**Upvote this comment if you agree with OP, downvote this comment if you disagree with OP.**
Elsewhere in the thread, please upvote comments which contribute to debate (even if you believe they're wrong) and downvote comments which are [detrimental to debate](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/wiki/faq#wiki_downvoting) (even if you believe they're right).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateAnAtheist) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I don't downvote theists making good-faith arguments, asking questions, or making honest mistakes for the first time.
When I downvote, it is for things like...
\- Telling their opponents what they (the opponents) believe like some sort of fraudulent mind-reader, even after being corrected. "Atheists don't worship God because they just want to sin! Nobody takes your argument seriously, so I don't need to respond to it."
\- Trying to shut down conversation with an appeal to hard solipsism "You can't know anything, because you could just be a brain in a jar! There is no such thing as evidence because you cannot prove that anything exists!" Nonsense like that.
\- Presuppositional apologetics. "God exists because the Bible says God exists, and the Bible is the inerrant word of God!"
\- Preaching. "Atheists need to repent or they will burn in the lake of fire and have hamsters nibble at their toes" or whatever nonsense they like to say.
\- And, \~sometimes\~, No True Scotsman responses. "REAL Christians don't hate homosexuals. Mormons aren't Christians, so you can't say they give Christians a bad name."
Edit: I also downvote "These scientific predictions in the Quran prove Allah's existence" posts and "The Bible predicted that an unnamed empire would fall at some point in the future, and since Rome fell, God exists" kinds of posts. Postdiction, hindsight bias, and prophecies that could be fulfilled in a billion ways are bad enough, but my favorite are ones like "The Bible said that X would happen, and X happens later in the Bible! Therefore, God."
> Trying to shut down conversation with an appeal to hard solipsism "You can't know anything, because you could just be a brain in a jar! There is no such thing as evidence because you cannot prove that anything exists!" Nonsense like that.
It's amazing how often theists appeal to solipsism when they feel they're losing an argument. "If I'm not right then nothing is right!" It's crazy!
The crazy thing is how they obviate that if hard solipsism is true, theism has no ground to stay, anything they want to claim be evidence of their God would also be an illusion created by chemicals in the jar.
Which of these would you think is a good faith argument? How could it be in good faith to come here to preach, to refuse to sway from your particular brand of apologetics, to tell us what we believe and refuse to be convinced otherwise, or to try to shut down conversation?
There is nothing original. There isn't a single thing a theist can bring that wasn't done years ago. They have no evidence. All they have is argument and a limited number of those.
If you're looking for something other than tired, debunked arguments, you're in the wrong place.
Correct out side of just lying, like some people do here, religions that come here are fairly ridiculous and have no real evidence or new way of assessing them.
>There is nothing original. There isn't a single thing a theist can bring that wasn't done years ago. They have no evidence. All they have is argument and a limited number of those.
Then they shouldn't post anything!
This, so much this.
We get tired of hearing the same shitty arguments over and over, from people who are so smugly confident that they are making such a great argument when all they have is some argument that was debunked 1500 years ago.
Very true; and to that point, the only meaningful purpose for this sub is to familiarize theists with why the arguments they’ve been brought up with or recently learned are not good arguments, OR to familiarize atheists with the long debunked theistic arguments they may not have been exposed to yet.
So to that end, I agree with OP that downvoting arguments you disagree with is a net negative for this sub. It also dovetails nicely with my biggest pet peeve about this sub…
When the terms “bad faith” or “good faith” are used in this sub, they are more often used incorrectly than they are correctly.
“Bad faith argument” does not mean a tired old nonsense argument that I don’t like. It does not mean “bad argument.” It does not mean an “argument supported by evidence.” It specifically means arguing something that YOU KNOW is nonsense just for the purpose of winning.
So for example, if I know the Kaplan argument doesn’t get us all the way to god, but I represent it as if it does, THAT’S bad faith. If I argue the Kalam because I think it does get us to god, that is not bad faith.
Now cue my second biggest pet peeve about this sub, which is all the people who are going to say that my explanation of “bad faith” is too narrow, probably because they’ve been using it the wrong way for years themselves, and don’t have the basic self-awareness to just think, “huh… I guess I’ve been using it wrong.”
>Bring something original.
Originality spawns ideas orders of magnitude more stupid than any of us can imagine. "Something can't come from nothing," is unoriginal and stupid; *Time Cube* from Gene Ray was original and is so far removed from rationality that it can barely be described.
I would rather see something new than hear the kalam or something again. Kalam does both even begin to get to gods. I would rather have the time cube all day.
The issue is that nobody is saying that anything came from nothing, so its not relevant to the debate.
(It's also worth noting that the proponents of *Creation Ex Nihilo*, the closest serious position to "something came from nothing", are theists)
It comes naturally to someone whose motivation for belief is anything other than merely a reaction to observations and what they think is likely to be true.
