Rule Change (New Staff Power)

[Rhondazvous]

I think what Huggie is speaking about is the down right distain Atheists have when a theist has rightfully beaten them into a corner.

When what happens? Never seen that before ?

Hey, if they like talking about a god that doesn’t exist, it’s no surprise they also talk about things that never happen.

[robvalue]

A: P-K4

T: Q x K WINNNN!!!

A: That's an illegal move. You promised you'd play properly this time.

T: Okay, okay. P-K4.

A: N-KB3

T: Q x everything!

A: No, you can't do that.

T: You don't get to say what the rules are!

A: Ugh.

[Rhondazvous]

No, I've never seen this either. I've seen theists declaring themselves victorious, of course.

After they’ve beaten themselves into a corner.

[robvalue]

Sometimes, they don't even really need us there at all

I'm just ribbing you guys

[Drich]

Why in the world would I list specific instances where I have incited some of you into a flaming rage if this sort of behavior is no long tolerated from theists?

I have also seen where huggie has beaten one person specifically with facts, and that person lash out against huggie with personal attacks.
So it's not just me.

This is what I mean by beat back into a corner: You can no longer defend facts as they pertain to the topic so you lash out at anything, or the more popular response is to try change the topic/red herring rather than speak topically.

An Awesome non member specific instance is in my last big thread about the exodus. The standard atheist argument was beaten back (no evidence/can't move the time line, because the movie provided a plausible argument and physical evidence for both) to which point the topic stalled.. then someone out of the blue posts a picture of the ark... as if one story in Genesis had anything to do with the exodus... So then ATR takes on the task of pushing back this topic. One that I ignore because another one of you brings up slavery, and as slavery is topical to the exodus I go through all you all cared to talk about with it. This is why you all feel you do not loose a argument... (Because you do not ever run out of stuff to argue.)

It doesn't even have to be about God. It can be about something as mundane as what dialog is given in a movie or book and or it's meaning. once the theist properly quotes the source material in question the topic generally turns. It's like with you content is irrelevant, it's who has the last word that wins...


Now on our side of the fence this can be a little frustrating, so the only way to drive a point home is to 'break the spirit' so to speak. to stop being friendly and force a concession or force the atheist to retreat and abandon the topic. "To have the last word, to redirect the subject on a specific member and what and why they believe what they do, do not allow a topical shift/way out, until the leave or have a melt down." (which again is old hat when an atheist argues with a Christian)
I've done this personally on a few occasions, and for my trouble in one instance was told if I were to continue to peruse this line of thought I would have "my brains beaten out"...

The younger guys tend to roll with the punches. The older more established people take great wounding offense to such a display.

So again my question is.. are we/theist meant to simply roll over and let the atheist have their 'victories?' _Or can we force an issue with an atheist, as Athiests Force issues with Theists when they feel they have them on their heels?

Not that I would each and every time... I just need to know what the policies are here now.

[Reforged]

At the end of the day everyone has the right to free speech, noone has the right not to be offended. This applies to everyone.
I find the idea of a negative influence extremely subjective. You could successfully argue the case that someone is a negative influence regardless of who they are.
Besides, a negative influence is only a negative influence if you allow it to influence you. If every single person on the forum allows that then yes, a person has negatively influenced the forum but who is ultimately to blame? The block button exists for a reason, its not like it couldn't of been used at any point.

Another concern I have... Wasn't the point of this forum, to some extent, to counter negative influence? I mean if we're talking about some derailing troll then fine but if its some illogical, raving loon... isn't that kind of part of the target audience? People who are so entrenched in what they believe they think in circles? Isn't that kind of what we're struggling against ingeneral? I mean yes, it would be a better world if every religious person was thoroughly grounded but we know thats not the case plus they're not the problem. The people willing to listen to reason are not the ones in dire need of pacifying and countering.
I suppose what I'm saying is; the loonies need representation too. If you only learn to form a constructive dialogue with a reasonable theist up for an open discussion using logic you're not learning to form a constructive dialogue with the majority of theists. Infact you're not learning to form a constructive dialogue with most people, period. We're not learning to break those obsessive patterns of thought that lead people to become fanatical. Unless the objective of this place is to just stew in our own moral outrage I think thats abit of a problem.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

At the end of the day everyone has the right to free speech, noone has the right not to be offended. This applies to everyone.
I find the idea of a negative influence extremely subjective. You could successfully argue the case that someone is a negative influence regardless of who they are.
Besides, a negative influence is only a negative influence if you allow it to influence you. If every single person on the forum allows that then yes, a person has negatively influenced the forum but who is ultimately to blame? The block button exists for a reason, its not like it couldn't of been used at any point.

