As an Atheist, how do you deal with even the most beligerant, ignorant, and hateful?

[Squishes]

I never said I defined my worldview according to atheism. It's part of my worldview but not the whole thing. Again, why don't you spend less time talking about other people and more time talking about yourself? the more you try to tell me about myself the more incorrect you are

Go back and read my first post. I said it was ridiculous to answer anything "as an atheist", because there is nothing interesting that follows about merely disbelieving in God and how you should interact with others.

I take it you just don't follow conversations well.

 

[allsmiles]

Go back and read my first post. I said it was ridiculous to answer anything "as an atheist", because there is nothing interesting that follows about merely disbelieving in God and how you should interact with others.

Maybe that's how it would be for you, if you were an atheist, but I think people are free to define their worldviews for themselves without needing your input and affirmation. Maybe you should spend more time talking about yourself, and less time trying to tell other people about themselves?

I take it you just don't follow conversations well.

Maybe your communication skills are mediocre. Maybe you're off base in trying to teach other people about themselves. Maybe you can't take constructive criticism and whenever people push back against your attempts to define others you simply call them idiots and maintain your out of line position.

 

[zippy2006]

Which of those words were fancy? And I pointed to a couple of examples of the absurdities your primitive tome contains. There's more, much more. It was written by ignorant primitives and reads that way. Maybe you're feeling some confusing, latent embarrassment? Maybe parroting my words back to me like some pea brained bird is your way of coping with how indefensible the Bible is when it's taken literally?

Maybe your nose is too high up in the air for you to smell the reek of condescension and general ugliness :idunno: ...but enough with maybes

You mistook a narrative for "the Idiot's Guide to Animal Husbandry" and an account of a miraculous healing performed by God himself to be a recipe to cure blindness. Which is to say no, I'm not much worried, especially considering you probably fished those from your favorite website "like some pea brained bird" anyway.

:e4e:

 

[allsmiles]

Maybe your nose is too high up in the air for you to smell the reek of condescension and general ugliness :idunno: ...but enough with maybes

You mistook a narrative for "the Idiot's Guide to Animal Husbandry" and an account of a miraculous healing performed by God himself to be a recipe to cure blindness. Which is to say no, I'm not much worried, especially considering you probably fished those from your favorite website "like some pea brained bird" anyway.

:e4e:

I fished those examples of absurdities from the Bible... that's the pea brained source I used. I didn't mistake anything, the Bible says that blindness was cured with dirt and spit. The tale of animal husbandry in Genesis is as unrealistic as it can get. I'm not surprised that these stories are absurd, they were written by ignorant primitives.

And again, you're parroting my words back at me. You believe Jesus could walk on water and raise the dead but you don't seem to have much of an imagination... Weird.

 

[Squishes]

Maybe that's how it would be for you, if you were an atheist, but I think people are free to define their worldviews for themselves without needing your input and affirmation.

Of course they can define their worldviews, but they cannot freely define words. Atheism is too specialized to be a worldview.

Maybe you should spend more time talking about yourself, and less time trying to tell other people about themselves?

Maybe you should spend more time talking about yourself, and less time trying to tell other people who are telling other people about themselves to stop talking about other people and talk about themselves.

Maybe your communication skills are mediocre. Maybe you're off base in trying to teach other people about themselves. Maybe you can't take constructive criticism and whenever people push back against your attempts to define others you simply call them idiots and maintain your out of line position.

Whatever.
Out of morbid curiosity, what is the right way for an atheist to respond to belligerence, hate and ignorance? I guess I missed the rulebook, so you'll have to fill me in on the official behavior.

 

[zippy2006]

I fished those examples of absurdities from the Bible... that's the pea brained source I used. I didn't mistake anything, the Bible says that blindness was cured with dirt and spit. The tale of animal husbandry in Genesis is as unrealistic as it can get. I'm not surprised that these stories are absurd, they were written by ignorant primitives.

Believe it or not, you did mistake something

And again, you're parroting my words back at me. You believe Jesus could walk on water and raise the dead but you don't seem to have much of an imagination... Weird.

