So I joined a Christian forum...

[Angrboda]

For what it's worth, here on this forum, to me, you appear hostile and aggressive. It doesn't surprise me at all that you weren't able to sufficiently moderate your tone so as to appear non-threatening and open-minded. This is just my personal impression, mind you. A person's internet "body language" can easily arouse suspicions, whether or not they are warranted.

[ignoramus]

I'd ask any of them, if they believe in evolution by mutation and natural selection.
Then I'd ask them if they've had their flu shots, or made sure their parents or grandparents have.
Fucking hypocrits! Apparently their strong belief system is not that stupid, it needs a finger in the "real" world so science can keep them alive in order to keep practicing their "unreal" beliefs.

[Mudhammam]

For what it's worth, here on this forum, to me, you appear hostile and aggressive. It doesn't surprise me at all that you weren't able to sufficiently moderate your tone so as to appear non-threatening and open-minded. This is just my personal impression, mind you. A person's internet "body language" can easily arouse suspicions, whether or not they are warranted.

I wouldn't really expect any other opinion from you after your little tantrum towards me in this exchange: http://atheistforums.org/thread-26244-page-2.html

[Mystical]

I've been a member of the Catholic forums for years and I still can't even start my own thread :/

[Angrboda]

For what it's worth, here on this forum, to me, you appear hostile and aggressive. It doesn't surprise me at all that you weren't able to sufficiently moderate your tone so as to appear non-threatening and open-minded. This is just my personal impression, mind you. A person's internet "body language" can easily arouse suspicions, whether or not they are warranted.

I wouldn't really expect any other opinion from you after your little tantrum towards me in this exchange: http://atheistforums.org/thread-26244-page-2.html

You mean the little tantrum in which, in your second response to me, you called me a 'dipshit' without provocation? Two can play the blame game. Regardless, I had this opinion of you prior to that thread. In truth, I also had the opinion, therein expressed, that you are an idiot. It was my initial impression of you when you first arrived at AF that you were a little light in the load. Indeed, your response here in this thread only underscores my point about your aggressiveness and hostility.

---

I joined a Buddhist forum, ironically named "Buddhism Without Boundaries," one time. In an open thread, someone asked for explanations relating to a personal problem. I posted a response from the perspective of Rawls' theory of justice. The post was deleted. This forum had no PM system, so all personal messages were sent by email. I came back to the thread and found my post missing, so I presumed a glitch or something had occurred, or maybe I'd forgotten to click 'post'. Little did I know that it had been deleted for "not answering the post from a Buddhist perspective." So I reposted it. I got put on post moderation as a result. I figured, fine, I'll be on good behavior a while and get taken off it. After several weeks on post moderation without change, I gave up and left.

[Mudhammam]

I wouldn't really expect any other opinion from you after your little tantrum towards me in this exchange: http://atheistforums.org/thread-26244-page-2.html

You mean the little tantrum in which, in your second response to me, you called me a 'dipshit' without provocation. Two can play the blame game. Regardless, I had this opinion of you prior to that thread. In truth, I also had the opinion, therein expressed, that you are an idiot. It was my initial impression of you when you first arrived at AF. Indeed, your response here in this thread to me only underscores my point.

Yeah, you are a dipshit. Then and now. It was pretty evident when you started responding to my post as if it was personally addressing you (sorry, you're not that special) even though it clearly was not aimed at any specific person here (nor any specific religion that you identify with, which you also failed to note in your density).

[Whateverist]

You mean the little tantrum in which, in your second response to me, you called me a 'dipshit' without provocation. Two can play the blame game. Regardless, I had this opinion of you prior to that thread. In truth, I also had the opinion, therein expressed, that you are an idiot. It was my initial impression of you when you first arrived at AF. Indeed, your response here in this thread to me only underscores my point.

Yeah, you are a dipshit. Then and now. It was pretty evident when you started responding to my post as if it was personally addressing you (sorry, you're not that special) even though it clearly was not aimed at any specific person here (nor any specific religion that you identify with, which you also failed to note in your density).

Beg to differ. Rasetsu is no dipshit. However if you rub her the wrong way she will sometimes hit you with both barrels. If you can handle that you might find someone with some very interesting perspectives and ideas you can really learn from.

