18 2

WARNING: CONTROVERSIAL POSTS ON AGNOSTIC.COM ARE SUBJECT TO CENSORSHIP IF THEY DO NOT PROMOTE ATHEISM

From a message between me and Admin after discovering many posts removed, including those in THIS group clearly marked WARNING: MATURE ARTISTIC CONTENT

Me: ...Random censorship is the "policy" as I see it so far.

@Admin : Yes, until you can come up with a reason why having adult content on this site improves our ability to promote atheism.

Not a single one of these posts contained anything that could be remotely considered "adult content" in that none contained nudity and any might be seen in any women's magazine, any ad for a cologne or cosmetics, in any PG rated movie.

My days, even hours, may be limited here for exposing this OR for saying this: As an agnostic I HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO DESIRE TO PROMOTE ATHEISM!!! I find it as dogmatic as theism in that SCIENCE!!! is treated as an end all, be all of all knowledge; SCIENCE!!! is considered infallible and, as a result, SCIENCE!!! is treated as a dogma that must be preached and proselytized.

So apparently any post you make can be censored if it doesn't promote atheism and it is the least bit controversial though the owners chose the deceptive title agnostics.com

I am completely disillusioned with this site. I plan to stay to meet like minded people and assist unbelievers transition into whatever they wish to consider as real possibilities...while warning them against what I've come to call "fundamentalist atheism" as described above.

I also plan to meet like minded people interested in my art, those interested in assisting with its realization, and those I may develop special relationships with as a result.

IF you are a fundamentalist atheist, retain the prudishness of your theist background OR are a prude simply by nature, PLEASE just block me. I don't want to know you and I definitely do not want to waste a single breath or keystroke "debating" you about what you could not possibly know.

DangerDave 8 Feb 19
You must be a member of this group before commenting. Join Group

Post a comment Reply Add Photo

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account

18 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

0

I read a definition that stated that atheism is not about whether God exists or not, but whether you have any truck with the primacy of a God in the first place.

0

I read a definition that stated that atheism is not about whether God exists or not, but whether you have any truck with the primacy of a God in the first place.

0

I read a definition that stated that atheism is not about whether God exists or not, but whether you have any truck with the primacy of a God in the first place.

1

Well I didnt see any of these posts, but regardless, you agreed to the rules of the site when you signed up. If the admins deemed it anappropriate, it was likely inappropriate. If you disagree, the proper response is not to throw a bitch fit and slandering the same website that has likely allowed you to represent yourself in more ways than many other forums. The proper response would be to either apologize and move on or apologize and take the steps to become an admin so you can attempt to make changes from the inside, to think ranting will promote change is to be profoundly misinformed.

To call atheism or science dogmatic is again to be profoundly misinformed. Atheists do not claim there is no God. Atheists claim that no arguments or evidence in favor of a God have ever been convincing enough to prove there is a God. Essentially, miraculous claims require remarkable evidence. Until such evidence is presented, it is wise to withhold belief. Science is the best known way to falsify or verify claims in the natural world. Science is not a list of facts that some authority deems to be valid for all time. Science is in the business of looking at the natural world, developing hypothesis to evaluate a specific question and through experimentation arriving at a conclusion. This conclusion is then submitted for peer review where a group of your colleagues exhaustively attempt to prove you wrong. If your conclusion survives these attempt, it is accepted on the basis that at any moment in the future, contradicting evidence will always prove your theory invalid. Explain to me how this process is anything remotely close to what you call dogmatic, fence-sitter. 🙂

Aquaman Level 4 Feb 21, 2018

<Atheists do not claim there is no God. Atheists claim that no arguments or evidence in favor of a God have ever been convincing enough to prove there is a God.>

Thank you! In that way I completely agree with you!

I'll overlook the "fence sitter" remark...atheists tend to offhand insult those who are not so I'll overlook it.

My issue with dogmatic atheists is too many want to debate the existence of any god with said inconclusive evidence, usually basing said argument as if lack of such evidence is evidence against.

