'American Atheists' places president on leave pending investigation

[yallerdawg]

Sharing bad things about 'religion' groups seems to be in vogue, so in that spirit...

Announcement Regarding American Atheists President David Silverman

The chair of the American Atheists Board of Directors, Neal Cary, has released the following statement:

On the evening of Saturday, April 7, 2018, the American Atheists Board of Directors received a complaint regarding David Silverman, the President of American Atheists. The Board takes very seriously the concerns expressed and, in accordance with organization policies, the Board has placed Mr. Silverman on paid leave while an independent investigation is conducted. Mr. Silverman has pledged his full cooperation with the investigation.

The Board, led by Vice President Kathleen Johnson and myself, will fulfill the duties of the President while Mr. Silverman is on leave. National Program Director Nick Fish will oversee the day-to-day operations of the organization.

While Mr. Silverman is on leave, American Atheists will continue our work protecting the separation of religion and government, elevating the voices of atheists in our nation’s public discourse, and supporting our members and atheist communities across the country.

We are committed to transparency and openness about this process and will release more information as it becomes available.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

1. As an atheist, if he did horrible things, he needs to go.

At this point we don't know what it is, but it will certainly be made clear at some point.

The good thing about being an atheist is that there is no pope or leader. If this guy did shitty things, out he goes and find a new person to head that one atheist organization.

If only it were that easy with the bigot sitting in Vatican City.

[yallerdawg]

2. This is the president of 'American Atheists.'

Atheists have "no pope or leader?"

Belief not withstanding, wouldn't this be an entirely acceptable response by Christians, or any other people of faith - if it works for you?

A revelation of the pointlessness of these attacks on individuals within 'groups.'

[Cuthbert Allgood]

3. Yeah. He is. For now.

But if he needs to go, he needs to go. Someone else can lead that organization. He is not the default leader of atheists. He is the head of one organization of atheists.

I hope he didn't do something really horrible. Really, I do. But if he did, I have not desire to create apologies for him.

Who is attacking individuals within a group? Are you talking about what I said about the pope? Because he's more than an individual. He IS the RCC. And he has done a whole lot of shitty things. Yet you will find people on DU lining up to make up reasons why he's awesome. It's not the same as pointing at a random catholic and saying they are the cause of the problem.

[Cartoonist]

4. Anyone can form a group

And they can call it whatever they want.

I never heard of this guy or his group, so no, he is not our Pope.

[Thyla]

10. This is true

I have no idea of the person nor the organisation and in my mind it is pointless but I still fail to see why this was posted in the "Religion (Group)" section of the forum when you have this section https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1230 which is specific to atheists.
Unless of course the OP wishes to contain such criticism with like minded fellows.

For the record I make no distinction of a persons personal beliefs once a crime has been commited, but yeah maybe if it was the pope who the article was about then by all means whack it in the religion (group) but some random guy who openly professes to have no religion then the OP should at least bother to post accordingly.

edit: arrgh, sorry this reply was meant for my other post. lol
Still stands.

Also it's a holdiday here and well, you know, beers.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

12. He's the Bill O'Reily "Tides...you can't explain that" guy.

Just that you might know who he is but not even know it.

The best part of this interview is that Silverman is smart enough not to allow Billy boy to get to the "but why are the planets" point that he wants to walk Silverman back to so that he can make the "you don't know how the bing bang happened" bullshit.

[Lordquinton]

47. Atheists have no pope or leader.

That is a complete sentence.

American Atheists have approximately 2200 members.

Bill Hybels megachurch has seating for over 7000.

I'm pretty sure you can do math, even though Christians believe 1+1+1=1

[Mariana]

60. Most atheists aren't members of American Atheists.

Do you imagine that people who aren't involved in that organization think of Silverman as their leader?

[Thyla]

5. Why is this in the religion section?

There is a specific place for Athiests and Angnostics, this has nothing to do with religion whatsoever.

[yallerdawg]

6. Thanks for dropping by.

This IS the group for this subject.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

8. Read the "About this group"

This is for open discussion of belief and nonbelif. There are a plethora of protected groups where religion can be discussed without criticism and one where atheists/agnostics can discuss without criticism.

[Mariana]

63. You're right, of course.

This has nothing to do with religion whatsoever. However, some people claim to believe that atheism is a religion. The OP may be one of those.

[Major Nikon]

7. I didn't even know of the group's existence until now

I suppose if we wanted to fill up the Religion forum with pastors fleecing the flock someone could probably have a daily thread on the subject.

Perhaps we should make a sticky out of these stories and keep them all in one place.

[yallerdawg]

9. I thought this was the place.

Peruse the Religion (Group) list of discussion threads.

"Pastors fleecing flock" IS a daily thread.

[Cartoonist]

13. Right place

And the individual is worthy of criticism, but comparing him to the Pope is ludicrous.

[yallerdawg]

14. The Pope is the leader of the Roman Catholic Church.

We're talking about the President of 'American Atheists.'

Well, at least you won't have to deal with divine retribution for your constant denial!

[Cuthbert Allgood]

19. Well, I am not a member of American Atheists, so he is nothing to me other

than a fellow atheist.

I am a member of FFRF. But I would never argue that the head of the organization FFRF is the head of all atheists in the U.S. Because that would be absurd.

