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

[Rhea]

Brian, I love ya and I enjoy posting with you. But on this issue, I’m just not down with your interpretation of what’s insulting and condescending and what’s not. I’ve had an earful in my life of mansplainers and religionsplainers and I don’t give brand new patience to the 696,783rd of them when they waltz in and try to tell me I’m stupid and I need their help.

1eye is just another person who comes off as telling me I’m stupid and I need his help to understand life and eternity.
And that is insulting as hell, and I just don’t really care if you think I’m stupid and need your help understanding that.

He’s being insulting and you don’t see it. That’s fine, glad you’re not affected. Enjoy your day.

 

[Brian63]

In this thread it has been mentioned at least a couple times that atheists hold roughly similar views to each other on the matter of god-beliefs, but outside of that we have no necessary common denominator. In hindsight though, it seems to me that such statements are often mere words, and our deeds do not match. There is a more tribalistic mentality that prevails. If a handful of evangelical Christians start making various erroneous apologetic arguments, atheists can criticize the merits of those arguments but also are given wide latitude in personally insulting the Christians themselves, even if those insults are themselves flawed (not just because those insults are unprovoked, but also because they are factually unsubstantiated).

It is even considered a "derail" to call into questions the unsupported insults and claims made by other atheists earlier in that thread. We are expected to just leave them alone, unquestioned, untouched, unexamined for their actual truth value. It has gotten to the point that it is important and on-topic to the thread to insult other people. Challenging those very insults is a "derail" though. The atheist insults become a religious dogma, in effect.

 

[Rhea]

In this thread it has been mentioned at least a couple times that atheists hold roughly similar views to each other on the matter of god-beliefs, but outside of that we have no necessary common denominator. In hindsight though, it seems to me that such statements are often mere words, and our deeds do not match. There is a more tribalistic mentality that prevails. If a handful of evangelical Christians start making various erroneous apologetic arguments, atheists can criticize the merits of those arguments but also are given wide latitude in personally insulting the Christians themselves, even if those insults are themselves flawed (not just because those insults are unprovoked, but also because they are factually unsubstantiated).

It is even considered a "derail" to call into questions the unsupported insults and claims made by other atheists earlier in that thread. We are expected to just leave them alone, unquestioned, untouched, unexamined for their actual truth value. It has gotten to the point that it is important and on-topic to the thread to insult other people. Challenging those very insults is a "derail" though. The atheist insults become a religious dogma, in effect.

The fact that I said I disagree with you and that you don’t see his insults does not mean anyone is shutting you up. One person calling your discussion of behavior a derail does not mean you are being told to be unquestioning. Say whatever you want - this is my thought on the matter.

I find 1eye’s condescending repetitive claims that he needs to convert us and help us and tell us how to u=interpret the universe WITHOUT ONCE CARING ABOUT OUR OPINIONS to be very aggressive and insulting.

You don’t. That’s fine. For you.
I feel 1eye should hear about how awful and insulting he is being. Maybe you think he shouldn’t have to hear that.
That’s fine. For you. Don’t tell him.
I will tell him that he is acting dickish because I believe he is.
At this point, so are you.

Honestly, it is not at all surprising that a bunch of people in a community will recoil with the same feeling when a stranger waltzes in and acts like a dick. That’s not some “atheistic tribalism” that contradicts our claimed independence. That’s a normal human reaction to a stranger walking into a room and starting a conversation while acting like a dick.

 

[Brian63]

...when they waltz in and try to tell me I’m stupid...

When did 1ICrying ever try to say that he thought you are stupid? He may think some of your beliefs are flawed, but even smart people have flawed beliefs.

1eye is just another person who comes off as telling me I’m stupid...

That is really stretching the meaning of "stupid" though to think anyone who thinks you hold a mistaken view on this issue thinks you are "stupid."

And that is insulting as hell,...

If that is considered hell, then the even more blatant insults would be even more hellish, yet those somehow go unquestioned and not called out.

...and I just don’t really care if you think I’m stupid...

For the record, I do not recall ever having thought of you as stupid. I think you are very biased here, being very selective (to the point of inconsistent) in what you consider insulting or noninsulting. Having biased brains and biased thoughts patterns is a human trait, and this happens to be one of yours at the moment.

 

[Rhea]

Why did you not bold the smilie immediately after that? He may have just wanted to mean it in a more joking manner.

