Atheists: What's with the sarcasm?

[Energized]

I’ve been posting and debating christians for years.  Over time I’ve seen a lot of unique individuals, many of whom have nothing in common except their shared belief.  However there is one thing, over time, I see over and over and over again that disturbs me… and that is a heavy reliance on preaching from christians in response to whatever thread they are engaging in.  If anyone recalls me, I visited here fairly regularly on this forum from 2006-2009 and have dropped by sparingly ever since.  My areas of interest lie in: the culture of atheism, Catholic doctrinal discussion, basic apologetics.  My style is to merely explain my stance on whatever, argue a point or two, and move on.  About 1% of you christians will give an honest to goodness debate that involves respect, intellect and curiosity – which is the reason I am here.  However, about 99% of the time I see a quick bible verse, a regurgitated response, a (predictable) reference to Pol Pot and Hitler that may get an "amen!" from the peanut gallery, but in the end serves no ultimate purpose.  I honestly want to come back with a reasoned and sarcastic rebuttal, and then I don't hold back, thinking, “do I care how you perceive my damned soul in this debate?”  Preaching achieves so very little in my opinion, so I wound up counting to 10, and repeated “FSM, FSM” 100 times and continued in my logical debate (well, not really but you get my point).

I have been contemplating joining the discussion again, but I recall such mindless preaching from many christians in this forum on most of my posts that it seems such a colossal waste of time – what could possibly be accomplished?  So I ask, what IS the purpose, reason and meaning behind such useless and time wasting preaching and bible quoting?  Pent up frustration?  A desire to dig into atheists (particularly the smart ones?)?  Get a laugh from your buddies?  What does preaching accomplish?  Because it wears on people and does not reflect well.

So I ask… should I come back and try to search some honest debate, or just leave knowing that the culture of christianity I discovered 6 years as is unhealthy as ever?  Why the all the preaching?


I would ask, sir, with no sarcasm intended, what you expect to get when you come into our den of vipers? Over 80% of Americans identify themselves as christian; why not visit those forums, pat yourself and everyone else on the back and feel better about yourself? Unless you're uncertain in your faith and want to be convinced that giving it up is truly better for you?


E. 

[velkyn]

perhaps BSD would like a one on one discussion with someone.  He could tell us who among us is in his 10%.

[One Above All]

perhaps BSD would like a one on one discussion with someone.  He could tell us who among us is in his 10%.

I'll take up that offer, if BSD will too. My last one-on-one discussion didn't go so well.

[BSD MAN]

This response is far better than I anticipated… me-thinks I also have gained a further peak into the atheist mind set.  I have come to understand atheists over time, so let me sum up my understanding:
-Atheism is not a religion, just a mere non-belief
-There is no evidence of a god
-there is no difference btwn the god of Abraham, allah, zues and the Invisible Flying Spaghetti Monster
-religion does not hold a monopoly on morality
-religion is bad because it causes strife, massive needless deaths, wars, endless conflicts
-atheists tend to be smarter, search for truth and are more mindful than the Xtians zombie heard who follow without questioning
-atheists are not afraid of dying
-atheists are more in tune with the world, the truth, humanity and charity, and therefore hold an edge on living a fuller, more healthy and complete life
-some theists are truly generous and nice people who do good, but are still flawed as made evident by their belief.

And the new one I have just gathered, atheists are (very) frustrated with mindless theists who respond without thinking or presenting anything new.

Time prohibits a full reply to everyone, so let’s take the ones I can answer…

ParkingPlace-
“I think I see sarcasm rear it's ugly head most often when we get frustrated by the other side's inability or refusal to listen to what we are saying.”
I think this is very insightful and sums it up pretty well.  I’ve seen some pretty bad theists on this site from years ago, and I get the frustration… bible thumping is a tactic they revert to when no other tactic works.  Maybe the theist is not good at debating but feels compelled to save you all, so they go with what they know. 

Death Over Life-
“I would chime in and mention that another attempt of sarcasm is because when theists tend to discuss with atheists, the theists don't come up with anything new or insightful.”
I can see this, too.  But I would offer that the debate is not over theoretical physics.  It’s actually pretty simple and the end game discussion comes down to whether or not one believes in the super natural.  IMO the answer cannot depend on proof or evidence… just a blind faith and belief, which I am well aware of causes frustration from atheists.  I recall an atheist asking on this forum (or maybe it was atheistthinktank.com), “where are the theists who believe just because?  I am tired of the theists who use the bible over and over again as proof”.  Indeed, theists ought to believe because they believe.

Jetson:
“And when was the last time you were a member of the most hated group in the United States, including pedophiles? Has anyone ever told you that you are going to burn in hell forever? How about being ostracized from job opportunities, or left out of social events because you don't believe in someone's god?”
Thank you.  Honestly, this is quite awesome.  Tremendous response, really.  I haven’t seen such honesty or an eye opening statement in years.  It really gives me perspective and I applaud Jetson for helping me understand a little more.  I will take this and put in my internal file to keep at hand at all times. Consider this an “aha” moment!  Kind of reminds of the Grand Master Flash quote “Don't push me cause I'm close to the edge, I'm trying not to lose my head!”

The Gawd-
“I would add that 99% of theist debates have been dishonest so you cannot engage in honest debates/discussion. How can we have an honest discussion if one cant admit that genocide is bad?”
This is a problematic statement because I may be the 1% and you wouldn’t know without observation.  About the genocide…you got a point there. I’m convinced.  I’ll now admit genocide is bad.  I will go and tell Benedict XVI (hey that felt good ;-) 

Jaybwell 32-
“First, you should know that I am authorized to speak for all atheists everywhere.”
LOL - That’s funny, Jay.  I get the irony and the sarcasm. 

Poseidon-
“BSD Man; Please ignore the sarcastic responses momentarily. There are also some explanatorry postings that have displayed reasonable decorum, avoided sarcasm and ad hominems. We are not a gang of militant thugs bent on ridiculing an intelligent and knowledgeable christian who might venture here.. Theists with an intellectual bent are welcome here and will be treated with respect if the theist will present arguments in a manner that includes logic, reason, and evidence.”
-I remember you, P.  I liked the way you stated everything, though we’re not on the same side of the fence.  You are the 10% I was referring to – engaging, respectful, a mind to listen and honestly debate.  I promise any statement I make will be well thought out, not provocative frustration.  Now repent!! (kidding – aren’t I a stinker?!)

Lucifer-
“Sometimes we just want to insult you without having the mods on our asses.” 
This is exactly what I was referring to in my post, but it’s total honesty so I tip my hat – thank you.  Maybe I’ll respond in kind, ensuring we get nowhere.