I'd never self identify as an atheist for these and reasons previously stated, but being an apathetic agnostic I consider many "god theories" possible though, in the end, I really don't care.

I'm here to meet like-minded freethinkers and I find considering possibilities not merely entertaining but a basis of my life work in many artistic areas. Above dating, I also hope to meet models and potential act leads for these endeavors.

I don't know much but I do know debating the the unknowable is absurdity. DEMANDING someone does is hostility.

@DangerDave well I mean, way to just cut all the wind from my sail. The Dave I was replying to seemed to be very hyped up and looking to blow off some steam. I don't mind debate or being challenged, so in a way insisting on an outlet for frustration. What do I get in return? Essentially a secular Jew. And the fence sitter thing was a joke, everyone who's being honest and reasonable is at some level agnostic

Oh, the hyped up was days ago. Imagine you're an artist (if that doesn't impose too much on your atheistic realisticness...and turnabout is fair play!), you came on a site and over a dozen FB friendly post and profile photos were just gone.

The site has definitely bowed to a "moral minority", I'd dare say some of which are miffed atheists who feel atheism should be promoted...everywhere and over agnosticism or any other concepts of free thinking.

I'd qualify that as militant atheism, which is apparently ok here so long as you're not making threats of bombing churches and such.

Nonetheless. it is what it is. The immediate indignation gave way to a "it is what it is" realization and I'll deal. I just hope some actual effort is put forth to establishing a universally applied community standards but then again, it provides a unique platform rare on the web. I have other sites, including Fakebook, that are much more liberal outlets for my "other" work.

@DangerDave well I'd definitely agree with you about fakebook it's definitely run amuck with cringe worthy pseudo intellectuals suffering from a delusion induced by what can only be described as an unjustified entitlement. It's quite remarkable to literally watch my "friends list" shrink for mere rational arguments. Ironically, painful as it may be to point out, it seems you've been victim to the exact same hypocricy.

4

Dave, I'm disappointed to see this post as you've quoted me out of context. We removed several nude photos of women that you posted. This is a moderated site where we delete about 1% of posts and about 2% of comments mostly for derogatory language or religious proselytizing.

Admin Level 8 Feb 19, 2018

Again, there was no nudity in of the removed photos, or any I've posted here, except for what can be described as "implied nudity" in that "private parts" were covered.

Again, I ask for clarity of the definition of nudity on this site. If "scantily clad" will be a part of that definition I beseech you to create a clear and concise definition of that as well.

1

CREATIVES, OH YE ARTISTS & ARTSY, CARRY ON!!!

I have absolutely no doubt this post will be removed possibly along with the group and, if I am not "censored" with it, I've frankly about had it with this site.

Any members reading this may be allowed to take over this group. There is no reason you couldn't start a similar one with or without me.

Hopefully with an easier to read title.

DangerDave Level 8 Feb 19, 2018
1

Face and Palm.

Your definition of "fundamental (a person who believes in the strict, literal interpretation of scripture in a religion) atheism" is nonsensical. Do you not understand that Science, unlike religion, does not care what you think. Science is a search, through evidence, for the truth. Religion (faith) is the assertion of a "Truth" claim without, and often in defence of contradictory evidence. This is the opposite of science. I really wish you had a better understanding what science is. I am not being sarcastic, seriously, watch this link so you will have a better understanding what Science is. Then, once you understand what science is, look back at your argument.

I have enough of an understanding of science. Those who see it as dogma are those you should be ahem preaching to.

