Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"But I have to admit that much more than this poster's craziness, I am troubled by the silence of the posters I was discussing this with yesterday calling on me to criticize my fellow atheists (which I did multiple times when I thought they were out of line) and yet virtually no one has tried to get this looney tunes under control. What is that?"

"craziness," "looney tunes"--why don't you learn how to think? What's with the constant resort to silly name calling?

You are unbelievably aggressive, rude, and condescending gaslighter.

You also picked probably the most reasonable and nicest atheist to argue with which is really peculiar but I'm also not a pushover. You are hostile, I won't pretend you're not just to be polite.

+1. I'm a theist who's trying to rein in the more obnoxious theists here (I've been at lunch so I missed this most recent mess). I'm having a hard time figuring out who's who. But I think you're arguing with the most obnoxious atheist here. If we could vote someone off the forum, it would me that atheist before even the rude evangelical. At least the rude evangelical is a straight shooter. This atheist is so very twisty and aggressive.

PS this whole thread is an argument for usernames.

PPS. I think nobody else has weighed in because nobody else can figure out what's going on. Is this last page two atheists arguing?

I'm not convinced these trolls are actually atheists. They seem to just want to argue and be mean to whomever is engaging them. They are arguing with me about whether or not atheism even makes sense. They're just contrary.

How could it possibly make any sense to believe that the existence of evil in the world implies that there is no God? Do you actually think the theists posting here, who believe in God, don't believe there is evil in the world because there is God?

Is that what a lot of atheists actually think? That the presence of evil in the world implies there is no god? That can't possibly be the case since it makes no sense. How would the absence of evil in the world imply that there is a God?

Good implies evil, evil implies good. They are two sides of the same coin, opposite poles of a bar magnet.

If a person's reason for not believing in God is that there is evil in the world, then that assumes that God if he exists is good; but the existence of good implies the existence of evil as its counterpoint; and that there is evil in the world, implies the existence of good; then the existence of evil in the world implies the existence of its opposite, good, which implies the existence of God.

Therefore the argument that there is evil in the world, therefore God does not exist, contradicts itself, and therefore is not a sound basis for non-belief in God. None of which mean god exists. It means you need a better argument then to say you don't believe in god because there is evil in the world.

Ignoring the BS of the last however many pages...

I think that spirituality, like a lot of other stuff, is hugely influenced by what a person experiences related to it in childhood. Not for everyone, and not the same way, but in general, I think that if you are raised in a particular spiritual tradition, the easiest path is staying within it. You have a model for how to bring children into it, how to answer questions about faith, etc. as well as a community with norms that are familiar. I think people debating faith often gloss over the social importance of church attendance in many communities when discussing people's spiritual behavior.

I was not raised in any particular tradition. We didn't go to church at all as a kid, and while my mom is a practicing Christian now, she has made it very clear that there's no pressure on any family member to participate with her. Her husband (my stepdad) isn't a Christian, and I've been t church with her maybe 3x in 10 years. I find church peaceful and meditative, but being there doesn't feel like a religious experience for me and it's not my community. I didn't consider what church to join when I moved and my husband and I were married in a civil ceremony, not a religious one.

I don't think it's about conformity or nonconformity for people who aren't ostentatious about their faith (and I'm including militant atheists in that category - I suppose if asked to pick from a list. I'd pick atheist over other options because I don't believe in God but it's not a core part of my identity). I think the people who really have an axe to grind about the existence or nonexistence of a supreme being are all conformist in their own ways. Of the atheists I've met who fit that description, most of them have had some scarring experience with religion, whether it be growing up in a restrictive religious home or some other trauma that caused them to lose faith. The person I know who was most militantly atheist lost her very Catholic mother when she was about 12 and as a result of that experience, she believes that God cannot exist.

"Well I assumed that a few posts made in a row in the same style were made by you and at least a couple of them criticised the logic of someone not believing in god because bad things happen and turned it around to say that was actually questioning god. That seemed like a religious mindset from which to make an argument. If you don't believe in god that's fine but then I'm really confused by your motivations for posting so angrily."

Of course it's easy to criticize the logic of someone who doesn't believe in God because bad things happen. Criticizing that logic doesn't mean the critic is a theist and it doesn't mean the critic is an atheist. It means the critic values logical thought.

Anonymous wrote:"I am the atheist in those quotes, you intentionally left out the quote I wad originally responding to of course. The one which asked why atheists were even commenting on the post at all."

That's right. A perfectly legitimate question which some atheist or other (I don't know if it was you, who can tell?) responded with snark, to the effect that the reason atheists supposedly want to participate in such discussion is specifically to tell other people what should and should not inform those others' opinions; and that if those others choose not to entertain an atheists' viewpoints, that those others' opinions are illegitimate.

Well, sorry to break the news to you, but no one needs to hear your opinion about anything before formulating their own opinion. It's optional. If a person thinks they kind of know how atheists think based on input in the past from many different other atheists, then perhaps they really DON'T need your particular point of view. But you know what? That's not YOUR call to make. You get to state your own opinions. You don't get to impose conditions on the formulation of someone else's opinion.

