like them!
Zero?
They are supposedly liberals (this is DU after all) and religious. I think it's very illuminating what liberal religionists (not just here but in the news and opinion media) are saying and assuming about us. I don't mean the discussions the usuals have over there.... their logic is nonexistent. Who cares what the regulars think about the outrageous stuff they post? But their attitudes, and the general attitudes toward atheism is of value for us to know.... and discuss rationally..... which isn't gonna happen over there. It must happen here.
It's good for us to know and discuss what prominent religious leaders are saying about atheists in the media. Also what fads and trends are emerging and being supported....like the current misinterpretations of whatever Dawkins has tweeted, or what words are being redefined, or what "studies" are showing what is supposedly wrong with atheism.
These things are taken up by liberals and even other atheists to make us surrender and dismiss their damages to us.
Ignoring them does not make them and their influence go away.
Discussing issues these religious liberals may bring up and (horrors!) champion is part of what we should be discussing here.
Let's not just make this board an island and echo chamber as well.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)Sure there are some posters over there that it's useless to try to have a rational discussion with. But there are a lot of people, and I mean a LOT, who read there, but rarely if ever post. Debunking attacks on atheists and apologist nonsense for people like that is important, and hardly valueless. I can understand that not everyone relishes getting involved in some of the nastiness over there, but sometimes that's what being an advocate of rational thinking entails. At some point, all of us read or heard things that enlightened us in this regard, possibly from unexpected sources. There's the value, so please don't just dismiss it.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)I don't have anyone on ignore basically for that reason. I will comment so that those that are just reading don't just get one side.
But bringing that discussion here is of zero value. It just brings the toxicity here.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)that the Religion groups has zero value and what you're saying now, which is that there is zero value in bringing discussions from Religion in here. I don't agree with the second part either, for reasons that I've given, but I guess I don't understand how you reconcile saying on the one hand that there is ZERO value in the Religion group (as part of the justification for Rule #3), and on the other hand saying that you post there and that there is a useful purpose in doing so.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)Very little of merit goes on there. Very few discussions are actually productive ones. As a result, I think the group has zero value. If it went away, I wouldn't pine for it to come back.
But it does exist. And fellow liberals say shitty things there. And other fellow liberals read without contributing. So, as a result, I post there occasionally to counter those shitty voices. That is a useful purpose for posting there. Which stems from the realization that I feel the group has zero value.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)Between this: "As hosts, we believe there is literally ZERO value in the Religion group."
And this:"Very little of merit goes on there."
If you're using hyperbole that you don't really believe to make your case for rule 3, then I have to continue to wonder what's really behind it, if not what I originally suggested.
And to reiterate, we're not going to be duplicating what they do in religion, since the people making Religion suck are almost all blocked from A&A. Frankly, if someone in Religion bogusly claims that the people in A&A pushed for the creation of Interfaith with a secret, sinister plan for it to fail, we're not only justified in discussing it, we should be discussing it.
Well, I've had my say on this. Whatever the hosts decide to ultimately do, I'll respect that.
Rainforestgoddess
(436 posts)And I understand both points of view, re 3 and 4. Honestly, giving toxic people less fodder probably pisses them off more than reacting. I vote for that option.
I've recently started expanding my ignore list beyond gun nuts, which helps with the blood pressure. I might trash religion, but on a rare occasion, there's an op posted there but not here that's worthwhile reading.
If we can bring that kind of post here by default, I would have no problem trashing religion.
LostOne4Ever
(9,286 posts)- [font style="font-family:papyrus,'Brush Script MT','comic sans MS',fantasy;" size=3 color=teal] Do these new rules take effect immediately or once this thread is locked, or at some other time?[/font]
- [font style="font-family:papyrus,'Brush Script MT','comic sans MS',fantasy;" size=3 color=teal] What about "meta" threads that were going on before the new rules were posted? Will they be locked or posters asked to stop replying? Or do they count as a kind of a last hurrah and once the thread is inactive no more will be allowed? [/font]
EvolveOrConvolve
(6,452 posts)1. The new rules are effective immediately, and we'll use this thread to discuss the issue and gather feedback.
2. For meta threads that were posted before the new rules went into affect, we're playing it by ear. If people use those grandfathered threads to circumvent the new rules, or if we think a topic is getting out of hand, we may lock the thread.
Iggo
(47,535 posts)It feels like this is becoming the atheist version of the interfaith group, and I don't want to be a member of the atheist version of the interfaith group.
Have fun, kids. I'm out.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)I have only heard back from one host on this but they seemed fine with me floating this out. But raising this issue, I am only asking for a discussion.
