How can the public trust cranky Atheists?

Conversation Side Conversation
1

@admins

I saw this recent promotion on trust:

“Access exclusive benefits, build trust between scientists and the public, for just $1, $5, or $10 per month.”

Wow! $120 year to Patreon … and I cant even get a room devoted to discussions between theists?

According to Pew Surveys, there are millions more theists that believe in evolution than atheists that do.

Why dont you Atheists cut us some slack. Your opposition really doesnt make much sense. PS.org defends the miraculous creation of Adam and Eve. There’s not much dancing you can do to get around that.

2

You can. Open your own forum, make it part of the terms of service that users only get to register and/or post in some section of it if they are theists, then devise some means of testing them for theism. There are numerous sites offering free forum hosting, so cost isn’t an excuse. All it takes is actually wanting to do it.

Cool. Therefore what?

Sure. What slack do you require, specifically? What slack are you not being cut, exactly?

You mean us opposing something? If so, what are we opposing exactly, and what about it exactly do you struggle to see respectable amounts of sense in?
Or you mean by our opposition those opposing us somehow? If so, then yes, we concur. What’s your point?

PS users might. Personally, I haven’t seen it, but then I’m also staying away from most of its conversations, so can’t really judge one way or the other. What I can say is that PS.org is not a person. It is therefore incapable of defending anything. Call it dancing if you must, but I suggest it is not I who needs seek for ways around your assertion when you have yet to even try making a case in its favour.

2 Likes
3

@Gisteron

What is it with you folks and restrictions and testing.

Trust is based on honor.

You talk about theism, and I talk about theism. We discuss theism under the cool shade of a theism category.

Atheists can argue in the sunlight. And you want ME to subsidize me and my friends getting sun-burned along you and your ilk. Sooo strange.

4

With “you folks”? My guy, you are the one asking for a theist-only room. You are the one who wants a restricted space.

3 Likes
5

Only because an Atheist vs ID room was rejected. It was rejected because it was proposed they would complain.

So i manned-up and suggested a theist-only room - - that doesnt even have to be mandatory! Theists go there only if they WANT to, as a whim.

Request denied!!! For absolutely no good reason.

6

I think I can safely say that nobody knows what you’re going on about. Or in fact what it has to do with trusting any atheists, cranky or not. You seem to have something in principle against atheists, but even that isn’t clear. Almost nothing you say is clear.

4 Likes
7

@gbrooks9
Seriously, why are you creating so many new threads bringing up atheism? What has spurred this sudden new increase in atheism this or that?

8

Trust is based on experience, history and knowledge of character and motivations.

9

This thread’s title makes me ask:

Who is asking the public to trust “cranky Atheists”?

It certainly isn’t the “recent promotion” – that was explicitly about “build[ing] trust between scientists and the public” – not between “atheists” and anybody.

I can also see nothing in any promotion indicating that this site was offering “a room devoted to discussions between theists”.

One wonders if Pew Research Center has any data on how many people “want to talk to George in a theists-only ‘room’/category/whatever” – that would appear to be far more relevant than the fact that “there are millions more theists that believe in evolution than atheists that do”.

Which leads us into Prince George’s lapse into the ‘Royal We’ – “Why dont you Atheists cut us some slack” (I must assume it is the ‘Majestic Plural’, as nobody else is complaining about this).

Your opposition really doesnt make much sense.

Opposition to what, one must ask. As with most of what Prince George says, it is hardly clear.

We have been told that we are opposed to discussing GAE, even when we were in the middle of discussing it.

I would however state my opposition to poor punctuation – repeated question marks (and previously exclamation marks), failure to place apostrophes within contractions. Maybe I should start AOPP – Atheists Opposed to Poor Punctuation.

PS.org defends the miraculous creation of Adam and Eve. There’s not much dancing you can do to get around that.

@Tim dances the ‘Mission and Values Two-Step’, to a rousing chorus of …

It says nothing about the miraculous creation of Adam and Eve tra-la-la

@Tim bows, and waits for applause. Receiving none, he blows a raspberry and exits stage left. :stuck_out_tongue:

3 Likes
10

He might be talking Geordie.

1 Like
11

But if he was, he’d have said something like:

Why divvent yee Atheists gie us a bit of slack?

Which, admitedly does use the plural – but far more colorfully. :slight_smile:

2 Likes
12

I was hoping someone would catch that detail. :slight_smile:

Too bad I don’t have admin rights to create new Categories. :wink:

Gisterson is correct tho, it’s trivially easy to open a new Facebook group, then you can set the rules any way you like (within Terms of Service). That you haven’t done this already would seem to indicate that what you really want isn’t what you say you want.

Pausing for to let that sink in.

What you really want isn’t any of my business, but I will note that you can’t always get what you want, but if you try sometimes, you just might find, you get what you need. :musical_note:

2 Likes
13

I started a forum for cranky solipsists. It has functioned quite successfully. I’m the only member of the forum. No complaints thus far.

9 Likes