So, the only reason for atheists to participate in the discussion is not to state their own opinion as part of the discussion, but to tell other people why the atheist thinks the other person is wrong.

And that's what motivated the current thread. It's not really a mockery thread. This thread is a straight ahead admission of how most atheists view the world: "We don't want to listen to what other people think. We've already decided. Don't post here."

Look up and down all of the posts in that other thread, of which this one is supposed to be a mocking, and show me anywhere that anyone stated that an atheist couldn't post whatever they wanted to post, anywhere.

What burns the OP up is simply knowing that they have no right to force their opinions down anyone else's throat.

Well, they don't.

Nor do you.

+1

I think it's safe to say this thread has not turned out how OP envisioned. LOL!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"But I have to admit that much more than this poster's craziness, I am troubled by the silence of the posters I was discussing this with yesterday calling on me to criticize my fellow atheists (which I did multiple times when I thought they were out of line) and yet virtually no one has tried to get this looney tunes under control. What is that?"

"craziness," "looney tunes"--why don't you learn how to think? What's with the constant resort to silly name calling?

You are unbelievably aggressive, rude, and condescending gaslighter.

You also picked probably the most reasonable and nicest atheist to argue with which is really peculiar but I'm also not a pushover. You are hostile, I won't pretend you're not just to be polite.

Stop the name calling. Learn how to think. Learn how to read. Stop insulting people, and maybe someone will start paying attention to you.

Anonymous wrote:I think it's amazing that you feel entitled to read into my posts to say that I have 'implied' that my personal opinion is critical for you to form your opinions (not my intended statement at all FWIW) while simultaneously being grossly offended that we interpreted your posts as saying that we shouldn't feel welcome to post on a religious forum.

Personally I think the leap we made is more logical than the leap you made but if you care that was not my intended implication.

I did reply a little snarkily because I thought your post was disrespectful and mean. I did not call anyone a profanity though. I do think that someone who forms an opinion about something without spending any time with any source material (on literally any subject) doesn't have a particularly sound opinion so maybe you were half right on that. But I do not think so highly of myself to think that my personal thoughts are the be all end all of atheist thought, that would be ridiculous considering there isn't even an underlying unifying foundation to atheism.

You can think whatever you want. But once again, what you actually are saying is that you are amazed I can interpret your posts as I choose. Once again--you don't think other people are entitled to formulate their own opinions. Of course I am "entitled" to read anything I want into your posts. I'm not offended at how you interpreted my posts, I just pointed out that no one ever told you not to post anything you wanted, anywhere you wanted.

I can post whatever I want, so can you. You don't get to tell me what to think, I don't get to tell you what to think. It doesn't bother me, but it sure seems to bother you.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"But I have to admit that much more than this poster's craziness, I am troubled by the silence of the posters I was discussing this with yesterday calling on me to criticize my fellow atheists (which I did multiple times when I thought they were out of line) and yet virtually no one has tried to get this looney tunes under control. What is that?"

"craziness," "looney tunes"--why don't you learn how to think? What's with the constant resort to silly name calling?

You are unbelievably aggressive, rude, and condescending gaslighter.

You also picked probably the most reasonable and nicest atheist to argue with which is really peculiar but I'm also not a pushover. You are hostile, I won't pretend you're not just to be polite.

+1. I'm a theist who's trying to rein in the more obnoxious theists here (I've been at lunch so I missed this most recent mess). I'm having a hard time figuring out who's who. But I think you're arguing with the most obnoxious atheist here. If we could vote someone off the forum, it would me that atheist before even the rude evangelical. At least the rude evangelical is a straight shooter. This atheist is so very twisty and aggressive.

PS this whole thread is an argument for usernames.

PPS. I think nobody else has weighed in because nobody else can figure out what's going on. Is this last page two atheists arguing?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"But I have to admit that much more than this poster's craziness, I am troubled by the silence of the posters I was discussing this with yesterday calling on me to criticize my fellow atheists (which I did multiple times when I thought they were out of line) and yet virtually no one has tried to get this looney tunes under control. What is that?"

"craziness," "looney tunes"--why don't you learn how to think? What's with the constant resort to silly name calling?

You are unbelievably aggressive, rude, and condescending gaslighter.

You also picked probably the most reasonable and nicest atheist to argue with which is really peculiar but I'm also not a pushover. You are hostile, I won't pretend you're not just to be polite.

+1. I'm a theist who's trying to rein in the more obnoxious theists here (I've been at lunch so I missed this most recent mess). I'm having a hard time figuring out who's who. But I think you're arguing with the most obnoxious atheist here. If we could vote someone off the forum, it would me that atheist before even the rude evangelical. At least the rude evangelical is a straight shooter. This atheist is so very twisty and aggressive.

PS this whole thread is an argument for usernames.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"But I have to admit that much more than this poster's craziness, I am troubled by the silence of the posters I was discussing this with yesterday calling on me to criticize my fellow atheists (which I did multiple times when I thought they were out of line) and yet virtually no one has tried to get this looney tunes under control. What is that?"

"craziness," "looney tunes"--why don't you learn how to think? What's with the constant resort to silly name calling?