Background information: The hosts have discussed trying to encourage regular weekly posts in A/A along the lines of the already present Meme post. This would be an effort to have even more of what we already know is good discussion to be had here.
That being realized, what about a weekly post along the lines of "Liberal believers say the darndest things." This would be a generic post which recaps some of the attitudes expressed in Religion that would have an impact on atheists and agnostics. This would not be a specific "X said this...aren't they stupid." As long as it was a generic discussion of disturbing attitudes, this one post would be an exception to 3. The discussions people think they would still like to have would still be able to take place and the overall intent of rule 3 would be in place.
Thoughts? Any suggestions for possible authors (it could be one person or it could be a committee that takes turns)? It would need to be a good writer with the time to follow what is happening in Religion and who has that good combination of humor and bite.
And, any other thoughts for possible weekly columns.
mr blur
(7,753 posts)It's only really valuable if one can cite whence the quote came (cf FSTDT or Freeper Madness). If it came from Religion...?
LostOne4Ever
(9,286 posts)[font style="font-family:papyrus,'Brush Script MT','comic sans MS',fantasy;" size=3 color=teal]A nice way to combine the desire to call out the dumb things said about us over there without turning the entire group into one big meta. It would allow us to discuss those issues in aggregate without focusing on individuals.
No ideas on authors but we could do similar weekly topics like a segment on religion and government which would focus on the breaches of separation of church and state, or Focus on the Fundy which would highlight a weekly fundamentalist idiot.
Just seeding ideas.[/font]
EvolveOrConvolve
(6,452 posts)With the right writer, that would be freaking hilarious!
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Liberal believers say the darndest things!
Person C: "Why those horrible anti-theists, I can't believe they use the word delusion. Even though they say they are using it according to the correct dictionary definition, I just *know* they are using it to call all believers mentally ill and they do not have any right or medical training to do that."
Person N: "ZOMG, I know! They must have some real mental health issues like being abused as children or raised in a harsh faith that they need to deal with. I am certain that is the case."
Person C: "I totally agree with you and wish the horrible anti-theists would stop trying to diagnose people online."
EvolveOrConvolve
(6,452 posts)We have some brilliant writers here in A&A I think could do the topic right.
EvolveOrConvolve
(6,452 posts)My DU blood pressure has dropped at least 10 points, and I'm not ending a DU session pissed off at the world (and that's saying a lot with the recent election). It's difficult to know how bad the negativity is until you're without it for a while.
kdmorris
(5,649 posts)without all that cortisol
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)If you have any last thoughts you were holding off posting, now's the time.
Iggo
(47,535 posts)If we talk about the religion group, you'll lock the thread?
Oy...
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)Sorry for the delay in getting a response to you.
our thoughts are that nothing good comes from this just being a meta dumping ground for Religion.
Response to Goblinmonger (Reply #42)
Iggo This message was self-deleted by its author.
RussBLib
(9,003 posts)Lots of rules to follow, but I'll do my best.
My sincere thanks to the Hosts for volunteering their time and minds to all of this.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)So we'd be just like their god.
Genki Hikari
(1,766 posts)I dare not say more, for fear of these mysterious jurors coming after me.
marble falls
(57,013 posts)Say hello to our new MIR Team!
The job of the Malicious Intruder Removal Team is to ban people who join DU with the intent to disrupt. MIR Team members are volunteers, and they serve for a three-month term.
If you are a member of the MIR Team, you should now have access to the access-restricted Malicious Intruder Removal Forum. It should appear as a red folder on your Forums & Groups page, and in the left column of any page (if you view DU in "Standard" mode). New MIRT members (and veterans who need a refresher) should check out the "How To" threads pinned to the top of the MIRT forum.
Thank you to everyone who volunteered! Volunteers were selected on a first-come-first-served basis.
The MIR Team, July - October 2022
NEW THIS TERM
Akoto
Behind the Aegis
BumRushDaShow
Comfortably_Numb
Demsrule86
discntnt_irny_srcsm
FakeNoose
Habitation
KelleyKramer
Kingofalldems
KS Toronado
Lasher
live love laugh
Lucinda
marble falls
Mersky
Rhiannon12866
sagetea
ShazzieB
Soph0571
Spazito
William769
RETURNING FOR A SECOND TERM
brer cat
DashOneBravo
ificandream
intheflow
LeftishBrit
llashram
mcar
MerryHolidays
SheltieLover
Texasgal
It's the alerters that stay anonymous. If you fear someone being on your jury, you can get that person eliminated from being called to your jury.
Besides, that group is a protected group, they have rules and there is a mechanism for changing these rules. This protection actually opens up conversation and even if it didn't, it definitely cuts down on fights and bad behavior.
What is your real concern?