Another concern I have... Wasn't the point of this forum, to some extent, to counter negative influence? I mean if we're talking about some derailing troll then fine but if its some illogical, raving loon... isn't that kind of part of the target audience? People who are so entrenched in what they believe they think in circles? Isn't that kind of what we're struggling against ingeneral? I mean yes, it would be a better world if every religious person was thoroughly grounded but we know thats not the case plus they're not the problem. The people willing to listen to reason are not the ones in dire need of pacifying and countering.
I suppose what I'm saying is; the loonies need representation too. If you only learn to form a constructive dialogue with a reasonable theist up for an open discussion using logic you're not learning to form a constructive dialogue with the majority of theists. Infact you're not learning to form a constructive dialogue with most people, period. We're not learning to break those obsessive patterns of thought that lead people to become fanatical. Unless the objective of this place is to just stew in our own moral outrage I think thats abit of a problem.

This is not aimed at removing theists. In fact more often than not the people we'd have sought to remove were atheists.

We are not advocating the removal of people just for having different views, just to clarify. There is also no 'point' to this forum beyond whatever you as a member drawn from it. Some may view it as a crutch or an outlet, some (like me) just view it as a place to hang out.

[Reforged]

At the end of the day everyone has the right to free speech, noone has the right not to be offended. This applies to everyone.
I find the idea of a negative influence extremely subjective. You could successfully argue the case that someone is a negative influence regardless of who they are.
Besides, a negative influence is only a negative influence if you allow it to influence you. If every single person on the forum allows that then yes, a person has negatively influenced the forum but who is ultimately to blame? The block button exists for a reason, its not like it couldn't of been used at any point.

Another concern I have... Wasn't the point of this forum, to some extent, to counter negative influence? I mean if we're talking about some derailing troll then fine but if its some illogical, raving loon... isn't that kind of part of the target audience? People who are so entrenched in what they believe they think in circles? Isn't that kind of what we're struggling against ingeneral? I mean yes, it would be a better world if every religious person was thoroughly grounded but we know thats not the case plus they're not the problem. The people willing to listen to reason are not the ones in dire need of pacifying and countering.
I suppose what I'm saying is; the loonies need representation too. If you only learn to form a constructive dialogue with a reasonable theist up for an open discussion using logic you're not learning to form a constructive dialogue with the majority of theists. Infact you're not learning to form a constructive dialogue with most people, period. We're not learning to break those obsessive patterns of thought that lead people to become fanatical. Unless the objective of this place is to just stew in our own moral outrage I think thats abit of a problem.

This is not aimed at removing theists. In fact more often than not the people we'd have sought to remove were atheists.

We are not advocating the removal of people just for having different views, just to clarify. There is also no 'point' to this forum beyond whatever you as a member drawn from it. Some may view it as a crutch or an outlet, some (like me) just view it as a place to hang out.

I'm just saying. If you remove people for being lunatics well, you're missing an opportunity to learn how to pacify lunatics.
Considering some of the arguably radical responses the subject provokes across the world that seems like a loss.
Pacifying is a skill as much as debating is and in the cases where you're handling "negative influences" its vital. 
These people can't be banned from real life or the public discourse that often dictates policy.

[Thumpalumpacus]

No, I've never seen this either. I've seen pigeons declaring themselves victorious, of course.

Fify

ETA: Beccs beat me to it.

[Rhondazvous]

Yeah, I have called "time" on debates on many occasions because I feel it's no longer productive. No one has a duty to continue any given debate endlessly.

There you go. When I feel I’ve said all that needs to be said, when all I can do is repeat myself, when I’ve given the theist enough rope to hang himself, I’m gone. If my withdrawal leaves him thinking he’s won, so the fuck what?