Some come right out and proclaim that they own this Forum, when in fact it's open to all, even those

[heidler1]

who may or may not disagree with you. Nearly everything regarding R/T is all based on opinion not fact. Sure there is a Bible and which is a fact, but whether is reflects true stories about some God and/or Satan is pure opinion based. Discourse about believing one way or the other about these opinions is what this Forum is about.

Please remember that the Atheist that visits here tends to be innocent of this hypocrisy because s/he does not profess belief in the supernatural in the first place. In the meantime the strange consistency among believers is they can't seem to walk the talk of their belief, no matter what it is, so we pick on them. Sure, I suspect that the motive is to lead them in to the contentment of truth.

At the same time believers try to get the non-believers to change for the goal of a happier more secure life. Except these stories in the Bible seem to be about war and violence and promote more of the same.

[RevCheesehead]

1. There's only one atheist?

Care to share? :)

[madeline_con]

8. "... the Atheist that visits here .." may be a collective term.

Like deer that visit the apple tree. ;)

[HamdenRice]

2. "Some come right out and proclaim that they own this Forum"

And who, pray tell, is that? Maybe you should write more directly?

[heidler1]

17. guess

[HamdenRice]

18. You are confusing two things

(1) Someone saying they "own" the forum; and (2) someone saying that DUers who differ with the vocal minority here have, as DU members, the right to have respectful discussion here or on any other forum.

It seems to me that contrary to what you seem to be implying, any faction that claims the right to howl down any respectful theological discussion because of what they, as atheists, are subjected to in RL, and that wants to forbid or censor certain analytic concepts (like "fundamentalist atheist") that are accepted in RL (such as by a prominent Harvard faculty member) are actually the ones claiming to "own" the forum.

[heidler1]

19. Personally I totally reject all God related views and all supernatural views.

This could be construed to mean that I'm a "Fundamentalist Atheist", but because there are so many differing Atheist views I find the term potentially misleading and it only causes the need for more and more words to clarify what it means, so it serves no purpose, IMO.

Bush caused a limited lockstep among "Fundamental Christians" so the words did have a pretty clear meaning, I believe this has been mangled by the GOP Presidential candidates pulling it one way and another. It could pop back up in a heart beat if the right (wrong) asshole came along.

I believe that you use "FA" as an associated put down toward Atheists just to jerk their chain. While claiming that you are a understanding Atheist who tolerates religion sweetly. Naturally any Atheist sensing your motive will fire back with even bigger insults. I've noticed that you step over the DU rules line regularly and have your opinion deleted. Are you out to offend other Atheist posters beyond the Pale? For instance perhaps it is you who are confused?

[John Gauger]

21. What the hell do you think you are doing?

Who, pray tell, is the one who over the past few days has been accusing others of "declaring themselves masters of the R/T forum?" Come on, think hard you know this one.

How can you possibly object to somebody else making the same claim. I submit that if you are going to ask others to name names, you do it yourself, because while you have made the claim several times, I'd like to show me where you have bothered to substantiate it.

[HamdenRice]

22. Try to understand the difference between these two things

Imagine this as a hypothetical:

Group 1 is asking that a particular forum only allow one kind of thought and that all other kinds of thoughts be howled down via the hecklers' veto;

Group 2 is asking for space for respectful discussion on the forum, and that Group 1 refrain from heckling and howling to restrict discussion in the forum.

In a sense, both groups are claiming "ownership" of some part of the forum "real estate," but Group 1 is asking for exclusive possession, and Group 2 is asking for either co-occupation or partition.

They are not comparable. Accusing Group 1 of an attempt to claim "ownership" is more appropriate than accusing Group 2 of an attempt to claim "ownership."

[cosmik debris]

23. Tactic #2 blame others, You need some new material. n/t

[TZ]

24. okay--show me group one.

Outside of YOU of course

[HamdenRice]

25. Well first show how I claimed ...

exclusive ownership in any way.

So I reject your factual premise.

I've made two claims: there are fundamentalist atheists who use ridicule, heckling and insults to prevent theological discussion; and it would be great if they either changed their behavior or confined that behavior to a different forum so that respectful theological discussion could take place.

I realize that the phrase "fundamentalist atheist" sends certain people into paroxysms of rage, but that's their endogenous emotional reaction, not my intent, to a word in widespread usage in the real world.

[cosmik debris]

26. #1 plain and simple. n/t

[John Gauger]

29. Who are these people in Group 1?

You have again failed to substantiate your claims.

To quote something I heard recently (I forget where):

"And who, pray tell, is that? Maybe you should write more directly?"

And the two groups are comparable. They are both attempting to control the discourse of the forum. The difference is in their tone in making the demand. One group is assholish about it, while the other group attempts to hide their obstructionary aims behind a veneer of politeness and cooperation.

And again, you have failed to show that Group 1 exists.

[Evoman]

3. It's already been established that Goblinmonger owns this forum.

And I'm second in command, not Trotsky. Trotsky is too fucking nice to be second in command.

[trotsky]

4. Screw you and GM!

All the true fundamentalist atheists know that I am the owner of this forum! I am the only one to have been named specifically, even if he did get my name wrong.

[and-justice-for-all]

5. Bullshit!

I AM THE EVIL ATHEIST FASCIST DICTATOR OF THIS FORUM!!

I am just very low key...

[TZ]

7. Did you miss my proclamation earlier?

I *am* the Diva of this forum!!!

[trotsky]

9. Aw hell

We're all such fundies we can't even agree which one of us is the fundiest fundie!

[cosmik debris]

11. Oh, get over yourself

We all know that you are the leader of the atheist clique.

But GM is the leader of the atheist horde. Our horde can whip your clique at intramural softball and rubber chicken ping pong. So don't go all prima donna on us.

:)

[Silent3]

10. No matter what any of you say...

...and how you try to pose, I'm behind the scenes, pulling all of the strings.

[cyborg_jim]

27. I made you say that

[cosmik debris]

28. I hope you got permission from Goblinmonger first.

He just might get pissed that you have usurped his authority.

[Goblinmonger]

20. Damn straight

And everybody better remember it.

[BlueJazz]

6. I am the token Peasant of the Forum

[ironbark]

13. "I thought it was an autonomous collective?"

""""You can't be king just cause some watery tart threw a sword at you in some aquatic ceremony. If that happened to me they'd call me a loony.""""

"Shut-up you bloody peasant!!"

"Come see the violence inheriting the system!! Help!! Help!! I'm being repressed!!""

[TZ]

14. okay

you get points for a FUNNY use of Monty Python....:)

[ironbark]

15. Yea...and if >you< hadn't have said anything

>I< could have assumed credit for the creative genius.


And I'm >still< being repressed!!

[kwassa]

12. Is there a sobriety issue here?

"Sure there is a Bible and which is a fact, but whether is reflects true stories about some God and/or Satan is pure opinion based. Discourse about believing one way or the other about these opinions is what this Forum is about. "

Now, I've just had a couple of drinks, but you are WAY ahead of me on this one.

[heidler1]

16. That "which" should of been a that and please ignore the second is, sorry.

I did have a couple glasses of wine.