Every couple of days this forum is visited by people that are decidedly the fringe of the members here. Most are christian or muslim and some are actually atheists, but all have one thing in common. They are not going to stay. We affectionately call them "drive-bys" for good reason.
The christians and other believers are not interested in discussion at all. They are only interested in trolling and proselytizing. They may reply to a few posts but by and large it doesn't go very far at all. They come here with what they think is a new idea, that will cause every atheist to have a heart attack and immediately convert back to christianity. Once they realize that they have put themselves in an indefensible position they post a proselytizing rant and leave.
Atheists fringe posters do much the same. They are bent on a single issue. I don't know if they are just looking for support or something more but every post that they post is single-minded. They bang on about something and become ever increasingly frustrated that EVERYONE doesn't fall in line and join their cause and echo what they are on about. They soon leave as well.
Now, these fringe posters can be amusing as they are all WAY FUCKING OUT THERE. It is fun to slap them around a bit. It is also frustrating in that the fact that they just don't listen to reason. It's like talking to a brick wall and eventually an empty space.
This isn't a debate issue or actually a reason for discussion. It's just an observation.
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
I’ve started to reply to this three or four times but backed off until now. Why did I hesitate? Because I figured you would just verbally beat the crap out of me instead of actually considering what I have to say.
You may still blast me, but someone else, someone who likes to ponder, someone who may be lurking, might just get some value out of the points I want to make concerning your observations. So here goes...
Too frequently, IMO, someone who identifies as a non-atheist will land here and post their thoughts or ask their questions. Sometimes, within less than an hour they will get accused of being a drive-by. You wrote, “They may reply to a few posts but by and large it doesn't go very far at all.” If I were beaten up instead of being allowed to have a conversation, I’d probably leave too. Heck, it took a lot for me, as I said, to reply to this knowing the chances are I’ll get ripped for it. And I’ve been here longer than any current poster!
Frequently, new non-atheists will get called names. They will be told they are a moron or a liar. They are greeted with anger and ego.
They are told that the only reason they are here is to preach. As if anyone can read their minds or are able to determine that as fact. Has it ever happened? Sure. Does every new theist coming to this debate room have that intention? I doubt it. But I just don’t think you know that’s the case, although you say it frequently.
You have said on many occasions that most folks identified as atheists used to be theist. If you, and so many others, were able to shuffle off that coil, then why can’t these folks? Perhaps actual civil debate may plant the seeds necessary for that change. Beating folks up verbally just doesn’t seem to be the most effective go-to method to me. No wonder they leave so quickly!
You talked about ‘fringe’. Do you include yourself in that? You wrote, “They bang on about something and become ever increasingly frustrated that EVERYONE doesn't fall in line and join their cause and echo what they are on about.” You mean causes like gun ownership and conservatism?
You wrote, “It is fun to slap them around a bit.”
Is that why you’re here?
You wrote, “It is also frustrating in that the fact that they just don't listen to reason.”
Saying, “Your behavior is irrational almost psychotic. It's fucking ridiculous! Get a fucking education!” is presenting them with reason?
I think there are a whole lot of very bright folks here who want to debate. I think treating people like shit keeps that from happening as much as it could.
Okay. I’ve said my piece. As you said, “it’s just an observation.”
Personally; I think it is good for them to be squashed like bugs. Just the other day my office mate was arguing for a "First Cause." Several other's were listening. 1. There is no example of nothing so you can not say something can not come from nothing. Show me nothing. Where did you get the idea that there is something called nothing. 2. You can not explain something that we do not know - "What is beyond Plank Time" - with something even greater that we do not know. 3. You are asserting an "Argument from Ignorance," You can not think of anything else so your God must have done it. You can not assert a god into existence. If you can use faith and belief to assert a god into existence then I can make the assertion that magic pixies, turtles all the way down, or a magic elephant is the creator of the universe and my argument will carry the same weight as yours. You do not get to explain a mystery or that which is unknown with a greater mystery or a greater unknown.
SLAM! I love Christians that make wild amorphous assertions. I fully believe that any time anyone from any religion makes a wild unsubstantiated claim, they should be called on it. Ridicule and logic are always the weapons of choice in such interactions. However; if someone actually wants to have a discussion, I tend to lighten up a bit on the ridicule while still sticking to the facts.