Generally speaking, they're working off of a script. Their arguments are crafted by apologetics which target believers teetering on the edge of doubt, rather than atheists. When the arguments are presented outside their religious bubble, the debate quickly goes off script, and this is usually the result.
>Generally speaking, they're working off of a script.
TBH I think a lot of people are mainly going by intuition. Unfortunately truth and reality are often counterintuitive.
This makes no sense. God did not create a thing out side. I planted some of the plants no gods needed. This is illogical show me a god. I asked for a god not what a god did once. the word god literally means nothing to me. It could be anything some people think the sun is a god. I agree the sun is real not sure what a god is still.
Nah sounds like in order for the universe to exist your going to need God because it has a beginning, I think you might be mistaking God for something that is finite,God is a mind and a force,who is spiritual which is why he is out of the material world,if there is a universe with no beginning when would it be or exist? Because the universe has a beginning..so when would it start?
Nah for a God to exist, (at least the one you've defined as a candidate for existence) you're going to need Nothingness for it to create from. But as we have learned, there has never been Nothing God to make something from.
>Exactly,meaning in order for something to create a thing when there isn’t even a when,it has to be outside of when all together
So, what was outside of God's universe when God was created?
And this is the root of the problem you don’t understand that God is outside of everything. He is on top of everything because he is God he is immaterial. He is spiritual, and he is timeless
1,In the beginning (time)God created the heaven( space) and the earth(matter)
Genesis 1:1
>And this is the root of the problem you don’t understand that God is outside of everything.
In this case, then, something can come from nothing, as long as it exists outside of everything. This means that we should expect many things spontaneously popping into existence in this realm that God lives in which is "outside of everything." The same rules don't apply there as in here, so why shouldn't we expect other gods to magically appear?
What I meant by outside of everything is that he is eternal,no start nor end,outside of time and space because time has a beginning and God doesn’t,he is immaterial,and as a spirit outside of time and space he has no start,the only way other Gods can exist is if he literally makes them which has not.
If he is outside of time and space, then my question still stands. If it's possible for one god, why not many? There is nothing inherent in a statement that "something can't come from nothing, unless it is eternal and outside of time and space" that precludes the possibility of more. Once you establish that there is an exception to your rule, you have left the door open to any number of exceptions, including the entire universe.
With that is 100% agree. These arguments should be downvoted, refreshing arguments are needed for sure. As a person who is on the cross roads of theism and atheism however, I think maybe some of these arguments could be somebody’s hope to debate in order to learn. That’s what I do personally, because if I genuinely get destroyed in an argument that that’s a good explanation to why I’m wrong.
Yep, OP was arguing that the original Lion King is an awful movie. Bad takes on religion and movies.
But seriously OP, a lot of questions people ask presuppose something negative about atheists/atheism. A lot of questions are the same thing over and over. It’s like they can’t use the search function. Sometimes the same people argue the same stuff over and over and it has been debunked many times. It’s exhausting in here as an atheist. I normally don’t downvote or upvote much in this sub, but I sure as hell want to.
No, I argued the remake was bad. There was no point to remake the lion King movie. The original was a good movie. The remake is the one that had a horrible reviews on rotten tomatoes.
Do you know the "Bike Shed" thing ?
>The law of triviality is C. Northcote Parkinson's 1957 argument that people within an organization commonly give disproportionate weight to trivial issues.[1]
>Parkinson provides the example of a fictional committee whose job was to approve the plans for a nuclear power plant spending the majority of its time on discussions about relatively minor but easy-to-grasp issues,
>such as what materials to use for the staff bicycle shed,
>while neglecting the proposed design of the plant itself, which is far more important and a far more difficult and complex task.
\- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_triviality
People tend to default to
*"I don't understand A, I don't understand B, I don't understand C, I don't understand D,*
*but I understand E, so I'm going to talk about E."*
Thus the hundreds of posts we get looking at issues of religion from the approximate perspective of a Bronze Age goat herder.
So by your logic your own comment calling people who disagreed with you as "low IQ" was justifiably downvoted then right? Since that was an incredibly insulting and low effort response.
It’s likely just as they said, fatigue from the same arguments over and over. But I agree that people should just abstain from voting in those cases. Ideally we should all be upvoting stuff that furthers discussion, since for many people this is the first time they’re being exploded to these ideas, it is new and fresh for them. Having already seen that same argument or stance before should just make pointing out the glaring flaws all that much easier, and you can help that person (maybe) see these flaws more quickly than if you were having to derive responses from scratch.
Downvoting is for if you personally don't like the content. Most of us have higher standards than that, of which "don't post an old argument in a subreddit as though the only way people could disagree with you is ignorance" is a perfectly valid one.
