Welcome, Guest |
You have to register before you can post on our site.
|
Online Users |
There are currently 66 online users. » 2 Member(s) | 62 Guest(s) Bing, Google, Dexta, Thumpalumpacus
|
|
|
Is Wokeism Best Understood as a Religion? |
Posted by: Vorpal - 01-20-2025, 08:24 PM - Forum: Philosophy and Ethics
- Replies (337)
|
 |
"Wokeism" and "virtue signaling" are potential threats to intellectual integrity, including the suppression of dissent, the emphasis on superficial performative behavior, and the oversimplification of complex issues. As far as liberal identity fears majorities and deems minorities worthy of special respect, a liberal fundamentalism emerges. As far as attempts at moderation lead to cancellation, a monster grows.
From: Liberal Fundamentalism: A Sociology of Wokeness, By Eric Kaufmann
Quote:Viewing wokeness as a highly decentered liberal religion helps us understand the movement’s extremism, its witch hunts, and its awakenings. It explains why high-status people and elite institutions mouth its mantras, why its moderates can’t stand up to its fundamentalists, and why it is both the product of, and an engine of, polarization.
Trump won the election in part because liberal moderates have failed to stand up to the extremists.
|
|
|
Homo Erectus Got There First! |
Posted by: Minimalist - 01-20-2025, 06:54 PM - Forum: Science, Engineering and Mathematics
- Replies (1)
|
 |
https://www.rawstory.com/homo-erectus-no...ert-study/
Quote:Homo erectus, not sapiens, first humans to survive desert: study
Quote:Our ancestor Homo erectus was able to survive punishingly hot and dry desert more than a million years ago, according to a new study that casts doubt on the idea that Homo sapiens were the first humans capable of living in such hostile terrain.
The moment when the first members of the extended human family called hominins adapted to life in desert or tropical forests marks "a turning point in the history of human survival and expansion in extreme environments," lead study author Julio Mercader Florin of the University of Calgary told AFP.
Scientists have long thought that only Homo sapiens, who first appeared around 300,000 years ago, were capable of living sustainably in such inhospitable regions.
|
|
|
Sustainabilty and/or Awareness of Forum? |
Posted by: SYZ - 01-17-2025, 12:04 PM - Forum: Forum Comments and Suggestions
- Replies (18)
|
 |
As a longer term member of this forum, I'm not failing to notice a
declining number of members posting regularly—or even occasionally.
Many seldom post any more, including several of the original participants.
I understand of course the ebb and flow of forums' active memberships,
and the simple fact that some members do decide not to post comments
any more as a matter of personal choice—or as their real-life situations
may vary over time.
In the last 24 hours for example, there have been less than 15 members
who've posted at least once, generally in response to existing threads. To
wit: Dānu, skyking, pattylt, Fireball, jerry mcmasters, KingEric, Antonio,
Minimalist, Paleophyte, brewerb, Mathilda, Reltzik, Charladele, and Vorpal.
(Plus a couple I may've missed.)
During this same 24-hour period, only two new threads have been started:
"Please help" in Off-topic, and "Ba-Boom!" in World News, Politics & Current Events.
All this from an active(?) membership base of 1,237 people.
The board statistics indicate most users online at one time was 2,768 on
Sunday, 5 January 2025 at 08:59 PM—which basically tells us nothing about
the real-time member activity on the forum.
So... to my implied questions after all this long-winded rhetorical comment.
Is the forum dying? Are members leaving for a reason specific to this forum?
Is there not a decent spread of non-religious topics open for debate? Because
the forum is US based, is there too much focus on American politics? Does
Donald Trump draw too many comments over too many individual threads? Is
the site moderation sufficiently active and addressing breaches of the forum rules?
Etc, etc, etc.....
I note that our landing page still displays this outdated site introductory text:
Quote:This is the new home of the community that lived at The Thinking Atheist forum
before that site was shut down. Our site is still under construction but we are
dedicated to rebuilding what was lost and to providing a place where atheists
can communicate and support each other and where theists can come to learn
about atheists and why we don't believe in any god claims.
This bolded wording can be off-putting to web passers-by, is actually incorrect, and needs a
simple rewrite. And I really do think that most people are aware that atheists "don't believe
in any god claims" LOL.
Quote:Welcome to the ATHEIST DISCUSSION forum, a place where atheists, theists, and those
in between can get together to debate and learn about a multitude and of topics, from
the histories and future of religions, to what atheism is all about and its relevance in
today's world, and from politics and philosophy to pineapple on pizzas.
[The above is only my humble, suggested rewrite, and is
not intended to be considered as better or more accurate,
or more comprehensible than the current version.]
|
|
|
Help please. |
Posted by: KingEric - 01-17-2025, 12:36 AM - Forum: Off-topic
- Replies (30)
|
 |
Is there any way to stop a completely unhinged person from messaging me?
Vorpal is doing my head in.
|
|
|
Should women submit to men? |
Posted by: Jamie Smithie - 01-15-2025, 08:55 AM - Forum: Off-topic
- Replies (15)
|
 |
I think women should submit to men. Men are known for being more logical, stronger emotionally, and are wiser and better at making decisions. Women don't think long term in the way that we do which is why their decisions are often flawed.
As with so many other things, it's age old wisdom that time and time again proves to be correct. Women have their strengths of course, but they are supposed to be complimentary to men's strengths. I notice that lefties have no problem with people being masculine, as long as it's women who are masculine, and they have no issue with someone being feminine as long it's it's men. It's a complete inversion of nature.
There's nothing bad about a woman being submissive to man. Submissive just means yielding. A woman has to let a man lead, because without the leadership of men, women tend to go off the rails.
This is just my opinion of course. I could be totally wrong, although I'm obviously not.
|
|
|
I feel that dating someone younger is problematic |
Posted by: Jamie Smithie - 01-12-2025, 07:19 PM - Forum: Off-topic
- Replies (16)
|
 |
Whenever I've seen someone dating someone younger I always ask myself, what on earth do they even talk about? What could they possibly have in common? I don't understand why someone would want to be with someone considerably younger. What could possibly be the appeal of that?
Does anyone else find it weird or do you think it's ok? I just don't see how someone would feel the need to do that.
|
|
|
|