Welcome to Australian Atheists Forum

[Irrev-Black]

Why We're Here.

So, this diverse bunch of people wandered onto a website. Fun was had, friendships were born, and a small community evolved.

New people came: some people went. Lives changed, in 3D as well as online. There was at least one marriage, and a few deaths. There were squabbles, but the community went on.

The key topic of the site became less of an issue, as war, hard times, disease and corrupt people gained prominence.

The website went away, along with links to the parent organisation. Another site took its place.

Eventually, the keeper of that site decided it was time for a rest, and another member of the community launched this site.

Some of us have known each other for years. This site's a people thing.

People are important, even those we don't know. Ever since the first site, personal attacks are frowned on.

Ideas are important too, but ideas can be tested, and bad ones can be hung on the fence as a warning, in case newcomers might be drawn to the same mistake. Ideas don't need necessarily deserve respect around here, but people do.

You may have noticed that this introduction doesn't emphasise atheism much. You see, once we got over the belief stuff, we found a whole world to interact with.

That's what we're doing here.

Join us. The only rule is "Don't be a dick".

attacked.jpeg (63.7 KiB) Viewed 5210 times

[Irrev-Black]

Short form - There will be swearing. It's not all about you.

The long article below may help your understanding.

Goldenmane's Third Rule of Public Discourse

One of the views shared by many who have posted on the apposite forums over the years was formulated by the user Calilasseia thusly: 'Bad ideas exist to be destroyed.' Indeed, this is the central thread that links this collection of writings, disparate as they may otherwise be.

Many of the essays included in this collection also share another similarity: the use of what may be considered, by some, profanity. Also know as swearing, cursing, and foul or bad language.

The often liberal use of expletives in some of these tracts may appear gratuitous and immature, even offensive. The reader is advised to bear in mind the aforementioned notion: bad ideas exist to be destroyed, in this case formulated as what has become known as Goldenmane's Third Rule of Public Discourse, commonly referred to as Rule #3: swear a lot.

Rule #3 was formulated initially as a joke, the point being that it serves as a way of distinguishing between those conversational opponents who were capable of addressing an argument intellectually, rationally, and logically, and those who were governed entirely by emotion. The key here is to realise that those governed by emotion would be those who would be offended (and loudly) by the use of words like fuck, cunt, shit, piss, arsehole, and sundry others. Such people would tend to leave a debate or conversation in high dudgeon, complaining loudly about the language their interlocutors were using. So much the better. There is little worth in continuing a discussion with someone who bases their entire position on emotion, and it's all to the good if they can be induced to chuck the shits and storm out, since it starkly highlights the intellectual vacuity of their entire approach.

What started as a jest (as all good jests do) rapidly developed more profound ramifications. For example: the words used to refer to swearing (including, tellingly, 'swearing') reveal an unholy (or perhaps overly holy) reliance upon certain magical notions. 'Cursing', 'swearing', 'using God's name in vain' and the like all rest upon the rather quaint and somewhat silly notion that words have magical power. Whilst words do have power (the power to communicate ideas being primary), there's no evidence whatsofuckingever to suggest that incantations can make shit magically happen.

The idea that certain combinations of sounds (always culturally determined) can have inherent magically 'bad' properties is, to be blunt, bullshit. Most such words from around the world's different cultures are related to one of two things: fucking and shitting. Why these two essential processes for a complex sexually-reliant species that needs to eat should become the 'bad' words I'm not going to debate here. Suffice it to say that from a rational modern perspective, it's a little bizarre. But I'll work with it. It's my fucking medium, after all.

Bad ideas exist to be destroyed. The notion that words can inherently be bad is a bad idea. It springs from primitive beliefs about words being magical. Similarly, the intellectual coward's retreat from debate under the banner of 'my opponent swears' is rooted in the same notion. It also provides them with an easy escape route, and in this sense it is offered up as a service: allowing them to exit with the personal sense that they have retained the moral high ground, even if they have been unable to support their own arguments.

