Anonymous wrote:

“The trick is to rise above” just excuses the constant insults. No, the moderator didn’t create this forum so one group can insult the other with impunity. The proof is that he deletes the insults.

If you “don’t know any” atheists who use insults here, then either you joined this forum today, or you’re part of the crowd that thinks “fairy tales/ Christofacism” aren’t insults but just statements of facts. That’s not an honest position and you know it as well as everybody else here, and as well as the moderator, who deletes all the insults.

I doubt very much OP was talking about people who simply say “I’m an atheist.” Nobody here cares—TPK hat’s why you’ve talked about your atheism a dozen times on this thread yet your (insult-free) posts are still up. It’s all about the insults.

But hey, stop arguing with me about the purity and “thoughtfulness” of the deleted atheist posts. And stop whining. Just ask the moderator why he deleted these putatively, insult-free, totally on-topic posts.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To answer the original question:

It's not an atheist thing or a Christian thing. It's a people thing. Some people simply want to share what they believe to be the truth with others so they too can enjoy the wonderful life one is living within their belief system.

Others, on the other hand, are more private about their religious or nonreligious beliefs.

Seems like you have simply run into some atheists who would like to share with you. Not unusual. One runs into Christians with the same idea all the time.

To some extent.

But some religions actively encourage their believers to proselytize.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Any atheists want to address this semantic question about whether atheists’ insults=conversion? I’m actually open on this. Sometimes down-in-the-mud is just down-in-the mud, where people who have an emotional need to insult/bully others end up.

It looks like you just want to keep whining about how you can’t abuse people with impunity, or derail threads, though.

Insults are not necessary when discussing one's lack of belief, and anyone who does that weakens their own position and risks not being taken seriously.

Please note the very fact that non-insulting posts expressing non-belief were deleted from this very thread. If that doesn't tell you how hard it is to be taken seriously as a non-believer, than nothing will. Using insults just makes being shut down easier. We must take the high road, always.

Look, the moderator is an atheist. Also, the moderator doesn’t delete stuff just because it’s reported—he wouldn’t have a Political forum if that were the case.

Despite your pretense of innocence, you obviously did something.
— phony definition of “insult” that you use to justify insulting people. I’ve actually seen posters argue here that “fairytales” isn’t an insult because they insist religion really is fairytales.
— derailing a thread with some version of the long whinge you’re posting here, when everybody is telling you to start your own thread. This is why you got deleted? You guys derail all the time (as if you hate to see religious people discussing religion or something), and I guess I’ll pretend to believe that you weren’t insulting anybody. So this is my bet.

Notably, you guys are all over the feedback forum, but right now you aren’t there asking Jeff why he deleted your so-called innocent post.

Did he explicitly say that? I don't get that impression.

Anonymous wrote:To answer the original question:

It's not an atheist thing or a Christian thing. It's a people thing. Some people simply want to share what they believe to be the truth with others so they too can enjoy the wonderful life one is living within their belief system.

Others, on the other hand, are more private about their religious or nonreligious beliefs.

Seems like you have simply run into some atheists who would like to share with you. Not unusual. One runs into Christians with the same idea all the time.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Any atheists want to address this semantic question about whether atheists’ insults=conversion? I’m actually open on this. Sometimes down-in-the-mud is just down-in-the mud, where people who have an emotional need to insult/bully others end up.

It looks like you just want to keep whining about how you can’t abuse people with impunity, or derail threads, though.

Insults are not necessary when discussing one's lack of belief, and anyone who does that weakens their own position and risks not being taken seriously.

Please note the very fact that non-insulting posts expressing non-belief were deleted from this very thread. If that doesn't tell you how hard it is to be taken seriously as a non-believer, than nothing will. Using insults just makes being shut down easier. We must take the high road, always.

Look, the moderator is an atheist. Also, the moderator doesn’t delete stuff just because it’s reported—he wouldn’t have a Political forum if that were the case.

Despite your pretense of innocence, you obviously did something.
— phony definition of “insult” that you use to justify insulting people. I’ve actually seen posters argue here that “fairytales” isn’t an insult because they insist religion really is fairytales.
— derailing a thread with some version of the long whinge you’re posting here, when everybody is telling you to start your own thread. This is why you got deleted? You guys derail all the time (as if you hate to see religious people discussing religion or something), and I guess I’ll pretend to believe that you weren’t insulting anybody. So this is my bet.

Notably, you guys are all over the feedback forum, but right now you aren’t there asking Jeff why he deleted your so-called innocent post.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Any atheists want to address this semantic question about whether atheists’ insults=conversion? I’m actually open on this. Sometimes down-in-the-mud is just down-in-the mud, where people who have an emotional need to insult/bully others end up.

It looks like you just want to keep whining about how you can’t abuse people with impunity, or derail threads, though.

Insults are not necessary when discussing one's lack of belief, and anyone who does that weakens their own position and risks not being taken seriously.