I used to have a boss who called me “air head.” Every. Fucking. Day. He always smiled and said, “I’m just joking, ha ha.”
He may have wanted to joke. But it was not a joke.

 

[Rhea]

When did 1ICrying ever try to say that he thought you are stupid? He may think some of your beliefs are flawed, but even smart people have flawed beliefs.

One does not say, “I wish I had time to correct y’all” without implying that.

...and I just don’t really care if you think I’m stupid...

For the record, I do not recall ever having thought of you as stupid. I think you are very biased here, being very selective (to the point of inconsistent) in what you consider insulting or noninsulting. Having biased brains is a human trait, and this happens to be one of yours at the moment.

Not interested in explaining my actions further or getting schooled on them.

 

[Brian63]

One does not say, “I wish I had time to correct y’all” without implying that.

Again though, that is really reaching and stretching to try to find something that you can find insulting in his statements. There have been far worse statements, more blatantly insulting towards him, that have not been questioned by anyone in this thread. When 1ICrying says something that at most should be considered inappropriate, he gets all scorn and ridicule hoisted on him.

Not interested in explaining my actions further or getting schooled on them.

If your actions were flawed, wouldn't you want to find that out about them and then correct them for the future?

The "not interested" line sounds more of a cheap cop-out to exit a useful discussion that happens to not be going as well for you as you wanted. Even if you would benefit from having this discussion for the long-term, for the short-term it would be a blow to the ego, and that is too high a price to take.

 

[Rhea]

The "not interested" line sounds more of a cheap cop-out to exit a useful discussion that happens to not be going as well for you as you wanted. Even if you would benefit from having this discussion for the long-term, for the short-term it would be a blow to the ego, and that is too high a price to take.

Nope. It’s bed time.
I’ve been listening to you and engaging. I’m always willing to learn. But I disagree with you and it’s bed time. Good night.

 

[Brian63]

Good night. See ya tomorrow.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

When did 1ICrying ever try to say that he thought you are stupid? He may think some of your beliefs are flawed, but even smart people have flawed beliefs.

You might want to try re-reading the first few dozen posts in this thread. The poster came in here, quite a bit vague, there was respect, in trying to understand what they were trying to say. Their schtick got old and worn out after it became clear that their posting was going no where.

That is really stretching the meaning of "stupid" though to think anyone who thinks you hold a mistaken view on this issue thinks you are "stupid."

It is hard to gauge their intent. If this were 20 years ago, this would be a typical Christian babe in the woods wandering in here to 'show us' the truth, but then admittedly not here to 'convert' us. They seem to be all over the place, citing being progressive evangelically, but then referencing Ron Wyatt, talking that the end time is near, literal bible but maybe not too literal.

 

[Brian63]

Their schtick got old and worn out after it became clear that their posting was going no where.

So the posting was going "no where." Then just leave it alone. Walk away. Go on about your day.

Why instead stay and make all the efforts to insult the person? Out of necessity, because the ego requires it? Or it is not necessary, but you still enjoy insulting other people to stroke your own ego? Why take that extra step and drag the tone of the conversation down further than it had been?

It is hard to gauge their intent.

Interesting insight. A lot of others here have been quick to do exactly that though and gauged his intent, including even criticizing (insulting, really) him as having arrogance and a superiority complex...with the best evidence for that being at one point he mentioned wanting to "help us understand."

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Their schtick got old and worn out after it became clear that their posting was going no where.

So the posting was going "no where." Then just leave it alone. Walk away. Go on about your day.

That's what I did.

Why instead stay and make all the efforts to insult the person?

I can't justify tit for tat, but this is hardly a one-way street. Our guest has hardly made any honest efforts at a two-way conversation.

Out of necessity, because the ego requires it? Or it is not necessary, but you still enjoy insulting other people to stroke your own ego?

I suggested they peruse our Freethought and Humor forum.

It is hard to gauge their intent.

Interesting insight. A lot of others here have been quick to do exactly that though and gauged his intent, including even criticizing (insulting, really) him as having arrogance and a superiority complex...with the best evidence for that being at one point he mentioned wanting to "help us understand."