[yallerdawg]

22. Who is the head of all Christians?

Who is the head of all Jews?

Who is the head of all Muslims?

Now, an organization titled 'American Atheists' has nothing to do with Atheists?

[Cuthbert Allgood]

25. Nobody is the head of all Christians. That's silly.

Pope Francis is the head of the RCC.
I believe Michael Curry is still the head of US Episcopal Church.
I'm sure there are leaders of some Jewish organizations.

And stop conflating my argument. Of course American Atheists as an organization has something to do with atheists. Nobody has argued differently. But they aren't (nor is any) the organization that represents all atheists and that all atheists must follow like Catholics need to with the Pope. It just isn't the same.

[guillaumeb]

34. A point that was never actually made.

Speaking of argumentative tactics.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

37. Which point?

I made several in that post.

And don't wade into argumentative waters with me. You'll quickly be in over your head.

[guillaumeb]

70. Those waters are so shallow that..........

supply your own punchline.

[Lordquinton]

122. So what point we're you referring to?

Or is that another satirical post where you just shorthand the content instead of spelling it out?

[guillaumeb]

167. The claim that was levelled against yallerdawg.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

147. Which point?

You see, if you want to engage in a discussion and actually develop an argument, you have to actually articulate what you are talking about. I made several points in that post. Which one were you referring to.

If we were in a formal debate round, you lack of response would indicate that you concede the point.

And as to your weak sauce attempt at an ad hom: "Those waters are so shallow that one would think there is no way that guillaumeb could drown in them, but, alas, he did within 30 seconds."

But, hey, let's stop with the fallacies and actually have that dialogue you so desperately want.

[Lordquinton]

44. Either you are completely ignorant on the subject

or you are doing amazing performance art.

Either way this is a drop in the bucket when compared to religious leaders getting in trouble for the same thing, or worse, as was the case with Benedict.

[Mariana]

87. I suspect you're seeing some of both of those things. nt.

[Lordquinton]

118. "why can't we have discussions?"

Only one side has any sort of grasp on the issues? (Maybe reality?)

[Major Nikon]

45. I hadnt noticed anyone posting unspecified charges

Maybe your experience is different.

So let’s say this guy was drowning kittens in his bathtub. What are we suppose to learn from this? We’re people placing confidence in this guy because he pretended to be some divinely inspired moral authority? Kinda hard to make a decent case for hypocrisy, don’t you think?

[guillaumeb]

11. Recommended.

Congratulations to the group for obviously taking the complaint seriously.

If he is found to have violated his terms and conditions of employment, the Board of Directors can take action.

[yallerdawg]

15. Aside from denying he is leader of anything related to them...

they are taking it very well.

[guillaumeb]

16. No, the organizational leader cannot, of course, be a leader.

We understand.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

17. So how did you decide that this particular organization was THE atheist organization

I mean, FFRF has the largest membership of atheist organizations nationwide, they would seem to be the default "lead" organization if that were actually a thing. But, please explain why this organization makes Silverman the leader of all atheists?

What about these:

American Humanist Association, organization promoting Humanism in the US.
American Secular Union
Americans United for Separation of Church and State is a nonpartisan organization dedicated to preserving church-state separation to ensure religious freedom for all Americans.
The Atheist Agenda
Atheist Alliance International
Atheist Community of Austin (TX)
Center for Inquiry
Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science
Council for Secular Humanism
Fellowship of Humanity
First Humanist Society of New York
Freedom From Religion Foundation, according to its website, is the "largest group of atheists and agnostics in North America."
The Humanist Institute
Institute for Humanist Studies
Internet Infidels
Military Association of Atheists & Freethinkers
North Texas Church of Freethought
Rational Response Squad
The Reason Project
Secular Coalition for America
Secular Student Alliance
Society for Humanistic Judaism
United Coalition of Reason
Washington Area Secular Humanists

[yallerdawg]

20. American Atheist:

"Founded by Madalyn Murray O'Hair in 1963."

Since 1963, American Atheists has been the premier organization fighting for the civil liberties of atheists and the total, absolute separation of government and religion. American Atheists was born out of a court case begun in 1959 by the Murray family which challenged prayer recitation in the public schools.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

21. I am well aware of the origins of the organization.

I read a lot from them.

FFRF has more members. Why don't you declare them the main organization? Where in that statement does it say they represent all atheists. That their leader is the leader of all atheists in the US?

[yallerdawg]

24. They were just conveniently left off your list.

Like they were nothing.

The Founder of 'American Atheists' is like the Pope in Atheistic circles, isn't she?

Or...

[Cuthbert Allgood]

26. No. I deliberately took them off because I asked why not this list of groups.

Why would I include the one someone said was the main group when I was asking why they didn't pick one off the list? Certainly that isn't too hard to follow. I'll give you a couple minutes.

No, O'Hare is not like the pope. She is popular. She was awesome. She is NOTHING like a pope. I know you want to make atheism a religion and want atheists to be just like people that follow a religion, but it isn't. Sorry.

[ExciteBike66]

27. This is an odd statement:

"The Founder of 'American Atheists' is like the Pope in Atheistic circles, isn't she? "

Why would she be like the Pope? Does she dream up "atheist" dogmas like transubstantiation and other stuff?



