No one can really decide. It's like this weird hybrid of social media and dating site. Is it a liger? Is it a tion? How many licks does it take to get to the Tootsie Roll center of a Tootsie Pop? The world may never know...

@ghettophilosopher It's both! I swear. I have a good friend who is now living with someone.
(He lived just a few miles away from her!).

I found a nice atheist roommate. And imported her from New Jersey.

All through here.

So it is what you make of it?

@RavenCT

Well then...

...yeah...

@ghettophilosopher as far as i have seen so far.. the huge majority of users seem to have come thru the agnostic door..
Im assuming the humanist side is possibly what the owner wants to see happen.. (judging by the faq and humanist links that have been here for awhile)

The ones that seem to have the biggest issue are the atheists it looks like..
Myself (from what i have read).. humanism seems to align nicely with my values

@Davethecave ??

@hippydog @davethecave As a devout atheist, I have no problem with other people's labels. Humanist doesn't bother me one bit. I don't even have a problem with the religious - my problem only comes when impositions are made toward myself and others.
No, my problem isn't humanist or humanist.com. I was just surprised at the (apparently not new) development.

@Davethecave I used to consider myself a humanist. Not that long ago as a matter of fact. The difference now is that, as did my faith in god before it, my faith in humanity has dwindled. I wouldn't call it dead yet, but the prognosis isn't great.

@Davethecave Some people like to argue that claiming ATHEIST over agnostic means that you claim to know beyond ANY doubt that no gods exist which knowledge itself would require god-like qualities (omniscience). To them I respond that I'm as agnostic about god(s) as I am about unicorns and fire-breathing dragons...

@Davethecave I would like my Dragon now please.

It's a bad thing when they're unrelated and diametrically opposed. See my response to @ginakay

@ghettophilosopher I did, and I see you point. And I agree. However, I guess it depends on if humanist is also a dating site... If it isn't, your point is still valid, as the so-called dating pool doesn't increase and this site is still inundated with new members who may not share as much in common with us as well like or worse, as you said, having diametrically opposed views on religiosity. Which is exactly half the reason those of us who were upset by the creation of humanist were upset. The other half being we weren't told about it until it was done and never asked if we wanted to participate. This is bad math, but there was actually more than just those reasons, such as being given an opt out option that didn't really work instead of an opt in option from the start.

@Kafir Oh wow... So other people knew about this?

@ghettophilosopher Yep. And we were vocal about it.

@Kafir Clearly I missed that train.

@ghettophilosopher You probably missed it because most of it took place in Community Senate and that's a level 7 and up group. Some posts were made in public forums, but nothing much came from it.

@Kafir Yeah, so I've just discovered.

@powder @carolekay I only discovered it when I was checking a new member profile. At the bottom where it tells how recently they've been active (so you know if you're dealing with a dead profile or not) it said "very recently on humanist.com." Completely threw me off - as evidenced by this post.

@ghettophilosopher Interesting, I haven't noticed that yet. When you get to level 7. You will be able to join Senate. That's where higher level members discuss site changes, upgrades, glitches, etc. Along with the site admins. We were notified there in Senate of the addition of the Humanist site, but I know of no other notices given to all other members. That doesn't mean there aren't any, just that I have never seen any notifications. I agree it is deceiving to believe you have joined a specific dating site and find that you are on yet another that you did not intend to join.

This seems suspiciously like they are trying to increase the growth (number or members) of both sites in order to sell them. Watch and see, I could be right.
*Edit, but I'm not sure how you sell a non profit...

@ghettophilosopher I've not looked at the other site either, but I hear it mirrors this one.

@CaroleKay THAT'S why I didn't know. It didn't occur to me that this might have been discussed in the Senate. I'm seriously less than 200 points away from 7. I'm not about chasing points, and I doubt I'll get past 7 ANY time soon (it took me the better part of a year to get this far and reproducing that feat four more times seems rather daunting) but I figured the Senate was a big deal. Turns out it was even bigger than I thought. Good to know.

@CaroleKay I hope that's not the case, but the evidence, if it doesn't quite POINT in that direction, seems to at least lean toward it. I guess we'll see.

@Davethecave really?

@CaroleKay You don't have to sell the entity. You dissolve it and sell the resources.

@ghettophilosopher Sorry I deleted my comment, I wasn't sure how that works. But bingo.

@ghettophilosopher You might get to L7 with this post alone, good post, btw.

@CaroleKay It's starting to look that way...

@ghettophilosopher I'll congratulate you now then, have a good night, see you in Senate. I have to go to bed.

@CaroleKay when all of us discovered Humanist.com, I wondered if they were planning to sell advertising, just like on other social sites like Facebook. To do that, you need a fairly decent number of people (audience) , otherwise no one will advertise. It has been a very good source of income for other sites.

@ghettophilosopher "but I figured the Senate was a big deal"..
Its not..

