Do atheists fancy themselves as nonconformists?

[Anonymous]

17:19 just took on the "net negative" bully. That gives the rest of 17:19's post more credence in my eyes, because she's not pursing some narrow agenda. We religious people should do the same for folks like the "table scraps" poster in the Christmas thread. I've already posted that I respect the negative reactions to this thread's OP.

Again with the name calling and overly emotional response.

I am not the person who originally mentioned "net negative", just that I was surprised to see it being called "mean behavior". If that person has observed that in his/her life then maybe that's a truth for them. Not some personal insult to you.

But if calling that out makes me some kind of "bully" to you then I think you're too sensitive. Time for you to step back.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Look, anybody here could go through this thread and catalogue mean atheist behavior ranging from eye-rolls to calling religion a net negative influence on the world. I personally didn't think OP was that bad, maybe a little naive, but I'll defer to you because you say these these are your feelings.

But why bother, unless we're in some competition to feel the most victimized? That's certainly not something I care about. However, I do agree with others that some--not all!!!--atheists like to play the victim card.

The most interesting thing about this thread is that any anger at atheists hasn't been linked with lack of belief per se. Every single one of your quoted passages, as well as OP, refers to atheists' BEHAVIOR on DCUM and elsewhere. Something to chew on.

I'm sorry, but this is considered "mean behavior"? It's not a personal attack on anyone, just a PP sharing an observation/opinion.

I am the atheist PP who quoted all the religious PPs who I think have been jerks. I think that that was a mean comment by an atheist. There are ways to make that point that are less accusatory. To say that something people find as a cornerstone to their personal belief system has been bad for the world is not something that is going to make you any friends.

To the PP who responded to me. I find it difficult to swallow that posters like you are claiming that atheists love to play the victim card in a thread that was created by a religious person to mock atheists. It is not starting the discussion in fair play to criticize us, have atheists object to being criticized and then say they love playing the victim card. I would never have posted here had the OP not so dismissively and casually insulted people like me. There is a cruel streak in making fun of someone for getting bent about not liking being made fun of. That puts the atheist in an impossible situation. Defend myself and confirm that I am a whiny little victim or say nothing and let you rip on me?

But can a religious person let go of the emotion and try to understand the comment? Think of all of the wars/deaths associated with religion. How many lives have religions saved? Is that observation objectively that far off base?

I don't think there will ever be a meaningful exchange until people let go of the emotion and stop all of the attacks. And learn how to use the reply/quote function properly.

Atheist pp again. You are not helping. Why not say, "I am troubled by the amount of violence in the world done in the name of religion" without saying "religion has had a net negative impact on humanity'. You have to realize that you are not winning anyone over with that crap. One describes a reasonable concern, the other writes off people's beliefs.

There will never be a reasonable discussion until you realize that for religious people, emotion is involved, faith is involved, life purposes are invloved

And frankly, it's immaterial to the validity of their beliefs. A lot of violence has been done in the name of love and no one denies it's existence. It's a weak argument that attempts to insult the believer.

[Anonymous]

[quote=Anonymous]

Not PP (although I have posted on this thread) and I would ask why you don't just ignore those posts and respond to the non-vitriolic ones? Just ignore the posters you think are ridiculous and talk to the ones with whom you feel a reasonable and productive discussion is possible.[/quote]

Totally fair! However, although many of us do try to step around her like a turd on the sidewalk, you still see the turd. That's a big reason atheists get such a bad rap here.

Also, in a thread about whether the problem is atheists' behavior vs. lack of belief, she does provide an instructive object lesson.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Look, anybody here could go through this thread and catalogue mean atheist behavior ranging from eye-rolls to calling religion a net negative influence on the world. I personally didn't think OP was that bad, maybe a little naive, but I'll defer to you because you say these these are your feelings.

But why bother, unless we're in some competition to feel the most victimized? That's certainly not something I care about. However, I do agree with others that some--not all!!!--atheists like to play the victim card.

The most interesting thing about this thread is that any anger at atheists hasn't been linked with lack of belief per se. Every single one of your quoted passages, as well as OP, refers to atheists' BEHAVIOR on DCUM and elsewhere. Something to chew on.

I'm sorry, but this is considered "mean behavior"? It's not a personal attack on anyone, just a PP sharing an observation/opinion.

I am the atheist PP who quoted all the religious PPs who I think have been jerks. I think that that was a mean comment by an atheist. There are ways to make that point that are less accusatory. To say that something people find as a cornerstone to their personal belief system has been bad for the world is not something that is going to make you any friends.

