Yeah, part of human nature, for sure. I will usually point out information that I think is incorrect. I can certainly see a situation where someone repeats information that is out of date and could easily have done so myself. Once you learn about something, you may not ever revisit the topic unless it is something that has continued interest for you. Of course if you are not interested in something enough to keep up with the current knowledge, it is best to not to go around talking like you are knowledgeable. I definitely have no problem saying I don't know, or that I was wrong. Actually I have almost a pathological need to correct myself if I feel I have passed along incorrect information.

I stand in opposition to scientifically unsound claims. Even if I'm the one who made them. I often reevaluate what I say or do.

Examples, please. Define subject.

Almost all of us on this site have had to consciously examine our beliefs in terms of theism simply because we are challenging the dominant cultural norm. This is common for anyone or any group that is not part of any culture's norms. If you are an outsider or part of any disadvantaged group you have a much clearer picture of those who have an advantaged position in society. Just because we've developed critical thinking about theists doesn't mean we'll also use that skill to examine other aspects of our lives especially when that critical self-examination might expose something unsavory.

There is an important element of secularism currently being hijacked, and that is the continued search for answers. There are those who turn scientific facts in to faith facts. Theories change, studies change earlier facts, New finding expand our understandings. I believe all you can do is guide them to new facts…

There are certain truths that one has to accept when getting into the skeptic thing. One is that some theories may change, or not be worth anything, or be blind alleys, and have to be abandoned. Great minds in history have learned this the hard way. Im not sure elitism is the right word for it. Im open minded, but I won't put up with spiritual bypassing bullshit about ghosts, ufos, demons, wizards, umber hulks without proof. The stuff with gmos, not going to the moon, the EARTH BEING FLAT, ill just never get on board with.

I simply ask them to cite current evidence from somewhere dependable. Until they can, their claims are suspect. They should understand that if they claim to believe in skepticism and logic.

I do think in a group such as this, where a high percentage of people have decided they want to lead a life in accordance with evidence, more people will accept evidence that disagrees with their position if it's compelling and modify their previous position. Humans are still human, though, so it's not going to be 100% and people will still disagree over some things that they think are open to interpretation, but I think you'll see more flexibility in this regard here than you might on a forum for fundamentalist Christians who have a very rigid worldview and are not swayed by evidence from their faith-based beliefs.

I think most people have come to see how stupid and illogical religion is and realize it's an easy target to point out the irrationality, but they don't know how to use the same logic on other subjects.

The one thing I've learned since becoming an atheist is there is no need to be ashamed in saying "I don't know". No matter what beliefs I hold, I will always admit that there is a chance, no matter how small that chance may be, that I can be wrong. That is true open-mindedness.

That brings me to one of my favorite quotes by Bertrand Russell.

The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt.

I think you'll probably see some elitism in any group, with the possible exception of a group exclusively consisting of people suffering from low self esteem. I think we see it a little in this group, though not terribly bad. You'll see a few "can you believe how stupid believers are" posts and comments. I think it's to be expected. Pretty much everyone here thinks we're right on the topic of God/gods — at least more correct than believers in faith-based claims — so it stands to reason that there would be some sense of superiority. Hop on a discussion elsewhere with mostly theists talking and you'll see a lot of "how stupid those people are who reject God" posts. It's unfortunate, but it's the way many humans are wired. I disagree with Richard Dawkins, for instance, that the way to get people to change their minds about believing in God is to belittle them (though it may work to some degree to keep people from believing in the first place, but I'm not convinced of that either). I just think it's true that we attract more flies with honey, so being nice is more likely to establish conversation and foster a social and political environment in which secular concerns are more readily addressed.

@Pineapple-Pizza - Can you provide an example, please?

If your argument is that theism is based on belief which is not supported by evidence, then you have to accept that if your own statements are not based on evidence you should get called out on it.

I think we must love the truth. You know, reality. We don't have to be total assholes to do that though.