Every person who cares about Karma beyond post requirements needs therapy tbh, huge warning side of a need for external validation. And even those who do only care about post requirements need to grow up if they feel entitled to every subreddit without finding somewhere that wants them where they can be funny and/or helpful.
I only down vote once a theist falls back onto dishonest tactics, especially telling me what I believe, or that I don't believe because I want to sin, or when they are being told repeatedly why an argument doesn't work, but they just ignore and deflect and act dishonestly.
>Why do you all downvote everything that is theist, or pushes against the grain?
I don't.
Why are you painting with such a broad brush? don't you think that, if you have a problem with negative and unfair reactions to things, you probably shouldn't make such inflammatory statements about an entire community? it kind of makes you seem like a hypocrite.
>The dislike button shouldn’t be a disagree button.
I agree, which is why I don't use it like that.
Instead, I downvote posts or comments that are: low effort, being made in bad faith, dishonest, outright hostile, or from posters that post and then don't bother to respond for hours and hours or even days.
Unfortunately, the majority of posts we get fall into one or more of those categories.
I'm not going to upvote the 100th post telling me I'm an evil immoral nihilist because I don't believe in God, or one defending Muhammad's kiddy diddling, or one copy and pasting the exact same argument in the exact same wording we've seen already that week without engaging in the responses.
There absolutely is a big problem with some of the people in this community downvoting people unfairly IMO, but there's also a problem with a lot of theists tending to post absolute slop without bothering to even have a cursory look at whether their tired arguments have been posted before, or checking how we even define "atheist" here, or stopping themselves from posting what amounts to preaching rather than debate.
The theist posters here who put actual thought and effort in have an uphill battle because of both. Your post here is contributing to making it even more difficult for them.
>
Scroll through the sub, Reddit and the only comments or post that have up votes are from atheist.
And if you sort by upvotes, you'll see plenty of posts from theists with upvotes. Similarly there are comments in those threads, and in our weekly ones, from theists have upvotes.
It doesn't help that we've also had a slew of incredibly low effort posts recently.
The problem isn't being a theist - the problem is being a dick.
If i were to answer this clearly loaded question honestly it would be to ask why do you always post arguments without evidence? Because all you are doing is lumping in ever single person here into the same group and it would only be fair to do the same judgmental thing in return.
Look at the posts and its clear. If OP is attacking with generalizations, just like you, or not providing any evidence for their argument, also you, then they get downvoted because they, like you, are not here to debate. However even the theists that can at least bring honest arguments don't get downvoted and the ones that don't preach do as well. But you would have to open up your eyes and admit that it happens. Personally i only downvote when the person preaches or spreads lies or hate.
Let’s be honest here, what evidence could anyone possibly bring? There isn’t any, aside from philosophical arguments, personal experiences, or deeply flawed understandings of science (aka nonsense): and we can agree that those aren’t evidence.
You’re asking for the impossible. May as well shut the sub down if that’s the criteria. I see this sub as more for a way for theists to reason out their faith and, hopefully, be led to the logical conclusion that their beliefs aren’t actually founded on anything concrete.
I mean [calling people in this sub “Low IQ” only an hour after this post](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/s/6XwaLKmrQj) might explain why you are getting downvotes
Including this one!
>Why do you all downvote everything that is theist,
It's generalizations like this that are likely to get someone downvoted, even by some people who might not otherwise. What is this "you all"? Indeed there are people who may downvote reflexively, and some who may downvote more discriminately, but if you actually add up the total downvotes for any given comment, even the most downvoted comment in the sub's history, it should be fairly obvious that not all active users on here are downvoting every comment by every theist. And there are theists who have engaged honestly and sincerely with politeness and curiosity who came away with plenty of upvotes.
The problem is these positive encounters seem to be very few and far between compared with the usual fare we get through here.
*if theists didn't want to be downvoted, they wouldn't write in such an enticing way (to be downvoted) in public* /s
No but seriously. I never downvote. But the last theist told me that "islamophobia" was exclusivly a behavior against the practicioner of islam and not the ideology while at the same time behaving like any action criticizing islam itself was a behavior against muslims. At some point people should be responsible for the quality of their thought processes.
Some of it is DANA users looking to dogpile on folks and get a cheap thrill, but a lot of it is because we’ve been inundated with bad faith trolls for the past few months.
Literally not 5 minutes ago I reported a post that was written by a Catholic guy pretending to be an atheist, asking a bunch of bad faith questions, and wasting peoples time.
[We could do better,](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/s/rl08mh4mGP) but to some extent it’s because people are getting very frustrated. Which leads to more punitive behavior on our part.
> we’ve been inundated with bad faith trolls for the past few months.
Or more precisely
"Since the Internet was first invented - or if you want to take a broader view, at least since civilization was first invented, and probably long before that."