Omen –
“I also do not understand why you think listing things you believe is relevant to a discussion without defending those things you claim?”
- I can say I tried this when I was new to WWGHA.  And all I got was heated sarcasm.  The more I explained, the more ridiculed and heated it became, because SOME people on this forum views a Catholic defending his position as “open season” and so I had a target on my back.  It was counterproductive because of all the acid that was being thrown my way, and no one seemed to get my points.  I start with the premise that there is a God.  If you don’t agree with that, then very little I say will make sense.  But I try.  It was also problematic from a practical point of view.. it takes a lot of time to arrive at a total defense I feel is worthy of publishing, so I had to adopt a style that kept me engaged on the forum and not being bogged down typing all the time (like I’m doing now - LOL).  I’ll do what I can, Omen.

Monkey Mind –
“Where have you been hanging out since then?” - Working, like I should be doing now. 

“Do you find a culture of respect more conducive to discussion?” Yes, don’t you?

“In those discussions are people swayed more often?” –Good question.  I’ve don’t think I’ve swayed anyone, as no one has ever swayed me, but when I fell I hit a homerun on a point, people here tend not to respond.  If I get a firestorm, then I’ve hit a nerve and maybe didn’t explain things the way I should have. 

Velkyn-
“Why, BSD, you’re back! And pretty much the same person you were when you left.” – Dear Velkyn.  I take that as a compliment.  Is Bunny still here?

“I wonder, why does sarcasm disturb you so? Might it be because it’s effective when dealing with the ridiculous claims of theism?” 
-No, because I view sarcasm as a crutch that displays frustration and lack of thought. Is that how Plato and Socrates debated?  No its not. Do you want a debate where sarcasm is the first response?  Let me tell you, I am getting further with atheists who engage with me honestly than with a simple quick one liner from an angry and frustrated atheist.

“You’ve presented yourself as a representative of Roman Catholism, and you did do just like you said, tried to preach at us, and avoid the hard questions aka “moving on”.
- I do not preach to people fact-to-face, let alone this forum.  I say this because I know preaching usually does not work unless you WANT to hear it.  I merely explain.  If it feels preachy, then I suppose that’s interpretation. I cannot help that. Not my intention.  You have to allow some level of explanation without the notion that I am preaching.

“It’s always also good to see you declare that you have determined that only a certain percentage of atheists will give you a discussion with “respect, intellect and curiosity”. Respect is earned, BSD, something you seem to forget.” -I couldn’t disagree more.  Trust is earned.  Respect ought to be granted and maintained (if worthy), and even sometimes when it’s not deserved.  Otherwise you’d be treating every stranger like an asshole until somehow they earn your respect. 

“respect also doesn’t mean that your views are sacrosanct  It seems, like so many theists, you want an excuse, to declare that someone isn’t respectful enough for you or “too sarcastic” so you don’t have to answer them.”  How can you respond to someone who calls your religion baby killing, war mongers, hate spewers, pedophiles.  I don’t need an excuse… it’s freakin’ hard and sometimes I just don’t want to do it.

“As always, you wish to ignore the problems with your church. There is little reason to respect a religion that is full of abusers and has killed people for its god. If your god was the “good” thing you claim, why does it allow this if, in its myths, it has no patience for even those who would keep it’s magic box upright?”
-Yes my Church has problems, big ones.  As soon as you have a human involved in anything, you’ve got problems.  Then multiply that by 1 billion followers, then you’ve got a lot of problems.  Then multiply that by 2000 years, and you’ve got deep rooted problems.  Should I start every post and response with, “before I say anything, let me just say… my Church has problems”. THAT is a waste if my time.  Atheists have problems in my opinion, but I don’t shout it out and demand you to say it all the time.

“I find that sarcasm is quite effective and you’ve demonstrated that it is with your desperate pleas for it to stop.”
-I am not asking for sarcasm to stop.  Merely an explanation as to why it’s used so readily (see title of thread, “What’s With the Sarcasm”).  As I said, it’s a crutch and I think it can be cowardly.  It avoids debate, understanding and generosity and probably fuels frustration and anger more than anything. This, in my opinion, is against what this board is about.   

[One Above All]

-atheists are not afraid of dying

Not true. Some atheists are afraid of death.

-atheists are more in tune with the world, the truth, humanity and charity, and therefore hold an edge on living a fuller, more healthy and complete life

Not true. Some atheists are about as in tune with the world, the truth, humanity and charity as a brick wall.

-some theists are truly generous and nice people who do good, but are still flawed as made evident by their belief.

The flawed state isn't limited to theists. Everyone is flawed.

This is exactly what I was referring to in my post, but it’s total honesty so I tip my hat – thank you.  Maybe I’ll respond in kind, ensuring we get nowhere.

That was actually a joke. The mods aren't idiots; they can see through sarcasm and will step in if they think it's necessary. And if they see the post, obviously. That's why there's a "Report to moderator" button. If you think a rule is being broken, use it.

[Hatter23]

Not true. Some atheists are about as in tune with the world, the truth, humanity and charity as a brick wall.

Ayn Rand and her lockstep fans come to mind.

[Omen]

This response is far better than I anticipated… me-thinks I also have gained a further peak into the atheist mind set.  I have come to understand atheists over time, so let me sum up my understanding:

I think you make a fundamental mistake in trying to categorize 'atheism' as something.  Any one of us, being individuals, might have narrowed differences of opinions that have more to do with semantics of how we label ourselves or if we feel the need to label ourselves at all.  We may also have all kinds of commonalities with regard to general skepticism or conclusions arrived a long similar bents, but that is not necessarily a shared and cohesive 'atheism'.  The best you can ever say is that all atheist lack a belief in a god, even with the admission that a 'god' as a word references nothing that has coherent meaning.

However, I personally believe atheism is meaningless.  I view it as an unnecessary label for knowledge that is not used in any other discussion of knowing with regards to any other subject.  We don't have labels for people who don't believe in leprechauns and my atheism is as significant to me as my non-belief in leprechauns.  The problem is that 'atheism' as a label and an idea is projected upon others out of the necessity of of people who claim believe in supernatural ideologies ( religions ).  Their beliefs, being tenuous and inherently intellectually dishonest, invite sophistry and equivocation.  It helps to have a juxtaposition for which to make fraudulent arguments about and I cite the volumes of apologetics that do nothing but aggressively misrepresent and bad mouth not believing their claims at face value.  Its not that we just don't believe their nonsense, there HAS to be something wrong with us and we HAVE to be denying the truth which they almost across the board treat as 'self evident'.

