Re: Atheists?
 

I agree that this should be open, and if this topic offends you, then you should maybe open your eyes a little more to reality? there are people all over the world with different beliefs and everyone should be entitled to their opinion. It does seem that if this were about another personal issue not about religion it would not be a problem, and as far as i can see it follows all the rules from ChiefDelphi.
I am also atheist and support this discussion group : )
thanks guys
Ben
TEAM 281

Re: Atheists?
 

Well I'll just chime in and say that I am also athiest.

Onto the discussion of whether this thread should exist or not, beyond the debate of whether or not the thread should exist there has yet to be no bickering or flaming that I have seen, which is, as far as I know, the reason for the controversy. Maybe we all have a little more gracious professionalism that we thought.

Re: Atheists?
 

I'm glad to see this thread back open . I was angery to see this thread closed since there was lengthy discussion about the Jewish Seder at Nationals. As if the moderators were trying to encourage religious conformity into Christianity or Judaism.

Re: Atheists?
 

I don't think it's fair to say ChiefDelphi (or any moderators representing Chief Delphi) were trying to force a religion onto someone. They were doing what they could to try to prevent a large scale flame war from breaking out. Nearly all forums I've been on in the last couple of years have had a thread like this opened... and there were about 3 forums that had to be shut down because nobody was visiting them since the thread started.

ChiefDelphi was just trying to protect their forums from a controversial subject. Hopefully with GP this will be a credible thread, and not just a bunch of people discriminating against someone else's religion.

Re: Atheists?
 

Since religious posts have been acceptable in the past I think this thread should not have different rules. This thread was closed preemptively; there weren’t any negative or inflammatory posts. Everyone on this forum posts using Gracious Professionalism, Atheists included. It was closed simply because of the subject. One might say that it was to prevent argumentative posts. I “call it as I see it,” and from my perspective it was an attempt to censor the Atheist viewpoint.

Re: Atheists?
 

Yes, religious posts have been acceptable in the past, but there hasn't been an Atheist post in the past. From what I've seen in the past, any post about Atheism/Agnosticism/Paganism usually results in a flame war, which justifies the pre-emptive closing of the thread. I also never said Atheist's didn't post without using Gracious Professionalism. You said everyone here posts with Gracious Professionalism, is it graciously professional to close a thread because of the thread starters religion? Please don't accuse people of discrimination without some rock hard solid proof. Now before you say that I am trying to censor Atheism, I believe that this thread should be open as long as people who post in it use Gracious Professionalism.

Re: Atheists?
 

Your perspective is wrong.

Re: Atheists?
 

whoa...I had no idea I would spur such a debate. I didn't know about the other fourms, mostly this was just attempt to see if there were many (if any) others on CD.

Re: Atheists?
 

I don't think there was any 'censorship' going on here. The Mormon thread was closed and reopened the same time this one was. They both got closed for fear that religious threads do tend to get out of hand but were reopened. I guess I don't see what the problem is since that was resolved. Anyways, I'm agnostic, I think.

Re: Atheists?
 

As Brandon pointed out earlier, this is an issue for the community that needs to be resolved with some semblance of specificity or else the mods won't know what to do and will act inconsistently. To close or not to close has been discussed and debated ad nauseam and to no foreseeable conclusion. And this thread tells me that ChiefDelphi (and its mods) need to present a rule to be followed regardless of what posters think of it sooner rather than later. It's up to you guys, because clearly the community can't and never will agree. Institute a rule and tell the mods to enforce it, or there will be another one of "this kind of thread" in the next two months and the cycle will repeat. From my persective (and please don't tell me my perspective is "wrong," because that makes no sense) there are two overwhelming schools of thought expressed in the community upon which the Powers that Be could base this rule:

1) Religious/Political/National issues can be discussed so long as threads of this kind don't tread onto the primacy of one belief or attempt to discredit another.

• precedent was set in the God thread that a (for the most part) scholarly and logical discussion of beliefs was probably crossing the line, because people are easily offended
• everyone has an opinion that they naturally want to express
• this broadens the scope of the forums and the community
• good for everyone that can handle forming an argument, and very bad for the minority of people who can't

2) We should as a community avoid all such discussion -- pretend it doesn't exist on the forums, which are for FIRST discussion anyway -- and we will be better for it.

• I can think of at least two respected posters that completely ignore this on all three counts in every post however it's not like they belong to this school of thought anyway
• keeps the forums focused on their original purpose
• will reduce flaming, pretty much guaranteed
• might drive away some posters who don't care for "dry secularism"

I'm going to refer to the mods as a single entity, because clearly they are trying to (and should) present as cohesive and consistent an image as possible to the community. A mod told Mike Dubreuil that his "perspective is wrong." I think the meaning of this is clear; it was never the intention of the moderators to do anything so vile as to censor a belief. I believe that. I have two things to say to that. First, what happened resembles the employment law term "indirect discrimination" in that it is unintentional and actively well-meaning but has a deliterious effect on some group. I would be lying if I didn't see the perceived merits in stopping discussion of the foundations of Mormonism (as Evulish mentioned) or Atheism. Secondly, I think the mods gave in to a request (or a series of requests) that had no justification other than "this is bad so you should close it," and did as they were asked, not based on any rule they were supposed to follow. I wasn't too impressed. Now feel free to tell me this isn't the case, but it sure is what appears to have happened.