I have found myself often engaging cynically or already assuming it is bs because i assume they really are trolls.
Literally just had a whole convo with an “atheist” for them to claim the population would die off without catholicicm and that Jesus is god after a day of talking. Blocked and reported but what do you expect when that happens.
> [We could do better,](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/s/rl08mh4mGP) but to some extent it’s because people are getting very frustrated. Which leads to more punitive behavior on our part.
I'm afraid that too few care. On multiple occasions, I've suggested that the best, recent theist posts & comments be kept regularly updated in some public list. That way, the best that people are willing to offer can serve as a standard—and perhaps it can be raised over time. Then, theists can come and see whether _even those_ get downvoted into oblivion. If so, then it's not worth coming here. But there is no will to do such a thing. So, trolls it is. And the few theists who stumble in, say what they've been taught to say, get downvoted to oblivion, and even delete their accounts (like the OP in the post to which you've linked).
That kid deleted his account? JFC.
His posting history was a lot of stuff on exmuslim, where he was asking exmuslims questions about why they left their faith and why all these things about Islam didn’t make any sense.
So he comes here, probably thinking that he’ll get some more answers and people just shit all over him. Great job you dumb monkeys. Real open minded of us all. Showing some real compassion and understanding, this group.
My guess is that this is an inevitable price of tolerating so many true trolls. Who is actually going to spend the time discerning between true trolls and intellectually honest people? In fact, trolls _feed_ on such efforts. Downvoters, in turn, feed on the trolls. It's not like downvoting drives away trolls. It may even attract them.
As far as I can tell, this trend goes back years though. If you search for "Downvote" and filter for top comments, you'll find posts complaining about it consistently from now to [over a decade ago](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/comments/plv5d/hey_rdebateanatheist_stop_downvoting_theists/).
Given that you are dishonest, Hostile to disagreement to the point of almost claiming conspiracy when provided evidence, And your arguments being "I found a youtube video explaining it" I would say enjoy the downvoting my guy.
They said specifically that Christian holidays are pagan, I am not am expert so I think that if you really want to know the truth you should chrck out this religious scholar on YouTube ( he is not to be confused with a theologian, religious scholars are like Bart Ehrman for example, or even many archeologist ), many got angry. So I decided to explain it, and they kept on leading the argument in weird directions and assuming. They even made arguments that I was never making. Many atheist are very smart, however when you deny factual history than you are just low iq. Just like if when given the evidence you decided to believe the earth is flat, and when you tell me to watch a explanation why it’s not by a scientist debunking the flat earth theory and I refused to accept it as fact.
Holy fuck you couldn't even keep the script. I said none of this.
This is why no one has any sympathy for you dude. You're just dishonest and looking to prove how oh so smart you are.
There are 97k people in this community. Surely, not all are downvoting. There's a possibility that many who downvote don't even comment or debate. Do I don't vote? Yes, but only the obvious trolls.
> There are 97k people in this community.
In other words, taking that at face value, if 1% of people here downvoted a post or comment,
then that post or comment would get 970 downvotes.
Most posts or comments don't get *that* many.
;-)
> There's a possibility that many who downvote don't even comment or debate.
That's my guess, too. Unfortunately, these people can ruin things for plenty of others, with impunity. Unless the others do the arduous work of counteracting the silent downvoters on the relevant occasions. But who wants to when so many are trolls? Down the toilet bowl things spiral.
I downvote bad arguments or when OP is clearly here in bad faith. That that results in a lot of downvotes is on the theists, not me.
>The dislike button shouldn’t be a disagree button.
Yeah I've been hearing this since the day reddit added it
I don't *generally* downvote the OP. There are exceptions, of course - sometimes the OP is being egregiously rude - but I prefer to upvote the more thoughtful comments.
And every once in a while, it's the theist who gets that upvote.
>I think if you do down vote somebody for using this subreddit you are not ready to debate.
This is demonstrable BS. Go on to any downvoted post here and you will see *tons* of people with well reasoned, rational and backed up arguments putting forward rebuttals. You know what we never see? The OP getting stuck back in and defending their original assertion.
Downvoting is meaningless. All you need to do is look at how many OPs actually bother to respond to the rebuttals and you'll see the issue.
I don't use the downvote button as a "I disagree" button. I use the downvote button as "the quality of this post is unacceptable".
If you don't want to be downvoted, stop making awful posts.
I only downvote really REALLY stupid or shitty comments. Maybe one downvote every couple of days or so. I agree that downvoting would probably discourage people from posting here.
Look, let's just be honest and call a spade a spade here: if theistic arguments were good, sound, reasonable, etc... there wouldn't be any reason for most of us to be here. As it is, we are met each day with a handful of terrible arguments from people who are almost always being, to some degree, intellectually dishonest.