"American Atheists has been the premier organization fighting for the civil liberties of atheists and the total, absolute separation of government and religion."

From this description, it appears they function like an ACLU but with a more narrowly-defined purview. I don't see anything that states she is supposed to come up with new "atheist" ideas or "liturgy", unlike the Pope and his crew.

[Mariana]

89. There's a lot of really weird stuff that gets posted in here.

Yesterday, a poster equated science and religion. Science has gods and revelations and orthodoxy and disciples and heresy and everything. So you see, they are exactly the same.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1218273709#post32

[ExciteBike66]

146. Seen that one before

There was a post a month or two ago about a scientist who gave an interview where he also pretty much equated religious belief to everyday people's "belief" in science, specifically about the speed of light (which most of us mortals will never directly measure).

My response was that I re-confirm the current estimate of the speed of light every time I use my GPS in my car, which uses that speed to calculate my position on earth. I wonder if the poster at that time had ever tried just getting in his car and praying to find his destination, perhaps that also works?

[Cuthbert Allgood]

23. Additionally, I fully support him being removed if he did something horrible.

Though, since I'm not a member, my opinion means little to them. I am only arguing that the organization American Atheists is not an organization like the RCC that speaks for all atheists in the way that the RCC does for all Catholics.

[yallerdawg]

28. Shoot!

Doubling down on disassociating from 'leadership' of Atheists!

I'm studying on this acceptable tactic in rejecting 'bad actors' as representative of anything related to a general affiliation to anything.

I'll have to link back in the future for reference, you know!

[guillaumeb]

29. No, not consistency!!!!

That cannot be asked. And now that you raised this point, I might also flag it for future use.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

32. Holy fuck. Really? NOBODY has "rejected" this bad actor. He's an atheist

He has apparently done something horrible though we don't know what at this point. I fully understand and do not deny either of those thing.

But please, in the name of human decency, stop telling atheists that they have one single group that represents them all and that the head of that organization is our leader. It's just not true.

[guillaumeb]

94. Again with the building with straw.

How many times will you repeat this one?

[Cuthbert Allgood]

148. Are you talking about me indicating you guys are saying there is one group?

Dude, it doesn't take a genius to see the MULTIPLE "they are called American Atheists so of course they don't speak for atheists " bit you guys are doing all over this thread.

But, sure, maybe I misinterpreted. What did you mean by that, then?

[guillaumeb]

168. More straw in evidence.

Neither yallerdawg nor I said that there was only one group of atheists.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

18. He's the leader of the organization American Atheist. That has never been denied.

We are clearly and correctly telling you that that does not make him the leader of all atheists in the U.S. Not even close. That you refuse to acknowledge that indicates either a lack of understanding or more shitty motives.

[guillaumeb]

30. Where did yallerdawg say that?

I seem to have missed that response.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

31. Seriously?

You two are doing your Abbot and Costello routing with about how silly we are to say that the American Atheists aren't the leaders of atheists in America and then you have the audacity to ask this? You really can't be serious. This is a bit, right? Because it has to be.

[guillaumeb]

33. I could ask the same.

He is identified as the leader of one group, but you said that atheists have no leaders. Is your argument with the group of atheists that identified him as the leader of the organization?

Your argument is too weak to stand.

[yallerdawg]

35. Good answer, GB.

[guillaumeb]

69. Hi Abbott, nice reply.

Lou.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

36. OK. Follow along

1. Atheists, as a whole, do not have one leader like the RCC does in the Pope. They don't.
2. There is an organization which exists which is called American Atheists.
3. That organization is NOTHING like the RCC. It does not represent all atheists nor does it claim to.
4. That single organization, as most organizations do, elects/hires someone to lead THAT ORGANIZATION.
5. Silverman was chose as the person to head THAT ORGANIZATION.
6. Therefore, the organization called American Atheists has a leader. Atheists in general do not have a leader.

Your lack of understanding is legend.

[yallerdawg]

38. "The good thing about being an atheist is that there is no pope or leader."

Your Post #1.

Your avowed Freedom From Religion Foundation 'not' leadership:

Front row: Annie Laurie Gaylor and Dan Barker, co-presidents.



https://ffrf.org/about/getting-acquainted/#who-we-are

Fortunately, for people of faith who have no faith in their leadership - they have a 'higher authority.'

Atheists have no one and nothing.

[bitterross]

43. Atheists have no one and nothing - WRONG. We have it all.

Atheists do not require supernatural sky daddy to explain what we cannot explain. We actually have everyone and everything when you think about it - without the illogic of organized religion.

As an atheist I don't have to have an explanation for every natural phenomenon. I know that through science we have explained much about our natural world. Much of that used to be explained by supernatural forces like elves, fairies or Gods and Goddesses getting angry.

What we cannot understand and explain right now will come along later. I'm okay with that. That is the natural way of things. It doesn't really affect my day-to-day life if I don't have an explanation for how the universe started or how it will end. Whether or not there is life after death matters very little to me. I don't have to have the threat of burning in hell hanging over my head to ensure I behave well with other humans.

I am perfectly okay with unanswered questions. It is people who insist that their God is the answer to everything who, I feel, have nothing. An explanation of the world we live in based on a fairy tale. Very unsatisfying to me.