@DangerDave Based you earlier assertions and your answer, you appear to currently posses an inadequate understanding of the scientific process. Simply stating you understand something does not demonstrate your competency in any given topic. Spend the ten minutes and sixteen seconds and watch the video. It will hopefully allow you to broaden your understanding of why we sceptics (you may not be a member of this set), if we care about the truth, need the scientific method. I do not consider or know anybody that considers science as dogma as it a process not "a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true". Granted all the friends I value understand and employ the scientific method to evaluate their world and make decisions accordingly. (Simply put, we use testable facts, not blind assertions to make decisions. As we understand the scientific method we all find the concept of faith (belief without evidence) a lesser methodology to finding the truth the actually employing testable(demonstrable) facts. I'll grant you, all the friends I value are, like myself, atheists as we have all read the bible, questioned the assertions, noted the contradictions within the bible and between the bible and the natural (real) world we live in, and found insufficient evidence to accept the supernatural god assertion.

Are you presenting scientific method as infallible and applicable to all situations?

Are you suggesting you have used it to unravel ALL the mysteries of the universe, in essence knowing everything?

Are you going to be upset when I tell you I'm not interested in what you believe either way?

Is it that important I believe as you do?

Consider these things...then go away.

One more thing: you clearly don't know I first learned scientific method in 3rd grade, several times in grade school afterwards, then reviewed in laboratory conditions in three 101 classes in biology, physics and chemistry.

Understanding it is simple but applying it rationally, especially in areas where you cannot possibly have all the "data", is absurdity.

What you clearly don't understand is we agnostics do not make such sweeping, unfounded judgements of the unknowable. I personally feel religions are man made but there are several completely natural phenomenon that defy rational explanation (by humankind at this time, at any rate). Other agnostics disagree, as is their right, in the absence of conclusive data against.

Still, you are atheist and apparently proselytize atheism. So, if the shoe fits good for you and good luck with that. I really want no part of it.

@DangerDave

I know you just want me to "Go Away" (afraid of my response?) but you did ask so I'll answer

Based on your introductory questions you appear to be having difficulty understanding my long drawn-out examples. Maybe you will be able to understand if I keep my answers simple. I'll address each of your points with double spaces so you can keep track of where you are:

No, I am not "presenting scientific method as infallible and applicable to all situations." At no time did I imply perfection or infallibility in the scientific method. The video also addressed this issue.
I did note it is the best method we have. This does not imply infallibility.

No, at no time did I imply "suggesting you have used it to unravel ALL the mysteries of the universe, in essence knowing everything?" As an Atheist, I actively teach (Yes, I am a teacher including science) that the answer (in life and science) "We don't know." is perfectly acceptable and significantly better then asserting an untested or not testable idea as having equal merit. As this point was also noted in the video, I am guessing you are unwilling or afraid to learn from an Atheist (potholer54) who is also renowned journalist (retired professional) or you are too arrogant to actually watch the video as you have decided your world view is perfect and can not be enhanced (or challenged.) If you did watch the video, I'm not sure how you could have missed those points.

Are you going to be upset when I tell you I'm not interested in what you believe either way?
LAUGH OUT LOUD! Based on your post, I really don't care what you believe as you seem to be set in your (not supported by reality) ways. When interacting with a person that appears to have difficulties with discerning the value of facts and reason over not testable assertions, I talk, or in this case type, so others can listen or read - - I've de-converted a few theists from the darkness of faith who stood in the sidelines during such discussions into the light of atheism. If you actually open your mind and learn to value testable facts over things that can not be demonstrated, all the better for you but in your case, I'm not holding my breath.

Is it important that you believe as I do, No. You are free to believe whatever you wish. Many people are happy and live their lives deluded (not saying you are) I value intelligent, rational people and you have not demonstrated a level of those trates that I value so I really don't care what you belive; that you appear to not value truth (things that can be demonstrated) above ideas that are not supported by facts

You are correct, I did no know you had scientific method in 3rd grade and you took thee lower level science courses. I would have never guessed you had any college level science classes. Most of my friends I value have their doctorates (or Master's degrees) in the sciences) Physics, Geology, etc.

"Understanding it is simple . . ." So what is your point?