Please note the very fact that non-insulting posts expressing non-belief were deleted from this very thread. If that doesn't tell you how hard it is to be taken seriously as a non-believer, than nothing will. Using insults just makes being shut down easier. We must take the high road, always.

Insults are used here, and often. But suppose we play along and pretend you’re the only atheist who doesn’t use insults, legit. Many others here do.

So I go back to OP’s question: is an insult an attempt at conversion?

Insults are used because this is the internet, and "no one knows you're a dog" as the saying goes. This topic isn't special. The trick is to rise above.

And no, I am not "the only atheist who doesn’t use insults", in fact I don't know any who do, for the reason I listed: Using an insult is a perfect excuse for someone to turn you off. I do admit people on both sides of this issue do. It's like being told we're going to hell - pointless, unprovable, and does not advance any discussion.

As for "is an insult an attempt at conversion"? I think that question is a non-sequitur. They are unrelated.

I'm more interested in the question: "Is expressing your opinion and statement of belief or non-belief an attempt at conversion"? I would say no, it is not, for either.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Any atheists want to address this semantic question about whether atheists’ insults=conversion? I’m actually open on this. Sometimes down-in-the-mud is just down-in-the mud, where people who have an emotional need to insult/bully others end up.

It looks like you just want to keep whining about how you can’t abuse people with impunity, or derail threads, though.

Insults are not necessary when discussing one's lack of belief, and anyone who does that weakens their own position and risks not being taken seriously.

Please note the very fact that non-insulting posts expressing non-belief were deleted from this very thread. If that doesn't tell you how hard it is to be taken seriously as a non-believer, than nothing will. Using insults just makes being shut down easier. We must take the high road, always.

Insults are used here, and often. But suppose we play along and pretend you’re the only atheist who doesn’t use insults, legit. Many others here do.

So I go back to OP’s question: is an insult an attempt at conversion?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Any atheists want to address this semantic question about whether atheists’ insults=conversion? I’m actually open on this. Sometimes down-in-the-mud is just down-in-the mud, where people who have an emotional need to insult/bully others end up.

It looks like you just want to keep whining about how you can’t abuse people with impunity, or derail threads, though.

Insults are not necessary when discussing one's lack of belief, and anyone who does that weakens their own position and risks not being taken seriously.

Please note the very fact that non-insulting posts expressing non-belief were deleted from this very thread. If that doesn't tell you how hard it is to be taken seriously as a non-believer, than nothing will. Using insults just makes being shut down easier. We must take the high road, always.

Look, the moderator is an atheist. Also, the moderator doesn’t delete stuff just because it’s reported—he wouldn’t have a Political forum if that were the case.

Despite your pretense of innocence, you obviously did something.
— phony definition of “insult” that you use to justify insulting people. I’ve actually seen posters argue here that “fairytales” isn’t an insult because they insist religion really is fairytales[b].
— derailing a thread with some version of the long whinge you’re posting here, when everybody is telling you to start your own thread. This is why you got deleted? You guys derail all the time (as if you hate to see religious people discussing religion or something), and I guess I’ll pretend to believe that you weren’t insulting anybody. So this is my bet.

Notably, you guys are all over the feedback forum, but right now you aren’t there asking Jeff why he deleted your so-called innocent post.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Any atheists want to address this semantic question about whether atheists’ insults=conversion? I’m actually open on this. Sometimes down-in-the-mud is just down-in-the mud, where people who have an emotional need to insult/bully others end up.

It looks like you just want to keep whining about how you can’t abuse people with impunity, or derail threads, though.

Insults are not necessary when discussing one's lack of belief, and anyone who does that weakens their own position and risks not being taken seriously.

Please note the very fact that non-insulting posts expressing non-belief were deleted from this very thread. If that doesn't tell you how hard it is to be taken seriously as a non-believer, than nothing will. Using insults just makes being shut down easier. We must take the high road, always.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Any atheists want to address this semantic question about whether atheists’ insults=conversion? I’m actually open on this. Sometimes down-in-the-mud is just down-in-the mud, where people who have an emotional need to insult/bully others end up.

It looks like you just want to keep whining about how you can’t abuse people with impunity, or derail threads, though.

Insults are not necessary when discussing one's lack of belief, and anyone who does that weakens their own position and risks not being taken seriously.

Please note the very fact that non-insulting posts expressing non-belief were deleted from this very thread. If that doesn't tell you how hard it is to be taken seriously as a non-believer, than nothing will. Using insults just makes being shut down easier. We must take the high road, always.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Any atheists want to address this semantic question about whether atheists’ insults=conversion? I’m actually open on this. Sometimes down-in-the-mud is just down-in-the mud, where people who have an emotional need to insult/bully others end up.

It looks like you just want to keep whining about how you can’t abuse people with impunity, or derail threads, though.

