Do "believers" only believe because they are conforming? [ATHEISTS ONLY]

[Anonymous]

It looks like there are several issues here.

One is trigger words. Things that are up for debate, might even be based in faith vs. objective reality, but aren't a part of conversation by anybody who wants to have a real conversation. Like, "all atheists are going to hell" (an evangelical here posts that).

Then there is the objectively non-verifiable, pointless abuse for its own sake. The poster's only goal is to hurt someone else. Things like "religion is a net negative" (from a recent thread) or religious people are "dumber" than atheists (also a frequent claim on DCUM). Sorry OP, but starting a thread that has no other purpose than mockery and is based on a single post buried in some other thread falls into that category, even though we can debate the success of your "parody."

Anybody who thinks the religious forum has a point besides hurling insults at each other would, in good faith,
- keep the thoughts in #1 to yourself
- be mature enough not to do #2.

I totally support user names.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Op here. It's actually gone better than expected. I think there were some thoughtful posts on topic. Interspersed by the theists throwing BS and venom. Which I completely expected. Just proves that they are too sensitive to discuss anything rationally.

The biggest relevation for me personally is that unhinged theists will stay unhinged and there isn't much point to engage productively. I mean, even the super patient, diplomatic atheist had no luck with any kind of civil discussion. They just pooped all over her sincere attempts. So going forward if I see some hateful posts come up on recent topics I'll just report to Jeff. It's not worth my time to do much more.

OP: Your assumption that everyone posting here is either "theist" or "atheist" as if these are two "opposing camps" is simplistic. Many of us are much more wishy-washy than that and have feet in both camps, although not necessarily described as "agnostic."

I find it interesting that you deliberately posted a "troll thread," got some strong reactions to it, assume that anything you regard as a nasty post must have been posted by a "theist" (because of your openly-admitted bias against "theists"), and then accuse these imagined "theists" as being "too sensitive."

Then you complain about "hateful posts" and running to the moderator.

So, do I have this correct? The imagined "theists" posting the "venom" are "too sensitive." Yet it's you OP who needs the moderator to create a "safe space" for you.

Do you see any contradiction in what you posted about who's "too sensitive," OP?

OP, you deliberately posted antagonistically expecting to start a throw-down with "theists" (although obviously who can determine who's posting what? You can't assume the "venom" posts are from "theists" just because you have a bias against theists and therefore assign as "theist posts" all the posts that hurt your feelings). You apparently think you got exactly what you wanted--flamed by "theists" (but again who knows if they're "flames" and who knows if they're from "theists"?) Now you want to go running to Mommy because you got a bloody nose.

Don't start "fights" you can't finish, OP. At least if you insist on trolling don't be so gutless about it.

9:09 here. Good post.

[Anonymous]

I think this whole "I have a right to state my opinion without your input" thing is way off-base.

A chat forum is about LISTENING to each other. Not about hurling insults and ducking for cover. Good grief.

Better would be a standard of civil discussion, based on, you know, promoting *listening* to each other.
-- Someone may think/believe you're going to hell, but what earthly purpose does it serve to tell a non-believer that?
-- Someone may think faith is "stupid" but be mature enough to withhold that opinion because they know it just shuts down conversation.

Now if the whole purpose of this forum is to shout insults and duck for cover, then it's a waste of time and cyberspace. Unfortunately that seems to be exactly what the unhinged atheist thinks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think this whole "I have a right to state my opinion without your input" thing is way off-base.

A chat forum is about LISTENING to each other. Not about hurling insults and ducking for cover. Good grief.

Better would be a standard of civil discussion, based on, you know, promoting *listening* to each other.
-- Someone may think/believe you're going to hell, but 1. what earthly purpose does it serve to tell a non-believer that?
-- Someone may think 2. faith is "stupid" but be mature enough to withhold that opinion because they know it just shuts down conversation.

Now if the whole purpose of this forum is to shout insults and duck for cover, then it's a waste of time and cyberspace. Unfortunately that seems to be exactly what the unhinged atheist thinks.

1. Fundamentalist Christians believe it's serving the very important purpose of giving non-believers (or non-Christians) a chance to change their beliefs and afford themselves of eternal life by proclaiming Jesus Christ as their savior.

2. Non-believers may have been released from what they consider to be the bondages of faith upon determining for themselves that "faith is stupid" and think that saying so on an anonymous forum may help others wrestling with the inconsistencies of faith to reach the same conclusion.