"What you clearly don't understand is we agnostics do not make such sweeping, unfounded judgements of the unknowable" At no time was I addressing "we agnostics" I was and am addressing you. You are by no stretch of the imagination representative of the overwhelming majority of people on this site. You are the one attempting to degrade the scientific process. This is a vile attempt to muddy the water between truth (things that can be tested) and things that can not be tested or, as you noted "the unknowable" Sorry Charley (old Tuna Fish commercial reference) but things that can be tested and/or demonstrated to be true or false are more reliable then things that can simply be asserted then expected to be believed. Even if you still haven't figured it out, by attempting to demote the value of science, this is your position.

And yes, I proudly wear the Sceptic/Atheist shoe as unlike those who depend on faith (belief without evidence) I am free to question and accept things that can be demonstrated over things others assert without evidence.

I am really not interested in your snide remarks or preaching the gospels of atheism. I am an orchestral music teacher myself, not a research scientist (though I'd considered it) and, no matter the number of fields in which I might be, I'd be in no position to say I could understand the all the workings of the universe...nor would I pretend I do.

Anyway, please stop this harassment. All you can do now is decrease my opinion of you and your opinions, unless you were to so attack a newcomer. I have a hypothesis with you that is a strong likelihood, having observed the phenomenon several times already.

@DangerDave I am sorry my efforts to enlighten you offended you.

I can assure you harassment was not my intent. My intent was to educate not humiliate.

I am glad you are a music teacher as, with your art background, you have chosen a wonderful career that allows you to share the visual (as you noted earlier you are also an artist) and auditory beauty of the world. I have a great deal of respect for all artists (music, architectural, performance and graphic art). It is likely you do very well in those worthy aspects of positive and influential creativity.

Also, It is not my intent to impress you because I really don't care what you think about me. I was (originally) in hopes you could understand why we need the scientific method (as it is the reason we are where we are now (corresponding across the internet with computers)) and I was a bit disappointed you evidently failed to read or understand my original argument. I honestly answered each of you questions (which were a bit redundant) as repetition is a strategy to teach a concept.

This correspondence is similar to a long series of debates I had at the College's (where I teach) Cafeteria with a mechanic while enjoying very good food. The mechanic shared your lack of respect for the scientific method and for several weeks we spent hours going back and forth between his baseless assertions (he was a creationist, flat earther, evolution denying, faith based believing individual) and my "science based, testable and demonstrable facts did not agree with his non-scientific (not demonstrable or testable or tested and demonstrated to be wrong) beliefs. One day I had enough of his nonsense and compiled a page of links detailing the argument they were addressing and demonstrating his assertions were not only baseless but were demonstrably wrong. The list included heavy guns such as the youtube channel ColdHardLogic and many others that addressed specific points (including the link you did not watch). He assured me he would watch the videos so we could discuss the merit of his assertions the next day. That was the last time I saw him as he has not returned to the cafeteria in over eight months.

Your last sentence is completely nonsensical. What were you trying to say?

1

Hmm... so that post with the artistic nudity got deleted by admin?

bingst Level 8 Feb 19, 2018

lol..."nudity" was debatable but yeah, including about a dozen others.

This may be farewell, my friend. It appears I'm in the process of being purged...the aggie.com version of being burned at the stake. At least it won't hurt as much.

0

And what's with all this deleted content? If I get notifications from people I want to see what I'm being notified for?

Anonbene Level 8 Feb 19, 2018

We recently made a change to notifications that will show replies to your comments even if the author of the original post deleted it. 98% of the time it's the author who deleted the post or his or her profile.

2

I am not on here to PROMOTE anything! I am not going to speak for anyone else on here but from what I have read and the consensus on that many are here to share things, their knowledge, learn more, have fun, meet fellow non theists if possible and feel safe that we know many here are feeling "similar" about religion or religions overall. That is my view and that's why I am here. But to say we should be promoting our non theism is the same as being on a religious site and saying we should be pushing people into our ways of thinking.. that is so wrong!

@irascible Damn, we can agree on some things. I do hope you get to read this comment before it's deleted because I said "damn".

