Do you mean arrogant? Because I don’t think we’re narcissistic anymore than we’re self-assured
I’m not gonna try to convince you to change your mind, but I will say that a lot of us atheists hold similar beliefs in a strict sense within the scientific framework that makes us agnostics with every unknown. I think you’ve heard of people saying sarcastically that they’re agnostic of the Easter Bunny or Santa Claus, right?
In a practical sense we simply don’t pretend that we need absolute certainty with an omniscient-level of understanding to read between the lines of the reality that’s right in front of us. Take that as narcissism if you must, but there’s no reason to be conflate being self-assured with a sweeping personality trait
E: Also, sorry in advance for typing like an obnoxious atheist
I mean, you literally called the guy stupid and criticised the post for a “complete lack of logic”: I agree with the other people that you write incredibly obnoxiously, especially if that’s what you regard as “polite”. Unfortunately claims of rationality can go hand-in-hand with a pseudo-intellectualism that is really grating when done in earnest.
Maybe rather than consider everyone else racist, you might do a bit of self-reflection and consider why people who clearly acknowledge that the main post is racist (see every other upvoted comment) still consider your post worse than the racism you’re criticising.
I think you fail to understand that a lot of the people replying to you are solely replying because of your tone. You’re not winning any argument against anyone because all they’re telling you is that you’re obnoxious. You can’t spin that into a win over racist people because you need to recognise that people can agree with you and still treat you with hostility.
You’re not standing up for anything by being volatile. The only reason why I’m even engaging with you on this is because of your original assumption that people who are making fun of the way you post must clearly be racists. If you can now agree that this is not substantively what they are talking about, and you are okay with that, then both of us can do without your moral grandstanding over how justified you are in doing this.
I just wanted to make sure you understood why people are treating you poorly, and will continue to treat you poorly into the future. These are not going to just be people who disagree with you. These will include people who agree, but think you’re a real piece of shit.
Nobody’s going to want to answer your “direct questions” or engage with your “assertions” (I’m leaving out “patience” because implicit in the idea of patience is manner, in which tone plays a big part and I still don’t think you see it).
Does that mean you “win”? I think maybe everyone will be better off if you go away thinking you do, but no, it really doesn’t.
This toxic way of thinking of needing to win conversations is also present in the first part of your anecdote where you claim that people used to “win” by asking you to calm down or stop using certain words. They’re not trying to beat you, they’re trying to engage in discourse that both sides can appreciate. If you literally cannot win an argument without resorting to namecalling or condescension, you really need to rethink the value proposition of your arguments.
And if you really think that you’ve won when people no longer want to engage with you, then, like I said before, maybe everyone is better off that way.
Agnosticism and atheism are not of the same kind. There exist agnostic or gnostic atheists and there exist agnostic or gnostic theists. From what you write, you are an agnostic atheist: You do not believe in a god, yet you can not be sure that there is none.
Boop beep I got delete.
Do you mean arrogant? Because I don’t think we’re narcissistic anymore than we’re self-assured
I’m not gonna try to convince you to change your mind, but I will say that a lot of us atheists hold similar beliefs in a strict sense within the scientific framework that makes us agnostics with every unknown. I think you’ve heard of people saying sarcastically that they’re agnostic of the Easter Bunny or Santa Claus, right?
In a practical sense we simply don’t pretend that we need absolute certainty with an omniscient-level of understanding to read between the lines of the reality that’s right in front of us. Take that as narcissism if you must, but there’s no reason to be conflate being self-assured with a sweeping personality trait
E: Also, sorry in advance for typing like an obnoxious atheist
Boop beep I got delete.
Do your farts smell nice?
Boop beep I got delete.
I mean, you literally called the guy stupid and criticised the post for a “complete lack of logic”: I agree with the other people that you write incredibly obnoxiously, especially if that’s what you regard as “polite”. Unfortunately claims of rationality can go hand-in-hand with a pseudo-intellectualism that is really grating when done in earnest.
Maybe rather than consider everyone else racist, you might do a bit of self-reflection and consider why people who clearly acknowledge that the main post is racist (see every other upvoted comment) still consider your post worse than the racism you’re criticising.
IfBoop beep I got delete.
I think you fail to understand that a lot of the people replying to you are solely replying because of your tone. You’re not winning any argument against anyone because all they’re telling you is that you’re obnoxious. You can’t spin that into a win over racist people because you need to recognise that people can agree with you and still treat you with hostility.
You’re not standing up for anything by being volatile. The only reason why I’m even engaging with you on this is because of your original assumption that people who are making fun of the way you post must clearly be racists. If you can now agree that this is not substantively what they are talking about, and you are okay with that, then both of us can do without your moral grandstanding over how justified you are in doing this.
I just wanted to make sure you understood why people are treating you poorly, and will continue to treat you poorly into the future. These are not going to just be people who disagree with you. These will include people who agree, but think you’re a real piece of shit.
Nobody’s going to want to answer your “direct questions” or engage with your “assertions” (I’m leaving out “patience” because implicit in the idea of patience is manner, in which tone plays a big part and I still don’t think you see it).
Does that mean you “win”? I think maybe everyone will be better off if you go away thinking you do, but no, it really doesn’t.
This toxic way of thinking of needing to win conversations is also present in the first part of your anecdote where you claim that people used to “win” by asking you to calm down or stop using certain words. They’re not trying to beat you, they’re trying to engage in discourse that both sides can appreciate. If you literally cannot win an argument without resorting to namecalling or condescension, you really need to rethink the value proposition of your arguments.
And if you really think that you’ve won when people no longer want to engage with you, then, like I said before, maybe everyone is better off that way.
Boop beep I got delete.
Agnosticism and atheism are not of the same kind. There exist agnostic or gnostic atheists and there exist agnostic or gnostic theists. From what you write, you are an agnostic atheist: You do not believe in a god, yet you can not be sure that there is none.
Boop beep I got delete.