[velkyn]

Well, BSD, you were doing so well, up until you created strawmen with that second to last claim of “understanding”.   

And the new one I have just gathered, atheists are (very) frustrated with mindless theists who respond without thinking or presenting anything new.

You *just* gathered this?  from your last time here, it should have been more than obvious. 

Dear Velkyn.  I take that as a compliment.  Is Bunny still here?

Yes he is.  And no you should not take that as a compliment, just as a statement of fact.  I’m wondering if you think you’ve prayed enough for your baseless claims to be accepted “this” time.   Unfortunately, thanks to Omen’s helpful link to your old posts, I’m not expecting anything new from you.

-No, because I view sarcasm as a crutch that displays frustration and lack of thought. Is that how Plato and Socrates debated?  No its not. Do you want a debate where sarcasm is the first response?  Let me tell you, I am getting further with atheists who engage with me honestly than with a simple quick one liner from an angry and frustrated atheist.

  Sarcasm as a lack of thought.  Hardly.  It takes quite a bit of thought for sarcasm.  I don’t care how Plato and Socrates debated. Nice appeal to authority there.  And oh I love the new comment that some atheist evidently don’t engage you “honestly”. Another attempt to excuse yourself from answering hard questions.   

- I do not preach to people fact-to-face, let alone this forum.  I say this because I know preaching usually does not work unless you WANT to hear it.  I merely explain.  If it feels preachy, then I suppose that’s interpretation. I cannot help that. Not my intention.  You have to allow some level of explanation without the notion that I am preaching.

You claim you explain but your “explanations” have no evidence to support them, thus it seems like you are preaching, assuming that your myths will be accepted without thought. 

I couldn’t disagree more.  Trust is earned.  Respect ought to be granted and maintained (if worthy), and even sometimes when it’s not deserved.  Otherwise you’d be treating every stranger like an asshole until somehow they earn your respect. 

I have to laugh.   And why should respect be granted to someone like you, BSD?  I know your arguments and they are baseless myths that depend on willful ignorance to maintain.  As for your church, it deserves no respect at all thanks to the crimes it has committed.  Trust can be earned too, as you say, and unfortunately, religion abuses trust.  You offer a false dichotomy. I treat every stranger as a stranger until their actions demonstrate what they are.  I neither assume they are a saint or an asshole.

How can you respond to someone who calls your religion baby killing, war mongers, hate spewers, pedophiles.  I don’t need an excuse… it’s freakin’ hard and sometimes I just don’t want to do it.

I agree that it probably is very hard, but that’s what your religion has done.  I call your religion the above since they are. Facts are hard but that’s the bed your religion has made. You unfortunately must lie in it and come up with excuses for it. 

-Yes my Church has problems, big ones.  As soon as you have a human involved in anything, you’ve got problems.  Then multiply that by 1 billion followers, then you’ve got a lot of problems.  Then multiply that by 2000 years, and you’ve got deep rooted problems.  Should I start every post and response with, “before I say anything, let me just say… my Church has problems”. THAT is a waste if my time.  Atheists have problems in my opinion, but I don’t shout it out and demand you to say it all the time.

Why yes your church does have big problems.  Why nothing done by your god?  Why is your god so impotent in the face of puny humans?  And what problems do atheists have, BSD? or is that just a random claim do you can point fingers back aka “but but you aren’t perfect either so don’t speak bad about us”?  I and others repeatedly call out the crimes of your church because it shows how much your church has nothing to do with anything special or “divine”. 

-I am not asking for sarcasm to stop.  Merely an explanation as to why it’s used so readily (see title of thread, “What’s With the Sarcasm”).  As I said, it’s a crutch and I think it can be cowardly.  It avoids debate, understanding and generosity and probably fuels frustration and anger more than anything. This, in my opinion, is against what this board is about.   

Okay, so you’ve got your explanation.  It is your opinion that it is a “crutch”, which does seem like you are attempting to convince people not to use it.  It does not avoid debate at all, as you can see on these forums, some threads going on for pages; it does not avoid understanding since sarcasm requires a very good understanding of what you are making fun of.  And generosity, why should have extend that to a religion that I know so much about and how bad it is?  You and your religion haven’t earned anyone giving it another “chance” or feeling kindly toward it at all.  As for being “cowardly”, how is it cowardly to use sarcasm?  Someone is saying this to your virtual face as much as anyone can, telling you want they think.  I don’t see that as cowardly at all.

IMO, this forum is for discussion of religion and its validity.  When theists come on board, they repeatedly think they have all of the answers, and when shown that they do not, cease being interested in discussion if they ever were.  A discussion where one side ignores facts and reality isn’t a discussion, that’s just a theist looking for a soapbox and external validation.   
 

[jaimehlers]

-Atheism is not a religion, just a mere non-belief
-There is no evidence of a god
-there is no difference btwn the god of Abraham, allah, zues and the Invisible Flying Spaghetti Monster
-religion does not hold a monopoly on morality
-religion is bad because it causes strife, massive needless deaths, wars, endless conflicts
-atheists tend to be smarter, search for truth and are more mindful than the Xtians zombie heard who follow without questioning
-atheists are not afraid of dying
-atheists are more in tune with the world, the truth, humanity and charity, and therefore hold an edge on living a fuller, more healthy and complete life
-some theists are truly generous and nice people who do good, but are still flawed as made evident by their belief.

I'd like to address these (note that this is my opinion, although I think it's based on facts as I see them).  First off, there are actually two general kinds of atheists, I've noticed.  First is the kind who simply doesn't believe in supernatural gods, but does not consider the belief itself to be anything special; second is the kind who considers belief in supernatural gods to be acutely harmful in its own right and thus argues against it for the same reason that one might argue against immunizations being optional.  The latter tends to generate the stereotype of the "angry atheist", which is often misinterpreted as "angry at God", when in fact if they're angry at all, they're angry at the people who just won't listen and wont listen to their arguments, while coming back with arguments that the atheist has seen and shot down before

There is no objective evidence for the existence of gods.  That is, evidence which can be demonstrated to be true regardless of who is looking at it.  There's subjective evidence, but the problem is that subjective evidence depends on the person who it's subjective to.  Something that is subjectively convincing to one person has no meaning to another, and thus subjective evidence can prove nothing.  Similarly, it isn't that there's no difference at all between various gods (Odin and Zeus were not the same entity, for example), it's that those gods are all the same in one respect, that nobody has ever found objective proof that they exist.  Thus, they are subjective and mean different things to different people.  There's no objective, discrete entity that anyone can point to.

