• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

*Warning: May contain nuts, Christians and/or both

Okay. Well, you have no credibility anymore. I used to like you, but then in this thread for some reason you particularly went south and had been insulting throughout, even to people who had not insulted you to begin with. There is some overwhelming urge to insult other people that sometimes manifests in others. Weakness masquerading as strength, gravitation towards tribalism, compensating for some past hurt and you want to take your wrath out on others even if they are polite to you, etc. I do not know yours, but hope this is not where you will always be for the rest of your life.
 
Okay. Well, you have no credibility anymore. I used to like you, but then in this thread for some reason you particularly went south and had been insulting throughout, even to people who had not insulted you to begin with. There is some overwhelming urge to insult other people that sometimes manifests in others. Weakness masquerading as strength, gravitation towards tribalism, compensating for some past hurt and you want to take your wrath out on others even if they are polite to you, etc. I do not know yours, but hope this is not where you will always be for the rest of your life.

It's not enough to own a mirror; You should also use one.
 
It's not enough to own a mirror; You should also use one.
Oh, he's quite aware. He's being jerky and insulting to wind us up, and show it's not persuading us to his side.
But i already stipulated in post # 360 that it's ineffective to accomplish that.
I just don't necessarily want to DO that.
 
As mentioned before, sometimes it can be useful to counterpunch a bully. Let them know they should not cry when they get what they give.
 
So, it's really really bad thing to do, and not persuasive, unless you have a good REASON to do it, such as using it to persuade others to your side.
Well, gosh and bigolly, I'm convinced by the efficacy of your hypocrisy.
 
That good reason to counterpunch would be when the other person tries to throw a strike at you. Otherwise it would not even be a counterpunch. There would be no need to making this a fight at all, unless one side throws a punch first, which you had with 1ICrying earlier in this thread. I have no problem standing up to bullies like you.

This is a forum generally for atheist-oriented discussions and members, but you correctly noted earlier in this thread the fact that we are both atheists does not mean that we have similar views on other matters. If you are being an asshole and a Christian is being a nice person, and even if there are 100 other atheist assholes that are picking on that polite Christian because they make easy prey, you will find me on the side of the little guy over the mob. Even if that means sometimes hitting you back after you choose to throw the first punch. If you want to cool it down and start over, leaving out all the personal insults towards each other and towards 1ICrying, I am completely up for it. Whichever tone you choose, I am willing to accommodate.
 
That good reason to counterpunch would be when the other person tries to throw a strike at you. Otherwise it would not even be a counterpunch. There would be no need to making this a fight at all, unless one side throws a punch first, which you had with 1ICrying earlier in this thread. I have no problem standing up to bullies like you.
Standing up to a bully is one thing.
Bullying, to show that bullying is wrong, is a bit hypocritical.
If I broke a forum rule about personal attacks, point that out to me and to a mod and get it removed. Get me punished. Using bullying when you have a good reason to just devolves into various people justifying THEIR bullying based on something the other guy did.

If it's wrong, it's wrong. If you're doing it, then it can't be THAT wrong.
 
I really don't have an interest in getting into the incrimination's (nor the time), but I'll work to sticking to being reasonable when the religious person is also respectful, not cocky/dismissive, nor evasive. Personally, I think 1ICrying has been on the edge between the 2 behaviors at times. Statements (from Post 302) like "I don't know if I or anyone can help get you back on that track, but let's see", strongly suggests that I am broken and need fixing; which I find rather condescending...
Very interesting to see these assessments of his intentions, even if I largely disagree with them.

Yes he is bringing in a lot of bad arguments, nothing new that we have not seen/heard 1,000 times before. However, that is not a moral failing on his part in any way. At some point, all this stuff is new to us. We are not born knowing the flaws in various theological arguments. Some people just happen to encounter them at some point (and some do not). Many of us who do then keep hearing it, and it gets old. 1ICrying is still in the earlier phrases though.
Are you suggesting in what I underlined, that 1ICrying is a newbie? If so, that really doesn't seem to be the case at least to such types of boards in general:

Without getting into any debate, I just want to say that 1I Crying was a member of Secular Cafe. He obviously isn't the most sophisticated person, but from what I remember of him on the other board, he is certainly a Christian, not someone posing as a Christian. Regardless of what I think of his beliefs, I think he had good, but misguided intentions.

Ohhh, He's sophisticated alright. So much so, that none of you will likely understand just how much so. Hahaha.
 
If you want to cool it down and start over, leaving out all the personal insults towards each other and towards 1ICrying, I am completely up for it. Whichever tone you choose, I am willing to accommodate.

