To borrow a line from Pink Floyd:
"Just the basic facts: Can you show me where it hurts?"
I didn't notice that it was almost a year old when I replied. I replied when I did because you linked me explicitly to this thread in another post yours directed to me (I think it was in the Moderators' forum). It seemed like you wanted a reply to this thread from me, so I posted one.
I passed this detail over, earlier, for its part in trying to pretend confusion where there really ought not be any, but it also turns out, as this discussion goes on with others, to have some illustrative use. It's just not the kind of utility you appreciate.
But as you're aware, the first time I pointed to this thread in the most recent backroom discussion—there might be earlier discussion of it—I did explicitly refer to the point that some people think they don't need to know much about what they criticize; and then I explicitly pointed to two
other threads, noting the self-aggrandizement of the latter, and then explicitly used a line about the behavior of hollering for someone to come pick a fight, in a discussion including consideration of anti-identification and even the application of arguments that are well enough in and of themselves but not necessarily relevant to a given subject at hand.
Thus: Of course you came here and wrote
two↑ posts↑ worth of anti-identification. What about that ridiculous behavior
isn't predictable? You've done these bits for years. To be clear: "It seemed like you wanted a reply to this thread from me," you say, "so I posted one." And what about you missing the point entirely is news? It's pretty much a staple method when you're trying to protect poor behavior without openly defending it.
So, just to be clear for you, it doesn't bother me at all that you mentioned a Moderators' discussion; rather, what I don't understand is why you would go out of your way to miss the point like that.
Here, I'll give you an example:
I responded explicitly to that point. It's not clear what important point you believe I "truncated" there.
Here is what you quoted in
#111↑:
▸ So, yeah, I'm curious: Atheists at Sciforums have, traditionally, believed themselves smarter than religious people.
And your reply:
• People at sciforums traditionally believe themselves to be smarter than average, on average. The quality of religious debate we tend to get from occasional theistic visitors is often low. In part this is because, for some reason, we tend to attract American Christian fundamentalists who come here to pick a fight, or else merely to preach or proselytise.
Notice how you turn the point to an anti-identification about theistic visitors.
What you
snipped the quote from↑:
▸ So, yeah, I'm curious: Atheists at Sciforums have, traditionally, believed themselves smarter than religious people. And while the survey data might say this or that about college degrees and income, I'm curious what you actually know, because for years it's seemed like pretty much nothing. Is it ignorance, sloth, maybe some arcane sense of strategy? Because it really is striking how little knowledge is actually shown in these critiques; they're more like parlor games and wordplay.
(Boldface accent added)
As you say in
#131↑, you responded explicitly to the point you quoted. You also ducked the purpose of that point, which is a contrast in order to ask why the strange presentation.
Of course you answered with anti-identification in #111-112. And of course you continued with anti-identification in #122. And #131: "You were whining about atheists being smart-arses when it come to religion. I noted that it is not unusual to find that atheists are better acquainted with the relevant texts than the theists are."
We should be clear: I'm addressing the point of
ignorant smartassery that behaves like two-bit, half-wit, supremacist dullardry. Still, as you make clear about your explicit answer, you noted an anti-identification.
The bait and wait—"More discussion and elaboration on similar themes could be had, of course, if you want to take the conversation in that direction"—is also pretty straightforward: In what direction? It doesn't seem to matter inasmuch as everything keeps rushing back to anti-identification. We Americans still use the phrase, "one-trick pony". It actually cracks me up to see an etymology pointing to 1980; I would have guessed the phrase as old as show horses.
In any case, you really do need a new trick. It's not quite that you're one-trick, but anti-identification and magically missing the point really don't work; over the course of years, it makes its own point.
My point was that, in a debate between atheists and theists, how the atheists behave inevitably depends, in part, on how the theists behave, and vice versa. Demanding that atheists always take the high road when theists so often choose the low road, is an optimistic but unrealistic expectation.
It's not a question of always taking the high road; indeed, that you can't figure that part out seems dubious. More importantly, there remains a question whether some are even capable of highroading. Let us consider the possibility that the reason one meets religious discourse in trenches of attrition is an inability to establish a better field. Let us also consider the possibility that one is capable, but simply unwilling to establish a better discourse. Inability, or even noncompetency, might diminish culpability, but it does not mean any given behavior in question is any less problematic. Disruption is disruption. Antisocial is antisocial.
And highroading, as you are aware from our shared years trying to either moderate this site or not, used to be one of the reasons for permitting open bigotry and supremacy, and fallacy therein, as some manner of acceptable
rational discourse. It was, after all, more your standard than mine. So, also, as you might recall, was letting them make fools of themselves. I get it, James, but, "Demanding that atheists always take the high road", is a straw man.
It's kind of like the bit about it being about you. Sure, it is easy enough to see why one would be disdainful of the assessment, and nobody says you have to like my reasons. But why is it about
you? Because it's what
you said. I mean,
Duh. To the one, if you're offended by the assessment could you please quit validating it? To the other, think about if the assessment wasn't one you disdained. Had you answered about reading this, here, and maybe that, there, and, oh, also the other, on that shelf, I might have observed that it sounds like you have been reading up on the atheistic critique of religion. And while that can be good or bad, depending on what one does with that critique, would you really take time out to ask, "Why is this all about me, all of a sudden?" Okay, then.
What you told me repeatedly, was, essentially,
because theists. And certainly, I can take that at face value: You're in these rhetorical trenches, and behave the way you do, because theists. Still, why? Is this how you want to be? Or can you not find a better method than reinforcing the faith of people you criticize for having faith? And that is the thing: What do you or anyone else who behaves this way really think you're accomplishing? Seriously, picking fights with people you think you can take in a fight only reinforces, in their outlooks, that you're out to get them for the cheap satisfaction, which in turn only reinforces their own sense of their rightness. After all this time, how can you fail to figure that out? If you really need a theist to tee up for you, go fish, instead; there are plenty of suckers for the whacking, if that's what you're into. Asking people to set you up, though, is at least a little over the top.
You did mention a more collective context, and, okay, what do fallacious word games get anyone? Again, that reinforces the faith of the faithful.
It's not actually that big a mystery. You did note the "situation here of atheists feeling very comfortable here with speaking out on religious matters". Also, as
Seattle↑ put it, "most 'atheists' here aren't really that interested in the subject". That is to say, they aren't really interested in
"religion"↑. I concur. Nor does your point disagree with his; I said
last week↑, "It's not actually a discussion of 'religion'; it's a
political↗ discussion
about religion"; and as Seattle noted over the weekend, "Sometimes there might be a current political topic going on ...." Even you acknowledge the context by which the argument is "inherently a political one".
Uninformed political arguments don't help anyone.
To wit:
So what will you do? Give it up as a lost cause?
Well, you know me ... or,
would, if you ever actually paid attention; it is no secret I prefer and advocate for something better than supremacism. Honestly, what is the point of such a ridiculous question?