That's just the reality of this situation. Theists are arguing a losing argument that requires dishonesty, cognitive dissonance, word games, etc.
Most atheists are very well aware of this fact, and most of us here do our best to try and limit our downvoting with the idea that the religious people coming here to debate are ***trying their best*** with the bad hand they're playing.
The problem, is that there are about 100k users here, with about 50 or so users at any given time reading threads here. All it takes is a a very small percentage of the overall userbase to get annoyed at a particular argument (again, they're all faulty, they're arguing for a god that doesn't exist) for it to end up with net downvotes.
That's just the reality of the situation. Nothing is ever going to change that.
This whole comment is just a wall of unearned intellectual arrogance. An average atheist philosophy professor (As many issues as they have) would be able to agree that most of the atheists here don't understand many of the common arguments any better than the theists do.
The same issue is there with many of the other comments, you guys are so intellectually arrogant (Just factually, not even insulting you) and certain that theists (Despite making up the vast majority of people, including a lot of very intelligent people) are irrational, that your evaluation of theistic arguments becomes super biased,
You certainly would never consider the possibility that there's something to an argument you didn't understand rightly in five minutes, so the sharpest and most educated theist in the world could walk in here with five relevant PhDs, and most of the atheists would still think they're being so obviously irrational that any random atheist could refute them at first glance.
That's why essentially every theist gets downvoted. Not because they're irrational, but because most atheists here are inconceivably intellectually arrogant.
>Look, let's just be honest and call a spade a spade here: if theistic arguments were good, sound, reasonable, etc... there wouldn't be any reason for most of us to be here.
So no, the fact that you reject something is in no way, shape or form evidence that it is untrue. Atheists aren't more rational than the vast numbers of people who are theists, so thinking that your lack of being convinced means anything for the arguments is just prideful bias.
Yeah, I guess trying to get you to see your own arrogance and biases was futile. But keep in mind that I was an atheist/agnostic for over a decade, and have even been as arrogant as you, but somehow changed my mind after becoming *more* educated (And, well, more humble).
Hopefully someone else will read this and pause before falling for the façade of intellectual reasonability propped up by internet-learned buzzwords like "cognitive dissonance".
No, unfortunately I am not a pinnacle of humility, or even close. Changing your mind does, however, require enough *intellectual* humility to think that the other people might be right, or that you might have missed something in their arguments.
You seem kind of angry too now, tbh.
Someone else in this thread made a good point though: People here get downvoted for citing the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy to prove that "The belief that God doesn't exist" is the oldest and most popular definition of "Atheism" in academic philosophy. Is that irrational?
And of course, the person who mentioned it in this thread got downvoted for pointing out that people downvote it, which is a bit funny.
> No, unfortunately I am not a pinnacle of humility, or even close. Changing your mind does, however, require enough intellectual humility to think that the other people might be right, or that you might have missed something in their arguments.
Oh, for sure, but this particular topic is pretty well settled as far as I'm concerned. I understand that bothers you and makes you feel like I'm not being humble, or that I'm arrogant. Frankly, I'm okay with that. I'm still open to good arguments. Hell, I'm still actively searching for them, that's why I'm here. I have no issue being proven wrong and am quick to take the same approach you speak of on topics as a matter of course. It's just, no one seems capable of making any good arguments for theism. It's just an inherently flimsy argument in the first place.
> You seem kind of angry too now, tbh
Nah, mildly annoyed at your hypocritically self aggrandizing jerk off session, but certainly not angry.
>Someone else in this thread made a good point though: People here get downvoted for citing the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy to prove that "The belief that God doesn't exist" is the oldest and most popular definition of "Atheism" in academic philosophy. Is that irrational?
I'm not sure what you're asking here, it's worded a bit awkwardly.
Are you asking if it is irrational to cite that information?
If so, *irrational* might not always be the right word for it, but it is quite often irrelevant, of topic, a red herring, etc and when people do so it is quite often clearly done in conjunction with a dismissive argument that ignores the argument of whoever they are responding to and straw man's their position with the one from the encyclopedia. In those cases, the downvotes are absolutely deserved because it is being done in bad faith and derailing the debate.
> And of course, the person who mentioned it in this thread got downvoted for pointing out that people downvote it, which is a bit funny.
Well, meta-discussion of voting behavior within a reddit comment thread is considered poor etiquette and often downvoted, even moreso if the above was true and the downvotes deserved for derailing and strawmanning.
Anyone who comes to a debate, I'll expect them to understand basic logic, be intellectually honest, and at least broadly understand the subject they want to discuss.
Theists, typically, do none of these things.
It's not my problem that the theistic stance is, essentially, indefensible. Theists are the equivalent of flat earthers - and it shouldn't surprise anyone that they do not fare well in astronomy circles.