If you equate imagination with the garbage you've been throwing around in this thread then I want nothing of it.

Let's see: you've managed to rid yourself of the vast majority of respect had for you from a Christian, an agnostic, and an 'other,' and all that in less than 20 minutes. I would say that's a record if it weren't for Atheist PhD who even managed to rouse the atheists themselves against him. But give it a few more minutes and I'm sure you'll be at his heels :thumb: Bad day I hope?

 

[allsmiles]

Of course they can define their worldviews, but they cannot freely define words. Atheism is too specialized to be a worldview.



Maybe you should spend more time talking about yourself, and less time trying to tell other people who are telling other people about themselves to stop talking about other people and talk about themselves.



Whatever.
Out of morbid curiosity, what is the right way for an atheist to respond to belligerence, hate and ignorance? I guess I missed the rulebook, so you'll have to fill me in on the official behavior.

Bottomline is that you have no business and you don't have the ability to tell people how they can and can't define their worldview. There's not doubt in mind that there are folks out there who can use a lack of belief in any god as a basis for their worldview.

I already answered the question posed in the OP. You aren't paying attention to me

 

[Rusha]

Do you simply ignore them?

YES ... you do.

Do you combat their arguments with reasonable, intelligent responses that counteract their opinions?

Nope. There are belligerent people on all sides of the debate. The best thing to do is not judge them by the how they label themselves (Christian, Atheist, Pagan, etc.), but instead how they converse with yourself and others.

Both would be wise strategies, but we are shown time and time again that they are unwilling, or unable, to listen to reason. So what should an Atheist do when confronted with someone so hateful?

It really depends on what your goal is. IF you are here to share and discuss you opinion on different topics, then it shouldn't make any difference whether or not someone agrees with you.

Now, should the person in question resort to name calling or intentionally misrepresent your view, it's best to put them on ignore and be done with it.

 

[allsmiles]

Believe it or not, you did mistake something

Sorry Zippy, dirt and spit as a cure for blindness is absurd. The method of animal husbandry in Genesis chapter 30 is absurd. These absurdities were written by ignorant primitives who knew less about the universe than children do today.

If you equate imagination with the garbage you've been throwing around in this thread then I want nothing of it.

I understand you have a distaste for what I say, that doesn't make it garbage, maybe it means you have lousy taste? You do believe that the pornographic filth of the Levite and his Concubine is divine...

Let's see: you've managed to rid yourself of the vast majority of respect had for you from a Christian, an agnostic, and an 'other,' and all that in less than 20 minutes.

So?

I would say that's a record if it weren't for Atheist PhD who even managed to rouse the atheists themselves against him. But give it a few more minutes and I'm sure you'll be at his heels :thumb: Bad day I hope?

I feel like you're having a hard time coping with how indefensible your absurd beliefs are (confusing feelings of latent embarrassment?).

 

[zippy2006]

Sorry Zippy, dirt and spit as a cure for blindness is absurd. The method of animal husbandry in Genesis chapter 30 is absurd. These absurdities were written by ignorant primitives who knew less about the universe than children do today.

And do you honestly believe that the writer of John was trying to tell you or anyone else that dirt+spit=miracle cure?

I understand you have a distaste for what I say, that doesn't make it garbage, maybe it means you have lousy taste? You do believe that the pornographic filth of the Levite and his Concubine is divine...

It's not only what you say but how you say it, as well as the amazing lack of accompanying argument to support your "point", such as this:

I feel like you're having a hard time coping with how indefensible your absurd beliefs are (confusing feelings of latent embarrassment?).

Obviously you are a troll, since the purpose that these sort of statements serve is nothing but condescension and belittling of others.

 

[allsmiles]

And do you honestly believe that the writer of John was trying to tell you or anyone else that dirt+spit=miracle cure?

No, I think the author of John was an ignorant primitive writing in a time of rampant superstition, illiteracy, no copy-rights and deep seated credulity.