So, reviewed the thread. Can't really say that there's anything I regret posting. But by page 24 of the thread I was pretty sure 1eye is not an underdog.
Learner needs training wheels, but 1eye is more than up for the task he's appointed himself to.
And I don't see where I attacked his beliefs for the sake of his beliefs. No 'you're Xian so you're an idiot.' I do reject some of his condescending assumptions, and use the intensity modifiers I am comfortable with after 39.35 years among sailors, so I'm okay with that. If that's really a problem for anyone on the forum, they can put me on ignore.
But since 1eye is comfortable using the worst of the words I've used (at least here), that's probably not going to be him.

So, no, no interest in starting all over again, thanx.
 
Standing up to a bully is one thing. Bullying, to show that bullying is wrong, is a bit hypocritical.

Punches have been thrown back and forth. Whether any of those punches constitute bullying depends on who instigated the fight to begin with. In a more extreme analogy, if someone kills another person when they were never provoked, we treat that differently than someone who kills another person in self defense. The 2 acts are dramatically different.

The mere fact that I have said some insulting things towards you does not make me a bully. I would be a bully if those insults were unprovoked though. You made insults towards 1ICrying and me that were unprovoked. You started it, in other words. Those 2 very different circumstances make a world of a difference.

When someone behaves in a civilized manner, and then people respond by exploiting their kind words and acts and using those against them, they should not expect anyone else to keep behaving more civilly than they are themselves. Good behavior should be treated reciprocally and less as an opportunity to exploit.

If I broke a forum rule about personal attacks, point that out to me and to a mod and get it removed. Get me punished.

No. I do not even think you broke any forum rules with any of your posts here. I am exposing your tone as being jerkish, even though it does not rise to the level of any rule-breaking or law-violating. If simply being a jerk was a rule violation, most of the regular posters in PD would be banned by now and the forum would lose a lot of its members. We have other methods to counteract the behaviors of jerkish posters, one of them is calling them out on it. Hence this discussion.

So, no, no interest in starting all over again, thanx.

You are welcome to change your mind at any time. We can cut the personal insult-war out and just discuss the substance of everybody’s views, and in a polite manner.
 
Are you suggesting in what I underlined, that 1ICrying is a newbie? If so, that really doesn't seem to be the case at least to such types of boards in general:

You appear to be correct, and he has been registered on a secular forum before. My mistake. I should have phrased it as 1ICrying being naive to these discussions, even if not a newbie to them.
 
Do you think it is possible for a person to make some statement with virtuous intentions, and for that statement to also have harmful unintended consequences?

This reminds me strongly of the condition called White Savior Syndrome, where white people with Good Intentions(tm) based on their feeling of superiority (which they will deny possessing), come into a situation and try to take charge and “fix it,” for the people who are black (or brown), according to the White Savior’s white perspective.

It’s demeaning and insulting and degrading - and they “mean well.”

Similarly the religionist like 1eye who waltzes in here saying he’s going to “help us understand” things that we understood long ago and found stupid and harmful is the same kind of destructive “good intention” that is based on arrogance and a deep rooted lack of understanding or care to understand the people he thinks are beneath him.
 
Do you think it is possible for a person to make some statement with virtuous intentions, and for that statement to also have harmful unintended consequences?

This reminds me strongly of the condition called White Savior Syndrome, where white people with Good Intentions(tm) based on their feeling of superiority (which they will deny possessing), come into a situation and try to take charge and “fix it,” for the people who are black (or brown), according to the White Savior’s white perspective.

It’s demeaning and insulting and degrading - and they “mean well.”

Similarly the religionist like 1eye who waltzes in here saying he’s going to “help us understand” things that we understood long ago and found stupid and harmful is the same kind of destructive “good intention” that is based on arrogance and a deep rooted lack of understanding or care to understand the people he thinks are beneath him.
Here is another real life today example that would show similar mis-behavior like my reference to 'here let me help you get fixed': Who would walk up to an obese person that they have had only a few passing words with, and offer (unsolicited) help with dieting ideas/plans, as their obesity is killing them? It is beyond 'naive' or misguided 'virtuousness'; it is uncouth, insulting, and abnormal social behavior hiding behind the mask of smug righteousness. It would be a shocking day to see a UMC or ELCA Christian presenting themselves in such a manor.
 
Similarly the religionist like 1eye who waltzes in here saying he’s going to “help us understand” things that we understood long ago and found stupid and harmful is the same kind of destructive “good intention” that is based on arrogance and a deep rooted lack of understanding or care to understand the people he thinks are beneath him.

That is a huge mass of insinuations you have made about his motives. You claim (or analogize) that he is arrogant, does not care to understand us, and thinks that we are beneath him, and that he has a superiority complex. What evidence do you cite to support those extremely hostile criticisms? Your best one cited is where he said he wants to "help us understand." Do you have anything more to justify those extremely nasty accusations? It sounds like projection, and you are actually moreso the one with the superiority complex than he is.
 