It is true that religion holds no monopoly on morality.  In fact, religion can and has been used to justify immoral acts, some of which are truly horrible, and to draw other people into thinking that it is right and just to do those acts.  So religious morality is like any external framework for morality in that it is built up from what people think is right and just, and it can be wrong sometimes as a result.

Religion, like any ideology, can be both good and bad.  For example, American expansionism caused lots of harm to the people who lived here first, and it was cultural in nature.  Even had America been completely without religion, I think the expansionism would still have happened.  The problem with religion is not that it's especially good or bad compared to other ideologies, it's that people tend to be much more willing to accept doing something if some authority says so, and the ultimate authority is "God".  So when you get the inevitable people who are only interested in their own power (or those who are well-meaning but totally misguided), they can more easily stampede people into truly awful actions by using religion to justify it.

Atheists are not in and of themselves smarter or dumber than theists.  You can have truly brilliant theists and truly stupid atheists.  The difference is that atheists are not as likely to accept something simply because some intangible and unprovable entity says so.  However, there are atheists who will accept something because their tangible and intelligent leader says so.  Similarly, atheists are no less susceptible to fear of death.  I think the only difference here is that atheists consider the idea of an afterlife to be a cruel false hope.  And again, atheists are not necessarily more in tune with the world.  Some atheists are more in tune than the average theist, and some theists are more in tune than the average atheist.  But I wouldn't venture to guess which was more or less in tune.

And, finally, many theists are good people with normal human flaws.  And many atheists are good people with normal human flaws.  Who is to say that one particular flaw is better or worse than another?  Some you can clearly tell, but many are much more ambiguous than that.

[bertatberts]

perhaps BSD would like a one on one discussion with someone.  He could tell us who among us is in his 10%.

I'll take up that offer, if BSD will too. My last one-on-one discussion didn't go so well.

But you won!

[The Gawd]

The Gawd-
“I would add that 99% of theist debates have been dishonest so you cannot engage in honest debates/discussion. How can we have an honest discussion if one cant admit that genocide is bad?”
This is a problematic statement because I may be the 1% and you wouldn’t know without observation.  About the genocide…you got a point there. I’m convinced.  I’ll now admit genocide is bad.  I will go and tell Benedict XVI (hey that felt good ;-)     

Thank you kind sir. Now that we have established that... I am also against the U.S. military and refuse to do any "service" because I think they are told to do evil and kill people I have no problem with nor have they done anything to me. All the while those millions/billions of dollars are being spent to kill people that could otherwise be spent helping people.

Now that you have some insight into my perspective. How could I serve/follow a god who demands genocide of a group of people? You can imagine what I think of George W. Bush and he at least had 9/11 to "justify" his moronic actions. How should I view a god who addmittedly has done worse for much less?

[Mr. Blackwell]

This response is far better than I anticipated… me-thinks I also have gained a further peak into the atheist mind set.  I have come to understand atheists over time, so let me sum up my understanding

Well good, knowing is half the battle. However I find your attitude very condescending. People who don't believe in god/s are not gorillas in the mist...and you are not Jane Goodall. I recommend you take steps to adjust your POV before your little experiment blows up in your face.

[One Above All]

But you won!

It's not about winning or losing. It's about having fun and/or finding out the truth. The latter was achieved long ago, before I even found this forum. The former was not (in my debate).

[ParkingPlaces]

This response is far better than I anticipated… me-thinks I also have gained a further peak into the atheist mind set.  I have come to understand atheists over time, so let me sum up my understanding:
-Atheism is not a religion, just a mere non-belief
-There is no evidence of a god
-there is no difference btwn the god of Abraham, allah, zues and the Invisible Flying Spaghetti Monster
-religion does not hold a monopoly on morality
-religion is bad because it causes strife, massive needless deaths, wars, endless conflicts
-atheists tend to be smarter, search for truth and are more mindful than the Xtians zombie heard who follow without questioning
-atheists are not afraid of dying
-atheists are more in tune with the world, the truth, humanity and charity, and therefore hold an edge on living a fuller, more healthy and complete life
-some theists are truly generous and nice people who do good, but are still flawed as made evident by their belief.

It's a good thing you mentioned later in your post that you weren't asking that sarcasm stop. Because the part of your post I quoted above occasionally reeks of it. See how easy it is? And effective?

Isn't it nice that we agree on at least one thing? I really think that we can build on that common ground and make great progress towards understanding each other.

[Omen]

Should I start every post and response with, “before I say anything, let me just say… my Church has problems”. THAT is a waste if my time.  Atheists have problems in my opinion, but I don’t shout it out and demand you to say it all the time.

Insular authoritarian regimes tend to be corrupt, instead of being apologetic for it being corrupt why not address why it is that way.  Why wasn't your god smart enough to advise them to be transparent, open, and subject to checks and balances?

-I am not asking for sarcasm to stop.  Merely an explanation as to why it’s used so readily (see title of thread, “What’s With the Sarcasm”).  As I said, it’s a crutch and I think it can be cowardly.  It avoids debate, understanding and generosity and probably fuels frustration and anger more than anything. This, in my opinion, is against what this board is about.   

You are effectively trying to censor criticism based on a weaselly unexplained qualification.  You seem to be filled with lots of pejorative descriptions of what you don't like, but little in substantial examples that one can take hold of as to why.

Hence all the questions I asked you here:

http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,21634.msg481627.html#msg481627

When did you establish that sarcasm is invalid?

What examples of this 'sarcasm' did you present before generalizing the entire community?

Why did you generalize the entire community?

How would I be able to tell your sincere disagreement with an issue, without examples, from a potential insecurity on your part in simply not liking criticism of your claims or desire to hold you accountable for what you claim?

You ignored most of the questions and only responded to one.  The questions you ignored pertain directly to the qualifications you're trying to make through pleading, yet you completely by pass them and in response to others you continue to repeat your initial statements as if the statements themselves were justifiably enough.  That is something I find intellectually dishonest and disrespectful of others, I am not inclined to be nice to you because of it.

[BSD MAN]

Well, BSD, you were doing so well, up until you created strawmen with that second to last claim of “understanding”.   

And the new one I have just gathered, atheists are (very) frustrated with mindless theists who respond without thinking or presenting anything new.

You *just* gathered this?  from your last time here, it should have been more than obvious. 

An attempt at making me appear oblivious to seemingly obvious notions.  What is obvious to you is not neccessarily obvious to me and vice versa.  That's why we debate and hopefully can arrive at new information.  My motivation here is to learn and explain.  And I have learned a lot.

Dear Velkyn.  I take that as a compliment.  Is Bunny still here?