Insults are not necessary when discussing one's lack of belief, and anyone who does that weakens their own position and risks not being taken seriously.

Please note the very fact that non-insulting posts expressing non-belief were deleted from this very thread. If that doesn't tell you how hard it is to be taken seriously as a non-believer, than nothing will. Using insults just makes being shut down easier. We must take the high road, always.

Anonymous wrote:Any atheists want to address this semantic question about whether atheists’ insults=conversion? I’m actually open on this. Sometimes down-in-the-mud is just down-in-the mud, where people who have an emotional need to insult/bully others end up.

It looks like you just want to keep whining about how you can’t abuse people with impunity, or derail threads, though.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
OP is not Christian. Same English issues as with the anti-Christian “Redemption” thread.

Whatever OP is, she’s referring to the fact that atheists on DCUM often insult religion and she’s calling these insults “conversion” attempts. Unfortunately, we all know that the issue goes much further that merely stating “I’m an atheist.” OP is undoubtedly referring to the constant insults about fairytales, Christofacism, the jerk BIL mentioned above, and so much more. Then there are the endless derailment attempts that involve, for example, whining all over a thread re “What would you do if you were God for a day?” about how the moderator deleted your post calling religion fairytales on that same thread. (Why did you/that poster keep whining there instead of starting your own dedicated thread to air your concerns about freedom of speech, like you were told? Your problem wasn’t anything high-minded about freedom of speech, it was derailment pure and simple.)

I am not the PP, but I may be the poster you are again accusing of calling your religion "fairytales" even though I did not do that. I did have several thoughtful posts deleted and complained about that. But please note the poster you are replying to is not the same as I.

"derailment" = "any position that disagrees with mine" I guess. My posts were totally on topic but not in line with the echo-chamber you desire.

Whatever. The moderator agreed that you were being too cute when you tried to sneak the words “silly fairytales” into the middle of your post, so he deleted the whole post; that’s what happens when you try to be too cute. The moderator also agreed that your so-called “thoughtful posts” on your freedom of speech right to say “fairytales” was a derailment that didn’t belong on the “if you were God” thread, so he deleted those, too. And let’s be honest, your final “freedom of speech” post on that thread was nothing more than a rant about how all the posters who ignored your derailing and whining “freedom of speech” posts were hypocritical losers with insecure faith, and worse, so the moderator delayed those insults of yours, too.

Instead of whining, why the heck could simply start your own freedom of speech thread, where you could be “on topic” for real? And cut the childish insults. Then you won’t get deleted. Easy.

Anonymous wrote:

...

Whatever OP is, she’s referring to the fact that atheists on DCUM often insult religion and she’s calling these insults “conversion” attempts. Unfortunately, we all know that the issue goes much further that merely stating “I’m an atheist.” OP is undoubtedly referring to the constant insults about fairytales, Christofacism, the jerk BIL mentioned above, and so much more. Then there are the endless derailment attempts that involve, for example, whining all over a thread re “What would you do if you were God for a day?” about how the moderator deleted your post calling religion fairytales on that same thread. (Why did you/that poster keep whining there instead of starting your own dedicated thread to air your concerns about freedom of speech, like you were told? Your problem wasn’t anything high-minded about freedom of speech, it was derailment pure and simple.)

You’d obviously like to believe that merely saying “I’m an atheist” is the beginning and end of the issue. But I doubt very much OP (or anybody else) is much threatened by somebody saying “I’m an atheist.” It’s the constant stream of real insults.

Are insults the same as “conversion attempts”? Not sure I care about the semantics. I know what OP means about the constant insults, though.

I guess I’d agree that saying “you’re an idiot for believing XYZ” (where XYX=Trump/Warren/climate change/religion) is a form of trying to change somebody’s mind. A crude form of persuasion of the type used Magats, but a form of persuasion.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
OP is not Christian. Same English issues as with the anti-Christian “Redemption” thread.

Whatever OP is, she’s referring to the fact that atheists on DCUM often insult religion and she’s calling these insults “conversion” attempts. Unfortunately, we all know that the issue goes much further that merely stating “I’m an atheist.” OP is undoubtedly referring to the constant insults about fairytales, Christofacism, the jerk BIL mentioned above, and so much more. Then there are the endless derailment attempts that involve, for example, whining all over a thread re “What would you do if you were God for a day?” about how the moderator deleted your post calling religion fairytales on that same thread. (Why did you/that poster keep whining there instead of starting your own dedicated thread to air your concerns about freedom of speech, like you were told? Your problem wasn’t anything high-minded about freedom of speech, it was derailment pure and simple.)

I am not the PP, but I may be the poster you are again accusing of calling your religion "fairytales" even though I did not do that. I did have several thoughtful posts deleted and complained about that. But please note the poster you are replying to is not the same as I.

"derailment" = "any position that disagrees with mine" I guess. My posts were totally on topic but not in line with the echo-chamber you desire.