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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Were there any recent threads posts actually calling religion/believers stupid?

I remember a "nonsense" post - was that it?

.........crickets........

What's your username? It took me less than 15 seconds to find this on a Christmas thread:

"That's funny. I've always thought that religious people were trying to fill some personal void with religion - loneliness, lack of moral direction, etc. Sounds like you have some kind of inferiority complex. Maybe you really need a shrink instead of a priest. Anyway, we will continue to enjoy holiday fun in our contented, full lives. Hope you eventually find whatever it is you need."

We all know there's tons of stuff like this on these boards.

Nobody is going to waste hours making lists just because you snap your fingers. Please. But that's nothing like proof it never happened.

-- Liberal theist

Sorry, that certainly wasn't a kindly-worded, diplomatic post but I don't see any reference to "stupid" that PPs were fixated on. What was the preceding post? Was that a kindly-worded theist post? Oh wait. No it wasn't....to put it into context...

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can do it, sure. But I will look down on you. Because you clearly pathetically want in on something you don't and will never have. You are on the outside looking in, whether you like it or not.

But, I suppose scraps are better than nothing. So fine, take the scraps.

That's funny. I've always thought that religious people were trying to fill some personal void with religion - loneliness, lack of moral direction, etc. Sounds like you have some kind of inferiority complex. Maybe you really need a shrink instead of a priest.

Anyway, we will continue to enjoy holiday fun in our contented, full lives. Hope you eventually find whatever it is you need.

Nothing about intelligence/stupidity. Just questioning the scraps poster's mental health.

Let's lay it out for you. Nobody is going to spend hours compiling lists for some gaslighting (OP) and immature (14:55) atheists, some of whom won't even identify themselves with handles. You all know that you're abusive. We know you're abusive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Liberal theist here. Ok then.... And what did you say your own username was?

You seem a little threatened by the idea of usernames. Care to share why?

Not threatened at all. Go get your username and come back and post again.

Liberal theist here--again. Sorry, didn't catch your username!?

Here's the poster known as Groundhog being a bigoted troll in a thread started by somebody asking a question about Catholicism: http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/165/517170.page

I'm not catholic, but I think exposing posters like this via usernames would a good thing. Same for any religious haters. If you have a username, then you're the only person responsible for discrediting yourself.

So if you feel that way, practice what you preach and get a username.

For all anyone knows, "groundhog" is your sock puppet.

Nice try though.

+1

Liberal theist here. Please, the moderator can verify I'm not that Groundhog.

I ask again: why are you so opposed to usernames?

As I've said many times, I'm pro usernames. -OP

Are you PP? If so, where's your username, and how do we know you're not Groundhog?

If you're not PP, then we agree.

- Liberal theist

I'm the +1 you responded to. I'm not the groundhog. Ask Jeff. Sure you aren't the groundhog??? You sure seem obsessed with her. Again, let's all get usernames to clear it up. -op

OP, calling people Groundhog and "obsessed" makes you part of the problem. I'm not the first to point this out, but I heartily second or third the criticisms of your own behavior.

See? All I need to know is that you're OP, and then I remember you're the type to play word games like bringing up groundhog and then, when somebody responds, you say, "gotcha, you're obsessed!" Yup, I've got your number all right.

-- liberal theist

Not the groundhog. Sorry to disappoint. And there are multiple people posting now. I didn't post the busted one or a few of the others.

I promise to step back from the religion threads if you restrict the hostile atheist hater(s).

Many examples, lots of charming posts on page 17:
http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/240/608392.page

He also went off on a very reasonable, diplomatic atheist which is why he was referred to as "unhinged theist" but maybe he's not religious? It's not clear. Was he also the OP of the nonconformist thread? That'd be interesting to determine.

OP

[Anonymous]

Dear moderator:

Here's a case study of how anonymous trolls have driven everybody from this thread except me. And I'm leaving now.

There isn't much action on other Religion forum threads at the moment, either. I'd venture that it's because this is what other users expect.

I think making the cowards above take usernames would help a lot.

Signed, liberal theist

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Were there any recent threads posts actually calling religion/believers stupid?

I remember a "nonsense" post - was that it?

.........crickets........

What's your username? It took me less than 15 seconds to find this on a Christmas thread:

"That's funny. I've always thought that religious people were trying to fill some personal void with religion - loneliness, lack of moral direction, etc. Sounds like you have some kind of inferiority complex. Maybe you really need a shrink instead of a priest. Anyway, we will continue to enjoy holiday fun in our contented, full lives. Hope you eventually find whatever it is you need."

We all know there's tons of stuff like this on these boards.

Nobody is going to waste hours making lists just because you snap your fingers. Please. But that's nothing like proof it never happened.

-- Liberal theist

Sorry, that certainly wasn't a kindly-worded, diplomatic post but I don't see any reference to "stupid" that PPs were fixated on. What was the preceding post? Was that a kindly-worded theist post? Oh wait. No it wasn't....to put it into context...

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can do it, sure. But I will look down on you. Because you clearly pathetically want in on something you don't and will never have. You are on the outside looking in, whether you like it or not.

But, I suppose scraps are better than nothing. So fine, take the scraps.

That's funny. I've always thought that religious people were trying to fill some personal void with religion - loneliness, lack of moral direction, etc. Sounds like you have some kind of inferiority complex. Maybe you really need a shrink instead of a priest.

Anyway, we will continue to enjoy holiday fun in our contented, full lives. Hope you eventually find whatever it is you need.