Yes he is.  And no you should not take that as a compliment, just as a statement of fact.  I’m wondering if you think you’ve prayed enough for your baseless claims to be accepted “this” time.   Unfortunately, thanks to Omen’s helpful link to your old posts, I’m not expecting anything new from you.

An indriect insult to my abilities.  This is getting predictable now.  What does "new" mean to you?  Is it a truly new idea that you've never seen before or is it somethhing you must agree with?  I can teach you things baout the Church that you've never seen before.  But I don't think you would give me any credit because you seem to point out the past failings of the Church before any debate occurs and use it as an excuse to maintain your aggressive and accusatory rhetoric.  I suspect that you have eliminated anything I can explain or bring up as "new".  But I will still try going forward.  Will you truly acknowledge something if you see someting "new"? Or bring up more errors with the Church first, something you seem to be so very adept at?

-No, because I view sarcasm as a crutch that displays frustration and lack of thought. Is that how Plato and Socrates debated?  No its not. Do you want a debate where sarcasm is the first response?  Let me tell you, I am getting further with atheists who engage with me honestly than with a simple quick one liner from an angry and frustrated atheist.

  Sarcasm as a lack of thought.  Hardly.  It takes quite a bit of thought for sarcasm.  I don’t care how Plato and Socrates debated. Nice appeal to authority there.  And oh I love the new comment that some atheist evidently don’t engage you “honestly”. Another attempt to excuse yourself from answering hard questions.   

I would posit that sarsacm is far easier to use in a debate than actual constructive thought.  I say this becuase it's usually the first thing that comes to mind when there's something you don't agree with.  It's the easy way out and far more destructive to the debate at hand.  That cannot be argued.

I couldn’t disagree more.  Trust is earned.  Respect ought to be granted and maintained (if worthy), and even sometimes when it’s not deserved.  Otherwise you’d be treating every stranger like an asshole until somehow they earn your respect. 

I have to laugh.   And why should respect be granted to someone like you, BSD? 

-Because I am a guest here, as are you, therefore we both deserve respect.  Call it the "golden rule".  To me it is a natural law.

I know your arguments and they are baseless myths that depend on willful ignorance to maintain.  As for your church, it deserves no respect at all thanks to the crimes it has committed.  Trust can be earned too, as you say, and unfortunately, religion abuses trust. 

-You are correct, but the Church (as all faiths) are run by fallible men/women who can suck.  My religion does not claim we are spotless, in fact quite the opposite.  We sin and sin and sin again, and live on earth a.k.a. "Vally of Tears".  We have killed, maimed, mocked, ridiculed.  And somehow God still loves us, but only if we answer the call.  God sees our faults better than we do - it's not like you have some magic ability to be the only one to see it.  Faith gives us the power to ask for forgiveness but it also demands honesty.  With love for the faith and true honesty with oursleves and God , we move on with our lives in an endless attempt to amend our lives.  The Church is pock marked with dishonest power mongers.  They would have attempted power grabs in any time... and it was the Church in their time that they did this, due to the importance the Church had in the world in times past.

-I treat every stranger as a stranger until their actions demonstrate what they are. 

-
I give people respect first, no matter who it is, and see where it takes us. 

How can you respond to someone who calls your religion baby killing, war mongers, hate spewers, pedophiles.  I don’t need an excuse… it’s freakin’ hard and sometimes I just don’t want to do it.

I agree that it probably is very hard, but that’s what your religion has done.  I call your religion the above since they are. Facts are hard but that’s the bed your religion has made. You unfortunately must lie in it and come up with excuses for it. 

-
If you are able to so adeptly accuse the Church, then be fair by being willing to acknowledge many instances of good it has done also. 

-And what problems do atheists have, BSD? or is that just a random claim do you can point fingers back aka “but but you aren’t perfect either so don’t speak bad about us”?  I and others repeatedly call out the crimes of your church because it shows how much your church has nothing to do with anything special or “divine”.

You're problem is that atheism can lead to a faulty humanist secularist approach which in my opinion leads to problems on many fronts.  I can speak of the movements of Communism, a system that outlaws religion, took personal freedoms away and takes control of all matters small and large in the false claim that the State is the supreme head.  Religion has a huge problem with this.  Individual atheism (i.e. individuals such as yourselves) does not lead to communism, but it can when the powers that be use certain humanist / atheist arguments that ultimately lead to failure and mass human rights violations (see USSR, China, Cuba). Faults with the Church are not a lack anything divine.  You speak as if there were a God, that He would be directing everyone in person day to day on how to live.  We are faulty creatures by nature. 

As for being “cowardly”, how is it cowardly to use sarcasm?  Someone is saying this to your virtual face as much as anyone can, telling you want they think.  I don’t see that as cowardly at all.

You avoid looking at the person and their position, and turn it into a laugh fest.  Not only is it cowardly, but also narcissistic.

My style here is not to preach and pummel the poor atheists into a stooper and have them beg for forgiveness.  All I want to do is have a healthy debate and learn some things along the way.  I don't want to preach to you, or anyone.  Your tactic, so far as I can recall and witness is "Hey it's a Catholic, let's get 'em!! Swarm, swarm, swarm!!"  You are the one who is preaching, Velkyn.  Preaching why the Church is to be so loathed and hated and righfully ridiculed.  So I would appreciated some reciprocity. 

[BSD MAN]

Okay - Omen is a little upset that I didn't respond, so to give him the time he asks for: 

Omen wrote:
When did you establish that sarcasm is invalid?
-I gave my opinion, that it's cowardly and counter productive to debates.  Where does it say that I have to establish sarcasm as invalid?

What examples of this 'sarcasm' did you present before generalizing the entire community?
-I didn't give any.  I made an assertion.  Either you accept it or you don't.  Every responder did accept it (except for maybe one), and not one denied sarcasm wasn't being used.  I would accept this as an informal acceptance that my assertion is valid.

Why did you generalize the entire community?
-I made a quick estimation based on my past expeience here that I don't feel is inaccurate.  Perhaps not every thread, but sarcasm is a subsantial part.  Now I will admit I don't have exact numbers.  Some people respond to other responders, some make a quick observation and exit, some make snide rude & sarcastic remarks, and some engage in debate. 

How would I be able to tell your sincere disagreement with an issue, without examples, from a potential insecurity on your part in simply not liking criticism of your claims or desire to hold you accountable for what you claim? 
-Can you rephrase this question?  I'm kind of dumb and don't understand it.