But they have shown both that they don't even understand their own alleged beliefs or care to bother to extend their understanding on any types of grounds and generally have responded to posts via goalpost shifting and denial and flat out ignoring posts. Granted, stepping in a pool of piranhas can be overwhelming, but our guest hasn't put in a fair effort to indicate an interest in communication, and rather is relying on shouting out to inform the masses about stuff they know little about (whether intentionally or not, I can't tell).

Ultimately, conversations require at least two willing parties. The TF crew were willing to talk, our guest hasn't been.

 

[Brian63]

So the posting was going "no where." Then just leave it alone. Walk away. Go on about your day.

That's what I did.

Good.

Do you think it is better for the overall atmosphere and civility and potential for learning of the forum if others did the same? Or will this place be more appealing to existing and potential new members if it is flooded with people hurling insults around? Maybe you do not even care about the overall tone of the forum and the quality of it, but I do. More and more this place has become a church with members absorbed in groupthink mentalities. Similar to a religion.

If you do indeed value improving the quality of the discussion on the forum and wanting to see less jerkish behaviors and more compassion behaviors, why would you not publicly call out the people who engage in the former? You have been silent on that front. In the PD forum you are a frequent poster who engages in very hostile exchanges with other frequent posters. Why? Why do you similarly not just walk away and leave it alone then, as you have stated you have here?

Our guest has hardly made any honest efforts at a two-way conversation.

How did you determine that they were not "honest"? That is such a misused and abused and misattributed term to apply to others whose wells you want to poison. A person can be wrong, and honest. They can be inconsistent, and honest. They can be ignorant, and honest. It is also not a simple matter of black-or-white. Humans have our own egos and prides at stake throughout our lives, and we will undertake some measures to protect them when they are in danger. That includes obscuring or ignoring inconvenient data, trying to portray ourselves as victims no matter what double standards and hypocrisies we have to overlook that get in the way, acting out in aggression towards others and hurling insults at them, etc. So if you think 1ICrying was doing so at some particular point(s) in this thread, so what? So do you. So do I. Would you be willing to admit the last time you got into a hostile exchange with someone on this forum, and you started to have doubts about some of the positions you committed to? But you hesitated and did not want to admit error, especially if the other person across the monitor is a jerk.

But they have shown both that they don't even understand their own alleged beliefs or care to bother to extend their understanding on any types of grounds and generally have responded to posts via goalpost shifting and denial and flat out ignoring posts.

Yes, they have. So have other atheists in this thread even who do the same thing in criticizing him. So why single out 1ICrying for behaving that way, instead of calling out everyone for behaving that way?

The TF crew were willing to talk, our guest hasn't been.

Not sure if you are looking at the wrong thread. He has made several responses throughout the thread. I certainly disagree with him on the merits of his responses, but he has shown willingness to talk. Maybe by "willingness to talk" you really mean "willingness to agree with me" though. Regardless, if people think he is just not willing to change his mind, that in itself is not a rude comment from him to us, it is not insulting. It is closed-minded, but being closed-minded is a human quality, not something specific to just some people while others are immune to it.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Good.

Do you think it is better for the overall atmosphere and civility and potential for learning of the forum if others did the same?

No. Because this thread would have been full of tumbleweeds.

If you do indeed value improving the quality of the discussion on the forum and wanting to see less jerkish behaviors and more compassion behaviors, why would you not publicly call out the people who engage in the former?

I have on occasion, though typically behind closed doors so as not to derail a thread on it.

You have been silent on that front. In the PD forum you are a frequent poster who engages in very hostile exchanges with other frequent posters.

You are stretching the word "hostile". Based on our shared experience as mods, I understand you have a higher bar on decorum, and that is fine.

Why? Why do you similarly not just walk away and leave it alone then, as you have stated you have here?

I will note I never claimed to be a web board angel.

Our guest has hardly made any honest efforts at a two-way conversation.

How did you determine that they were not "honest"? That is such a misused and abused and misattributed term to apply to others whose wells you want to poison.

You mean like how you quote just "honest" and not "honest effort"? One implies being truthful, the other implies putting forth a good attempt.

A person can be wrong, and honest.

And you did a good job of performing an example of that just now.

The TF crew were willing to talk, our guest hasn't been.

Not sure if you are looking at the wrong thread. He has made several responses throughout the thread. I certainly disagree with him on the merits of his responses, but he has shown willingness to talk.

"To post" is not "to talk" and I don't mean that in a pedantic sense, but in the sense of just posting doesn't mean they are conversing. They are just tossing out words, not ingesting anything anyone else is saying.

