"No, you're dumb. I refuse to elaborate" is my go-to when someone tries to impose their faith onto me now.

If they really insist and I want to lose some time, I tell them I believe Goku is god and make them dismount my argument. Then I use their own points to dismount their god and they usually get pissed because "it's not the same thing".

I was speaking with someone about how at around age 40 to 50 you stop caring so much. Let them be "right". It doesn't affect me.

Also, I hope my dad enjoyed it. He deserved some good sex.

The annoying thing about reddit/lemmy atheists is all they talk about is church and god.

What reddit atheists and online atheists in general dont understand is that you simply cannot win an argument with someone who isnt willing to listen to reason and doesnt want to argue on the basis of actual facts. Its like trying to win an argument against a reactionary, you can try as hard as you want but at the end of the day they're just gonna respond with "nuh uh" because they arent interested in a genuine discussion.

I liked the bit in the 3001 space Odyssey (the one where they unfreeze Frank and his lack of a foreskin gets him ghosted)

"Nowadays everyone's either a deist or a theist. The theists believe there's at least one god and the deists believe there's less than or exactly one god."

the key is neither the marketplace for ideas nor debate are good models for accomplishing anything productive. they do not encourage people to come to them ready to listen, but instead create an arena of professional wrestling in the format of "discussion."

a better model is the idea that you have a big pot of soup. your soup is your idea. you invite people to add ingredients to the soup. as a group, any time someone brings a new ingredient to the soup (a new mode of promoting and participating with the idea) you have the opportunity to integrate that ingredient or to say it doesn't go with the rest of what's already in the soup.

your goal, with your idea soup, is to invite as many people as you can to add ingredients so that your pot of soup is as big as possible and can feed as many people as possible. that means when you reject ingredients, you have to explain clearly why those ingredients don't belong with the rest of the soup

1. Do not engage with someone unwilling to have a good faith convo. Most folks unfortunately, don't even know what good faith arguments mean.
2. Arguing with a bad faith counterpart makes sense when you want to explore your own beliefs further by probing them from different angles, when you're simply having fun using your brain, and when you want to leave your argument for a third party observing the conversation.

Attempting to convince someone else directly is quite impossible online in my experience. Simply because people generally aren't here to have good faith convos.

Leaving a convo/not replying to a rebuttal is NOT conceding your point.

I’ve found that distancing yourself from the debate emotionally and being playful about it (like in op pic) works best. If you feel like there’s a lot riding on it, you’ll lose yourself in the debate.

If you approach it like it doesn’t matter (because guess what, in the grand scheme of things, it really doesn’t) you’re free as a bird to make a case and move on.

I prefer to cultivate an actively painful to read style and just inflict that on them you can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themsrlvesinto

Go ahead, do tell me where they at tho