[inveni0]

I’ve been posting and debating atheists for years.  Over time I’ve seen a lot of unique individuals, many of whom have nothing in common except their shared non-belief.  However there is one thing, over time, I see over and over and over again that disturbs me… and that is a heavy reliance on sarcasm from atheists in response to whatever thread they are engaging in.  If anyone recalls me, I visited here fairly regularly on this forum from 2006-2009 and have dropped by sparingly ever since.  My areas of interest lie in: the culture of atheism, Catholic doctrinal discussion, basic apologetics.  My style is to merely explain my stance and the Church's stance on whatever, argue a point or two, and move on.  About 10% of you atheists will give an honest to goodness debate that involves respect, intellect and curiosity – which is the reason I am here.  However, about 90% of the time I see a quick jab, a sarcastic remark, a (predictable) reference to pedophile priests and the Inquisition that may get a laugh from the peanut gallery, but in the end serves no ultimate purpose.  I honestly want to come back with a sarcastic rebuttal, then I hold back thinking “how do I want to be perceived in this debate?”  Sarcasm achieves so very little in my opinion that I wound up counting to 10, and repeated “calm blue ocean, calm blue ocean” 100 times and continued in debate (well, not really but you get my point).

I have been contemplating joining the discussion again, but I recall such a sarcastic backlash from many atheists in this forum on most of my posts that it seems such a colossal waste of time – what could possibly be accomplished?  So I ask, what IS the purpose, reason and meaning behind such useless and time wasting sarcastic remarks?  Pent up frustration?  A desire to dig into theists (particularly Catholics?)?  Get a laugh from your buddies?  What does sarcasm accomplish?  Because it wears on people and does not reflect well.

So I ask… should I come back and try to search some honest debate, or just leave knowing that the culture of sarcasm I discovered 6 years as is healthy as ever?  Why the all the sarcasm?

I'm a very sarcastic person in real life.  I'm also an atheist.  When I share on these boards, I'm ALWAYS met with "sarcasm" and contempt.  It seems that the argument focuses on all of the wrong things (like squabbling over the definition of a word).  But that's the nature of this forum.  You're here with people that like to argue.  They will find a way to argue, and it will be your fault.

That being said, I don't see how you could debate atheists "for years" and not have become one.

[Omen]

Omen wrote:
When did you establish that sarcasm is invalid?
-I gave my opinion, that it's cowardly and counter productive to debates.  Where does it say that I have to establish sarcasm as invalid?

An opinion is not an argument, again you're simply just listing positions rather than arguing that those positions are valid or should be accepted.  The result of which is that you just beg all the same questions that you leave unanswered.  Case in point:

Its counter productive because? 

What should be the product of debate/discussion?

Can you give an example?

There is also a problem in that you don't seem to know what is or is not a valid idea as far as logical arguments go.  Are you familiar with what a reductio ad absurdum is?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

What examples of this 'sarcasm' did you present before generalizing the entire community?
-I didn't give any.  I made an assertion.  Either you accept it or you don't.  Every responder did accept it (except for maybe one), and not one denied sarcasm wasn't being used.  I would accept this as an informal acceptance that my assertion is valid.

Your claims are not self evident at face value and this is precisely why you do not deserve our respect.  You are being intellectually dishonest, disingenuous, and insincere.   You've concluded upon a qualification you won't even explain even when asked.

Why should I take you seriously at all?

Why shouldn't I treat you with the same disrespect you treat us?

Why did you generalize the entire community?
-I made a quick estimation based on my past expeience here that I don't feel is inaccurate.  Perhaps not every thread, but sarcasm is a subsantial part.  Now I will admit I don't have exact numbers.  Some people respond to other responders, some make a quick observation and exit, some make snide rude & sarcastic remarks, and some engage in debate. 

Again, examples? Evidence? Even a description of what you're talking about?

When did you establish that sarcasm is invalid?

How would I be able to tell your sincere disagreement with an issue, without examples, from a potential insecurity on your part in simply not liking criticism of your claims or desire to hold you accountable for what you claim? 
-Can you rephrase this question?  I'm kind of dumb and don't understand it.

How can I tell the difference from you whining because you're a wimp and can't take a little criticism and whether or not you have a valid disagreement without any citation of what you're talking about?

Is that better?

[velkyn]

An attempt at making me appear oblivious to seemingly obvious notions.  What is obvious to you is not neccessarily obvious to me and vice versa.  That's why we debate and hopefully can arrive at new information.  My motivation here is to learn and explain.  And I have learned a lot.

  Well, you certainly seem oblivious to the fact that atheists do get frustrated.  You’ve now been educated so that is one more excuse from your plate.  Now, you know what makes atheists, at least these ones on the forum annoyed.  Now, can you avoid doing exactly that which makes them annoyed? 

An indriect insult to my abilities.  This is getting predictable now.  What does "new" mean to you?  Is it a truly new idea that you've never seen before or is it somethhing you must agree with?  I can teach you things baout the Church that you've never seen before.  But I don't think you would give me any credit because you seem to point out the past failings of the Church before any debate occurs and use it as an excuse to maintain your aggressive and accusatory rhetoric.  I suspect that you have eliminated anything I can explain or bring up as "new".  But I will still try going forward.  Will you truly acknowledge something if you see someting "new"? Or bring up more errors with the Church first, something you seem to be so very adept at?

  Indirect?  Oh heck, that wasn’t meant to be indirect at all.  And new, well, BSD, can you come up with anything different than before? That would be “new” for you.  Can you come up with anything different than theists have claimed repeatedly on this forum? That would also be new.  I’ve seen the things that you think are so new about the Church.  Been there, done that.  But please, do teach me these things about the Church that I’ve never seen before.  Also, provide evidence that the god that you claim is behind them exists. 

The Church has failed continuously and still does. Because of these failings, can you tell me why the Church should be thought to have any special truths?  It seems that a religion that claims that their god is involved with humanity, does miracles, etc, seems to fail when its god does nothing to fix the situation that causes the Church and her minions to do the things they do.  Where are the miracles to save children being raped by priests?  Why isn’t it that every time a priest tries to rape a child, he drops dead?  By the bible, even the thought is sinful, so there’s no problem with god interfering with the priest’s free will. 

And yes, I will admit quite happily that you’ve presented something new.  However, you seem to think that this means I will admit that this new thing is valid no matter what.  That I will not do.  You can claim that the pope turns purple on ever second Saturday of the month, but that’s rather meaningless unless you can provide evidence to support your claims.   

I would posit that sarsacm is far easier to use in a debate than actual constructive thought.  I say this becuase it's usually the first thing that comes to mind when there's something you don't agree with.  It's the easy way out and far more destructive to the debate at hand.  That cannot be argued.