To the PP who responded to me. I find it difficult to swallow that posters like you are claiming that atheists love to play the victim card in a thread that was created by a religious person to mock atheists. It is not starting the discussion in fair play to criticize us, have atheists object to being criticized and then say they love playing the victim card. I would never have posted here had the OP not so dismissively and casually insulted people like me. There is a cruel streak in making fun of someone for getting bent about not liking being made fun of. That puts the atheist in an impossible situation. Defend myself and confirm that I am a whiny little victim or say nothing and let you rip on me?

But can a religious person let go of the emotion and try to understand the comment? Think of all of the wars/deaths associated with religion. How many lives have religions saved? Is that observation objectively that far off base?

I don't think there will ever be a meaningful exchange until people let go of the emotion and stop all of the attacks. And learn how to use the reply/quote function properly.

Wow, just wow. Are you trying to be the poster child for smug, condescending behavior and made-up facts? Because if so, you're succeeding. In the process you're corroborating all the bad things people think about atheists. Pat yourself in the back.

So, no, you're not ready to drop the emotion? Feel free to continuing throwing out insults. We are all used to it now. You kill every discussion with your own smug condescension and name calling. Hi, pot!

Who exactly do you think I am? Clearly you're trying to stir the pot.

Hey everyone else, can we all agree to ignore this flame-thrower?

Definitely! I've already been ignoring them... they got obnoxious several pages back. I'm sure they're used to people avoiding them though...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

17:19 just took on the "net negative" bully. That gives the rest of 17:19's post more credence in my eyes, because she's not pursing some narrow agenda. We religious people should do the same for folks like the "table scraps" poster in the Christmas thread. I've already posted that I respect the negative reactions to this thread's OP.

Again with the name calling and overly emotional response.

I am not the person who originally mentioned "net negative", just that I was surprised to see it being called "mean behavior". If that person has observed that in his/her life then maybe that's a truth for them. Not some personal insult to you.

But if calling that out makes me some kind of "bully" to you then I think you're too sensitive. Time for you to step back.

OK. Why are you so sensitive about somebody pointing out the hypocrisy in saying "be good for goodness sake, and religious people are dumb"? If you're really threatened by somebody pointing out that hypocrisy, then maybe you're too emotional.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Look, anybody here could go through this thread and catalogue mean atheist behavior ranging from eye-rolls to calling religion a net negative influence on the world. I personally didn't think OP was that bad, maybe a little naive, but I'll defer to you because you say these these are your feelings.

But why bother, unless we're in some competition to feel the most victimized? That's certainly not something I care about. However, I do agree with others that some--not all!!!--atheists like to play the victim card.

The most interesting thing about this thread is that any anger at atheists hasn't been linked with lack of belief per se. Every single one of your quoted passages, as well as OP, refers to atheists' BEHAVIOR on DCUM and elsewhere. Something to chew on.

I'm sorry, but this is considered "mean behavior"? It's not a personal attack on anyone, just a PP sharing an observation/opinion.

I am the atheist PP who quoted all the religious PPs who I think have been jerks. I think that that was a mean comment by an atheist. There are ways to make that point that are less accusatory. To say that something people find as a cornerstone to their personal belief system has been bad for the world is not something that is going to make you any friends.

To the PP who responded to me. I find it difficult to swallow that posters like you are claiming that atheists love to play the victim card in a thread that was created by a religious person to mock atheists. It is not starting the discussion in fair play to criticize us, have atheists object to being criticized and then say they love playing the victim card. I would never have posted here had the OP not so dismissively and casually insulted people like me. There is a cruel streak in making fun of someone for getting bent about not liking being made fun of. That puts the atheist in an impossible situation. Defend myself and confirm that I am a whiny little victim or say nothing and let you rip on me?

But can a religious person let go of the emotion and try to understand the comment? Think of all of the wars/deaths associated with religion. How many lives have religions saved? Is that observation objectively that far off base?

I don't think there will ever be a meaningful exchange until people let go of the emotion and stop all of the attacks. And learn how to use the reply/quote function properly.

Atheist pp again. You are not helping. Why not say, "I am troubled by the amount of violence in the world done in the name of religion" without saying "religion has had a net negative impact on humanity'. You have to realize that you are not winning anyone over with that crap. One describes a reasonable concern, the other writes off people's beliefs.

There will never be a reasonable discussion until you realize that for religious people, emotion is involved, faith is involved, life purposes are invloved

And frankly, it's immaterial to the validity of their beliefs. A lot of violence has been done in the name of love and no one denies it's existence. It's a weak argument that attempts to insult the believer.

I didn't make the comment - just surprised that it was called "mean".