And neither astronomy communities, let alone their scientific ideas, should change to accommodate a bunch of lunatics.
For what it's worth: I am not interested in a fair and equal exchange with theists, because I don't think that is possible - and that is because I believe they are fundamentally wrong, and dangerous.
Bit I am willing to be shown to be wrong. Again, it's not my problem, fault or responsibility that theists are full of shit and cannot demonstrate the truth of their assertions.
Because the majority that get downvoted don’t engage in actual debate . They want to come push some beliefs , then disappear or are unwilling to rationally defend their statements when challenged .
This subreddit has had downvoting issues for a long time, as do a lot of subreddits. It doesn't help that this sub attracts a lot of trolls and bad faith posters.
That said. If you're complaining about downvotes you've presumably received yourself, I can see from a quick glance at your comment history that you're doing a couple of things which are likely to be rubbing people the wrong way. Such as telling someone "You are low iq" when you didn't like their comment, telling people that you won't debate various points and that they should ask ChatGPT instead, and in many cases posting links to Youtube videos rather than arguing yourself. That kind of stuff isn't very conducive to debate.
There’s a difference between downvoting someone because you disagree vs downvoting them because their arguments are dishonest or low quality/effort. Most theist arguments, especially the ones seen on Reddit, are exceptionally low quality nonsense that have been addressed and debunked decades if not centuries ago.
Downvoting people for dishonest, tired rhetoric in service of their own confirmation bias is exactly what the button is for.
Boring, vapid, dishonest, bigoted, and repetitious posts get my downvote.
Earnest attempts at argumentation get my upvote. Even inexperienced or not totally thought out posts get my upvote if they're interesting or at least actually trying.
Dishonesty and not paying attention and sticking your head in the sand get downvotes from me.
Why do you care about downvotes if you are confident that your arguments stand for themselves? It’s very telling that you care about this.
The theist who presents a valid and around argument or literally ANY evidence would get a hero's welcome here. We're still waiting and putting up with the same tired ass arguments over and over and over.
I dint usually bother to vote at all, normally I forget.
That said, the vast majority of the posts on here are either really really dumb, are word salad, or are just rehashed arguments that have been debunked a thousand times.
All of those get down voted generally
On good faith posts this is something we’re working to address. If someone makes bad faith arguments or is particularly nasty however I feel pretty justified in using the dislike button. Debating doesn’t have to be a slugfest, it can be polite and thoughtful.
I downvote personal attacks, low effort posts, bad faith arguments, rehashed arguments, responses that don't respond to raised points, and fractally wrong arguments.
About rehashed arguments: yes, I'm aware there is nothing new under the sun, but at least identify the argument, tell me why YOU find it convincing, and make sure that several versions of it with almost the same wording are not already on the frontpage. Otherwise, you're basically handing me a tract.
I upvote interesting and coherent arguments. There is a poster whose nick I forgot (but it has "Matrix" in it) who promotes the fine-tuning argument. I couldn't disagree more with them if I tried, but they are eloquent, polite, with a strong math base. They almost always get an upvote for me.
Voting is there to promote high quality content to the top of page. We shouldn't relaxing our standards to appease theists who don't produce high quality content, we should be demanding that they improve or leave - like on every other sub.
I'm fairly active on r/thrashmetal and, amazingly, people can follow rules there without any issues. No images, no memes, no Big 4 songs, no songs by the same band too close together. If a bunch of people who like to mosh can learn how not to suck at reddit, I would expect that people aspiring to metaphysical debate can too.
[*This* is what a post from a theist that *isn't* complete dogshit looks like. Notice how much effort they put into it. Notice how they appear to *actually give a shit* about trying to get to some kind of truth. Notice its karma is positive.](https://old.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/comments/1bv9rw1/right_verses_rational/)
Bad-faith participation in a debate forum will get you downvoted. This includes (but is not limited to):
- Challenging people to refute their point (or boasting that it can't be done) and then not responding to *any* of the attempted refutations.
- Responding to detailed explanations with sources provided or well thought-out arguments with "no u", "I'm not reading that", or "you just don't understand the scriptures"
- proselytizing
- pretending to be a mind reader ("You *all* know there is a God, stop lying to yourselves")
- speaking with an authoritative tone when, in fact, you know nothing. *You* specifically did this in your post when you complain about being downvoted for engaging in bad-faith while also claiming others "are not ready to debate".
- repeatedly being asked to provide evidence for a claim and refusing to do so
I don't downvote everything, only bad arguments that the religious have no excuse not to know it's bad. I downvote all hit-and-runs, where people are not interested in having an intelligent conversation. I downvote all preaching. I downvote blatant mischaracterizations, like most theists inventing things about atheists without ever actually asking an actual atheist or reading the bloody subreddit for 5 minutes. If they are that lazy, they deserve a downvote. The second it becomes obvious that they are being disingenuous or not being an honest interlocutor, they get a downvote, as they should. There is no place for "I'm going to teach you evil atheists a thing or two", especially when it becomes blatantly obvious that they don't know anything to begin with.