So it's not so cut and dry. We have a nice concept in the US of respecting others' religious beliefs, but it's really about respecting others' right to have divergent beliefs. We really do think some of the beliefs others hold are weird or wrong. This is understandable given that some religions teach that theirs is the only correct one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think this whole "I have a right to state my opinion without your input" thing is way off-base.

A chat forum is about LISTENING to each other. Not about hurling insults and ducking for cover. Good grief.

Better would be a standard of civil discussion, based on, you know, promoting *listening* to each other.
-- Someone may think/believe you're going to hell, but what earthly purpose does it serve to tell a non-believer that?
-- Someone may think faith is "stupid" but be mature enough to withhold that opinion because they know it just shuts down conversation.

Now if the whole purpose of this forum is to shout insults and duck for cover, then it's a waste of time and cyberspace. Unfortunately that seems to be exactly what the unhinged atheist thinks.

PS. I should add that "opinion" is so easily a cover for insults.

Case in point: Unhinged Atheist is arguing that her "opinion" is that faith is stupid and believers are stupider, so she's justified repeating this ad nauseum here. Even though, clearly, she has no purpose besides shutting down threads and getting up peoples' noses.

Which another reason why the test of "it's my opinion" fails. Not only do (1) adults realize sometimes their opinions don't contribute to discussions and can instead derail them, but (2) "it's my opinion" is a Trojan horse for the trolls here.

What to do instead? There seems to be general agreement here that belief/disbelief are not choices (contrary to the "conformist" posters on both sides). So treat people here like you'd treat anybody else who can't help being what they are. Do you insult your friend's short haircut if she can't grow it out tomorrow? Worse, do you you insult the person in the wheelchair? Oh wait. All of us knew that. Yet unhinged atheist and smug evangelical are incapable of doing it when religion is involved.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think this whole "I have a right to state my opinion without your input" thing is way off-base.

A chat forum is about LISTENING to each other. Not about hurling insults and ducking for cover. Good grief.

Better would be a standard of civil discussion, based on, you know, promoting *listening* to each other.
-- Someone may think/believe you're going to hell, but what earthly purpose does it serve to tell a non-believer that?
-- Someone may think faith is "stupid" but be mature enough to withhold that opinion because they know it just shuts down conversation.

Now if the whole purpose of this forum is to shout insults and duck for cover, then it's a waste of time and cyberspace. Unfortunately that seems to be exactly what the unhinged atheist thinks.

PS. I should add that "opinion" is so easily a cover for insults.

Case in point: Unhinged Atheist is arguing that her "opinion" is that faith is stupid and believers are stupider, so she's justified repeating this ad nauseum here. Even though, clearly, she has no purpose besides shutting down threads and getting up peoples' noses.

Which another reason why the test of "it's my opinion" fails. Not only do (1) adults realize sometimes their opinions don't contribute to discussions and can instead derail them, but (2) "it's my opinion" is a Trojan horse for the trolls here.

What to do instead? There seems to be general agreement here that belief/disbelief are not choices (contrary to the "conformist" posters on both sides). So treat people here like you'd treat anybody else who can't help being what they are. Do you insult your friend's short haircut if she can't grow it out tomorrow? Worse, do you you insult the person in the wheelchair? Oh wait. All of us knew that. Yet unhinged atheist and smug evangelical are incapable of doing it when religion is involved.

Which thread was that on? I missed it.

p.s. Usernames would definitely be helpful!

[Anonymous]

to 11:07 -- you can sign up for a user name here anytime.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think this whole "I have a right to state my opinion without your input" thing is way off-base.

A chat forum is about LISTENING to each other. Not about hurling insults and ducking for cover. Good grief.

Better would be a standard of civil discussion, based on, you know, promoting *listening* to each other.
-- Someone may think/believe you're going to hell, but 1. what earthly purpose does it serve to tell a non-believer that?
-- Someone may think 2. faith is "stupid" but be mature enough to withhold that opinion because they know it just shuts down conversation.

Now if the whole purpose of this forum is to shout insults and duck for cover, then it's a waste of time and cyberspace. Unfortunately that seems to be exactly what the unhinged atheist thinks.

1. Fundamentalist Christians believe it's serving the very important purpose of giving non-believers (or non-Christians) a chance to change their beliefs and afford themselves of eternal life by proclaiming Jesus Christ as their savior.

2. Non-believers may have been released from what they consider to be the bondages of faith upon determining for themselves that "faith is stupid" and think that saying so on an anonymous forum may help others wrestling with the inconsistencies of faith to reach the same conclusion.