I am torn between these two viewpoints.
mykcob4, yes, many theists who drop inhere appear to be idiots. But they aren't, it is the effect of religion. religion strips away the ability to process thought and challenge obvious discrepancies. A far as their motives, I am sure they wan tot convert, preach to us, or show us the fallacy of our opinion(s).
CyberLN I do want theists to stay so that a prolonged and rational discourse can follow. I do want to welcome them with open and friendly arms. I am a firm believe in giving anyone a second chance. And don't worry about mykcob4, I have had drill sergeants who would eat his face off for breakfast.
But I also believe in giving back as much respect as offered. Unfortunately, we don't get much respect from theists. So most of the time my first post to a fresh faced theists is warm and accommodating, but usually my following responses get very cold and a lot of push-back begins.
As I have said before, I will do my best to give a new poster the benefit of the doubt, depending on the tone and nature of their first few posts. Meaning I will try to be welcoming and accommodating whenever possible. In many cases, it is important to remember we have people on here from all over the world with a wide range of cultural and language differences. Therefore, it may sometimes take a few posts to get a feel for a person's true intentions, as what may sometimes be perceived as an insult was not necessarily meant as such. However, let me catch a whiff of somebody intentionally trying to be condescending and ridiculously unreasonable, then I see them as fair targets. My gloves are coming off and it will be, "Game on!" *evil snicker*
I tend to be like Tin Man, a welcome (unless their first post is absolute trolling or designed to be disrespectful) and reply to whatever point they may have. If theior post is ignorant and disrespectful. I just have to "do a Myk" and deliver an expletive laden tirade at their fucking rudeness and ignorance.
Afterwards I watch with great pleasure as their specious arguments and pathetic whinings are comprehensively demolished by the brains trust here.
I will join in on historical subjects, cos I like ferreting out the facts and separating them from the apologetics and downright lies theists love to present.
(Edited to makes sense)
As far as blasting first that is not the case. If you have noticed CyberLN, I let a non-atheist say their piece first. I usually wait until many have weighed in before I speak my mind. When someone starts ranting "wistful insistence" they are obviously insulting our intelligence here. The drive-bys have all acted in the same way. I didn't take them down that road. There is always a trigger before I shoot so to speak. If you have reviewed all of the posts that I have "blasted" someone you will find that trigger. As far as my posts about guns and or conservatives, they are not the only subjects that I have commented on, not even close. Yes, I have a firm position about both those issues but they are not the ONLY issues that I reply to or actually start.
I view it like this. If there are people lurking behind the scenes and they read posts by theists that get blasted, they will know that if they want to "discuss" something, they had better have their proverbial ducks in a row that just generally insulting atheists, proselytizing, or not having proof of their claims is not a good idea.
BTW, David, I was a drill instructor for two years of my long career. I don't know anybody that can "chew my face off.
Let's just say CyberLN I totally disagree with you. There, how was that? Did I blast you? No, I did not?
I took your suggestion to examine your recent responses to theists. The first one I looked at was the recent string started by dejess. 48 minutes after his initial post you wrote:
“This drive-by shit is so chickenshit it is unbelievable. You guys start a debate, can't handle the fact that you KNOW you are going to LOSE that debate and just bail like the pussies you are!”
Help me understand, what was the trigger?
Forget it CyberLN if you don't think Dejess has been condescending and insulting, then you don't know much as far as I am concerned.
I was referring to your initial response which came 48 minutes after the OP. I think I was clear about that. Dejess had written nothing else at that point. At that point, you had no idea what would ensue. So again, what was the trigger for your initial response.
As a lurker atheist who has recently been going back and forth as to whether I should post in these forums: I've been hesitant. I saw believers received with condescension and mockery. It can absolutely be argued that those responses were justified, but as a person looking for a safe space to explore conversation and ideas, I found myself worrying that I could become a target. And of course there are lots of really valuable and civil conversations I've seen as well. Just putting in my two cents.
Welcome to forums stone jade, I feel I seen your name before, but if this is your first post, welcome! I am always for more people contributing to discussion. No matter what differences of opinion there are.
@ Stone Jade
Why does conversation need to be safe? Is that a guarantee?
It doesn't need to be and isn't a guarantee. I just prefer to interact in an environment where I feel like I can ask honest questions, say something emotional instead of rational or simply make a mistake without fearing that others will be condescending or call me an idiot. Just my preference.
