"It ranges from little snarky picks, to downright rude, hutrful, and hateful."
Range is a pretty self-explanatory word, the quote means that there are Atheist who are snarky, and those who are hateful, and all the space in between, as well as other types I've made mention of. To further elaborate I'd say that consecutive intentional picks indicate a prejudice and for some hate depending on the severity of the comments in question
Well then I misunderstood the phrase. I thought you were using the terms "snarky", "downright rude", "hurtful", and "hateful" to apply to the word "picks". And I thought that you were using the evidence of all of these "picks" to show that atheists hate Christianity.
So if I understand you correctly now, the only evidence for "hate" coming from atheists towards Christianity are the
hateful comments, of which there are very, very few. Some, sure, but a vast minority. And unless it is the same person over and over again using snark every time they respond to a Christian, it isn't evidence for hate. We can agree on that.
But here's the thing, if snark isn't evidence for hate, then it's irrelevant to the conversation. I can lack respect for a belief in something, and respond to it with snark and sarcasm and disdain and irreverence without hating it or the person that believes it. Remember my comparison to astrology. So if it wasn't meant as evidence for your argument of "hate" then I don't know why you brought it up.
Now as to this stuff:
Now if you don't like the thread or what your reading, you can always try another one more suited to your beliefs. So do you want to keep doing this, because this kind of thing can go on for a very long time?
Take for example your idea that you're "winning" Winning or losing is what people do when they're in competition, example A Vs. example B more or less.
This is the Discussion and Debate section. Debates have winners and losers. Its not always clear, but it's always the purpose. You keep saying things like this that sound like you didn't want to hear opposition to your viewpoint, that's why I thought you might have posted in the wrong section. You started a very controversial thread, and I'm not understanding why you were surprised that it is as controversial as it is.
I have no interest in an "us vs them" mentality. It is "my argument vs your argument". It isn't "me vs you". You need to stop taking it personal. Plenty of theists know that atheists are not out to get them. I recognize that and only disagree with the viewpoint that atheists
are out to get anybody.
So let's look at your evidence. In the link that I went through one by one, the vast majority of atheists were completely civil, and a small minority were snarky. Agreed?
I didn't add them up again like that link, but I followed your other links and found the same thing: the vast majority of atheists were being completely civil, and a small minority were being snarky. Agreed? I will say that the level of rudeness in the evolution video's comment section did rise above the rest, but the vast majority of respondents were civil. And you do have one article written by one atheist that states he "hates" Christianity, so I won't say "no atheist hates Christianity". And since we agree that snark =/= hate unless it is applied repeatedly for the purpose of hurting someone or their belief, I didn't see any snark being applied hatefully.
So can we agree that your list of links show a vast majority of atheists being polite and civil and that there is only a small minority that wants to make a joke out of it all? And an even smaller minority that actually "hates" Christianity?
I know your style of forum posting isn't to quote and directly respond statement by statement, but at least in this last section where I ask for agreement or disagreement, please answer those questions directly so I know whether we are just talking past each other or not.