Dave took my comments out of context. I was referring to his posts of nudity. @irascible

@Admin again, I had no posts with nudity...beyond "implied" (no pink parts visible...and only one shot that was indeed of a nude) by any modern definition anyway...and anyway, it's no big deal. I'll come to terms with it here...and find a forum you consider worthy if you are going to continue to delete Fakebook links.

I was really hoping this was a freethinkers' site. Oh well.

1

Excuse me?! If you do not bow before the holy Darwin you will be stoned! Religious heretics can not be tolerated!! Richard Dawkins is the one and only prophet of our sacred cause of reason.

0

@Admin, you want us to promote atheism in a room full of atheists? What am I missing here?

Anonbene Level 8 Feb 19, 2018
1

Well...I guess I got a wake up call myself...I just found one of my post deleted and I can't imagine why?

Were you properly and wholeheartedly promoting atheism? hmmm?

I looked at the database and see that you have 27 posts (2 were deleted by you and appear to be edits of another post, 25 are live).

@Admin maybe I messed up? Pardon please!

2

Well...this message was most confusing to me. I have not had any messages censused, a few dropped off that responded to me, but heck everyone should be allowed to change their minds any which away they please! I draw a line on degradation, though. I thought that it mattered very little here...what sort of a non-believer that you were. So maybe you are in some kind of struggle with yourself, about which place you want to be in. I do find your work, way beyond my scope. However, I can pass it by as long as I or no one else is harmed. So my hope is...that you get straight on what it is that you are after and I may still...stay clear! I have nothing to offer one way or the other, at the moment.

You are under a misconception agnostics are "confused", I gather. A common misconception. I am far more at peace with the things I do not know as those your average atheist "think" they do. Anyway...

I thank you for your acceptance of my art. Like it or not, it is essentially me. Any attack on it, especially as random and as unwarranted as it has been on this site, is an attack on me.

@DangerDave we do have a choice on what we want to be envolved with here...so I am fine. I do not feel it right for me to make choices for others.

3

This is bull! I disagreed with censorship in the thread we had on that subject & I haven't changed my position. I keep getting comments from folks listed as "deleted content" for no explained reason, & no way to tell what it was. I thought it might just be a glitch, but it may be an overzealous censor on this site. I've met some good folks here & would hate to leave, but if this place turns into a "religion", just as dogmatic & rigid as any other bunch of tight-asses, I will leave. I am an atheist, but if this site is just to promote "atheism" then the name should be changed & they should apply to the IRS for religious status...& then have me oppose them! Atheism is not a religion & should, or is supposed to have, an open mind. I'm on your side Dave & feel free to forward this to Admin!

phxbillcee Level 9 Feb 19, 2018

Well, that explains what we were talking about the other day, doesn't it?

Hmmm . . . so, does the "content deleted" mean it was Admin? I commented on a thread someone started and I was critical of what she said. I noticed that the thread was deleted, but I assumed that the poster decided to delete it.

Random deletion happens here all the time...I've been involved a few posts that got particularly heated, with entire posts disappearing instead of just the offensive parts. Welcome to the "atheist theocracy"!

@KKGator & @orange_girl when I rcvd the notice of reply to my post form KKGator it sent me to her profile page & at the top it had this original post under "content deleted". I have no idea what's going on here! I wrote to Admin stating my concerns over censorship & asked that all of us get clarification. I don't wish to leave, but if this site gets "religious" I will be sorely disappointed!

@orange_girl Also on your reply, instead of being sent here I was sent to your profile & at the top saw "deleted post". What is going on!!! Can we not even have opinions??? Is there a heresy or blasphemy rule in force on an agnostic/atheist site?

@orange_girl @KKGator @phxbillcee We recently (2-3 days ago) made a change to notifications that will show replies to your comments even if the author of the original post deleted it. 98% of the time it's the author who deleted the post or his or her profile. If you ever get a notification that says "content deleted", send me a message and I'll investigate. We put the "content deleted" message as we didn't have time to write the code to show the part of the message when the user deleted the post (or account). I THINK it's all updated now but there could be a few special cases.

