Its an advertisement. I was sent an email stating I could get on the list if I signed up for their gold package. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/3278a1b0c87c0e9cf59073f0ff876d7a8c428a90ebfd00c355affb72861257bb.png

Here is an email I got from feedspot.com regarding the atheist blog:

"Thanks for submitting your blog Unrepentant Atheist to Feedspot Top Atheist blogs list.

Benefits of Featuring your blog
Your blog will be subscribed by thousands of users each month who are visiting Feedspot's Top 30 Atheist blogs post from Google.
Your blog will get targeted subscribers who are looking to follow top and upcoming Atheist blogs.
Your blog will be featured in Feedspot's "Atheist" Due to this over a million existing Feedspot users will be able to subscribe to your blog as well."

Needless to say, the number of blogs is 36 last I checked on the "Top 30".

With that said, any site that compiles atheist blog links in one place is a great thing. I just refuse to sign up to a service to pretend to be "selected".

Stay skeptical.

Really?

Are you referring to my blog?

Nope, I was referring to EN/OSTS.

the only accurate statement is that certain atheists are not welcome here.

Yep.

A site which went on to ban me without sufficient warning for acting no worse, behavior-wise, than the group with the ban hammer. These are people who were quite happy to stand by when one regular repeatedly, mercilessly, and falsely accused me of making a rape joke. These are people who were quite happy to stand by when a not-as-regular falsely compared me to a child rapist. (There was a little non-moderator pushback on each of these, but pitifully little. Why? Probably because I was unwanted, and thus behavior unacceptable toward the regulars was acceptable toward me.)

Are you referring to my blog? It’s largely unmoderated. The upside is little banning. The downside is that it’s a hardball, self-mediated conversation.

But despite the wrong done to me, I requested clemency for some regulars (best to start with a few), and just now requested increased excellence and rigor in SN articles, including in the form of now-banned EN folks writing excellent articles (which they claim to be able to do).

Good for you for encouraging contrary opinions at Strange Notions.

Oh stop being coy, Bob. You seem plenty welcome here, and last time I checked, you're an atheist. So the only accurate statement is that certain atheists are not welcome here. Which ones? Well, those I know of are concentrated on a site which complained about being banned without [sometimes: sufficient] warning for acting no worse, behavior-wise, than the group with the ban hammer. A site which went on to ban me without sufficient warning for acting no worse, behavior-wise, than the group with the ban hammer. These are people who were quite happy to stand by when one regular repeatedly, mercilessly, and falsely accused me of making a rape joke. These are people who were quite happy to stand by when a not-as-regular falsely compared me to a child rapist. (There was a little non-moderator pushback on each of these, but pitifully little. Why? Probably because I was unwanted, and thus behavior unacceptable toward the regulars was acceptable toward me.)

But despite the wrong done to me, I requested clemency for some regulars (best to start with a few), and just now requested increased excellence and rigor in SN articles, including in the form of now-banned EN folks writing excellent articles (which they claim to be able to do). If SN is not interested in increased excellence and rigor, I am prepared to cease commenting here and as @bvogt1:disqus has claimed:

BV: This ranking is a testament to all the great contributors we have here, and not just those who write the articles. I want to especially thank our regular commenters, who have provided so many rich thoughts and insights over the years, including:

[...]
◦ Luke Breuer
[...]

You guys are wonderful and the site wouldn't be what it is without your input.

But perhaps I was mistakenly included in that list and my absence will hardly be noticed.

It would be interesting to see which direction the rating would go if the reputation among atheists improved!

Are you using a different definition for "purpose"?

I was defining it metaphorically, and probably shouldn't have. The word I really wanted was "function." In strictly proper usage, "purpose" means "intended function." I don't believe nature is capable of intention.