3 ms·

Yeah, and how's that kind of attitude been working out for you, over the last couple decades of trying to change the public conversation in America?

sph 3y ago
1. Not my problem, I am not in America. 2. I am not trying to change any bloody thing. I just don't believe in God. No need to turn this into a political debate. I'd rather discuss religion in that case. 3. I believe in free speech. No one is taking your rights away here, you're free to do whatever you want as am I. If the fact that I have another opinion than you, then my friend, what you're looking for is an echo chamber, not a discussion with strangers.
- throwanem 3y ago
  A moment ago you seemed awfully anxious to defend a movement and a style of behavior, both of which I took care to specify by name and close description respectively. Now you disclaim both? I don't know who you're arguing with, but apparently it is not me.
  - mcpackieh 3y ago
    > A moment ago you seemed awfully anxious to defend a movement and a style of behavior Can you quote his defense of a style of behavior? I scrolled up and I'm not seeing it. FWIW, I am not religious but I personally oppose anti-theism and the antagonistic sort of atheist advocacy.
    - throwanem 3y ago
      More in a parallel subthread's comment [1] than in this one. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37203331 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37203331
      - sph 3y ago
        Let me remind you the entire thing started with calling atheists smug, contemptuous as a reply to a disagreeable-to-you but non-targeted nor hostile comment. In any case, I offered an olive branch in the parallel subthread. We got better things to do with our time I reckon.
        throwanem 3y ago
        I mean, I really don't know how I could've been clearer in my original comment, beyond hedging it around with a lot of "not all atheists" disclaimers that I didn't think would be necessary alongside how specific I was already being. Apparently they were, because none of the responses that comment has elicited have had anything to do with what I was talking about, but instead were meant to counter a much more general criticism than the one I actually made. It doesn't need an olive branch because, as eventually became clear, whatever argument was being pursued here wasn't with anything I'd said, or indeed anything to do with me - judging by your other comment you seem still to think I'm religious! Even were I otherwise inclined to, it'd be impossible to take offense on the back of such a total misapprehension. But you're right that we all have better ways to spend our time.
ChainOfFools 3y ago
> how's that kind of attitude been working out for you, over the last couple decades of trying to change the public conversation in America? The fable-believing egoist who wants their favorite story to "win" so that they can claim a place in some imaginary clever vanguard of those who "changed the public conversation" in America, in full projection mode here.

sph 3y ago

1. Not my problem, I am not in America. 2. I am not trying to change any bloody thing. I just don't believe in God. No need to turn this into a political debate. I'd rather discuss religion in that case. 3. I believe in free speech. No one is taking your rights away here, you're free to do whatever you want as am I. If the fact that I have another opinion than you, then my friend, what you're looking for is an echo chamber, not a discussion with strangers.

throwanem 3y ago
A moment ago you seemed awfully anxious to defend a movement and a style of behavior, both of which I took care to specify by name and close description respectively. Now you disclaim both? I don't know who you're arguing with, but apparently it is not me.
- mcpackieh 3y ago
  > A moment ago you seemed awfully anxious to defend a movement and a style of behavior Can you quote his defense of a style of behavior? I scrolled up and I'm not seeing it. FWIW, I am not religious but I personally oppose anti-theism and the antagonistic sort of atheist advocacy.
  - throwanem 3y ago
    More in a parallel subthread's comment [1] than in this one. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37203331 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37203331
    - sph 3y ago
      Let me remind you the entire thing started with calling atheists smug, contemptuous as a reply to a disagreeable-to-you but non-targeted nor hostile comment. In any case, I offered an olive branch in the parallel subthread. We got better things to do with our time I reckon.
      - throwanem 3y ago
        I mean, I really don't know how I could've been clearer in my original comment, beyond hedging it around with a lot of "not all atheists" disclaimers that I didn't think would be necessary alongside how specific I was already being. Apparently they were, because none of the responses that comment has elicited have had anything to do with what I was talking about, but instead were meant to counter a much more general criticism than the one I actually made. It doesn't need an olive branch because, as eventually became clear, whatever argument was being pursued here wasn't with anything I'd said, or indeed anything to do with me - judging by your other comment you seem still to think I'm religious! Even were I otherwise inclined to, it'd be impossible to take offense on the back of such a total misapprehension. But you're right that we all have better ways to spend our time.

ChainOfFools 3y ago

> how's that kind of attitude been working out for you, over the last couple decades of trying to change the public conversation in America? The fable-believing egoist who wants their favorite story to "win" so that they can claim a place in some imaginary clever vanguard of those who "changed the public conversation" in America, in full projection mode here.