Yup, guess no reasonable conversation if they cannot remove emotion and try to objectively look at the world.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow there's so much judgement and assumption here. It seems like you Christians, DCUM christians at least, certainly not all of them, feel like judging all athiests with the broad brush painted by the loudest and most obnoxious that you see.

Would you like me to judge all Christians by the greedy money hungry evangelical church leaders? Judge all Christians by the Duggars? Judge all Muslims by the terrorists? These are the loudest voices among you so the must represent the majority right?

I am not an atheist to be a non-conformist I am an atheist because I don't believe in God. I think from a technical definition I am probably agnostic because I agree there is no true proof for or against but I think of agnostics as generally 'believing in something but now knowing what.' I understand there is no proof one way or the other, but deep down believe there is nothing. Not a tremendous amount of people in my life know about this. I do not spend time arguing religion with my family members and attempting to rob them of their faith. Their faith brings them great comfort and I'm happy for them that they have it. Why can't you be happy for me that I have found peace with my understanding of the world?

This thread is filled with such aggressive questioning. At the end of the day life is short, do what makes you feel fulfilled and happy and what helps make the world a better place. If we all do that, regardless of what our motivations are (ie, heaven or just because) then we'll all end up alright.

I'm sorry you've had some bad interactions with atheists, most of us have had bad interactions with religious folks. Perhaps we'd all get along better if we simply respected each other and, if curious, started a dialogue.

The atheists have been much worse on this thread, IMO. Too bad you guys can't also acknowledge that.

Agreed. I think some honest acknowledgement would be refreshing and mature

+1

Would gain a lot of my respect if they did.

I am 17:19 and I have agreed with the net negative comment being mean. Only one poster has spent time trying to see where I'm coming from despite my listing far more examples of mean posts. There are bad eggs on both sides, no one should resort to stereotyping, it makes you just as bad as them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Look, anybody here could go through this thread and catalogue mean atheist behavior ranging from eye-rolls to calling religion a net negative influence on the world. I personally didn't think OP was that bad, maybe a little naive, but I'll defer to you because you say these these are your feelings.

But why bother, unless we're in some competition to feel the most victimized? That's certainly not something I care about. However, I do agree with others that some--not all!!!--atheists like to play the victim card.

The most interesting thing about this thread is that any anger at atheists hasn't been linked with lack of belief per se. Every single one of your quoted passages, as well as OP, refers to atheists' BEHAVIOR on DCUM and elsewhere. Something to chew on.

I'm sorry, but this is considered "mean behavior"? It's not a personal attack on anyone, just a PP sharing an observation/opinion.

I am the atheist PP who quoted all the religious PPs who I think have been jerks. I think that that was a mean comment by an atheist. There are ways to make that point that are less accusatory. To say that something people find as a cornerstone to their personal belief system has been bad for the world is not something that is going to make you any friends.

To the PP who responded to me. I find it difficult to swallow that posters like you are claiming that atheists love to play the victim card in a thread that was created by a religious person to mock atheists. It is not starting the discussion in fair play to criticize us, have atheists object to being criticized and then say they love playing the victim card. I would never have posted here had the OP not so dismissively and casually insulted people like me. There is a cruel streak in making fun of someone for getting bent about not liking being made fun of. That puts the atheist in an impossible situation. Defend myself and confirm that I am a whiny little victim or say nothing and let you rip on me?

But can a religious person let go of the emotion and try to understand the comment? Think of all of the wars/deaths associated with religion. How many lives have religions saved? Is that observation objectively that far off base?

I don't think there will ever be a meaningful exchange until people let go of the emotion and stop all of the attacks. And learn how to use the reply/quote function properly.

Atheist pp again. You are not helping. Why not say, "I am troubled by the amount of violence in the world done in the name of religion" without saying "religion has had a net negative impact on humanity'. You have to realize that you are not winning anyone over with that crap. One describes a reasonable concern, the other writes off people's beliefs.

There will never be a reasonable discussion until you realize that for religious people, emotion is involved, faith is involved, life purposes are invloved

And frankly, it's immaterial to the validity of their beliefs. A lot of violence has been done in the name of love and no one denies it's existence. It's a weak argument that attempts to insult the believer.

I didn't make the comment - just surprised that it was called "mean".

Yup, guess no reasonable conversation if they cannot remove emotion and try to objectively look at the world.

That is a shockingly unempathic and narrow response to my comment but fine, fulfill their stereotypes of us.

[Anonymous]

Wow - you religious folks are really mature. "Turd on a sidewalk", huh? Are you all on some kind of youth group retreat?