My point is this: someone in charge needs to, with some urgency, institute a rule about expressing beliefs and opinions and tell the mods to enforce it with the ferocity of the Gestapo, or else controversy will pop up every time a lowly poster like me utters the words god, Iraq, or Bush.

Re: Atheists?
 

A clear ruling is being worked on, along with other rule-related decisions. It's up to the coaches to figure out what is best for the team and our sponsors. I can't make the decision .. the moderator's can't make the decision .. and in a call like this, the community can't vote on a decision. I know they're working on getting together to discuss it .. just give it time.

Re: Atheists?
 

Another forum I go on has a sub forum called Hot Topics. Basically, it is a forum for politics, religion, etc. The threads are watches semi-carefully, and there is no flaming allowed. Perhaps those who wish to express religious beliefs or political affiliations could do so in a similar forum?

Re: Atheists?
 

Wow! has this thread gone off topic permanently?!

Im not an atheist, but I do find the idea interesting from a philosophy perspective. Im wondering, do atheist define gods in the traditional sense?

is it only the gods of established religions that they believe do not exist?

where would you draw the line? Do atheists believe there could be life in other star systems?

if so, could that life be so far advanced from us that they would be god-like?

could they be what we would call spiritual beings (as opposed to physical?)

is it a matter of creation? god created the universe? or could it be that some alien life form created humanity and seeded our planet?

I guess Im trying to understand exactly what it means to be an atheist?

Re: Atheists?
 

What does it mean to not believe in ghosts?

All it means to me is that I don't hold any religious beliefs. I believe that no being is a god, or god like. Everything and everyone follows the same basic rules, even when we don't fully understand them. I believe that with enough time and effort, anything can be understood. I believe nothing is magical, nothing is miracle, and nothing is a Divine act. I believe we are the source of all the good and all the evil in our world. I believe that when we die, we die.

I have religious friends who are convinced I'm cheating my self. I don't think I am. I simply don't feel the need for a god in my life. I get along fine with out Him (or Her or They or any variation you want). Meaning in my life comes from my desire to do good for the sake of my fellow man, not to please Him or because He wants it to be so. I strive to make things better, just as any religious practitioner would, but with out the religion. I relish being a good person because I want to be a good person, not because I've been told to be. Maybe some people need religion, I don't.

No one event or situation 'drove' me to atheism. I didn't decide one day that I was going to be an atheist from then on. I just never felt that any religious explanation fit, or that I required any religious guidance to be a good person. So if I don't believe in any god, I am an atheist by definition.

I don't mean to say that Atheism is right, and religious beliefs are wrong. But they are for me. We must all chose what explanations we want to believe. As long as you follow the basic rule (Be good), I don't really care what you believe. It simply doesn't, and shouldn't, matter to anyone but you what god you do or do not believe in. Just be good.

Thats my take on it, anyway. Others are likely to disagree, and thats OK. Everyone needs to figure this stuff out for themselves.

I do get really annoyed when people call Atheism a religion though. It's like calling bald a hair colour.

-Andy A.

Re: Atheists?
 

Some atheists are more respectful than other atheists.

When I was an atheist (became one while my parents were still dragging me to church every week), I was annoyed by the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. But I didn't go around loudly demanding a court decision to remove those words, because I knew most people believe in some kind of God and I believed they had a right to their beliefs. And I think any atheist who also believes in the rightness of the U.S. Constitution's Bill of Rights would have a similar viewpoint. My solution was to not say those words.

But some atheists seem to think that anyone who mentions anything about God or religious beliefs or scriptures in their presence is violating their rights. One result of this kind of attitude is that these days, most public school curricula completely exclude God or religious viewpoints, thereby favoring atheism over any form of deism. And in some classrooms, if the teacher allows free reading time, students may read any book whatsoever, EXCEPT their own Bibles.

Which is worse? Being sent to the principal's office for refusing to say "Under God?" Or for reading your favorite book? I think that, through the perspective of the First Amendment, either case constitutes a violation of religious freedom (call it freedom of belief if you prefer).

The problem, of course, is that the rights of at least two different groups are in conflict. This is an inevitable result of having rights in the first place. Attitudes such as Gracious Professionalism (or just plain graciousness) are the only way people on the polar opposite ends of belief can get along. And I'm afraid there will always be some people in any belief system who go about making life harder for others by being insensitive, mean-spirited, or worse.