Yep. I’ve studiously avoided those kinds of discussions here, because I’ve had experience with those kinds of discussions on other sites. I’ve been confidently informed by self-professed atheists that I’m an atheist and that agnosticism is a logical impossibility; by self-professed agnostics that I’m an agnostic and that atheism is a logical impossibility; and various shades and iterations of those arguments; in the same thread. Threads in which no one was a believer.
Proof positive that schisming isn’t due to religions in particular. It’s just a thing that humans do: whether about religion, atheism, politics, lumpers-and-splitters about numbers of hominim species, or the Oxford comma.
There are many flavors of atheism. What one professes, another may disagree.
Yep.
So it’s your opinion that when a theist or agnostic tells me what I believe that they are likely to be right and I am wrong?
No, you likely know what you believe.
But I doubt posters were actually telling you what you know. They were likely making generalizations about atheists, and you felt those generalizations did not fit you.
However, this is getting into that
so let us not continue this here, there is another thread in GD you can join.
In threads where a fight is linked showing a woman physically attacking a man and the man fighting back, someone always posts “equal rights, equal lefts”.
Related to this, in any type of IMHO thread where one is asked to name a favorite/best/worst/etc XXXX, someone will chime in with “I CAN’T BELIEVE NOBODY MENTIONED [YYYY]!!!”, where YYYY had, in fact, already been mentioned, possibility multiple times, and often in the OP itself.
(Actually, that’s a bit of a forced formulation of the law to follow the OP’s structure in the subject line. It’s more that whenever a poster starts a sentence with “I can’t believe nobody’s mentioned” or “I can’t believe I’m the first to say…” they are, 95% of the time, not the first at all.)
So pervasive that I hereby dub it Pulykamell’s Law.
Any thread talking about underrated guitarist or musicians will have a link posted of Prince’s Rock and Roll Hall of Fame appearance.
Just now I thought of another one as I read a thread title about any crimes you may or may not have committed.
Before opening the thread I knew someone would post that they shot a man in Reno just to watch him die.
I was not disappointed.
mmm
Any thread about British food will include a post written by an American referring to “blood pudding”, despite British people saying in every previous such thread that black pudding is never, ever referred to as “blood pudding” in the UK.
In every thread about frivolous lawsuits, someone will mention that woman who sued McDonald’s because her coffee burned her. And then someone else will mention that there’s more to the story, blah blah blah.
As soon as I saw the thread “Do you have a cobbler?”, about people who repair shoes, I knew eventually someone would post something about cobbler, as in the dessert.
I also was not disappointed.
Actually this could be expressed more generally as “Any time a thread title uses a word that can have multiple meanings, someone will post something using the wrong meaning as a joke.”
I got similar responses when I started a thread asking about smokers last year (as in smoking meat).
And now someone’s probably going to reply to this post with something about smoking meat like a cigarette.
In any thread about anything, some arsehole will come in to make an unnecessary correction, such as saying “you meant au contraire”.
Thank you, but I appreciate the correction. May as well fight my ignorance. But that reminds me:
In every thread where someone states that a word is used incorrectly, someone always posts an argument that modern usage allows that use of the word. Bonus points for using “cromulent”.
Example: “flaunt” and “flout”
Did I miss this one earlier in the thread? As soon as I saw the title, I thought, “Oh, yeah…posting a question about MS Windows.”
The replies almost always include one or more of the following:
“You could have bought a Mac for just a little more and you wouldn’t have these problems.”
“The best thing to do is to format the drive and install the XXX version of LINUX.”
“Have you tried turning it off and turning it back on again?”
Every thread about Saturday Night Live, or even the Simpsons, has someone chime in about how they haven’t watched either for years or even decades. OK, thanks for letting us know but it doesn’t add to the conversation. Yes, we know neither show is funny anymore blah blah blah.
If you try to use the word ‘savoury’, someone is bound to say “the word you are looking for is ‘umami’”
In every thread where something has being argued to the nth degree, someone always responds “but no has said that” even though multiple posters have indeed “said that”.
Argh: Please read “but no has said that” as “but no ONE has said that”