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.

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.

+1

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

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: Telling someone that they're stupid for believing in God or that they're going to hell for not believing in God is not appropriate respectful communication.

Does that make sense?

***

No it does not make sense PP. You don't get to dictate what other people think. If an atheist thinks someone who believes in God is stupid for having that belief, the atheist is perfectly entitled to hold that opinion. If a religious person thinks someone will go to hell if they don't believe in God, then that's what they believe.

PP you're entitled to believe whatever you want and you're entitled to express it. What is it though with posters who insist on telling other people what opinions they aren't allowed to have?

So pp I know this isn't quite DIRECTLY relevent here but I do think the idea is pertinent.
[img]
http://gentlemint-media.s3.amazonaws.com/images/2014/04/18/6c8d92f1.png.650x650_q85.jpg[/img]

You are absolutely entitled to believe what you believe and to speak it out loud. I am not required to think you're intelligent, that your opinions are valid, that you are worth engaging at all actually. I believe the majority of posters here, both theist and atheist agree that you seem irrational angry and mean. Not all opinions are created equal unfortunately. Everyone can have one for sure, but people who don't put effort into having well formed opinions will never be as respected as those that do.

This is the last time I'm going to respond to you I think because arguing with you really serves no purpose. You will somehow interpret this as my saying you can't have an opinion without considering mine, which is ludicrous and not something I ever said. That's one thing that isn't up for debate! My knowledge of my own intentions!

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.

+1

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

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.

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.

+1

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

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why shouldn't religious beliefs be open to denigration if they're illogical? The Bible is illogical. It's contradictory. Why get upset pointing that out?

I don't think anyone gives a rat's behind if you point out that your opinion is that it's illogical and contradictory. Just like you probably wouldn't care if I pointed out that I think you have poor social skills. It's an opinion, after all. To each their own.

+1

Ok, so pointing out that someone just stated an "opinion" doesn't really answer the question they posed.

Why is religion untouchable? Why shouldn't religious beliefs be open to criticism and denigration? Islam being the most extreme example, but Christianity too.

Islam is no more or less illogical than Christianity, what a bigoted thing to say.

People debate religious theory and philosophy all the time, of course it is open to criticism. Anyone who asks for permission to 'denigrate' another person's beliefs (and atheism is absolutely a belief pp) before entering into discussion isn't really doing so in good faith, no pun intended.

You have no desire it seems to intellectually engage religion, you want to tear it down. You'll never have a productive conversation with that mindset. And I would be surprised if anyone religious took you seriously because you're not taking them seriously.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why shouldn't religious beliefs be open to denigration if they're illogical? The Bible is illogical. It's contradictory. Why get upset pointing that out?

I don't think anyone gives a rat's behind if you point out that your opinion is that it's illogical and contradictory. Just like you probably wouldn't care if I pointed out that I think you have poor social skills. It's an opinion, after all. To each their own.

+1

Ok, so pointing out that someone just stated an "opinion" doesn't really answer the question they posed.

Why is religion untouchable? Why shouldn't religious beliefs be open to criticism and denigration? Islam being the most extreme example, but Christianity too.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why shouldn't religious beliefs be open to denigration if they're illogical? The Bible is illogical. It's contradictory. Why get upset pointing that out?

I don't think anyone gives a rat's behind if you point out that your opinion is that it's illogical and contradictory. Just like you probably wouldn't care if I pointed out that I think you have poor social skills. It's an opinion, after all. To each their own.

+1

Ok, so pointing out that someone just stated an "opinion" doesn't really answer the question they posed.

Why is religion untouchable? Why shouldn't religious beliefs be open to criticism and denigration? Islam being the most extreme example, but Christianity too.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why shouldn't religious beliefs be open to denigration if they're illogical? The Bible is illogical. It's contradictory. Why get upset pointing that out?

I don't think anyone gives a rat's behind if you point out that your opinion is that it's illogical and contradictory. Just like you probably wouldn't care if I pointed out that I think you have poor social skills. It's an opinion, after all. To each their own.

+1

Anonymous wrote: Telling someone that they're stupid for believing in God or that they're going to hell for not believing in God is not appropriate respectful communication.

Does that make sense?

***

No it does not make sense PP. You don't get to dictate what other people think. If an atheist thinks someone who believes in God is stupid for having that belief, the atheist is perfectly entitled to hold that opinion. If a religious person thinks someone will go to hell if they don't believe in God, then that's what they believe.

PP you're entitled to believe whatever you want and you're entitled to express it. What is it though with posters who insist on telling other people what opinions they aren't allowed to have?

Anonymous wrote:

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?

+1

I'm pro usernames. I lieu of that (so Jeff can feed his kids) can people pick their own pseudonym? Or at least indicate if you are the OP or give a significant timestamp?

OP here

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why shouldn't religious beliefs be open to denigration if they're illogical? The Bible is illogical. It's contradictory. Why get upset pointing that out?

I don't think anyone gives a rat's behind if you point out that your opinion is that it's illogical and contradictory. Just like you probably wouldn't care if I pointed out that I think you have poor social skills. It's an opinion, after all. To each their own.

Anonymous wrote:while saying that atheists themselves should not participate in that conversation.


No one said that in the other thread. They said a particular atheist didn't have the right to insist that other people listen to his opinion before forming their own. Huge difference, eh?