  You can say it all you want, but again that doesn’t make things true.  I can argue it quite nicely.  Sarcasm is not necessarily the first thing that comes to mind and sarcasm is constructive thought, albeit thought that you don’t like.  As one can see here, it is rarely used first off, with reasoned debates and evidence coming long before sarcasm.  This is usually also long after the debate has proceded to the point where the theist has shown that he is not interested in the actual truth but only in his myths. 

Because I am a guest here, as are you, therefore we both deserve respect.  Call it the "golden rule".  To me it is a natural law.

Oh yes, that “natural law”  The golden rule says do unto others.  I do that exactly, I expect people to not respect me unless I show I deserve it.  Being a guest doesn’t show that you deserve respect, it just means you’ve shown up. 

-You are correct, but the Church (as all faiths) are run by fallible men/women who can suck.  My religion does not claim we are spotless, in fact quite the opposite.  We sin and sin and sin again, and live on earth a.k.a. "Vally of Tears".  We have killed, maimed, mocked, ridiculed.  And somehow God still loves us, but only if we answer the call.  God sees our faults better than we do - it's not like you have some magic ability to be the only one to see it.  Faith gives us the power to ask for forgiveness but it also demands honesty.  With love for the faith and true honesty with oursleves and God , we move on with our lives in an endless attempt to amend our lives.  The Church is pock marked with dishonest power mongers.  They would have attempted power grabs in any time... and it was the Church in their time that they did this, due to the importance the Church had in the world in times past.

And again why is your god so impotent now when it used to supposedly have no problem with taking care of those who displeased it?  You have yet to show that your god even exists, much less that it “loves” anyone.  You see, BDS, this bit right here is preaching.  Lots of baseless claims, insisting that humans are this and such, but no evidence to support it. 
 

I give people respect first, no matter who it is, and see where it takes us.

That’s your choice, it’s not mine. 

If you are able to so adeptly accuse the Church, then be fair by being willing to acknowledge many instances of good it has done also. 

Oh the church has done good, and bad, and all things in between.  Just like it would do with no god at all. 

You're problem is that atheism can lead to a faulty humanist secularist approach which in my opinion leads to problems on many fronts.  I can speak of the movements of Communism, a system that outlaws religion, took personal freedoms away and takes control of all matters small and large in the false claim that the State is the supreme head.  Religion has a huge problem with this.  Individual atheism (i.e. individuals such as yourselves) does not lead to communism, but it can when the powers that be use certain humanist / atheist arguments that ultimately lead to failure and mass human rights violations (see USSR, China, Cuba). Faults with the Church are not a lack anything divine.  You speak as if there were a God, that He would be directing everyone in person day to day on how to live.  We are faulty creatures by nature. 

  Oh I love it, you did go for the Communist thing.  Sorry, Communisim was a cult of personality, a megalomaniac who decreed that there be no gods before *him*.  I’m asking you to show how atheism does anything bad on its own.  You claim that religion has a problem with the state as the supreme head.  But funny how it has no problem with *it* being the supreme head (without any evidence that gods even exist), that it takes away personal freedoms and control of all matters or that leaders who are put into place by this supposed god are to be obeyed without question.  Power does lead to it being abused but religion says it can do so because of a phantom in the sky.  Do you see the difference?  One is simply humans being humans, and the other is based on a supernatural bit of nonsense. 

Your god does nothing to stop people from abusing its name. Why not, BSD?  Your bible and your religion says that your god is responsible for *everything*, Matthew 10:29 Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground outside your Father’s care. 30 And even the very hairs of your head are all numbered. 31 So don’t be afraid; you are worth more than many sparrows.
Is this correct or not, BSD?  If an altar boy is so precious, what is going on with your god’s inaction?

You avoid looking at the person and their position, and turn it into a laugh fest.  Not only is it cowardly, but also narcissistic.

  Hmmm, do you know the meaning of the word narcissistic?  It seems not.  Again, you make baseless claims and ignore facts.  Can you tell me what else can be said to someone like that? 

My style here is not to preach and pummel the poor atheists into a stooper and have them beg for forgiveness.  All I want to do is have a healthy debate and learn some things along the way.  I don't want to preach to you, or anyone.  Your tactic, so far as I can recall and witness is "Hey it's a Catholic, let's get 'em!! Swarm, swarm, swarm!!"  You are the one who is preaching, Velkyn.  Preaching why the Church is to be so loathed and hated and righfully ridiculed.  So I would appreciated some reciprocity.

     
Poor wannabee martyr.  No, BSD, it’s “It’s a theist who makes claims that are false.  He has chosen to be here on his own volition.  If he wants a one on one, we are more than happy to oblige. But we will not accept his claims without evidence so we will ask him. If he doesn’t give it, dodges the questions, etc then what is there to do? They are not here for a debate but to stand up on a box and shout.”   I am not preaching, I and other have repeatedly demonstrated how the Church fails and how your claims fail because of this.  I know you don’t like to be reminded of it. 

[BSD MAN]

The Gawd-
“I would add that 99% of theist debates have been dishonest so you cannot engage in honest debates/discussion. How can we have an honest discussion if one cant admit that genocide is bad?”
This is a problematic statement because I may be the 1% and you wouldn’t know without observation.  About the genocide…you got a point there. I’m convinced.  I’ll now admit genocide is bad.  I will go and tell Benedict XVI (hey that felt good ;-)     

Thank you kind sir. Now that we have established that... I am also against the U.S. military and refuse to do any "service" because I think they are told to do evil and kill people I have no problem with nor have they done anything to me. All the while those millions/billions of dollars are being spent to kill people that could otherwise be spent helping people.

I am against evil and killing people for no good reason.  This includes terrorsism and military campaigns that include civilian deaths, and non-combatants. 

Now that you have some insight into my perspective. How could I serve/follow a god who demands genocide of a group of people?

Not sure I follow, but okay, let me have it. 

[BSD MAN]

Omen - I had an opinion based on real life experiences.  I asked a question based on my opinion.  People can choose to accept or reject my premise and answer, or not answer. 

It appears you require evidence for every assertion I make.  Giving you evidence as you require is not practicle (takes a lot of time).  Are you as demanding of evidence with everyone? 

I work like this...I'll make a statement, either you agree or don't agree for whatever reason.  Spewing evidence, except in key circunstances, like when I make a claim: "Man sees God - see, that's proof", well naturally I would provide a link and any support I could offer.  But when I make a claim based on my opinion, I'm just going to let people accept or reject.  Not every opinion must be qualified and verified.

[nogodsforme]

I try not to be sarcastic on internet boards because it is so easily misinterpreted-- no tone of voice or body language to mitigate the sharpness of a comment. But I can understand why we get snippy and snarky here: It's a safe place to vent.