Just because I cannot explain how the universe came into existence does not mean I have to make up a supernatural God or Goddess to explain it. It wasn't that long ago we used the supernatural to explain anything we didn't understand.

I have the whole fantastic universe with which to be in awe. Lots of things to learn because I don't just accept that "God made it so."

[yallerdawg]

49. That's your belief...

and you're welcome to it.

You also believe you are right. Also welcome to that.

In a culture and a country that celebrates freedom of religion as a fundamental right for everyone - worldwide! - I can respect what you believe.

[Mariana]

91. Oh, let him enjoy his fantasies. nt.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

46. OK. Again for those not keeping up

1. there is an organization called FFRF.
2. as an organization they have leadership (who are all awesome--I've met them)
3. Those leaders are leaders for THAT organization and not atheists as a whole

Are you catching on yet or do we need to do round 18 on this?

And, yes, atheist are just nihilistic losers walking around with a god-shaped hole in their heart. You found us out.

[Mariana]

98. Are you trying to claim that all people of faith

consult the same "higher authority"?

[Lordquinton]

125. "why can't we have discussions?"

Because the faithful don't argue in good faith.

Unrelated but here's a movie reccomendation

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/1008138_gaslight?

[bitterross]

39. Atheists are not a religous group.

It makes no sense to post this like there is an established "Atheist" church like this is the head of something that encompasses anything more than him and that little group.

[yallerdawg]

41. I take it there are many unaffilliated Atheists, then.

Atheism is still a growing movement - we are told.

Most 'religious' movements start from these tiny little groups. That's a historical fact.

A belief that there is nothing is still a belief.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

48. Atheism is a growing demographic.

That is pretty much all that has been claimed here. And we are.

And, no, we do not have a belief in nothing. We just don't believe in any gods. That's it. But, again, you've been told that countless times and still choose to ignore it. Which isn't really all that cool, but that's another discussion.

[yallerdawg]

51. Yes, sir!

I am going to be 'bookmarking' this OP for future reference!

[Mariana]

65. Lying about other posters over and over again isn't cool at all

to most people, but I guess Jesus doesn't mind.

Can you believe this person whines about being called a liar?

[yallerdawg]

71. Not taking your bait.

[Lordquinton]

128. Yet we're the ones who don't want to discuss anything

Unrelated, but the word of the day is Gaslight:

gas·light
ˈɡaslīt
noun
1.
a type of lamp in which an incandescent mantle is heated by a jet of burning gas.
verb
1.
manipulate (someone) by psychological means into questioning their own sanity.
"in the first episode, Karen Valentine is being gaslighted by her husband"

[Major Nikon]

53. For some reason this nonsense keeps getting repeated as if it were anything but.

The rejection of belief isn’t a “belief”.

I get that believers desperately want to draw parallels between atheism and theism, but those two things are diametrically opposed by definition.

In regards to atheism, there are no tenants, no doctrine, no dogma, no sacred books or artifacts, no shadowy figures to talk to, no moral code, no expectations, and no compelled guilt. Those who claim to advocate on behalf of other atheists pretty much universally do so to protect the civil rights of the irreligious minority from the influence of all of those things, particularly when public funds are involved. Trying to pretend they are just like a religious authority is a blatant false equivalence.

[Mariana]

100. Liars lie. nt.

[gibraltar72]

40. Did he get caught praying?

[yallerdawg]

42. Or...

hit his thumb with a hammer and utter 'you-know-what?'

[sprinkleeninow]

50. 👍🔨 Damn Freaking Flying Fettuccine Entity!

[rzemanfl]

56. +1 n/t.

[Sneederbunk]

52. Was this guy caught attending an Easter service?

[PoorMonger]

54. As an Atheist ...

I’ve never even heard of this dude and don’t care for the group American Atheists. Part of being an atheist is not needing a formal organization to speak for me of my beliefs of non beliefs

[malchickiwick]

55. "Atheism is a religion like "healthy" is a disease."

"Atheism is a religion like bald is a hair color."
"Atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby."
"Atheism is a religion like abstinence is a sex position."
"Atheism is a religion like "off" is a TV channel."
"Atheism is a religion like "barefoot" is a shoe."
"Atheism is a religion like "unemployed" is a career."
"Atheism is a religion like "clear" is a color."

[yallerdawg]

57. And you absolutely have the right...

to believe all that is true!

[malchickiwick]

58. "Belief" has no effect on the truth or untruth of a thing.

Everything I posted is the former, regardless of "belief".

[yallerdawg]

61. Belief and truth are impermanent words and concepts.

Fact and scientific law impart more permanent terminology implying no need for "belief" or notation of "truth."

If you believe something to be true, you most definitely have a belief system.

If I told you I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is a God, what fact, proof or law could you present me to disprove what I say?

An 'argument' is not fact, proof, or law, by the way.

[malchickiwick]

62. If I told you I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is a tooth fairy...

...what fact, proof or law could you present me to disprove what I say?

See how silly your position is?

[yallerdawg]

64. If I sat at that pillow...

and watched for that tooth/coin exchange, how silly would that be?

I know who the tooth fairy is.

[tonedevil]

72. Absence of evidence...

is not evidence of absence. If you watched for the tooth/coin exchange and saw no tooth fairy that would not prove anything. You were specifically asked how you would disprove the existence of a tooth fairy if you were met by someone who insisted that one did exist and you failed. Would you care to try again?