Maybe by "willingness to talk" you really mean "willingness to agree with me" though.

No, it means to take into consideration what other people are saying.

Regardless, if people think he is just not willing to change his mind, that in itself is not a rude comment from him to us, it is not insulting.

After a while it is grating and pointless.

It is closed-minded, but being closed-minded is a human quality, not something specific to just some people while others are immune to it.

I've certainly never been closed-minded and nothing you can say will ever change my opinion on that.

 

[Brian63]

If you do indeed value improving the quality of the discussion on the forum and wanting to see less jerkish behaviors and more compassion behaviors, why would you not publicly call out the people who engage in the former?

I have on occasion, though typically behind closed doors so as not to derail a thread on it.

When someone makes a claim in a thread, and another person disputes that very claim, then either both of them are on topic or neither are. Disputing a claim and derailing a thread are very different things, but they are being equalized in this discussion. We atheists are expected to agree with other atheists, of if we disagree then just take it privately. Do not publicly declare your dissonance though!

Based on our shared experience as mods,

Incorrect. I have never been a mod here, never have been asked to be, never had an interest in being one either.

Why? Why do you similarly not just walk away and leave it alone then, as you have stated you have here?

I will note I never claimed to be a web board angel.

Nobody else has said you were either. The question still remains of why you do not walk away from the heated arguments in PD that you engage in. You can do that, while not being a web board angel. So why do you not, but instead continue in them? Just as importantly, do you think you should or should not engage in those heated exchanges? Please do not bother with the Trumpian "I’ve never said I’m a perfect person,..." line as an excuse to avoid accepting responsibility, sincerely, and do not use it as an excuse to continue wrongdoing. If you think the behavior is wrong, try to stop doing it. Even if you are not entirely 100% successful. That is not an invitation to continue doing something that is wrong.

Maybe by "willingness to talk" you really mean "willingness to agree with me" though.

No, it means to take into consideration what other people are saying.

Then apply that principle across the board to everyone who does it. Rather than being so selective in just 1ICrying's posts. It reeks of personal bias more than actual principle.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

When someone makes a claim in a thread, and another person disputes that very claim, then either both of them are on topic or neither are. Disputing a claim and derailing a thread are very different things, but they are being equalized in this discussion. We atheists are expected to agree with other atheists, of if we disagree then just take it privately. Do not publicly declare your dissonance though!

Based on our shared experience as mods,

Incorrect. I have never been a mod here, never have been asked to be, never had an interest in being one either.

Yes, you have. When I say "here", I mean the IIDB, FRDB, TF lineage.

Why? Why do you similarly not just walk away and leave it alone then, as you have stated you have here?

I will note I never claimed to be a web board angel.

Nobody else has said you were either. The question still remains of why you do not walk away from the heated arguments in PD that you engage in.

Actually, you should see my ignore list.

You can do that, while not being a web board angel. So why do you not, but instead continue in them?

Because it matters enough.

Maybe by "willingness to talk" you really mean "willingness to agree with me" though.

No, it means to take into consideration what other people are saying.

Then apply that principle across the board to everyone who does it. Rather than being so selective in just 1ICrying's posts.

As soon as you quote me saying it in this thread to 1ICrying. I hadn't mentioned it until now. It is why I left the thread.

 

[Brian63]

I have never been a mod here, never have been asked to be, never had an interest in being one either.

Yes, you have. When I say "here", I mean the IIDB, FRDB, TF lineage.

You are very factually wrong on this matter. I have been a member for a long time on different incarnations of this forum, but have not been a moderator in any of them at any time. I have never had enough interest to volunteer to be one either, and have not been asked to be one as well. So that has seemed to work out fine. What makes you think I have ever been a moderator? are you relying on your memories? Do you have access to the archives that show I used to be a moderator? Have you been in communication with an admin who has told you that I used to be a moderator? Please show when I ever used to be a moderator on any incarnation of this forum.

Nobody else has said you were either. The question still remains of why you do not walk away from the heated arguments in PD that you engage in.

Actually, you should see my ignore list.

Look at your response there. That does not answer the question posed, which is about the ones that you do engage in heated exchanges within. Why you do not walk away from those heated arguments? Saying that sometimes you do not engage in heated arguments does not refute the simple point that sometimes you do.