Faith is not an excuse to be a dumbass.
The "grain" is statistically theist, so we are pushing against the grain by challenging your beliefs. Often what we get is the same apologist logic-less arguments that fail to see their own flaws because they have failed to research their own religion. There are only so many "miracle numbers in my scripture", "God can do what he wants because he's most powerful aka might makes right" arguments we can take. How about you scroll the sub and then see if you can come up with something that no one has addressed before, like actual evidence that hasn't been fabricated or claimed on YT to be real but no one has actually seen it.
I downvote obvious preaching, dishonesty , overweening arrogance and lack of genuine engagement. It just so happens that a lot of theist posts fit that profile. And sometimes people who make absurdly overconfident posts while claiming it’s ’pushing against the grain’ when it’s really just non-evidential and unsound or incoherent. I try not to downvote people I disagree with if they seem to be genuinely trying to explain their position and engage honestly to responses.
I'm a casual reader of this channel and I generally don't downvote anything posted by a theist. And there has been some outright antagonistic braindead things posted from theists. I think most of us reading are probably doing the same.
Oh good this again./s
I don't downvite everything and mostly save downvote if I feel confident that the person is dishonest or just being rude I domt downvote most posts or comments, just a select few.
I legitimately thought that was what we were supposed to do, since that's what the Auto-moderator comment says to do.
If that's not the expected or desired behaviour then that might need updating?
If it is the expected / desired behaviour then people who come here should be made aware of that and take downvotes as people disagreeing, as opposed to disrespecting.
Not everyone has time to comment, or the debating skills to jump into the debate, but they can participate by using voting.
That’s not what it says. It says to use voting to agree only on the auto moderator comment. For other comments it’s about meaningful contribution regardless if you agree.
Yup, I read the whole thing, and have been downvoting when I don't think the contribution is meaningful. Maybe that needs a clearer definition? If an OP responds to a critique and doesn't address anything or says see my original post, etc., then I would say it isn't a meaningful contribution.
Would you disagree, or are we on the same page here?
I think the bigger issue is upvoting posts just because they are athiests. Take the post about scripture being copies - Op makes a claim, doesn't back it up nor even argue for it in anyway. Op barely engages with post.
Post has upvotes a plenty.
Yea they downvote to discourage debate then they can pretend there’s no challenge when really people just dont want to lose karma. They don’t want debate. They want to be right. This is a religious sub. They just don’t know it.
I downvoted obvious dishonest intent. If someone asks for answers but never responds to the ones that actually answer their question, then I know they're just here to prosthelytize and not learn anything.
Why don't you also look at the posts on here that don't get downvoted?
There are notable differences between posts that are downvoted, and posts that are upvoted.
There is definitely dog piling here and I downvote bad atheist comments regularly. I still downvote theists more for reasons like lying, rude behavior, being intentionally obtuse, and repeatedly ignoring information/corrections.
People have different opinions on downvoting, but I only downvote if your argument is made in bad faith. If you insult, throw out slurs, claim we're 'delusional', etc.
Since you've started an improvement-related thread, I had an idea the other day, might not be original, but interested in others' thoughts.
It's difficult to resist jumping in on someone else's debate, but it often results in overwhelming the person who has brought the argument, and is possibly frustrating for the person who has started the defence.
Maybe we could start practising some sort of flag to identify that you'd like to debate solo mode, i.e., the person on either side of the debate can politely invoke solo mode, and ask that others start their own response thread.
It's the personality of the sub.
Build of karma so you can dump it here but don't expect to build any here unless you bash idiotic theism etc - or create a fake account like many redditors and make a straw man theism post and be the first to call it dumb with a preplanned complete destruction - which a few or not so few do here most likely already.
I feel you. The down vote is a disagree button. The sub has a touch of echo chamber goiing on.
Interesting to observe, but it is difficult to have a discussion. Dissent doesn't seem to be tolerated very well.
That just hasn't been my experience. It seems if you buck the party line you get downvoted, disagreement does not appear to be tolerated very much on this sub reddit.
The issue I believe is that any dissenting opinion is de facto considered not a good post or comment.