It's not only what you say but how you say it, as well as the amazing lack of accompanying argument to support your "point", such as this:

My argument is that the Bible contains numerous absurdities and I've named a few. If you can explain to me how the method of animal husbandry in Genesis chapter 30 is reasonable then I'll eat my hat.

Deal?

Obviously you are a troll, since the purpose that these sort of statements serve is nothing but condescension and belittling of others.

I'm not saying anything that isn't true. It's you who has failed to make an argument.

Dirt and spit as a cure for blindness is absurd. How is it not?

The method of animal husbandry in Genesis chapter 30 is absurd. How is it not?

The story of the Levite and his Concubine is pornographic filth. How is it not?

I don't need to make much of an argument, it's pretty easy. If you don't answer the questions above then you're sticking your tail between your legs and sauntering off, guilty of the intellectual cowardice you're clumsily attempting to accuse me of.

 

[Spitfire]

So what should an Atheist do when confronted with someone so hateful?

Start voicing support for the Muslim theocracies that they sympathize with even though they are far more severe than the worst Christians and mean real harm to those whom they aren't interested in tolerating?

That's what a lot of atheists I know seem to do (albeit not right here on this forum)

 

[zippy2006]

No, I think the author of John was an ignorant primitive writing in a time of rampant superstition, illiteracy, no copy-rights and deep seated credulity.

Why do you think that? Are you just throwing it out there for shock value or are you actually going to defend one of your statements eventually?

My argument is that the Bible contains numerous absurdities and I've named a few. If you can explain to me how the method of animal husbandry in Genesis chapter 30 is reasonable then I'll eat my hat.

Deal?

I don't much care about the thing you reference. You are pre-casting a writing as what you desire (practical guide to animal husbandry) and then taking a verse completely out of context to show that, based on your initial (false) premise that Genesis is a practical guide to goat farmers, the Bible is ridiculous. That's ridiculous.

I'm not saying anything that isn't true. It's you who has failed to make an argument.

I am asking what the point or purpose of this statement is:

I feel like you're having a hard time coping with how indefensible your absurd beliefs are (confusing feelings of latent embarrassment?).

 

[Persephone66]

Just one? 45 ACP and a shovel, they won't be missed.

A group? Fully automatic shotgun, 30 round clip, flechette rounds and a bulldozer. They won't be missed either.

I'm jesting, really.

While I do find it to be fun to debate them to see what lunacy they spew out, it does come to a point where you just have to write them off as an idiot and move on to something that is actually productive.

 

[allsmiles]

Why do you think that? Are you just throwing it out there for shock value or are you actually going to defend one of your statements eventually?

Defend one of my statements against what? You haven't lifted a finger to demonstrate how anything that I've said is untrue. I can go on making assertions all night at this rate :chuckle:

Walking on water is absurd.

Feeding thousands with only a few loaves and fishes is absurd.

If you can demonstrate to me how those ancient anecdotes aren't absurd I'll eat my hat.

I don't much care about the thing you reference. You are pre-casting a writing as what you desire (practical guide to animal husbandry) and then taking a verse completely out of context to show that, based on your initial (false) premise that Genesis is a practical guide to goat farmers, the Bible is ridiculous. That's ridiculous.

I'm not casting Genesis as a guide to animal husbandry, what a poor misrepresentation. I'm saying that it contains an absurd, utterly unrealistic story that undermines its alleged authenticity. You haven't made a single effort to demonstrate to anyone how that assertion is erroneous. You're making convoluted excuses for why you don't have to defend your absurd beliefs.

Virgin birth is absurd. How is it not?

Transforming water into wine is absurd. How is it not?

I'm giving you opportunity after opportunity to man up and defend your unreasonable beliefs. Instead, you're obfuscating and clumsily spinning vacuous excuse as well as parroting my own words back at me :nono:

I am asking what the point or purpose of this statement is:

I'm sharing with you what I feel because I think you'd be better served knowing exactly where I stand as opposed to me keeping things from you. Are you uncomfortable with honesty when it's not flattering to you?

