|
5 months ago ::
Jan 06, 2012 - 11:26PM
#1
|
|
|
There's a group on Facebook devoted to atheism: www.facebook.com/groups/19266848495/We have around 1,120 members and many post regularly. The posts seem to be around 50/50 from female and male members and the person who runs the group is a fellow atheist. The discussions are generally good and theist trolls don't last very long there.If you're a member of Facebook this page maybe worth looking at from time to time.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 06, 2012 - 11:27PM
#2
|
|
|
I should add that this group often features links to similar pages and humanist organisations.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 07, 2012 - 12:07PM
#3
|
|
|
Thanks Steven, I joined the group and sent a link to a buddy.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 07, 2012 - 4:26PM
#4
|
|
|
Thanks Steven, I joined the group and sent a link to a buddy.
Good-o. It's a good little group and generally civilised (no one there is telling us that we're a bunch of sexists or anything like that ;-)).
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 08, 2012 - 8:17PM
#5
|
|
|
Howdy Steven There's a group on Facebook devoted to atheism: www.facebook.com/groups/19266848495/
We have around 1,120 members and many post regularly. The posts seem to be around 50/50 from female and male members and the person who runs the group is a fellow atheist. The discussions are generally good and theist trolls don't last very long there.
If you're a member of Facebook this page maybe worth looking at from time to time.
I also just signed up to be a member of athestist on Facebook.
I would also suggest for those of the godless, damned, freethinking skeptics that they look at: atheists.meetup.com/cities/us/10034/ It is a great way to meet and socialize with similar minded people.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 08, 2012 - 8:30PM
#6
|
|
|
If only I could join without getting a Facebook account.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 08, 2012 - 8:49PM
#7
|
|
|
If only I could join without getting a Facebook account.
I was thinking the same thing.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 11, 2012 - 6:46PM
#8
|
|
|
I figured there were a lot of atheist groups on facebook.
Dark Energy. It can be found in the observable Universe. Found in ratios of 75% more than any other substance. Dark Energy. It can be found in religious extremists, in cheerleaders. To come to the conclusion that Dark signifies mean and malevolent would define 75% of the Universe as an evil force. Alternatively, to think that some cheerleaders don't have razors in their snatch is to be foolishly unarmed.
-- Tori Amos
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 11, 2012 - 9:10PM
#9
|
|
|
I figured there were a lot of atheist groups on facebook.
True.
The one simply called "Atheists" is pretty good. The person who runs it doesn't interfere in the discussions very much and the Facebook guidelines about hate-speech, harassment and so on apply. There are a number of incidental irritations involved with being on Facebook and although some of us, like me, are prepared to tolerate them, I can understand others' reluctance to get a Facebook account. The people who run Facebook also have the annoying habit of changing the format of profiles apropos of nothing from time to time. A change is currently underway for the life of me I cannot see how it is an improvement on the old format.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 12, 2012 - 1:11PM
#10
|
|
|
"I point to the absence of a definition of 'supernatural being' useful both to theology and to reasoned enquiry; to the total absence of examinable evidence that might suggest supernatural beings have objective existence; and to the abundant evidence that says they're imaginary." Do we need a definition that is not already supplied by the words, "supernatural being," Blü? Being = something existing; supernatural = above or outside (both being understood metaphorically) nature. But you knew that, didn't you? There is no lack of "examinable evidence" of the supernatural: I suspect, however, that you will reject it as not being susceptable to scientific analysis. But that's the nature of the beast (no pun intended), I'm afraid: supernatural is, by definition, above or outside science, so merely to say its contents may not be examined by science is (a) tautological, and (b) not evidence that it's a myth. Note that I rebut what I imagine to be your riposte that such a definition is not useful to reasoned enquiry (at least I think I do, though you'll probably disagree). Could you provide some examples of this "abundant evidence that says [the supernatural is] imaginary," please, just so I have some idea of what I'm arguing against.
|
|
|
