Your evangelism.
And, sure, I just did that cartoon thing, essentially pointing to all of you, but these seventeen-plus years later, do you know why, compared to rational discourse, these people keep you around? Don't get me wrong: You're generally beyond communication, Jan. The most accessible description of the problem would probably be that you seem more interested in the feeling of being some kind of evangelist trying to tell people what is what than actually saying anything useful.
To the other, though, I will acknowledge that one of my criticisms does end up with a peculiar implication: I'd have to look up precisely what it was, but there was an occasion around the time this thread opened that some particular idea was on the table and seemed to evade your grasp, but it turned up some time later in your argument about another discussion, and while I can't substantially connect the two occasions, any connection would likely suggest you went and looked up a word and then, knowing the basic definition, screwed up how it's used, what would stand out by any connection is the idea that you have a pulse insofar as somewhere in there you would have gone and looked something up. Compared to the flatliners, sure, that would be, well, something.
Another way of looking at it is to consider that someone might think they're smarter and better than you, but there comes a point at which we might wonder, to borrow a line, is our children leraning; and if that person is acquiring any useful knowledge along the way, then why not show it? The answer resolves as a matter of priorities: Sometimes it comes down to one being, quite simply, either unable or unwilling to do something. As a matter of priorities, if one has been learning necessary components along the way, but never put them toward actually resolving a question or issue, such that years later the discourse is essentially a simplification—i.e., labor reduction—of prior iterations of what reeks of liturgical ritual, the e'er decreasing pathways to resolution comparatively augment the potential that resolution of a question or issue is not the purpose of argument or argumentative behavior.
Essentially, what it comes down to is that some people appear to panic about your posts because that is their priority; they aren't here for any sort of genuine rational discourse, but just to fight, and, quite clearly, they focus on you as they do because they prefer to throw down with people they think they can take in a fight.
Such as I reminded above, we know about the religious on these counts; it doesn't excuse atheists from having a clue or even basic pretense of relationship with informational reliability (#162↑). Or, reiterated, I get that religious whatnots exist: morons, zealots, bigots. We know about the religious people. What is anybody else's excuse? (#163↑)
Consider the part from our neighbor (#156↑) about, "the matter of honesty, which the overt theists here - those who present themselves as theistically motivated and based, self-identified - lack". Okay, sure. In fact, he and I could have our own fascinating side discussion about why people within that framework would appeal not to honest beliefs, but, rather, sincerely held beliefs, though it gets complicated, quickly, because there are diverse applications of caveat emptor afoot, and again, the overlap would apply to our society's bloc that behaves like the people he describes, which in turn is not insignificant, as another reminded (#167↑) in justifying his own behavior. Nonetheless, the question of the matter of honesty reeks of poor justification inasmuch as the only differences it makes to me whether the problem is dishonesty, to the one, or delusion or other dysfunction or disability, to the other, have to do with response vectors, and assessing culpability; if "they are liars to their core", then the question of culpability is settled for the assessor. We might consider in that framework that, sure, we know about those, but what is anyone else's excuse? To some degree, the excuse is, because theists.
And they need you to be more dangerous than you really are. If I say, mostly harmless, and, don't panic, there are at least a couple of people here who ought to know what that means. But they need you to be more akin to the Devil itself, and so you are just that much more important to them. Which is its own two-word joke, but, y'know, whatever.
Meanwhile, it's worth noting some irony:
A very similar discussion is part of what led up to this thread originally. Your version is weirdly self-defeating, too. Previously, the question was approximately what one believed in or not. Presently, as you have it, sure, whatever ... and?
As to the point in trying to convince people, your evangelism really does seem more about self-gratification than anything else. More directly, you have a point insofar as your particular methods are concerned. Beyond that, remember, this is Sciforums. "The word 'God'" is not "simply just a word" to these atheists; it is an idol, and for whatever reason they cannot stop, well, in their own way, venerating it.
You, like they, are participating in a strange game in which convincing anyone of anything seems more a violation of custom than anything else.