@Admin It appears that I got one of those "content deleted" alerts for this post.

@bingst reload. @irascible sent me a screen shot which helped me debug and hopefully fix a "content deleted" bug. It was related to this post being in groups which go live before the notifications are "aware" of it so they say "content deleted".

@DangerDave Well, in defense of the poster I mentioned, I think she was genuinely trying to start a discussion about an article she saw. I pointed out an underlying problematic assumption in the argument, so she deleted it.

@orange_girl That's fine and I assumed as much from several troll posts I'd replied to...there still remains the questions of if there are going to be fair and equally applied community standards and if, as suggested, the links to offsite sources for these materials are not going to be summarily deleted as well.

Granted, that's only happened once, but my link to my Fakebook was deleted about day two, immediately after I posted it.

Needless to say, I'm still very concerned about the directions censorship is taking on this site.

@phxbillcee Hmmm . . . I have only deleted one comment, and that was in another thread and only because the pic didn't upload.

5

I'm confused. (For the record, I'm an atheist and I advocate questioning all and any claims to truth, especially when it comes to religion. When people engage me in discussions about religion, I do advocate atheism).

Almost NONE of my posts here "advocate atheism." Are you saying that only posts deemed "controversial" are susceptible to censorship?

Can you possibly clarify what you mean by "random censorship?"

Apparently "adult content" is one, for which this site DEFINITELY needs a definition.

You can take the rest of the Admin's response however you wish. I'm beyond caring at the moment.

3

Wow, man. This is 2018. Is this the first moderated board you've ever heard of in 25 years? Cool your jets.

1Observer2 Level 5 Feb 19, 2018

Sorry, bub. I agree with DangerDave. Agnostics, Humanists & Atheists are supposed to have a bit broader viewpoint & a less rigid mindset. This heats me up, my jets won't be cool in the face of censorship & I won't support it. Admin, you surely better figure out what you guys want this site to be & how you want to police it. then be prepared for an exodus, & a real one this time!

3

Wow. Did NOT see that one coming.
I'm not going to block you, Dave. Even if we don't agree on things.
Censorship sucks, wherever it comes from.

KKGator Level 9 Feb 19, 2018

You may not have to because I posted this. At the very best, I'll be a troll here now. A nice one though. Unless it's to a fundie of any variety, of course.

I've received at least one crude sexual comment, been jumped on by alt-right "atheist" gun lovers, etc., so I plan to block people as needed. I come here to escape all that.

I agree! If this site gets "religious" in its viewpoint & to toeing the line, I'll fly. I participate in a number of groups & even more threads & posts, saying that is just stating that I am a contributing member. Tho I know this place can do without me, the obverse is also true. Tread carefully Admin, this is a very slippery slope!

@DangerDave Trolls aren't all bad. They made a whole movie about them, and they were so cute!!! 😉

@birdingnut Ya gotta do what ya gotta do!

The morning after I'm coming to terms...not to say I won't troll...I'll usually be a cute one, largely dependent on who I'm trolling.

So...where we stand...there are going to be a VERY puritanical definitions of nudity on this site, far beyond those of Fakebook.

@Admin is suggesting offsite links to anything even close to adult depictions...perhaps he'll stop deleting those links.

The bowing to special interests and even those who are verbal about not liking content of those they don't like are apparently going to rule this site, and to date they set the rules of this site. Sad but absolutely, honestly and completely true.

I'll get used to it for the company...largely because if a model, potential act lead, remotely possible romantic interest were to magically appear here the "belief barrier" has already been breached. (Damn, I love alliteration!)

Anyway, inside this idealist is a realist. This site is free, the only game in "town" and is what it is.

What it is not is the greatest site ever for freethinkers, but I'll deal.

Write Comment