You are unbelievably aggressive, rude, and condescending gaslighter.

You also picked probably the most reasonable and nicest atheist to argue with which is really peculiar but I'm also not a pushover. You are hostile, I won't pretend you're not just to be polite.

+1. I'm a theist who's trying to rein in the more obnoxious theists here (I've been at lunch so I missed this most recent mess). I'm having a hard time figuring out who's who. But I think you're arguing with the most obnoxious atheist here. If we could vote someone off the forum, it would me that atheist before even the rude evangelical. At least the rude evangelical is a straight shooter. This atheist is so very twisty and aggressive.

Anonymous wrote:"But I have to admit that much more than this poster's craziness, I am troubled by the silence of the posters I was discussing this with yesterday calling on me to criticize my fellow atheists (which I did multiple times when I thought they were out of line) and yet virtually no one has tried to get this looney tunes under control. What is that?"

"craziness," "looney tunes"--why don't you learn how to think? What's with the constant resort to silly name calling?

Exactly. Just like some lovely poster on the other thread calling people "turds" and "children".

Anonymous wrote:"But I have to admit that much more than this poster's craziness, I am troubled by the silence of the posters I was discussing this with yesterday calling on me to criticize my fellow atheists (which I did multiple times when I thought they were out of line) and yet virtually no one has tried to get this looney tunes under control. What is that?"

"craziness," "looney tunes"--why don't you learn how to think? What's with the constant resort to silly name calling?

You are unbelievably aggressive, rude, and condescending gaslighter.

You also picked probably the most reasonable and nicest atheist to argue with which is really peculiar but I'm also not a pushover. You are hostile, I won't pretend you're not just to be polite.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"I am the atheist in those quotes, you intentionally left out the quote I wad originally responding to of course. The one which asked why atheists were even commenting on the post at all."

That's right. A perfectly legitimate question which some atheist or other (I don't know if it was you, who can tell?) responded with snark, to the effect that the reason atheists supposedly want to participate in such discussion is specifically to tell other people what should and should not inform those others' opinions; and that if those others choose not to entertain an atheists' viewpoints, that those others' opinions are illegitimate.

Well, sorry to break the news to you, but no one needs to hear your opinion about anything before formulating their own opinion. It's optional. If a person thinks they kind of know how atheists think based on input in the past from many different other atheists, then perhaps they really DON'T need your particular point of view. But you know what? That's not YOUR call to make. You get to state your own opinions. You don't get to impose conditions on the formulation of someone else's opinion.

So, the only reason for atheists to participate in the discussion is not to state their own opinion as part of the discussion, but to tell other people why the atheist thinks the other person is wrong.

And that's what motivated the current thread. It's not really a mockery thread. This thread is a straight ahead admission of how most atheists view the world: "We don't want to listen to what other people think. We've already decided. Don't post here."

Look up and down all of the posts in that other thread, of which this one is supposed to be a mocking, and show me anywhere that anyone stated that an atheist couldn't post whatever they wanted to post, anywhere.

What burns the OP up is simply knowing that they have no right to force their opinions down anyone else's throat.

Well, they don't.

Nor do you.

I responded to this as well of course:

I never said you weren't entitled to an opinion. I said that someone truly interested in knowing how another person ticked would want to get feedback from that person. Of course they can have an opinion or hypothesis without having that conversation but IMO the more informed I am the better my opinion is.

You're in the minority among religious people I believe with this rambling nonsense so I'm not going to use this exchange to inform my view of religious people.

But I have to admit that much more than this poster's craziness, I am troubled by the silence of the posters I was discussing this with yesterday calling on me to criticize my fellow atheists (which I did multiple times when I thought they were out of line) and yet virtually no one has tried to get this looney tunes under control. What is that?

What even makes you think I'm religious? As an atheist, do you think anyone who disagrees with you self-identifies as religious? Are you serious?

Well I assumed that a few posts made in a row in the same style were made by you and at least a couple of them criticised the logic of someone not believing in god because bad things happen and turned it around to say that was actually questioning god. That seemed like a religious mindset from which to make an argument. If you don't believe in god that's fine but then I'm really confused by your motivations for posting so angrily.

I think it's amazing that you feel entitled to read into my posts to say that I have 'implied' that my personal opinion is critical for you to form your opinions (not my intended statement at all FWIW) while simultaneously being grossly offended that we interpreted your posts as saying that we shouldn't feel welcome to post on a religious forum.

Personally I think the leap we made is more logical than the leap you made but if you care that was not my intended implication.

I did reply a little snarkily because I thought your post was disrespectful and mean. I did not call anyone a profanity though. I do think that someone who forms an opinion about something without spending any time with any source material (on literally any subject) doesn't have a particularly sound opinion so maybe you were half right on that. But I do not think so highly of myself to think that my personal thoughts are the be all end all of atheist thought, that would be ridiculous considering there isn't even an underlying unifying foundation to atheism.

I've got it! Since unhinged theist is clearly engaging in gaslighting, how about we just call him/her Gaslighter? So it's Gaslighter vs Groundhog!