[yallerdawg]

74. That's silly.

Mental exercises in logic and language are not 'proof' of anything.

When I take the tooth and place a coin under the pillow, I am the tooth fairy. That is a freakin' fact.

[tonedevil]

75. You think you have proven...

that no tooth fairy exists?

[yallerdawg]

78. Scientifically, yes.

This is testable and repeatable.

But don't take my word for it! Test it out yourself!

[tonedevil]

79. There is the problem...

you haven't any idea what science is. Like you, I am atheistic on the matter of the Tooth Fairy, but unlike you I don't pretend to have proof that I don't have.

[Major Nikon]

67. I feel no obligation to disprove something that was never proven

The argument you describe is a fallacy, and need not be addressed other than pointing that out.

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/56/Argument-from-Ignoranc

[yallerdawg]

68. And yet BILLIONS of people disagree with you!

Well - what the hell do they know, right?

[Major Nikon]

73. Not sure if you are intentionally trying to be humorous

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

[yallerdawg]

76. Again, no proof.

Just a word game 'argument.'

You cannot prove there is no God.

[Major Nikon]

77. Neither can you disprove Santa or Leprechauns

[yallerdawg]

80. Another word game argument.

And, again - no proof, evidence or fact.

Now, remember - this is about Atheism being based on fact and proof.

Or is it just another belief system in light of the conditions?

[Major Nikon]

81. You have no proof that is the basis of atheism

[yallerdawg]

82. Word games. Don't like the results, change the words.

Older dictionaries define atheism as “a belief that there is no God.” Clearly, theistic influence taints these definitions. The fact that dictionaries define Atheism as “there is no God” betrays the (mono)theistic influence. Without the (mono)theistic influence, the definition would at least read “there are no gods.”

https://www.atheists.org/activism/resources/about-atheism/

[Major Nikon]

83. Your own source says its not a belief system

So your game seems to be let’s pretend words mean something they don’t with a few logical fallacies thrown in for good measure. I’m not going to play by those rules no matter how much you jump up and down.

[yallerdawg]

84. My "source" is the 'American Atheists' website.

Where they noted changing the words.

I have no rules for you to play by.

[Voltaire2]

85. Here is what you left out from your source.

Atheism is one thing: A lack of belief in gods.

Atheism is not an affirmative belief that there is no god nor does it answer any other question about what a person believes. It is simply a rejection of the assertion that there are gods. Atheism is too often defined incorrectly as a belief system. To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.

You have once again exposed your willingness to engage in willfully dishonest dialogs.

[yallerdawg]

86. Then you are not reading the excerpt I noted.

Where they acknowledged needing to change the definition.

How would YOUR chosen excerpt be in support of MY point on the subject?

[Cuthbert Allgood]

90. You deliberately too something out of context

to support a clean the original source made the opposite of. That level of lack of integrity, honesty, and truthfulness is appalling. You should be embarrassed, delete that post, and apologize. Everyone reading this thread should note that they cannot trust you at all. That level of academic dishonesty could get one kicked out of a university.

Edited to add: yeah, I'll be bookmarking this thread too so I can make sure everyone knows how you treat research and honesty.

[yallerdawg]

96. This is MY post, MY source, MY OP, MY point!

Would you like to write and/or censor and edit all my posts and comments?

[Cuthbert Allgood]

149. No. I don't want you to lie with your research.

The source you used was making a clear claim that all atheism is is a lack of belief in a god. You took that quotation out of context to indicate that they were arguing that it was "disbelieving in god" (or something similar). Not only is that the opposite of the claim that source makes, the whole point of of their passage was to point out how wrong the interpretation you were trying to support was.

So, yes, please stop being academically dishonest with your research. Don't post falsehoods.

If you were in college, you could be kicked out for that. In competitive debate, you would immediately lose the round. I beat a team at nationals for doing pretty much the exact same thing. If a student turned in a paper doing that, I would give them a 0 and make them rewrite after a discussion about how to properly use sources. Perhaps that level of intellectual dishonesty isn't a big thing in your circles, but most of the world takes that shit seriously.

[yallerdawg]

150. Research?

This is a posting from a website by an organization with a particular set of values and beliefs!

I have referenced THIS source throughout this entire discussion.

Calling me names is the basest level of discourse.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

151. You looked something up to support your point. How is that not research?

And in the process of "posting from a website by an organization with a particular set of values and beliefs" you absolutely, completely, 180 degrees misrepresented what they were saying.

And, no, calling you intellectually dishonest when you are being intellectually dishonest is not an ad hom. I am not asking people to reject your argument because of just you. I am asking them to reject your argument because you were unethical with your research. If you don't like that, then stop it. You see, the key to that in your graphic is "without addressing the substance of the argument." I addressed the substance by 1. repeatedly explaining why it is the case (and your source actually agrees with me) and 2. showing that the substance of your argument is based on lies.

[yallerdawg]

152. I didn't "look" something up.

THIS is the Original Post and a statement from the 'American Atheists."

BEFORE Atheism as promoted by Madalyn Murray O'Hair, they had to change the definition of Atheism.

The first paragraph represents the goal and the result. The paragraph I cited is how they got there.