So it's not so cut and dry. We have a nice concept in the US of respecting others' religious beliefs, but it's really about respecting others' right to have divergent beliefs. We really do think some of the beliefs others hold are weird or wrong. This is understandable given that some religions teach that theirs is the only correct one.

True, some of these posters may have a higher purpose.

But whenever a poster calls something "stupid" or another insult, I know they're not serious and are just trolling.

Would a "reasonable person" (legal test for fiduciaries and others) think they're going to persuade anybody here with bald statements about "you're going to hell" or "religion is stupid"? Of course not. Instead, the adults know to say something like, "I don't have s use for religion because I have never felt the presence of a god." Or whatever. If you sincerely believe religion is stupid, you ar my going to say it in those words if you want to convince anybody. If you're trolling, let's not give you the cover of calling it your "opinion."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:to 11:07 -- you can sign up for a user name here anytime.

But when PP refers to a particular poster it's not clear who he means. It seems like he's blending different into one. I think usernames would cut down on the generalizations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:to 11:07 -- you can sign up for a user name here anytime.

But when PP refers to a particular poster it's not clear who he means. It seems like he's blending different into one. I think usernames would cut down on the generalizations.

^ OP here. Forgot to mention that today. Sorry. Hungover.

[Anonymous]

Diplomatic atheist here. I'm still not convinced unhinged atheist is an atheist. They were giving me an inordinately hard time about my positions as well. I think they are generally extremely contrary.

Remember Josh Duggar was a super conservative Christian in real life and a cheating womanizer online. Anonymous online forums bring out the worst in people. That poster seems very unhappy and their primary goal appears to be trying to push people's buttons.

Not saying they AREN'T am atheist of course, but they appear to be arguing both sides of the fence depending on their adversary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Diplomatic atheist here. I'm still not convinced unhinged atheist is an atheist. [i]They were giving me an inordinately hard time about my positions as well.[b] I think they are generally extremely contrary.

Remember Josh Duggar was a super conservative Christian in real life and a cheating womanizer online. Anonymous online forums bring out the worst in people. That poster seems very unhappy and their primary goal appears to be trying to push people's buttons.

Not saying they AREN'T am atheist of course, but they appear to be arguing both sides of the fence depending on their adversary.

Which threads/posts?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Diplomatic atheist here. I'm still not convinced unhinged atheist is an atheist. They were giving me an inordinately hard time about my positions as well. I think they are generally extremely contrary.

Remember Josh Duggar was a super conservative Christian in real life and a cheating womanizer online. Anonymous online forums bring out the worst in people. That poster seems very unhappy and their primary goal appears to be trying to push people's buttons.

Not saying they AREN'T am atheist of course, but they appear to be arguing both sides of the fence depending on their adversary.

I think unhinged atheist is the atheist who has a short temper and is extremely immature; there's certainly an atheist like this here, although I notice that in the past day or two (only recently) she's been lying low, probably because the moderator is checking out users and usernames for this forum. I'm fairly certain this is also Groundhog, who is a bigoted, extremely abusive troll who is under the unhinged delusion that posters have a Fatal Attraction-like obsession with her. But without usernames I can't make a positive ID.

Whoever it is, and whatever her belief, she loves to argue, that's for sure. Whether it's by insults, or twisting your logic, or straight-up lies, she uses all the tricks in order to fan the flames and keep the anger going.

Usernames would help! In fact, this is the poster I'd most like to see exposed and discredited for the serial troll, sleazeball and nutcase she is (that's my "opinion"). I know Evangelical poster when I see her, because her tone and message are objectionable but consistent and straight-forward. Unhinged Atheist is a shape-shifter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:to 11:07 -- you can sign up for a user name here anytime.

The problem is, the posters with good intentions will do this. Unhinged Atheist won't, and I also suspect her of sock-puppetting herself. Anybody who wants to say something mean and then return under a username with a reasonable persona will just log out, flame someone up, and then log back on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:to 11:07 -- you can sign up for a user name here anytime.

The problem is, the posters with good intentions will do this. Unhinged Atheist won't, and I also suspect her of sock-puppetting herself. Anybody who wants to say something mean and then return under a username with a reasonable persona will just log out, flame someone up, and then log back on.

PP, if you really want to advocate for civility in these threads, why don't you start with yourself and stop using terms like "unhinged atheist"? Also, anyone advocating for user names should not post again until they themselves get one.

Otherwise, shut the fuck up, you're all a bunch of juvenile hypocrites.