She will first help you learn that not everyone operates by the same niceties as perhaps you were taught. If you don't want to handle that, that's fine too. But if you insist on telling her what your expectations are for interpersonal niceties, she'll just keep ripping you a new one.

As to responding as if your post was addressed to her, aren't we all entitled to do that? Even the person who starts a thread has no say regarding who may respond. No one is that special.


PS: Pickup, I personally find you charming and interesting. (We may have attended the same charm school.) However, my wife had already shown me through her own example that people with different social styles can teach you a lot about the constraints imposed by those social niceties, and that the only reason yours feel right is that they're yours. We're not really all that.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Of course. Who wouldn't agree? It's just that I didn't break any rules and that's why I find it slightly annoying.

I hear you, I didn't mean that as a critique. It annoys the shit out of me on a music forum where I'm a member too; it's a fact of life.

But as I implied above, I think you went the extra mile to justify their action, in terms of setting the emotional tone.

[Mudhammam]

Thank you whateverist. I find you interesting and charming as well, and I always find myself learning something from your posts. No exception here. I take everyone's comments about my "aggressiveness and hostility," as rasetsu put it, to heart. I think there's a lot to draw from this.

Rasetsu, I don't know you, and outside of that thread, I can't say I've ever found your posts unintelligent or uninteresting. You're another one of the many members here that make this place enjoyable for me, and I was wrong to call you a dipshit, then and now. I'm sorry. Really, it's just in that exchange, I thought were you acting rash, either not really paying attention to what I said or purposely distorting my words, and doing so to make it personal. Whateverist, you're right that:

As to responding as if your post was addressed to her, aren't we all entitled to do that? Even the person who starts a thread has no say regarding who may respond. No one is that special.

I didn't mean that my problem was with rasetsu commenting on it, only that she seemed to be making my criticisms, in which I was calling out specific types of religious ideas, about her, even though I explicitly said they were not. And when she continued, and I sensed some aggression in her response, I responded in kind. Actually, I stepped over the line. Rasetsu, we can pursue that further if you wish or we can let bygones be bygones or you can say you don't care either way and that you still think I'm idiot. But you should know that I acknowledge that I was wrong, and did in fact, as you say, act unnecessarily aggressive.

On the main of this thread, I am realizing more acutely than ever that out of the many things I lack, diplomacy may be of the biggest. I am not apologetic in my general tone about religion, though the way I express it can undoubtedly use a good deal of improvement. I like spirited debate, I'm okay with snark when it is appropriate, and the occasional jab keeps it lively, but I realize I walk a fine line, especially when dealing with others who don't see things at all like I do. I guess part of my problem with it, not with everyone's criticisms in particular but more broadly speaking, is that it all seems so very PC to me. That other forum aside, when interacting with the religiously inclined, why should I have to tip toe around my words (by the way, I thought I did do so over at that other forum) rather than state what I actually think? How do we draw the line? If someone feels offended at me pressing them on the idea that humans are sinners, or that children should be inoculated from other worldviews, and I feel that I've tried to be respectful, is that my problem to correct or theirs? (I still think I was being objective, fair, and respectful, but I understand that it's hard to judge over the internet and they're probably suspicious or prejudiced about atheists...seems like bullshit to me though). Perhaps this is a topic for another thread.

[RobbyPants]

I'd ask any of them, if they believe in evolution by mutation and natural selection.
Then I'd ask them if they've had their flu shots, or made sure their parents or grandparents have.
Fucking hypocrits! Apparently their strong belief system is not that stupid, it needs a finger in the "real" world so science can keep them alive in order to keep practicing their "unreal" beliefs.

It won't do any good. Worthy has a Faith Vs Science subforum (yes, that's how they think of it), and there are some weird people there. I know of at least two that would assert gravity doesn't exist (because quantum woo) so they can then assert geocentrism. They openly state they believe in microevolution and not macroevolution (never mind there is no distinction in the really real world). They'll tell you that the second law of thermodynamics disproves evolution, and they'll preempt you by putting in a caveat to beware of the atheist "trick" to say it only applies to closed systems.

At the end of the day, they have some very sciency sounding objections to all the science they don't like. You won't convince them of anything.