You earlier criticized 1ICrying for hardly making "any honest efforts at a two-way conversation." Your posts in our brief exchange so far have been far more droughty than his own have. You post a lot of one-liners that do not offer substance. Maybe they seem cutesy and witty, and that is how you brand yourself as the winner in your internet debates, but they fall far short of the mark when it comes to making "honest efforts at a two-way conversation."

"To post" is not "to talk" and I don't mean that in a pedantic sense, but in the sense of just posting doesn't mean they are conversing. They are just tossing out words, not ingesting anything anyone else is saying.

See above. Do not mistake sarcasm for wit.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

You are very factually wrong on this matter. I have been a member for a long time on different incarnations of this forum, but have not been a moderator in any of them at any time. I have never had enough interest to volunteer to be one either, and have not been asked to be one as well. So that has seemed to work out fine. What makes you think I have ever been a moderator? are you relying on your memories?

I have a pretty good memory, an incredible memory when comes to minor things. And I remember mod’ing when you mod’d here. You held a tighter standard regarding decorum, like you are doing now.

Sarpedon or some other old timer remember likewise?

Nobody else has said you were either. The question still remains of why you do not walk away from the heated arguments in PD that you engage in.

Actually, you should see my ignore list.

Look at your response there.

You mean the snip and cut version you took out of context?

"To post" is not "to talk" and I don't mean that in a pedantic sense, but in the sense of just posting doesn't mean they are conversing. They are just tossing out words, not ingesting anything anyone else is saying.

See above. Do not mistake sarcasm for wit.

Well if you don’t like sarcasm you won’t get along with Keith&Co, he was raised as a babe in the woods by sarcastic wolves. That said, what in the above quote was remotely sarcastic?

 

[Brian63]

I have a pretty good memory, an incredible memory when comes to minor things. And I remember mod’ing when you mod’d here.

No, you do not. I was never a mod on this forum. Ask an admin who may be able to do any searches through any of the private mod forums for posts made by me there in a capacity of a moderator, and there will be 0 matches found. By no other means of finding out whether a person was a mod, will you find that I was one. Despite you having your pretty good memory, your memory is bad here. It is really weird that you would put any of your credibility at stake on this issue as well.

Look at your response there.

You mean the snip and cut version you took out of context?

It was not out of context. The context is there for anyone to see. You have twice now avoided answering the question---

Why do you sometimes engage in heated exchanges with other posters, particularly in the PD forum?

Responding that you have some people on your ignore list does not address the question of why you sometimes engage in heated exchanged with other posters, particularly in the PD forum. Responding that you sometimes do not engage in those heated exchanges does not answer the question of why you sometimes do.

...what in the above quote was remotely sarcastic?

It was a summation of your posting style in a broader sense. Many of your responses are poor one-liners, devoid of substance, and sarcastic comments that dodge the direct issue at hand, etc. Instead of fleshing out your point of view in any depth and progressing the discussion, you break up the other person's 3-4 lines paragraphs into individual sentences where you post jokes that avoid the subject in any serious manner. Do you think that you will win the debate through overwhelming the other person in a superficial war of attrition, even if you would lose in a war of substance? Analogous to a Gish Gallup or Lumpen's or Koy's posting styles in other threads?

 

[Rhea]

Anyhow, I don't know exactly what 'logic' has lead you to toss your Christian beliefs, and so I don't know if I or anyone can help get you back on that track, but let's see. What exactly sticks in your craw?

*Let me guess - all of it.

1I

Hey 1eye - let’s cut to the chase:

What do you have to say that makes Christianity convincing THAT WE HAVE NEVER HEARD BEFORE

This will save a lot of time. We’ve heard all of these arguments before and we found them completely not-believable. Some of us have been describing and detailing our reasons why these are not believable (at all!) for more than 20 years. Many of us have read the bible cover-to-cover more than once. Not believable.

20 years.
Everything we’ve heard from Christians in the last 20 years is not believable. It falls down to evidence, to facts, to logic, to repeatability and refutability. Bear in mind that some of what “we’ve heard” is stuff we’ve read that is much older than 20 years. Indeed, not one bit of apologetics ever written that has come before us has been believable.

So.

What have you got that you think none of us has heard in 20 years of study?
Just go with your #1 Most Compelling Evidence Ever - that you think we’ve never heard before.