Nothing about intelligence/stupidity. Just questioning the scraps poster's mental health.

Let's lay it out for you. Nobody is going to spend hours compiling lists for some gaslighting (OP) and immature (14:55) atheists, some of whom won't even identify themselves with handles. You all know that you're abusive. We know you're abusive.

Ok, so no stupid posts. Got it. Maybe you should change your message. Or realize that there are many different posters over many different threads. Please don't lump us all together into a singular mystical foe.

Was the scraps poster "abusive"?

What do you think about the abusive poster on page 17? Any outrage there?

OP

[Anonymous]

Guys, just go get handles and start another thread using them. I'll go do that.

Or arrange to Meetup if you're all in the DMV. That would be a hoot of a social experiment!

-- NP Atheist who hasnt logged in since 21:21 yesterday, so surprised we're still debating if we should get usernames or not

[Anonymous]

I have a new proposal: take religion out of recent topics. You won't get righteous atheists popping in. Go ahead and have your hateful discussions in peace. Just like the nutters on politics.

OP

[Anonymous]

Not the groundhog. Sorry to disappoint. And there are multiple people posting now. I didn't post the busted one or a few of the others.

I promise to step back from the religion threads if you restrict the hostile atheist hater(s).

Many examples, lots of charming posts on page 17:
http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/240/608392.page

He also went off on a very reasonable, diplomatic atheist which is why he was referred to as "unhinged theist" but maybe he's not religious? It's not clear. Was he also the OP of the nonconformist thread? That'd be interesting to determine.

OP

This is a confusing use of the term "atheist hater." Do you mean someone who is a "hater," and the people they hate are "atheists"? Or do you mean someone who is a "hater", who is ALSO an "atheist"?

Just wondering.

---The Porky Pine

[Anonymous]

Ok, so no stupid posts. Got it. Maybe you should change your message. Or realize that there are many different posters over many different threads. Please don't lump us all together into a singular mystical foe.

Was the scraps poster "abusive"?

What do you think about the abusive poster on page 17? Any outrage there?

OP

That would be me.

--Cthulu-hog

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Liberal theist here. Ok then.... And what did you say your own username was?

You seem a little threatened by the idea of usernames. Care to share why?

Not threatened at all. Go get your username and come back and post again.

Liberal theist here--again. Sorry, didn't catch your username!?

Here's the poster known as Groundhog being a bigoted troll in a thread started by somebody asking a question about Catholicism: http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/165/517170.page

I'm not catholic, but I think exposing posters like this via usernames would a good thing. Same for any religious haters. If you have a username, then you're the only person responsible for discrediting yourself.

So if you feel that way, practice what you preach and get a username.

For all anyone knows, "groundhog" is your sock puppet.

Nice try though.

+1

Liberal theist here. Please, the moderator can verify I'm not that Groundhog.

I ask again: why are you so opposed to usernames?

You're pretty stubborn, aren't you, woodchuck? (Not groundhog.)

You keep asking why OTHER people are "against user names" yet mysteriously, haven't gone out and gotten yourself a user name yet.

It would seem that before you can point the finger at others for not having user names, you should lead by example and get one yourself.

No one is against you getting yourself a user name, hedgehog.

There's no point in liberal theist getting a username if no one else does. It needs to be a forum wide policy not just one or two rational posters getting usernames. That would do literally noting to stop trolls.

-diplomatic atheist

[Anonymous]

trolls can be reported, or ignored. User names not needed for that.

Why would a troll do something to make it easier for people to recognize him?

[Anonymous]

Folks - look at the last few posts. You can *give yourself a handle without offially registering* so why don't we just start there? Sign your posts L, and everyone agrees to ignore unsigned ones. It's a username system that's not enforced by the database, so subject to masquerading but without the risk of creating a noticeable barrier to entry that will discourage participation. At last worth a try.

-Needs A Handle

[Anonymous]

Stinking phone typos. Sorry. Should check before posting.

-Needs A Handle

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Folks - look at the last few posts. You can *give yourself a handle without offially registering* so why don't we just start there? Sign your posts L, and everyone agrees to ignore unsigned ones. It's a username system that's not enforced by the database, so subject to masquerading but without the risk of creating a noticeable barrier to entry that will discourage participation. At last worth a try.

-Needs A Handle

Who is "everyone" and why should they agree to ignore unsigned ones?

Why can't you and the people who agree with you get your user names, and play with each other if that's what you want to do, and you can all ignore anyone you want to ignore? Why does "everyone" have to play your middle school games?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Folks - look at the last few posts. You can *give yourself a handle without offially registering* so why don't we just start there? Sign your posts L, and everyone agrees to ignore unsigned ones. It's a username system that's not enforced by the database, so subject to masquerading but without the risk of creating a noticeable barrier to entry that will discourage participation. At last worth a try.

-Needs A Handle

those who want to do this, can, obviously. I can see the benefits, but also drawbacks. Trolls are easy enough to avoid. Just ignore them. quell the urge to engage just like you quell the urge to give your bank account # to the Nigerian prince who emails you. You can walk away from unpleasant people here in a way you can't IRL.

While anonymous interaction can be confusing and can get rough at times, it also allows for a bluntness and honesty not available IRL, because people WOULD walk away. It's a trade off.

[Anonymous]

I feel like diplomatic atheist makes me sound like I'm really high on myself so I'm just going to note that I'm going to hereby refer to myself as the amiable atheist whenever I post in the religious forum, regardless of whether or not other posters adopt these techniques

-AA