 

[zippy2006]

Defend one of my statements against what? You haven't lifted a finger to demonstrate how anything that I've said is untrue. I can go on making assertions all night at this rate :chuckle:

No doubt you will :chuckle: The problem comes when you realize that shouting out opinions isn't actually argument, especially when you (hopefully) understand the issues better than you let on. Allow me to respond in the same way you have asserted:

Walking on water is absurd.

It isn't

Feeding thousands with only a few loaves and fishes is absurd.

It isn't

If you can demonstrate to me how those ancient anecdotes aren't absurd I'll eat my hat.

I just used as much power of demonstration in showing they aren't absurd as you did in showing that they are. That should suffice, no?

I'm not casting Genesis as a guide to animal husbandry, what a poor misrepresentation. I'm saying that it contains an absurd, utterly unrealistic story. You haven't made a single effort to demonstrate to anyone how that assertion is erroneous. You're making convoluted excuses for why you don't have to defend your absurd beliefs.

Virgin birth is absurd. How is it not?

Transforming water into wine is absurd. How is it not?

I'm giving you opportunity after opportunity to man up and defend your unreasonable beliefs. Instead, you're obfuscating and clumsily spinning vacuous excuse as well as parroting my own words back at me :nono:

They aren't. Multiple birds with one stone

Again from my last post: I am asking what the point or purpose of this statement is:

I feel like you're having a hard time coping with how indefensible your absurd beliefs are (confusing feelings of latent embarrassment?).

 

[OMEGA]

ATHIEST

WAIT TILL AFTER YOU DIE

AND IF GOD WANTS TO BRING YOU BACK TO LIFE

THEN YOU WILL HAVE ALL YOUR ANSWERS.

OKELY DOKELY MR. ATHIEST SIR .

HAVE A NICE LIFE.:bowser:

 

[zippy2006]

Walking on water is absurd.

You talked much of worldviews already, so I assume you know how to argue with respect to them and take into account your opponents worldview. By this statement I assume you are referring to the Biblical account, which is a Christian account of their God--who is omnipotent--walking on water. So if you were being honest you would have phrased the question something like this:

It is absurd for an omnipotent being to walk on water​

But clearly that isn't absurd, now is it? You are playing games, and I have responded with games. If you want to set forth an argument, I will respond with one.

 

[allsmiles]

No doubt you will :chuckle: The problem comes when you realize that shouting out opinions isn't actually argument, especially when you (hopefully) understand the issues better than you let on. Allow me to respond in the same way you have asserted:




It isn't



It isn't



I just used as much power of demonstration in showing they aren't absurd as you did in showing that they are. That should suffice, no?



They aren't. Multiple birds with one stone

Again from my last post: I am asking what the point or purpose of this statement is:

I don't see much need to argue that virgin birth is absurd. I don't see much need to argue that the Levite and his Concubine is ancient snuff literature. A Levite's concubine gets raped all night and then he cuts her up into little pieces the next day. That's pornographic filth. If you have a way of explaining how it's not filth, I'd like to read it. I'm genuinely interested in how you justify it. If the method of animal husbandry in Genesis 30 isn't absurd, if you can explain to me how it is reasonable, I'd like to read it. I'm sincerely interested in what you have to say. I may not like it but I am interested.

I don't feel like I'm arguing, I feel like I'm making assertions, challenging you to debunk them and you're making excuses for why you won't. I hate playing this game with you people and I'm not going to indulge it for much longer.

 

[allsmiles]

You talked much of worldviews already, so I assume you know how to argue with respect to them and take into account your opponents worldview. By this statement I assume you are referring to the Biblical account, which is a Christian account of their God--who is omnipotent--walking on water. So if you were being honest you would have phrased the question something like this:

It is absurd for an omnipotent being to walk on water​

But clearly that isn't absurd, now is it? You are playing games, and I have responded with games. If you want to set forth an argument, I will respond with one.

This is all I've been asking for. I make an assertion and challenge you to provide an explanation. Finally, at long last you managed to man up and provide one. I appreciate that.