Now I get it.

My experience also. Pay no heed. A lot of the atheists I have encountered here are as evangelical as their Christian adversaries who have very little knowledge of other religions, ideologies, concepts etc.

Humanism and agnosticism/atheism are not the same. Humanism is a doctrine, agnosticism and atheism are simple belief, not a doctrine. That is the difference between the websites.

@repubatheists Humanist is a more specific group of secular individuals.They are both appropriate hate according to the community guidelines.

I appreciate and welcome the humanist aspect. It seems to be a more intelligent and open minded view of the world.

@MsAl Humanists can also be religious, which is another difference that can be made between the websites.

@repubatheists I appreciate the tolerance that it brings to the conversation It is lacking here sometimes.

Thank you for using a decorative adverb.

Thanks!

So should I share this on Twitter, Facebook, or a random email list?

@1of5 Share all you want. Cross posting content onto a website users do not affiliate with is misrepresentation of users.

@repubatheists glad you consented to it.

Yes they should disclose, but, as you've been told before, only you can prevent the content from being shared. That's freedom right there. Freedom with a capital F, for sure.

Also, when joining a site it's quite useful to check and see what all the options are to make sure its doing what you want. Vigilance is the price of freedom, after all.

@1of5 That is not my point. My point is that there are users who are unaware their content has been cross posted to a site that they do not affiliate with at all. I barely learned about it yesterday. It's like content being cross posted to a religious site. That is misrepresentation of users.

@repubatheists I remember when they did this, and it was quite awhile ago in internet time. I created an account in Dec 17 and was gone by mid summer 18. They announced it to much fanfare and consternation before I left. I dunno how you missed it. As a result of the complaints, if memory serves, they put in the option to not crosspost.

Is there any reason that any of us should think we have the right to consent/refuse consent, to the sharing of anything we post here? Iirc posts from this site (agnostic and humanist) can be shared to Facebook, for anyone to read. Has there ever been a case where a member could opt out of their comments being shared? I don't see any difference between that and the entire site (all the comments) being shared via mirroring.

I'm curious because precedent does mean something, in addition to whatever we've all agreed to when we clicked to join this site.

@MarkiusMahamius What is difficult in understanding that Humanist. com is not a general forum, it is a forum promoting a doctrine known as HUMANISM. Anyone who affiliates with humanism should be aware of what humanism is, but in that is not what is happening in this cross posting case. People who are not humanist unknowingly have content being cross posted to a site that associates them with humanism. It is no different than a forum cross posting your content to a Jehovah's Witness forum, or a Mormon forum. I am not sure why forum developers would even want non-humanist content being posted to a humanist website. It's false representation.

@repubatheists meh. People click on whitehouse.com (porn) all the time. People who are atheists post on agnostic.com all the time. After you've pist3d, the site wins your words and image. It's not a new business model. And courts have upheld it, more than a few times over the decades (newspapers and news outlets, plus now the internet). I understand you feel like you should have opted out of this particular site, long ago, because of their particular bent. But big legal terms are too mich. The comparison to sales tactics and value, doesn't fit with what this site offers.

I have to ask - do people know this when they sign up on Agnostic? I didn't know this and maybe I missed something in the fine print. You say you can toggle settings so your posts and profiles can't be seen on humanist. Can you explain how to do this?

I just looked at my settings on my profile and the very last one is the one that links to humanist. It is quite a list until you get to it.

So, that must be the difference. Thanks for the good information.

@AmelieMatisse as far as I know the humanist.com portal was a failed experiment to try and grow the site.

I've found it quite interesting the emotional reactions some agnostics.com users have had learning their associated with humanists. Labels seem to be increadably importaint to some folks.

@balou NP, it's what I live for.

@1of5 I have no problem at all with humanists. But if I join a website that is linked to another website and I am not told about this link, then it bothers me.

@AmelieMatisse they should do a few things differently IMO. Thier site though. I have no idea why they didn't close the other portal down, but they may use it for administrative purposes or some nefarious scheme. Hard to tell. Probably rented the domain name for 3 years and may do something different with it.

From the this is why I created this site post just recently admin should have gone with humanist instead of agnostic. Hindsight and all that.

It sure doesn't sound good.

It was a friend of admin, who has written content here. The login address, humanist.com and agnostic.com, both lead to the same place and tgge same content.

It dealt with the former president of American Atheists.

The post was regarding Richard Silverman, the former president of American Atheists who was put on paid leave when allegations of financial issues came up, and then it was discovered he was having a sexual relationship with a woman he'd appointed to a high level position in the organization. As those allegations came to light, American Atheists received written complaints alluding to 2 separate allegations of sexual assault by Richard Silverman by 2 separate women. One of the women was a college student at the time who was going to apply for an internship at American Atheists. After the alleged assault, Silverman told her she shouldn't apply for the internship because if he gave it to her, it would be seen as preferential treatment. When American Atheists became aware of these allegations, Silverman was fired.

An admin of this site (and I assume the Humanists site, too) wrote a public post in support of Silverman. Silverman has also joined the site and has a group here (and I assume cross-posted to the Humanist site) to "promote new projects he's working on" and, it seems, do damage control regarding the allegations.

I'm deeply opposed to any support of Silverman and horrified to learn that he's a member of this site, and most likely the Humanist site to which this one is connected.

@Ruby_Slipper Silverman's first name is David, not Richard, unless maybe he's one of those folks who goes by his middle name. The Silverman issue is important and I am likewise reluctant to participate in his rehabilitation, but I'm not yet convinced that Silverman is particularly linked to Humanist.com. Could be but it seems just a bit improbable. The American Humanists Association won't want to be linked to a guy who brought discredit to the American Atheists.

@vertrauen Sorry, you're right. David, not Richard. It's been a while since I've read any news coverage or paid attention to anything going on with American Atheists, so I forgot the guy's name. He is linked with the humanist site, though, simply by his connection to this one. They're mirror sites, so whatever he does here shows up on that site, too. He's a member here? He's also a member there, unless he chooses to opt out. He runs a group here? His group shows up there, too, again, unless he chooses to opt out. And he brought more than discredit to American Atheists. He's a sexual predator... ahem, allegedly. There is no rehabilitation for a guy who treats women like that... allegedly.

@Ruby_Slipper Right, I was also partly responding to @AmelieMatisse having said above that the accused [Silverman] was the director of Humanist [dot com?]. That is what I was doubting. It's theoretically possible, but seems unlikely given Silverman's disgrace at AA. If it's true, I'm sure you and i wouldn't be alone in objecting vociferously.