I've always viewed it primarily as a social media site. Not opposed to dating, but here expressly for that. As far as the match%, I think the algorithm is garbage. Remember A/S/L from the primordial chatrooms of the AOL days? Pretty sure that's the entirety of what goes into calculating match%.

Oh yeah, I absolutely appreciate the community were have here. But the practice of having very niche sites for specific interests, and then inflating the pool of members by combining with other sites that may or may not have anything to do with one another is a tactic employed by shady companies looking to make a quick buck. There are companies that offer to help you build niche dating sites that do this.
Say for example I'm an army vet that wants to make a dating site specific to military people, so I go to a company that specializes in making these dating sites and create "soldierdate.com," a site just for servicemen/women and the people who want to date them. That may or may not be a lot of people.
Meanwhile, my childhood arch nemesis grew up to be a pacifist and wants a dating site just for them. She goes to the same company and creates "peaceloveandhookups.com." Again, may or may not be a large crowd.
But the company doesn't benefit if people go to these sites and find a very shallow dating pool. So what do they do? They inflate the numbers by having both sites share a single member pool.
Now soldiers are wondering why tree-hugging hippies are bothering then in their own space and the pacifists are wondering who invited GI Joe. What no one realizes is that despite the fact that everyone came in through a different door, it was ALWAYS the same building.
I'm not saying that's exactly what's going on here, but now I wonder...

@ghettophilosopher ummm, since this site is OBVIOUSLY non-profit... plus no popups, no linked ads targeting my demographic, and so on, where do you get off suggesting ulterior motives?

@AnneWimsey I'm not suggesting anything other than it's a scheme that's been employed before by unscrupulous people to unscrupulous ends. Whether that's the case here or not is for those who run this site to answer and for us as members to evaluate the validity and acceptability of said answer. And "where do you get off" implies that I'm not within my rights to ask the question. As I'm not looking for a fight, I'll offer the benefit of the doubt.

@ghettophilosopher impugning a lovely site for no other reason than you are full of hatred & distrust is just wrong, and sad. Akin to white people being suspicious of black people because they are black!
Using the word "unscupulous" without one shred of evidence is Disgusting!
FYI this site is privately funded by philanthropists interested in spreading Reason. Clearly not for you......

@AnneWimsey You sound a little hangry. How's your blood sugar right now? He was referring to the unscrupulous activities of the sites that he was comparing us to and not necessarily to the owners of this site. Though he does have a very valid point. In fact, you both do, as this site is entirely free, unlike the sites he was worried we were following suit with. But as a white person, your analogy is pure hyperbole. His comparison to suspicious, however circumstantially similar, practices isn't even in the same state as racism, let alone the same ballpark. You might need to take a step back from this instead of doubling down (again). He's just offering a different perspective, and some of us clearly need some perspective.

@AnneWimsey Again, not impugning anything. Just asking a question.
Read my comment a second time and you'll see that I'm not accusing this site of anything.
AGAIN, not looking for a fight. Please, stop trying to pick one.

@ghettophilosopher I think you are correct. And I also believe they are doing that to increase numbers and sell the sites. It's their site and they can do whatever they want, but there IS a reason. I commented this above.

Check this out---->[grfcpa.com]

@CaroleKay re: this response. I rest my case

That worries me a little...

Me neither, but seeing the underlying structure of it kind of pushes more into the dating site category. Makes me cringe a little.

@ghettophilosopher There aren't many nonbeliever sites where other nonbelievers can find someone to connect to/with. Some sites like OKCupid let you specify agnostic/atheist. I have an OKC account and it's frustrating that some of their 'suggested' matches - based on their unique algorithm system, throw Christian women at me. Due to this I rarely go there except to respond to a rare message.

I personally like the fact that I won't risk that happening here.

@aspiringunicorn I absolutely get that, and don't get me wrong, I appreciate the hell out of this site (these sites..?). It's just a little bit jarring to see what's become something of a nefarious practice being employed here, particularly when it feels like that wasn't disclosed up front. On the other hand, it's possible that I just missed the memo and it was always made clear.

@ghettophilosopher I agree that it gets confusing. The only possible explanation might be the website owner likely wanted to claim those domains to avoid abuse by people who buy domain names and ransom them for really high $$. They're using a redirect so no matter which one you visit, you land back here. It's become common practice to do this.

@ghettophilosopher When I found this site, it was being advertized as a dating site - almost a year ago... However, there was no mention at all of a sister site/mirror site sharing the same database. That has actually upset a few of us with the lack of transparency, myself included.

I can agree with that. However, it's something off a deceptive practice used by lesser known and more nefarious purveyors of dating sites, and seeing it here gives me pause.
Besides, I'm not agnostic... I'm atheist af (to borrow the millennial parlance). Had I known, I'd have come in through a different door.

@ghettophilosopher I understand what you're saying. But you get to say what you are when you register. Most people are a different mix of labels.

@Shouldbefishing Ok. I don't have a problem with it per se, and I (probably..?) won't opt out; was just caught off guard by this whole thing.