I don't think you'd like it at all if I actually did "research" on the subject, word games aside.

Ms. Murray's argument presented to the Supreme Court:

"Your petitioners are atheists and they define their beliefs as follows. An atheist loves his fellow man instead of god. An atheist believes that heaven is something for which we should work now – here on earth for all men together to enjoy. An atheist believes that he can get no help through prayer but that he must find in himself the inner conviction and strength to meet life, to grapple with it, to subdue it, and enjoy it. An atheist believes that only in a knowledge of himself and a knowledge of his fellow man can he find the understanding that will help to a life of fulfillment. He seeks to know himself and his fellow man rather than to know a god. An atheist believes that a hospital should be built instead of a church. An atheist believes that a deed must be done instead of a prayer said. An atheist strives for involvement in life and not escape into death. He wants disease conquered, poverty vanquished, war eliminated. He wants man to understand and love man. He wants an ethical way of life. He believes that we cannot rely on a god or channel action into prayer nor hope for an end of troubles in a hereafter. He believes that we are our brother's keepers and are keepers of our own lives; that we are responsible persons and the job is here and the time is now."

https://www.atheists.org/about/

[Cuthbert Allgood]

155. How did you find that? Did it just randomly pop up on your computer?

You did research. Jesus.

And even if you didn't, you still engaged in serious intellectual dishonesty when you took that quotation out of context and presented in a way that made American Atheists look like they were supporting a position that they were actually arguing as being not a valid definition.

See, this is the point where you apologize and not do it again instead of making the decision to double down on the nonsense. You did something uncool. Own it like a grown up. Stop being that high school kid that commits academic dishonesty, gets caught, and still continues to argue why they are not wrong.

[yallerdawg]

157. If you ignore the evidence I present...

from the one single Original source in the OP - and continue to dissemble with outrageous claims irrelevant to anything, you are ending our discourse on the subject.

The entire POINT of this OP is to highlight the exact same nature of "Theist-anti-Theist argument," both arguing "unprovable" positions both based ultimately on "faith."

Anti-theists post every negative theist post they can find in some kind of support of their belief.

Would it surprise you to know Atheists do bad things, too?

[Cuthbert Allgood]

160. Don't deflect from the point of this subthread--your deliberate taking something out of context.

That's what we are talking about.

But, for the record, you can see several times in my responses on this OP that I have indicated he should be punished if he did something horrible and that I fully am aware that bad people can be atheists. So go build that strawman somewhere else.

[yallerdawg]

161. That paragraph IS in the context of MY point, and IS the record.

Just because you repeat the same baseless accusation over and over and over does not make your accusation any more accurate.

I understand you are driven to "correct" me, or "write" my posts for me as you see fit - or even "silence" me in some way.

This is now all just word games and no substance. One of us needs to end it.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

163. I know it's the context of YOUR point. It is the opposite of the point of the person that wrote it.

Serious question: in your education, did nobody ever tell you this is wrong?

And again, I'm not trying to silence you. I'm trying to not allow you to commit this level of intellectual dishonesty.

[Major Nikon]

92. Most definitions already define it as the lack of belief

What your source is objecting to is the older alternate definition which was defined by theists.

Meanwhile you reject not only the definition from your own source, but the alternate dictionary definition which says the same thing. Kinda funny how theists get to define what atheism is, no?

[yallerdawg]

97. I took the excerpt related to MY point...

straight from the source identified at the beginning in MY Original Post.

I understand the NEW definition to be needed as described by "the source that originated in 1963."

All movements have a beginning

THAT is also MY point.

[Major Nikon]

101. If your point is atheism is a belief system your evidence betrays you

Not to mention literacy and logic.

[yallerdawg]

102. Atheists believe in nothing?

Where does that argument even begin?

It's back to word games.

No proof. No fact. Just a belief in something.

[Major Nikon]

103. That argument begins with strawman

As far as word games go, fallacies are a low form.

[tonedevil]

105. The site you point to...

isn't suggesting the definition needs to be changed they are pointing out that some dictionaries have inaccurately defined the word.

[yallerdawg]

154. I just quoted the most prominent Atheist in history defining your beliefs.

Ignore it if you will.

No one believes in absolutely nothing. We aren't built that way.

Another way of saying it: "I believe your God or whatever you claim as a person of faith is not real."

Isn't it really as simple as that?

[Cuthbert Allgood]

156. "I just MISquoted..."

There. Fixed it for you.

[Major Nikon]

158. It actually is pretty simple, but you still managed to mess it up

Atheism is the rejection of belief. Says so in most dictionary definitions and in your own source you obviously didn't read and/or comprehend and instead chose to cherry pick a subset and then pretend it fits your own fallacious and unsupported definition.

All atheists reject the belief in supreme beings. Some atheists may "believe" god(s) is/aren't real or a number of other things, but that is an incorrect definition for atheism as it just doesn't fit all atheists.

Nobody defines my "beliefs" but me. I'm pretty sure you have absolutely no clue what that is and your stated assumptions regarding what my "beliefs" are is just flat wrong. The idea that you can define what I do or don't believe is frankly quite ludicrous and unsupported by anything remotely approaching knowledge or literacy.

No one believes in absolutely nothing. We aren't built that way.

Utter nonsense. Everyone is "built" to believe in absolutely nothing. One has to be programmed otherwise.