Similarly the religionist like 1eye who waltzes in here saying he’s going to “help us understand” things that we understood long ago and found stupid and harmful is the same kind of destructive “good intention” that is based on arrogance and a deep rooted lack of understanding or care to understand the people he thinks are beneath him.

That is a huge mass of insinuations you have made about his motives. You claim (or analogize) that he is arrogant, does not care to understand us, and thinks that we are beneath him, and that he has a superiority complex. What evidence do you cite to support those extremely hostile criticisms? Your best one cited is where he said he wants to "help us understand." Do you have anything more to justify those extremely nasty accusations? It sounds like projection, and you are actually moreso the one with the superiority complex than he is.

I don't know why you steered this thread into what people think of 1I but you have gotten reasonable answers to your initial question. Maybe you could point out posts by 1I where he actually addressed questions about his reasoning (other than offering a Bible quote) not what the Bible says. I have seen him more than willing to preach but not actually engage in a discussion by defending his assertions. His style reminds me of some adult explaining how things are to a five year old.

Before you claim that you didn't derail this into an analysis of 1I, Here is where it started:

Do you think 1ICrying is acting with charitable intentions?

Even if the phrasing in that post did not convey that, would you say that he has charitable intentions and is not articulating them well enough, or would you rate his intentions as more hostile and antagonistic? Something else?
 
Last edited:
Similarly the religionist like 1eye who waltzes in here saying he’s going to “help us understand” things that we understood long ago and found stupid and harmful is the same kind of destructive “good intention” that is based on arrogance and a deep rooted lack of understanding or care to understand the people he thinks are beneath him.

That is a huge mass of insinuations you have made about his motives. You claim (or analogize) that he is arrogant, does not care to understand us, and thinks that we are beneath him, and that he has a superiority complex. What evidence do you cite to support those extremely hostile criticisms?
From his own words.


Your best one cited is where he said he wants to "help us understand." Do you have anything more to justify those extremely nasty accusations? It sounds like projection, and you are actually moreso the one with the superiority complex than he is.

Um?? Okay.
 
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/todays-atheists-are-bullies-and-they-are-doing-their-best-to-intimidate-the-rest-of-us-into-silence

I left this thread awhile ago because I didn't want to argue endlessly about something that I thought would never be resolved. Maybe this isn't the best place to put this post, but since some of you are discussing the best response to Christians, I thought I'd show just how nasty and vicious some conservative Christians are becoming, and see if any of you have a good suggestions as to how to respond.

There’s no polite way to say it. Atheists today are the most arrogant, ignorant and dangerous people on earth.


We’ve all seen how these pompous prigs get offended by the slightest bit of religious imagery in public and mortified if even a whisper of “Merry Christmas” escapes the lips of some well-meaning but naïve department store clerk during the “holiday season.”

Really? I say Merry Christmas or Happy Holidays. It's the Christians that sometimes get their panties in a bunch when we say Happy Holidays. To me, Christmas is a secular holiday and I am never offended if someone wishes me a Merry Christmas, even if I'm not into holidays.

Yes, these atheists are loud, nasty, unapologetic and in-your-face.

But while their arrogance is annoying, it’s nothing compared to their ignorance. Atheists believe that the vast majority of human beings from all periods of time and all places on the Earth have been wrong about the thing most important to them. They basically dismiss this vast majority as being either moronic or profoundly naïve. What they don’t seem to know – or won’t admit – is that the greatest contributions to civilization have been made, not by atheists, but by believers.

Right! We're the dumbass ones. Sure there have been theist scientists but they are rarely fundamentalists. Who has ever denied that some Christians have made contributions to society? Atheists have also made contributions to society. Is this a contest? :rolleyes:

Yes, the new atheists have an ignorance of history bordering on madness.

But are they really dangerous, too?

You bet they are. The truth is, the atheist position is incapable of supporting any coherent system of morality other than ruthless social Darwinism. That’s why it has caused more deaths, murders and bloodshed than any other belief system in the history of the world.

Atheists, of course, are always claiming hysterically that Christianity has been responsible for most of the world’s wars, but that’s just another example of atheistic ignorance. The main reasons for war have always been economic gain, territorial gain, civil and revolutionary conflicts. According to Philip Axelrod’s monumental “Encyclopedia of Wars,” only 6.98 percent or all wars from 8000 BC to present were religious in nature. If you subtract Islamic wars from the equation, only 3.2 percent of wars were due to specifically Christian causes. That means that over 96 percent of all the wars on this planet were due to worldly reasons.

I've never made that claim in my life and the only thing that we atheists all agree on is that no gods exist. I don't know how I was able to be a caring competent nurse for 42 years without god, raise a decent son, be faithful to my husband, or give money to my favorite charities. I must have missed the part where I was supposed to be an amoral asshole like the president.