I actually believe conversation does need to be safe, because talking is how people think. Thoughts left inside the mind stagnate and putrefy; they need to be expressed, because only once you express them do you learn to articulate them. Only once you converse with another mind do you understand your own thoughts.
The unwarranted aggression with which "drive-bys" get attacked is not good. It not only encourages them not to return, it may make them think twice before sharing their thoughts again.
However, it should also be noted that not only do they suffer, but the members of the forum suffer. By silencing others, you shoot yourself in the foot. You cut your own lines of communication, your own inlet to new ideas, your only method of uncluttering your thoughts. Ridicule is how the flock keeps its sheeps in line, precisely because it makes those sheeps which are thinking new things, to think twice before sharing it with the flock.
So my advice to everyone: If you value your own mind, if you value reason and thought, do not squash the conversations that come your way.
I 100% agree, and I personally don't think I could have said it better myself. Free sharing of ideas has been among the driving forces of human advancement since the dawn of language for those exact reasons.
"I actually believe conversation does need to be safe, because talking is how people think. "
I disagree on both counts. Limiting conversation is pointless, and safe is a subjective term. It's axiomatic people can think without talking, and what's worse that they can talk without thinking. Look at the contributions from most of the drive-by contributions you are lamenting being 'driven' away. Thread after thread making the same lame claim that atheism is a belief, has a burden of proof, is a world view, fuck me most of it can be disavowed with Google or looking at a dictionary by anyone with a shred of objectivity.
The real irony is the number of contributors here who repeatedly take the time to patiently indulge their asinine questions with candid and expansive responses, only to be met with ignorant condescension or the inevitable flounce.
" You cut your own lines of communication, your own inlet to new ideas"
Do behave John, the idea is a couple of thousand years old at least, and not one of them can even spare the time to pretend they can evidence it. I do love the irony of a theists lamenting that atheists are silencing new ideas from theists though, hilarious.
"So my advice to everyone: If you value your own mind, if you value reason and thought, do not squash the conversations that come your way."
My advice is to judge all conversations on their individual merits, and posts come to that. The idea that my lack of belief is a belief, that the lack of a single belief represents a worldview, that not believing in a bronze age superstition that no one can evidence requires contrary proof, are not just not new ideas, they are absurdly silly distortions of reality, and ideas based on naught but superstition that outrage reason, and deny science should be ridiculed, and ridiculed loudly.
If the prospect of something someone believes being ridiculed scares them, then they should really take an objective stab at why. The fear just might be justified by the vague impression they have invested belief in something that isn't real...I'd be more worried about that than the myth of hell.
I think what CyberLN is trying to say is that you'll catch more flies with honey than cat piss. I am inclined to agree, although I do think that some are deserving of the full brunt they receive for being trolls or proselytizing. However, I try to be amiable enough to newcomers. But then, I usually don't show up to the party until their intentions have been laid bare and there are no ghosts to be given up, so to speak.
The thing is that we have non-atheist come to this site all the time.
1) The chose a moniker that is purposely designed to piss any atheist off I should say some do. That is a trigger.
2) They create a thread whose title is designed to be an insult, again some do. That's a trigger.
3) They pose as students writing a paper and this gets interesting. Again some do but let's explore this a little further. They say that they are writing a paper for a class. Okay fine. Then they give the title of that essay. Again no problem. Then they ask a few questions and here's where they run off the rails. They don't even know what atheism is. Big fucking red flag! Next, all the questions are "push-poll questions designed for a predetermined outcome. BIGGER FUCKING RED FLAG. And here is the biggest tell of all of why they are lying. Instead of collecting the answers to their questions, they engage in defending religion/christianity! BOOM! Ding ding ding! Case closed! There is no class assignment, no essay/survey. Instead, it is a platform to proselytize targeting atheists. The biggest fucking trigger of all.
In the case of Dejess' trigger, it is in the title of the thread. "What is the best atheists' argument against God existing?" It is a clear demand that atheists prove there is no god. It is shifting the responsibility. So what if I spotted early? It is still a typical christian insult directed toward atheists. Subsequent post by Dejess proves that to be true.
I know what CyberLN is trying to say. She is saying that I am bullying and she's wrong. I am pointed out and calling things as I see them. And the only reason that there is no concrete evidence that people were faking a class assignment is because they just don't admit it.
Show me one assignment where you are told to go and take a survey and are instructed to defend a viewpoint. Show me that and I'll show you a worthless class!
As far as safe conversation that is just a form of censorship!