Question for Atheists

[SteelCurtain]

The reason why we have introduction threads is so that people can kind of dip a toe into this community in a safe environment.

I was on his side about the nitpicking, that is, until he basically said he was here to use us and had no intention of returning after he was done with us. His incredulity at the idea that just because he said he was here for research in his OP doesn't make him any less of an asshole pushed me over the edge.

I do think we, as a group here, could be a little less nit picky on the "atheists as a community" thing. I understand that atheism doesn't inherently mean anything, but there are some things that if you polled all atheists, we would tend to relate on certain grounds. The importance of science, skepticism, and being socially liberal, for example, are not tenets of atheism by any means, but if you picked an atheist randomly from a group, he or she's (more than) likely to exhibit these traits or have these values.

[The Valkyrie]

The reason why we have introduction threads is so that people can kind of dip a toe into this community in a safe environment.

I was on his side about the nitpicking, that is, until he basically said he was here to use us and had no intention of returning after he was done with us.

---

His incredulity at the idea that just because he said he was here for research in his OP doesn't make him any less of an asshole pushed me over the edge.

I do think we, as a group here, could be a little less nit picky on the "atheists as a community" thing. I understand that atheism doesn't inherently mean anything, but there are some things that if you polled all atheists, we would tend to relate on certain grounds. The importance of science, skepticism, and being socially liberal, for example, are not tenets of atheism by any means, but if you picked an atheist randomly from a group, he or she's (more than) likely to exhibit these traits or have these values.

---

I hate it when they do that.

Then don't leave money on the nightstand.

Oh, wait . . .

[abaris]

I do think we, as a group here, could be a little less nit picky on the "atheists as a community" thing. I understand that atheism doesn't inherently mean anything, but there are some things that if you polled all atheists, we would tend to relate on certain grounds. The importance of science, skepticism, and being socially liberal, for example, are not tenets of atheism by any means, but if you picked an atheist randomly from a group, he or she's (more than) likely to exhibit these traits or have these values.

No, I don't think so. First, it's the fundamental mistake being made about atheists, which in turn leads to the ever repeated bothersome nuisance of atheism being called a belief.

Second, without naming names, there are atheists on this very board, occasionally returning to post their newest conspiracy from lala land, I don't want to be associated with.

And third, even the being socially liberal doesn't hold true in many cases. What about Ayn Rand, her followers and that abysmal philosophy of survival of the fittest?

[JuliaL]

I do think we, as a group here, could be a little less nit picky on the "atheists as a community" thing. I understand that atheism doesn't inherently mean anything, but there are some things that if you polled all atheists, we would tend to relate on certain grounds. The importance of science, skepticism, and being socially liberal, for example, are not tenets of atheism by any means, but if you picked an atheist randomly from a group, he or she's (more than) likely to exhibit these traits or have these values.

Sure, but you'd get really bored repeatedly explaining correlation not implying causation.
Maybe a sticky thread with one post to that effect then frozen.

[SteelCurtain]

Sure. I get that.

Maybe its our approach that could be a little more tactful. I think we scare away a lot of decent theist talent (GriffonHunter comes to mind) by being super aggressive when some new person suggests that we like science.

[Mister Agenda]

Uh, I was looking for a discussion. That was the whole point to the question. I wasn't pimping my book, I was responding to the question about my intentions. And I'll tell you the same thing I told the other moron. I'm not coming back in here anyway after 6pm est so ban me all you want.

I believe you.

This is the truth. I came in here for a polite discussion with a group of Atheists because I wanted their perspective on one of the major themes in my book. I was polite with everyone who was polite with me. Through out the entire experience all you people have done is re-enforced what Christians say about you.

Except for the polite ones, who are apparently going to get short shrift because some of us were mean to you.

I was polite and courteous right up until the point when I finally lost my patience, and that specifically started with you. Who gives a good flying fuck if the word is capitalized or not.

Editors.

And even if you were trying to get me to understand some other notion regarding how Theists view Atheists what in the flying sam hell does that have to do with the OP?

You shouldn't capitalize 'theists' either. Not every post has to be on topic. The person who starts a thread does not have editorial control over it.

This is the first forum I've ever been in where there isn't a rule about sticking to the topic, or maybe there is and the moderators just don't follow it.

If you read the rules to which you agreed when you joined, you'd know for sure.

I was also up front with why I was here at the very beginning, but I'm guessing some of you didn't bother to read what I actually wrote.

Being up front that you have no intention of sticking around once you've got what you want doesn't make it okay. Though I'll grant it's better than being sneaky about it.