[yallerdawg]

159. Do you believe in justice? In love?

"Show me one atom of THAT."

[Major Nikon]

162. Word games, really?

You do get that "belief" in a religious context means something different than believing in non-religious things for which there is ample evidence, yes? Please tell me you understand this concept and are just trying to be amusing here. I'd hate to think otherwise.

[yallerdawg]

164. Evidence. Proof. Belief in the absence of either.

I don't think you get to pick and choose what is real, what is proof, what is evidence because you parse what you prefer.

Billions of people live their faith daily.

Billions of people profess their love daily.

How is one not just as real as the other in the absence of 'evidence?'

[Major Nikon]

165. I get you have no concept of what it's like not to believe

That doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Perhaps you just need to "believe" in it.

[Major Nikon]

88. Your source says the opposite of your claim

When you went to your source did you miss the title or this part in big bold letters:

To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.

[yallerdawg]

99. MY source describes how this all came about...

which is MY point.

I really find it incredible that at the 'American Atheists' website you would find some other comments, excerpts or thoughts y'all would find to be supportive of YOUR position (after the "theist dictionary definitions" were corrected, of course)!

[Major Nikon]

106. At some point continuing to dig yourself into a deeper hole becomes amusing

[Mariana]

104. BILLIONS of people disagree with you, too.

Most people aren't Christians. Even among the minority that are Christians, there are thousands of denominations, and all of them except yours think you're doing it wrong.

Well, what the hell do they know, right?

[Cuthbert Allgood]

59. If atheists spoke to you with half the condescension you to to us

we would be banned.

Be the change you claim you want in this group, because whether you realize it or not, you are a major part of the problem in Religion.

[yallerdawg]

66. Irony, noting hypocrisy, wry humor.

Condescension? Patronizing superiority?

I don't think so. And I haven't see any of "you" banned for it.

[guillaumeb]

93. This should be in the humor section.

No, really.

[guillaumeb]

95. Speaking of condescension

Read this one:

https://upload.democraticunderground.com/1218237404

[Mariana]

107. What do you suppose is the change they want to see?

This is the kind of "dialog" I think they want, based on an actual OP in this group from awhile back.

OP: "The human mind is a pale reflection of the Creator..."
Good: "You're absolutely right!"
Good: "That's so profound!"
Good: "Praise the Lord!"

These kind of exchange is unacceptable:

OP: "The human mind is a pale reflection of the Creator..."
Bad: "Please describe this creator."
Bad: "Which human mind?"
Bad: "How do you know this?"

There are groups on DU that were set up specifically so religious people can have the first kind of conversation, and avoid the second type altogether. This one lone group permits the second kind, and they don't like it one little bit.

[Eko]

108. What is he supposed to have done?

What if he just told someone to fuck off? Or said that some atheists were a pain in the ass? I notice that you have no info on that, I presume you didn't even look because more info is right there on the first page of a google search, its actually in the second result. One could guess that for some people its not about what he did, its about them getting to post something because their feelings were hurt and it helps to justify their own beliefs.
Here is some more info for anyone who cares.

"The allegations relate to alleged violations of the American Atheists employee code of conduct and staff handbook.

https://www.christianpost.com/news/american-atheists-president-david-silverman-suspended-after-complaint-investigation-launched-222795/

[yallerdawg]

109. I stand by the statement made by the organization that suspended him.

As their statement remains exactly the same as posted this morning.

Link to tweet

[Eko]

110. Like I said.

It could be that he told a fellow employee to shove off. It could be something worse, you don't know, I dont know.

[yallerdawg]

111. "Hope for the best...

expect the worst."

That way we are never really wrong!

[Eko]

113. I personally dont

do that in response to something like this. I wait for the evidence. But I certainly don't jump to conclusions that support my bias either.

[yallerdawg]

116. Yup.

You made that clear with your first comment.

[Eko]

117. Since you dont know what he did

why did you post it?

[yallerdawg]

120. The first line in the OP explains it.

Do you notice the entire thread above you?

Or do we get to start all over now?

[Eko]

112. It is interesting that your response

to me was to post the same link again that you did in your original post that does nothing to address the points I brought up.
Nice Job!

[yallerdawg]

114. Except I posted the Twitter account as of NOW, not what I posted this AM.

The original statement still stands without addition.

[Eko]

115. If you click the blue link

it takes you to exactly the same web address.

[yallerdawg]

119. THIS is the organization that suspended him.

THIS is their statement which still stands as released YESTERDAY.

[Eko]

121. So it doesnt matter what he did.

Just that he was placed on leave.

[yallerdawg]

123. "Pending investigation of the allegations."

If he's cleared or they are ridiculous, I would be happy for him!

The news is he was placed on leave. Happens to all kinds of people and makes the Front Pages everyday!

[Eko]

124. So why did you post it?

Since you agree that the reasoning could be something simple.

[yallerdawg]

126. Again - read my first sentence in the Original Post.

That explains it.

[Eko]

129. Oh, that is the fait accompli

"Sharing bad things about 'religion' groups seems to be in vogue, so in that spirit..."
Doesn't seem so "turn the other cheek" to me. Seems rather like revenge, and in this case the bad thing could be is argumentative or bombastic on social media, or something way worse. The thing is you dont know.

