If you had your own website...

Post Reply New Topic

... would you ban someone for being an Atheist?

How is atheism a bannable offence? It goes against the right to religious freedom.

I can see how atheism could be a bannable offence. If somebody is an atheist that means they are not predisposed to holding silly beliefs based on childhood fairy tales. It may even mean that they are rational. That could be threatening to a lot of people, especially those that are truthphobic and who have hidden agendas, especially those that are only thinly veiled.

In my opinion, people who do not believe arbitrary dogma seem to pose a threat to those who do - generally speaking, of course.

Some have told me that I should keep my questions and beliefs to myself, and to refrain from using reason and logic to determine why people believe as they do. Others have said that there is "obviously" something wrong with me because I do not enjoy long, drawn-out sermons and loud worship services - some have openly accused me of being mentally ill because I don't get caught up in the spirit of the moment. In either case, those same people have suggested that I go elsewhere for church.

I am not an Atheist, but it seems to me that mainstream religionists would like nothing better than to see anyone who doubt, question, or refute their beliefs simply go away and leave them to their exclusive social clubs.

So I wonder how many such people might be present on WP; thus this poll and thread.

Considering the nature of PPR, you probably won't find anyone of that sort hereabouts. Not that they aren't out there, cheerfully mistaking style for substance and faith for a social club.

What this website would be about? about theology in general or about an specific denomination?
If it is a religious website, what an atheist would be doing there in the first place? Most likely, an atheist there, making an argument against theism, could be regarded as a troll, and either the mods would do something about it or there will be a call for moderators from members.

If it isn't a christian website, but a site for another topic then I don't see why the banning, but then again, if an atheist come up attacking christianity out of the blue, then it is a bit of understandable why he may be regarded as a troll.

Actually Blu, I think WP is a "Faith-Neutral" website, in that members are not required to declare any specific Theistic belief system (or none at all) to avoid being banned.

I just wonder if there are any members who would ban another member just for being an Atheist if given the opportunity.

No, I would not... People have the right to their own beliefs... I would never force anything on anyone...

So far, the voting is unanimously against the idea of banning someone only for being an Atheist.

I think we both agree that all people should search for truth and the from a lack of it, comes bad ideas? This view is something quite similar to the views of the earliest philosophers; though some modern ones would disagree.



Can you define what you mean by reason or logic? What standard are you using?



I have been there.

Simply asking "Why?", then describing their answer in terms of fallacies of reason, and then repeating the process. This method is based on the hypothesis that once all of the fallacious claims have been winnowed out, what remains - no matter how illogical - must be their core reason for believing. Unfortunately, most of the core reasons seem to fall into one of two broad categories: "I believe it because it's true; if it weren't true, then I wouldn't believe it" and "I just believe, and that's enough reason for me."

Other examples:

"Why do you believe?"
"Millions of others believe as I do, so there must be something to it!"
(Fallacy of Appeal to Popularity)

"Why do you believe?"
"Non-believers are sent to Hell!"
(Fallacy of Appeal to Consequences)

"Why do you believe?"
"No one has proven my belief invalid!"
(Fallacy of Appeal to Ignorance)

"Why do you believe?"
"Ancient believers knew what they were writing about!"
(Fallacy of Appeal to Antiquity)

@Fnord
The issue is that truth and epistemology are not necessarily the same thing. One deals with the truth of the matter and the other, our warrant for believing in it. On what basis would you say someone is justified in believing in something?

Why would one ban atheists - or Unitarians or Bektashis or Whigs or philatelists - unless it is explicitly a site for Doukhobors, say?

I would ban the deliberately offensive - which in no way relates to one beliefs or interests.

Absolutely. I tried atheism a few years ago. It gave me cancer and caused my testicles to fall off. Retinoblastoma and infertility at 19 isn't normal -- but on atheism it is.

Atheism. Not even once.

.

No, who else would I talk about space with? Most Christians aren't really that interested, aside from a few that I know personally and only a few of the astronauts.

I am not looking for justification, only the core reason or a root cause for a belief.

Unfortunately, I rarely get past the second or third "Why?" without being called an Atheist or worse.