Instead you stopped at my religion type up there at the top and decided I was the enemy right off the bat. THAT's what happened. THAT'S what you did.

You seem to have quickly developed a persecution complex. No one here is judging you by anything but what you post. Do you thihk if I write a book, I ought to put that Christians can't handle criticism and always play the Christian persecution card when things don't go their way?

Go back and read through the thread. I did nothing here but try and have a discussion, that's all I tried to do, anyone with any brain at all can see that.

I can see that. If you weren't having an anti-atheist meltdown because some of us are nit-picky about the rules of English, I'd have more sympathy for you.

I won't wait till 6pm, I'll go ahead and bounce now because I really have all I need for my book. The character of the typical Atheist is very clear. My character is going to be an arrogant, condescening asshole who lives in a basement and spends his day spewing vitriol to anyone who opposes his belief system.

So one day on one forum is all the research you ever intended? You think you can judge an entire demographic based on that? There are about 6 million atheists in the USA. Hint: the vast majority of them aren't here. And some of them are probably people you care about.

---

So what? He made it very clear that his intended audience are American rightwing christians. And going by his sweeping assumptions and arrogance, he never intended to write something different anyway.

Then honestly, by all rights and to protect the people on this forum from being further scrutinized by an individual who clearly had this sort of motive, he should have been immediately banned. If it was never his "true" intent to engage in meaningful discussion with the people here, whether that be to learn or research, one can surmise that it WAS his intention to harass, troll and agitate anyone daring to respond.

He responded to many posts politely for about the first six pages. Some people are touchy about having their posts criticized for spelling, grammar, punctuation, and capitalization. That doesn't justify his parting rant, and thin skin is not a survival trait around here, but I don't think the evidence supports his intention being to troll. I think it supports him not taking constructive criticism well.

[Cyberman]

I do think we, as a group here, could be a little less nit picky on the "atheists as a community" thing.

Generally, I would tend to agree. It's one thing that puts me off certain 'movements', that whole clique thing of "you're not one of us - call the guards!"



However, places like this actually are communities; as such, they are only as good as their members and disruptive elements do get frozen out if they're not 'rehabilitated'.

(Apologies to the hard-working Staff if my pic is too big - there's no way of checking on my mobile.)

[Joods]

He responded to many posts politely for about the first six pages. Some people are touchy about having their posts criticized for spelling, grammar, punctuation, and capitalization. That doesn't justify his parting rant, and thin skin is not a survival trait around here, but I don't think the evidence supports his intention being to troll. I think it supports him not taking constructive criticism well.

Perhaps, but the fact that he was criticized for grammatical and spelling errors really shouldn't have been a factor when the larger picture was that his intent was to use us and then leave. Knowing this upfront may have garnered different responses from those participating in this thread.

I'm not saying that it was wrong of him to defend against the grammar nazis because I myself did it to him too. My reasoning why I did it is this: if you are going to write a book, things like spelling and grammar DO matter. Editors look for those things. A person's ability to type well thought out ideas with correct grammar and spelling go a long way when you want to write professionally. People tend to take you more seriously when you don't come off as lacking in the English 101 department.

I can't stand that and maybe it's because I grew up in a time before we had cell phones so there was no short cuts when writing a note to a friend. Heck, I remember writing full page notes to my friends in high school. We weren't lazy then and I don't see why it would be acceptable for anyone, especially one who is writing a book, to be so careless now.

So, I wasn't picking apart his poor grammar and spelling because I was trying to be mean. I did it because I wanted him to see the importance of his errors and I hoped that he would take it constructively. I'll be the first to admit that I should have done it better. My error.

Instead it turned into an insult-fest with others and it just got worse from there. Compile that with the fact that he was getting increasingly agitated and continued to miss repeated efforts to educate him about certain things, it's no wonder he didn't last long here.

[robvalue]

Banned already? Blimey. So after all this research I suppose we're going to get a character called A. Hole who rants about how much he hates God and then looks at a tree and finds jesus.

This should have been settled after the very first reply, that atheists cannot be generalised. All that's left is to not misrepresent the position, as happens almost all the time.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

He wasn't removed for his interaction with us as a forum. I mean shit we sometimes roast people when they first start, it's just how it is.

Rather his continual wilfull rejection of staff requests not to break the rules, andnthen using ignorance as to why he could continue breaking them (not to mention him admitting he was effectively here not to engage but to use people for 'research'. I personally take a dim view of that. I'd like staff to be consulted/asked by prospective researchers first but there you go).