But, here's my favorite part: :glare:

So yes, the modern breed of atheist is arrogant, ignorant and dangerous. Too many books written in response to these pseudo-intellectual hatemongers have been altogether too nice. Too many Christian authors have tried to be kind and amiable in an effort to demonstrate that believers don’t have to sink into the mud in order to defend the faith. That tact is very charitable, but unfortunately, it just doesn’t work with bullies.

And that’s exactly what modern-day atheists are—bullies; bullies who are doing their best to intimidate the rest of us into silence.

Well, we can’t allow that to happen. As I say in my book, “Inside the Atheist Mind: Unmasking the Religion of Those Who Say There is No God,” there is only one way to deal with bullies, even in this politically correct world—and that is to stand up to them and fight them; to fight them in a bold, aggressive, and fearless way, and to fight them now.

Okay, The above is just an opinion piece posted on the Fox News site, but it's based on his hateful book and unfortunately a large percentage of American Christians worship Fox. Jebus would be so proud.

Are we supposed to turn the other cheek or take off the gloves and fight back? Are we to ignore these horrible, judgmental people, or what?

No, not all Christians are like that, but it does seem as if the most conservative ones are. They feel threatened by anyone who questions their beliefs and it worries me that if they continue this hateful judgmental rhetoric, some nut job is gong to direct his hatred in a violent way. I wish people would learn to get along without attacking each other's opinions or beliefs, unless someone asks for an argument. 1I has come here to preach to us. He may be harmless, but I can't put any blame on anyone here who chooses to hit back when he talks down to us by telling us that we need to covert to his worldview. And, it does make me question his motivations. Is he really interested in our "souls" or does he think if he gets more converts, he'll have a better spot in heaven.


I've wondered this about a former coworker who sent me a very flattering card a couple of months ago, telling me things like I was the best nurse she ever knew, yadayadayada. But, she knows I'm an atheist and the card was full of Bible scripture and a something like without god, there would be no love, so I did question her sincerity about the praise she gave me. I did send her a card back with a picture of a dog on it. I told her the secret to being a good nurse was never to judge your patients due to their beliefs or characters, as a good nurse treats all of her patients with the same quality care, regardless of who they are. I also told her that I worship dogs. :diablotin: I couldn't help myself. It was meant to be humorous, and if it offended her, that's on her. I have no intention of trying to deconvert anyone. Someone with irrational beliefs isn't going to be convinced by a rational argument. If someone is open minded and actively searching, that's when you make the rational argument. But, when someone comes here with the primary purpose of trying to "save"us, then I see nothing wrong with questioning their motivations and telling them exactly why you find them insulting.
 
You have your facts wrong. If you look at post #375, the post you are responding to, I acknowledge that there is more than 1 way to want to comfort someone. I will give 2 such possibilities here:

1. You can make a religious expression such as "I'll pray for you" or "thoughts and prayers." The effect of those statements may not be comforting, but the person saying them will still want them to be comforting.

2. You can say something secular like "I love you and will care for you." That also shows that the person wants to provide comfort, and to those of us who are secular it will be more realistic as well.

When someone says I'll pray for you my instincts tell me they're really trying to comfort themselves with the only thing they know to do in such a situation. When they pray for an unconscious person who is very very ill they are comforting themselves obviously.
 
. Whether any of those punches constitute bullying depends on who instigated the fight to begin with.
Really? I would more assess bullying based on an imbalance of power in the exchange.
If 1i can give as good as he gets, then no bullying has happened.
You made insults towards 1ICrying and me that were unprovoked. You started it, in other words. Those 2 very different circumstances make a world of a difference.
Oh! I am sincerely sorry, Brian. What did i say to you that you took as an unprovoked insult at yourself?
That was never my intention.
When someone behaves in a civilized manner, and then people respond by exploiting their kind words and acts and using those against them, they should not expect anyone else to keep behaving more civilly than they are themselves.
Um... do you see me, anywhere, crying foul because someone descended to my level? Not counting self-proclaimed adherents of scripture which warns that revilers may end up in Hell, of course.
So, no, no interest in starting all over again, thanx.
You are welcome to change your mind at any time.
Well, i certainly appreciate your generous permission to do so. Let me file that right behind the last time i asked your guidance on how i could post.
 
Really? I would more assess bullying based on an imbalance of power in the exchange.
If 1i can give as good as he gets, then no bullying has happened.

UH OH !

By that definition of bullying, maybe 63 has a point.

You are entering the arena armed with reason and humor... 1I is armed with belief and faith.

On this forum that values reason, this gives you a distinct advantage. If the thread were on a Christian forum that values faith then 1I would have the advantage so would be the bully.
 
Back
Top Bottom