We atheists live in a world where we are surrounded by people who, from our perspectives, are in Disneyland. They run around talking about Donald Duck and Goofy and Snow White and Minnie Mouse as if they are real people who do real things in their everyday lives:

"I am so blessed! Pluto the Dog healed my cancer."
"I prayed to Minnie Mouse and she helped me get a promotion at work!"
"We will now bow our heads and thank Snow White for this delicious food."   
"Praise Mickey Mouse from whom all blessings flow!"
"Goofy has been so good to me--giving me this election victory."
"We just want to have equal time in the school science curriculum to teach about how Minnie and Mickey created the universe." 
"What a beautiful baby! Donald Duck sure loves his children, doesn't he?"
"Why are you so angry, just because we want to share our love for Quacky McDuck with you this fine Sunday morning?"

This is the environment we have to survive in. And we can't say anything untoward to anyone because they are our family, friends, employers, students, patients, clients, coworkers, spouses and neighbors. Religious people are everywhere spouting this absolute nonsense, and we are supposed to keep a straight face and pretend that it is real.[1] We think they are bonkers, but we still have to interact with them, even love and respect them.

Sooo, sometimes we vent here in this anonymous and accepting atheist space. It gives us an outlet so we can go back into Disneyland-- I mean the religiously influenced environment--and keep our yaps shut. And keep our jobs, friends, marriages, etc.

1.	There are times when I am at a public  event and there is a prayer and I have to literally keep from laughing.

[Omen]

It appears you require evidence for every assertion I make

What kind of moron wouldn't?

I'll make a statement, either you agree or don't agree for whatever reason.  Spewing evidence,

I've crossed out the meaningless parts.  If you have evidence for a claim, back up the claim.  If you don't, then admit that you do not.

except in key

There are no exceptions.

You are over generalizing an entire community based on responses that you won't even explain or cite examples for.   You no more qualify that then you qualify the assertion that sarcasm renders an argument invalid. We have no means to even determine your conclusions follow logically or rationally, much less why they were made in the first place.   As I suspect those conclusions you've made have been done so purely because you lack the where with all to take criticism without being offended.  Sarcasm is a fundamental part of higher criticism, ie socratic methodology and as demonstrated in Plato's The Apology.    Your whining because you can't get non-believers to take your disingenuous apologetic anti-intellectualism at face value and it certainly won't work with me.

Not every opinion must be qualified and verified.

Everything has to be qualified, nothing is accepted on authority alone, that sir IS a fallacy.

[kin hell]

There is also the other aspect BSD

Some people do not warrant the effort required to educate them.

Some people are beyond learning, having adopted positions of certitude that cannot be changed, not because their position is inherently perfect, stable rational or irrefutable, but because their investment in their belief outweighs any hollow claim they may make of being interested in alternative viewpoints.

An unshakeable belief based on no evidence deserves nothing but sarcasm.

Especially when the hilariously hypocritical accusation most likely to heard from the "believers" to atheists is the idiotic  "you are so closed minded"...

Please understand the above was not aimed at you BSD, but at those who are accurately described within the content.

However, your OP here does come across as whining. I'm sure that is not the result you wanted.

Do you understand why sarcasm is used?

Does your position come with supporting evidence?

Are you going to provide us with objective examples supporting your belief structure?

Do you understand that this is an atheist site?

Do you understand that if you are going to do nothing but the standard theist make claims/fail to substantiate shuffle, you will be met with sarcasm at least?

Is sarcasm more acceptable than contempt?

(before you start whining about contempt), please understand it is not contempt for you, it is contempt for the theistic "faith" requirement of absolute lack of critical thought, it is contempt for a supposed thinking human embracing an unsubstantiated and honestly silly belief system as a preferred template for living life.

What has changed in the years since you were last here to make you think you are any better equipped to deal with having your superstition publicly flensed, while you publicly fail to defend the indefensible?

[GodlessHeathen]

I have been contemplating joining the discussion again, but I recall such a sarcastic backlash from many atheists in this forum on most of my posts that it seems such a colossal waste of time – what could possibly be accomplished?  So I ask, what IS the purpose, reason and meaning behind such useless and time wasting sarcastic remarks?  Pent up frustration?  A desire to dig into theists (particularly Catholics?)?  Get a laugh from your buddies?  What does sarcasm accomplish?  Because it wears on people and does not reflect well.

So I ask… should I come back and try to search some honest debate, or just leave knowing that the culture of sarcasm I discovered 6 years as is healthy as ever?  Why the all the sarcasm?

I personally try very hard not to resort to sarcasm when discussing these issues with theists; however, I am sure I have been guilty of it a time or two, usually when the theist with whom I'm debating persists with offering nothing but tongue-in-cheek remarks that offer no valid argument for his or her position or when the theist resorts to "attacking the person" rather than arguing the issue at hand.

I am of the school of thought that a person can "catch more flies with honey than with vinegar." My goal is to get people to think critically, to get them to decide their worldview for themselves rather than simply accepting what they've been taught. Sometimes that may entail delivering my arguments with force, but I try very hard never to resort to attacking someone personally.

[jetson]

...but I try very hard never to resort to attacking someone personally.

You may be a godless heathen, but I don't know how you think you can join our club with your sugary approach. 

Welcome to the forum!  Your approach should help us a bit - apparently, we can be a little rough on some people at times.  But most of us are probably pretty cuddly in real life.  Wait?

[jaimehlers]

To me, sarcasm is usually engendered by frustration.  How often do you see someone who's calm and collected resort to sarcasm?  Generally not often, except when they're joking around.  Whereas someone who's upset (or annoyed, or angry, etc) at something is much more likely to be sarcastic about it.  In my own experience, it's a way to try to let off steam and to show the other person what you think of the subject.  The problem is, if the other person doesn't agree, they're likely to reply with their own sarcasm right back, and then the whole thing breaks down.  I don't think it's a matter of not being sarcastic, I think it's a matter of recognizing that it's going on so that it doesn't get out of hand.

[kin hell]

To me, sarcasm is usually engendered by frustration.  How often do you see someone who's calm and collected resort to sarcasm?  Generally not often, except when they're joking around.  Whereas someone who's upset (or annoyed, or angry, etc) at something is much more likely to be sarcastic about it.  In my own experience, it's a way to try to let off steam and to show the other person what you think of the subject.  The problem is, if the other person doesn't agree, they're likely to reply with their own sarcasm right back, and then the whole thing breaks down.  I don't think it's a matter of not being sarcastic, I think it's a matter of recognizing that it's going on so that it doesn't get out of hand.

....and sometimes mate
"Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions" Thomas Jefferson