What renders the whole notion of 'bad language' truly ludicrous is that words are just effectively arbitrary collections of sounds (or letters, if written down). Start with 'c'. Add a 't': 'ct'. Add a 'u': 'cut' Wow, we now have a word that we recognise. There's nothing bad about the word, just as there's nothing bad about the letters it is made from. Now add an 'n': cnut.

That should, properly, be rendered Cnut, it being a proper noun. Chap is famous for arguing with the sea, or something. The sea, of course, ignored him, because words aren't actually magical. Changing Cnut around a little makes him a cunt. Where's the fucking magic?

In writing this, I have been reminded to add a little explanation of Rules 1 and 2. An explanation was posted some time ago. Here it is, and I hope the reader gains some understanding:

Sweet juicy Mohammed on Satan's glistening prong, you want comedy and explanations on demand?

I can give you the explanation, but I can't guarantee the comedy. I've got stage fright, and as everyone knows stage fright causes the balls to shrink and try to hide in the body, and as everyone also knows the balls are where the comedy glands reside, which is why (as Hitchens so rightly pointed out) women aren't funny. Unless they have balls.

Evidence of this, in case anyone was wondering, is there to be seen. Just look at the scrotum. Take a long, hard (or flaccid, depending on your proclivities) look, and tell me that the scrotum isn't fucking funny. You'll be lying if you say it isn't. The scrotum is like the world's most honest packaging. It says, "Here be comedy. There is literally and categorically nothing as funny as this.

It's an evolutionary thing. Dick Dawkins even touched on it (well, there's really no other way to put it, is there? No quote mines, please, I won't have it said that Dick touches his, or any other, scrotum any more than strictly necessary) in The Greatest Show on Earth, where he points to the completely ridiculous path the vas deferens takes. It's fucking bizarre and surreal. Any designer who came up with that and was still responsible for the entirety of everything is a joker on a colossal scale. It's the only possible answer that isn't pants-shittingly terrifying. And as it is, it's minor-incident-of-bowel-incontinence scary. You wonder why God is referred to as He? It can only be because the fucker's a sadistic practical joker, with testicles the size of... well, how do you measure such balls?

The other option is that He doesn't exist, of course, but some well-known people have, historically, bet against that.

Anyway, enough (as the sage said) of that guff: Rule #3. The strict name of said rule is Goldenmane's 3rd Rule of Public Discourse, and stackhishash has quoted the short form verbatim: Swear a lot. The reasons are, I hope, obvious, and need no further explanation. Rules #1 and #2 are both the same as, and yet separate from, Rule #3. Simply put, Rule #1 dictates the rules (whilst being identical to Rule #3) and Rule #2 fucks about in the background somehow making globules of retarded effluent seem to mean something that gives Rule #3 its efficacy.

To put it another way, Rules 1,2 and 3 are the same goddamn rule, but invoking Rule #3 is all that is needed to have a cock-suckingly good life, and if you fucking well understand Rule #3, you'll stop asking for explanations. Fuck.


NOTE: Rule 3 is not about personal abuse. That rule stands. Swear a lot, but bear in mind Goldenmane's Exposition On Rule Fucking Three.
---------------------------------
Exposition on Rule #3

Because apparently there are some out there who insist on playing monkey-fuck with very simple concepts, in order to pursue some rather incoherent and plainly idiotic agendas, I'm going to explain something.

Something very. Fucking. Simple.

Something that should not need a gods-damned explanation, because it's as obvious as an elephant-turd on the kitchen table.

Goldenmane's Third Rule of Public Discourse – often known as Rule # fucking 3 – is swear a lot, not call people names. There's a fundamental motherfucking difference, and an inability to grasp this is a singular demonstration that you don't understand the essential point to Rule #3.

