Posts by palmtree67

I'm saying that if we understand that certain people will pitch two perceived groups against each other, if that is on our mind, then rather than rallying, we understand what is happening and simply not take the bait. There is no need to engage and bring others in when this type of post pops up. We can acknowledge it in the sense that we find it more about whipping up volatile feelings rather than really adding to the debate, or we can ignore it, but we don't need for this to drive the discussion........ Some posters (and not just the same ones---sometimes people just have bad days, and perhaps engage in this) are happy to supply the flash.

Good food for thought there, Chappy.

I've noticed that when there's a thread that has potential for controversy, there are ones who post, who:

1. Clearly have not read the OP.

2. Clearly have not read the following posts.

3. Don't actually post an opnion on the OP, but rather, just come on to start fights and arguements with snarky remarks.

Some of the ones who I've talked to, have made resolves to not "take the bait" and instead, try to re-direct the snarky poster to comment on the OP. Sometimes, they have made an effort to use humour to re-direct the offender. I've seen it work several times so far.

The snarky poster will usually either not reply to the actual OP, or will try to start a fight/arguement on another thread.

It takes concerted effort on the part of MOST, but I really think this is the best way to handle it.

699

A truce between Atheists and Non-Atheists?

by palmtree67 in

jw
friends

ricky gervais tweeted this 11/14/12 and i totally agree with it:.

"there are good atheists and bad atheists.

there are good believers and bad believers.. no god has ever changed that.".

palmtree67

NC:

I think we would do best to isolate who the trouble - stirrers are, and then address them---atheist or non-atheist---to prevent them from playing 'sides'.

Oh, my!

I just had a light-bulb moment there......Could *that* be the root of the problem??

Need to digest that for a bit.....

699

A truce between Atheists and Non-Atheists?

by palmtree67 in

jw
friends

ricky gervais tweeted this 11/14/12 and i totally agree with it:.

"there are good atheists and bad atheists.

there are good believers and bad believers.. no god has ever changed that.".

palmtree67

Nope

Nope?

No thinking for you, then?

Alright-y!

699

A truce between Atheists and Non-Atheists?

by palmtree67 in

jw
friends

ricky gervais tweeted this 11/14/12 and i totally agree with it:.

"there are good atheists and bad atheists.

there are good believers and bad believers.. no god has ever changed that.".

palmtree67

Since there never was a battle anyway, and so no need for a truce, it's very good to get even a hint that those very few atheists who wanted to attack the faiths of others seem to have decided that, after all, they can be just like everyone else and let others believe or not as they choose.

Chariklo,

If you understood from my post that JWN is now your group's own personal preaching ground where they can make statements like "It is a FACT that Aguest talks to God", completely unchallenged........you need to do a little more thinking.

699

A truce between Atheists and Non-Atheists?

by palmtree67 in

jw
friends

ricky gervais tweeted this 11/14/12 and i totally agree with it:.

"there are good atheists and bad atheists.

there are good believers and bad believers.. no god has ever changed that.".

palmtree67

Do you think Atheists and believers are any nearer calling a truce?

From conversations I've had off the board, with people from both "sides", SOME from both have made resolves to deal differently with each other.

Maybe "truce" was the wrong word to use, since the discussions will continue and POV's aren't really going to change much.

It has been revealing, yes.....the ones who have come on this thread to say how useless it is *are* almost exclusively from one "side"