And I'm not sure why PP keeps referring to "for goodness sake". I don't feel threatened by that at all. ??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Look, anybody here could go through this thread and catalogue mean atheist behavior ranging from eye-rolls to calling religion a net negative influence on the world. I personally didn't think OP was that bad, maybe a little naive, but I'll defer to you because you say these these are your feelings.

But why bother, unless we're in some competition to feel the most victimized? That's certainly not something I care about. However, I do agree with others that some--not all!!!--atheists like to play the victim card.

The most interesting thing about this thread is that any anger at atheists hasn't been linked with lack of belief per se. Every single one of your quoted passages, as well as OP, refers to atheists' BEHAVIOR on DCUM and elsewhere. Something to chew on.

I'm sorry, but this is considered "mean behavior"? It's not a personal attack on anyone, just a PP sharing an observation/opinion.

I am the atheist PP who quoted all the religious PPs who I think have been jerks. I think that that was a mean comment by an atheist. There are ways to make that point that are less accusatory. To say that something people find as a cornerstone to their personal belief system has been bad for the world is not something that is going to make you any friends.

To the PP who responded to me. I find it difficult to swallow that posters like you are claiming that atheists love to play the victim card in a thread that was created by a religious person to mock atheists. It is not starting the discussion in fair play to criticize us, have atheists object to being criticized and then say they love playing the victim card. I would never have posted here had the OP not so dismissively and casually insulted people like me. There is a cruel streak in making fun of someone for getting bent about not liking being made fun of. That puts the atheist in an impossible situation. Defend myself and confirm that I am a whiny little victim or say nothing and let you rip on me?

But can a religious person let go of the emotion and try to understand the comment? Think of all of the wars/deaths associated with religion. How many lives have religions saved? Is that observation objectively that far off base?

I don't think there will ever be a meaningful exchange until people let go of the emotion and stop all of the attacks. And learn how to use the reply/quote function properly.

Atheist pp again. You are not helping. Why not say, "I am troubled by the amount of violence in the world done in the name of religion" without saying "religion has had a net negative impact on humanity'. You have to realize that you are not winning anyone over with that crap. One describes a reasonable concern, the other writes off people's beliefs.

There will never be a reasonable discussion until you realize that for religious people, emotion is involved, faith is involved, life purposes are invloved

And frankly, it's immaterial to the validity of their beliefs. A lot of violence has been done in the name of love and no one denies it's existence. It's a weak argument that attempts to insult the believer.

I didn't make the comment - just surprised that it was called "mean".

Yup, guess no reasonable conversation if they cannot remove emotion and try to objectively look at the world.

That is a shockingly unempathic and narrow response to my comment but fine, fulfill their stereotypes of us.

+1

Oh atheists! Just stop! You're making it worse

[Anonymous]

That is a shockingly unempathic and narrow response to my comment but fine, fulfill their stereotypes of us.

Sorry. Running late. Will work on empathy next time...if there are less "turd" callers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

That is a shockingly unempathic and narrow response to my comment but fine, fulfill their stereotypes of us.

Sorry. Running late. Will work on empathy next time...if there are less "turd" callers.

Start working on it now. Perhaps people might take you seriously... just a thought!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

That is a shockingly unempathic and narrow response to my comment but fine, fulfill their stereotypes of us.

Sorry. Running late. Will work on empathy next time...if there are less "turd" callers.

p.s. Actual "mean behavior" = calling me a "bully" (for some else's point) and a "turd on a sidewalk". You know, personal attacks instead of PP ineloquently sharing an observation. If we're talking hypocritical messages here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

That is a shockingly unempathic and narrow response to my comment but fine, fulfill their stereotypes of us.

Sorry. Running late. Will work on empathy next time...if there are less "turd" callers.

p.s. Actual "mean behavior" = calling me a "bully" (for some else's point) and a "turd on a sidewalk". You know, personal attacks instead of PP ineloquently sharing an observation. If we're talking hypocritical messages here.

You really love that lol emoji, huh? You seem to be in an absolute fit of laughter here. It's kind of... amazing to watch.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

That is a shockingly unempathic and narrow response to my comment but fine, fulfill their stereotypes of us.

Sorry. Running late. Will work on empathy next time...if there are less "turd" callers.

You sound almost ... emotional and sensitive!

That whole line of thought is like a Gotcha game from that book Games People Play. Hey, I'm going to insult your most cherished beliefs and then call you "emotional" when you say it's offensive. The shortcoming with that poster is that most of us are mature enough to see that little playground game coming from a mile away. There seems to be bipartisan agreement, in fact.