Rule #3 is intended to be an example of highlighting intellectual laziness and magical thinking. Swearing, or rather the very fact that it is possible for people to think certain words are magically bad in and of themselves, is irrational bullshit, and no basis for people getting all fucking huffy.

This is completely different to actually attacking someone, rather than ideas. The notion of 'swearing = bad' is an idea, and a bloody silly one. Rule #3 doesn't even speak to personal attacks and calling people names, although personal attacks and calling people names are both in themselves examples of shitty thinking.

You can't use a tool which highlights shitty thinking to excuse shitty thinking. That's fucktardery of the first degree.

[Irrev-Black]

The Quaint Natives of the AAForums Jungle - A Guide for Missionaries and Explorers

Black_uncivilised-notext-150.jpg (7.11 KiB) Viewed 5196 times

The natives call themselves "atheists", and they don't use a capital letter. The word just means they accept that there is no credible scientific or factually reliable evidence for the existence of a god, gods or the supernatural.

The unfortunate explorer who intends to strike up some kind of rapport with the atheists must be wary not to presume that these uncomplicated folk understand what a church is, or hold any respect for ideas unfamiliar to the jungle.

If an explorer is unlucky enough to present his (it's almost always a "him", isn't it?) beliefs as a kind of magic, in some attempt to wow the atheists, he may be unlucky enough to hear one of the savages, speaking in a clipped, pulpit-ready, voice, explaining that explorer's theological error, giving references in Hebrew or Greek. Never assume knowledge OR ignorance.

Bring some proof or references, to show the natives that you respect their powers of reason. Be ready to admit it if you are proven wrong.

Probing questions are better than being ignored, or getting escorted out of the jungle. Try to answer in good faith.

That blow-dart that knocked the holy object out of your hand might have been a nasty surprise. Don't worry: they were aiming for the holy object. Tribal rules are tough on personal attacks, and the tribe are also subject to justice.

The atheists are annoyed by circular reasoning because circular reasoning irritates them: please don't try to tell them a belief is real because its book says so. Especially, if you make that mistake, don't follow up by saying the book is right because it's divinely inspired. Never ends well, that trick.

Please do not wear a poly-cotton shirt and declaim against somebody else's lifestyle. In fact, don't worry about what the shirt's made of. If an action doesn't have victims, no harm done. You don't have to look, and nobody's forcing you to participate.

The quaint natives of the jungle can get a bit stroppy if somebody assumes what atheists think, or do, especially if the assumption gets applied to ALL atheists. It's probably better to think of the tribe as a cross-section of society with one thing in common.

As a matter of fact, some atheists are so primitive they don't even do much Sciencing. Worlds being there and life evolving happen anyway, and nobody's successfully proved anything supporting religion by using science.

Don't be offended by the natives debunking things. It's a local courtesy to show they're paying close attention.

And, please remember, it is not your jungle. It belongs to the natives. Respect is a two way thing, but your god doesn't ride for free on your ticket.

[Irrev-Black]

The only rule is "Don't be a dick".

Trying to use us to sell stuff or promote products? That's definitely a dick move.

Don't bother, or you'll be banned.

[Irrev-Black]

Drive-by posting a religious attack text - that kind of "well that proves it, so nyeh-nyeh" kind of post... yeah, dick move.

It's even more dickish when it's the same piece of nonsense you, or your fellow proselytisers, have posted to other forums and sites over at least ten years, even down to the typographical errors and spelling mistakes that have remained consistent throughout the text's long online career.

Don't bother or you'll be yeeted out - your lack of respect for our intelligence means you deserve no patience from us.

Coming along to actually discuss something is a different matter altogether.

This forum is, by default, English-speaking. It's not that we have a bias against other languages - but isn't the idea to actually communicate? There are translation tools available, so it's a dick move not to prepare your message.

This is not a marketplace, so any move to advertise anything, without express permission of Admin or Moderators, is... you, a dick move. Shouldn't have to say this again, but I have done so.

Multiple account registrations are dickish, too. That will almost certainly result in banishment.