[yallerdawg]

133. It's good natured, really just an abstract point.

I see crap posted everyday that I am able to completely ignore.

I don't feel the need to correct, excoriate and castigate my fellow sojourners.

[Eko]

134. Wow, that's alot to unpack.

This is good natured and abstract? "Sharing bad things about 'religion' groups seems to be in vogue, so in that spirit..."
I guess the good natured point is an opinion, as far as abstract? not even close.
Then we have this. I don't feel the need to correct, excoriate and castigate my fellow sojourners.
Correct? Sure, sounds fine.
Excoriate? Uh, so very hyperbolic of ya. Not true.
Castigate? You feel like I reprimanded you severely? Really? Not true.
I also see things (not crap, I wouldn't say that about my fellow sojourners) that I don't agree with, I also ignore them. Seems like you kinda are angry a lot with people on here.

[yallerdawg]

137. I don't feel the need to 'unpack' anything.

I just take you at face value - what you say reveals all - and I always remember, "I don't know you."

Carry on!

[Eko]

139. For me, explaining what I have said

in more detail and my reasoning behind it so that my fellow sojourners can give me a valid opinion on it is a welcome thing. There is no reason whatsoever that you might "know me". Unless you do somehow and then that sounds like a threat.

[Mariana]

143. The existence of this group seems to make some people very angry indeed.

DU has a dozen or so groups for religious people in which disagreement and arguments about their beliefs are prohibited. Apparently that is inadequate accommodation, because there still exists this one group here, the one group in which religious people's posts are subject to criticism, questioning, and contradiction. It seems this one group is just one too many.

There's a parable in the Bible about a rich man with lots of livestock and a poor man with one sheep to his name that was his pet. The rich man wasn't satisfied with his abundance and his privilege. He couldn't stand it that his neighbor had even one sheep, so he took his neighbors pet sheep and he killed it and ate it.

[Eko]

127. Would you think a post that says "Pastor was suspended"

for making sarcastic and bombastic comments on social media is warranted? Because that is supposedly the 4th most common reasons that pastors get fired for among other social media comments.
https://www.biblicalleadership.com/blogs/the-4-most-common-acts-of-stupidity-that-get-pastors-fired/

[yallerdawg]

130. I'm sure it would be posted in the Religion (Group).

If it made news. Like the 'American Atheists' suspension did.

I understand you want to control what I should be permitted to post.

I feel differently. You can post whatever you want to!

[Eko]

131. Where did I try to control what you should post?

[Mariana]

135. It's a lie.

You didn't even hint that you want to do that. You asked a reasonable question that the poster doesn't want to answer, so he attacked you by lying about you.

[Eko]

132. LOL.

Asking you why you posted something and asking if you think a post is warranted is trying to control what you should be permitted to post. Says a lot buddy.

[Eko]

136. You also didn't answer the question.

Would you think that post is warranted? If so would it be a bad thing also?

[yallerdawg]

138. I did answer directly.

You just don't like the answer - or you want to 'correct' my answer maybe?

[Eko]

140. The question was do you think it would be warranted,

and if it would be a bad thing, in no way did you answer those questions.
Here you go, post the answers.
Would you think that post is warranted?
If so would it be a bad thing also?

[Eko]

141. Lets make it concise.

Would you think that post is warranted?
You:I'm sure it would be posted in the Religion (Group).If it made news. Like the 'American Atheists' suspension did.
You never said if you thought it was warranted. The second part is ambiguous, it could be reinforcing the first sentence or it could be your answer for if it is warranted.

[Eko]

142. And

If so would it be a bad thing also?
You: I'm sure it would be posted in the Religion (Group). If it made news. Like the 'American Atheists' suspension did.
The first sentence makes no sense for the answer to this question so we will move on, as for the second sentence for this to be true you would have to think that it would be a bad thing if it made news, not that it happened but that it made news. That's the bad thing. I know you dont mean that, that is why I am asking for you to clarify these statements.

[yallerdawg]

144. Again - I answered your question.

Asking it or some other version of it over and over will not change my answer.

You will not get the answer you seem to be "requiring" from me.

[Eko]

145. Im not asking for an answer

just for you to clarify your answers because they seem a bit ambiguous.

[Freelancer]

153. LOL. So, do they have pics of him leaving a temple, or what? -nt

[nil desperandum]

166. Wait

there are meetings?

Who knew?

No meetings for me...

[struggle4progress]

169. Update Regarding David Silverman

APRIL 13, 2018
AMERICAN ATHEISTS

... Last night, the American Atheists Board of Directors voted to terminate David Silverman as President of American Atheists. Board Chair Neal Cary and Vice President Kathleen Johnson will continue to fulfill the duties of the President while National Program Director Nick Fish oversees the day-to-day operations of the organization.

On April 10, 2018, the Board of Directors placed President David Silverman on leave pending a review of allegations raised regarding Mr. Silverman’s conduct. The Board of Directors has reviewed internal documents and communications related to the initial complaint as well as evidence relating to the additional allegations brought to the Board’s attention. Today’s announcement is based on these findings, and the Board intends to cooperate with any future investigations ...

https://www.atheists.org/2018/04/update-regarding-david-silverman/

[yallerdawg]

170. This should be good for another 170 posts!