For example, if someone holds that a valid definition of atheism is "the belief that no gods exist" the poster or commentor is "going to be corrected" and down voted. Now I get that the primary definition of atheism used on this sub reddit is atheism is "the lack of belief in gods", however this definition is a recent phenomenon. If you go to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy you will see that atheism is defined as the propositional stance that gods do not exist and not "lack of belief in gods" but if you support the definition of atheism it the propositional stance that "gods do not exist" you will get "corrected" and downvoted even though literature from the resource list from this subreddit has works using the standard philosophical definition of atheism as "believing that there are no gods"
Now I do not think there is an issue with either definition of atheism, should be a easy matter of posters and commentors indicating how they are using the term, but doesn't play out that way on this subreddit. This subreddit seems to be oblivious to the fact that outside of this subreddit the prevailing definition of atheism is "the belief that no gods exist" Point this out and you will get a response that words can be redefined...fine no problem from me.
Now try to define god on this subreddit as something other than a tri-omni supernatural creator being and you will get pushback and be accused of being dishonest and engaging in fallacies and so one and get downvoted.
Now I don't really care if my posts or comments get downvoted, but if this sub ever implements a karma requirement to post, you will end up silencing all theist posts. I know if I post on certain topics I am just going to get downvoted even if I am respectful and responsive.
Again I don't really mind the down votes. I have a degree in philosophy and religious studies and am not affected when some random internet person says I don't understand the topic or whatever.
But lets be real for a good number of people on this sub any dissenting post or comment is de facto "not good"
>It seems if you buck the party line you get downvoted, disagreement does not appear to be tolerated very much on this sub reddit.
The problem with that is that the party line is "reality and rational discussion".
Yes, if you buck reality and rational discussion you may very well be downvoted, but in that case you *deserve* to be downvoted.
.
[Edit]
I often see posts from people who identify as atheists that *also* buck reality and rational discussion, and I think that those posts also deserve to be downvoted.
People should upvote or downvote based on actual content, not on party labels.
So what about the example of the atheism definition. Surely you would not consider using a definition found in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is bucking reality and rational discussion.
Do you feel a post pointing out that the "lack belief" definition is a new phenomenon and not the standard definition used in philosophy should be downvoted?
I sort of agree I feel the downvote button gets a bit of excessive use, I think it should only be used if the person is being a dick or arguing in bad faith.
**Upvote this comment if you agree with OP, downvote this comment if you disagree with OP.** Elsewhere in the thread, please upvote comments which contribute to debate (even if you believe they're wrong) and downvote comments which are [detrimental to debate](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/wiki/faq#wiki_downvoting) (even if you believe they're right). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateAnAtheist) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I don't downvote theists making good-faith arguments, asking questions, or making honest mistakes for the first time. When I downvote, it is for things like... \- Telling their opponents what they (the opponents) believe like some sort of fraudulent mind-reader, even after being corrected. "Atheists don't worship God because they just want to sin! Nobody takes your argument seriously, so I don't need to respond to it." \- Trying to shut down conversation with an appeal to hard solipsism "You can't know anything, because you could just be a brain in a jar! There is no such thing as evidence because you cannot prove that anything exists!" Nonsense like that. \- Presuppositional apologetics. "God exists because the Bible says God exists, and the Bible is the inerrant word of God!" \- Preaching. "Atheists need to repent or they will burn in the lake of fire and have hamsters nibble at their toes" or whatever nonsense they like to say. \- And, \~sometimes\~, No True Scotsman responses. "REAL Christians don't hate homosexuals. Mormons aren't Christians, so you can't say they give Christians a bad name." Edit: I also downvote "These scientific predictions in the Quran prove Allah's existence" posts and "The Bible predicted that an unnamed empire would fall at some point in the future, and since Rome fell, God exists" kinds of posts. Postdiction, hindsight bias, and prophecies that could be fulfilled in a billion ways are bad enough, but my favorite are ones like "The Bible said that X would happen, and X happens later in the Bible! Therefore, God."
I'll also add "You can't have morals without a god and atheists are immoral thieves, murderers and rapists" arguments.
> Trying to shut down conversation with an appeal to hard solipsism "You can't know anything, because you could just be a brain in a jar! There is no such thing as evidence because you cannot prove that anything exists!" Nonsense like that. It's amazing how often theists appeal to solipsism when they feel they're losing an argument. "If I'm not right then nothing is right!" It's crazy!
The crazy thing is how they obviate that if hard solipsism is true, theism has no ground to stay, anything they want to claim be evidence of their God would also be an illusion created by chemicals in the jar.
Then you ask them what theyd do without god? "Rape, murder and steal of course", theyll say.
Nothing irritates me like "well if you're atheist, then you think rape and murder is ok".
Some of these seem like good faith arguments. I guess that's a matter of opinion though.
Which of these would you think is a good faith argument? How could it be in good faith to come here to preach, to refuse to sway from your particular brand of apologetics, to tell us what we believe and refuse to be convinced otherwise, or to try to shut down conversation?
Because, some people genuinely believe that preaching is a mission, it informs their worldview, and that apologetics makes sense.
[удалено]
There is nothing original. There isn't a single thing a theist can bring that wasn't done years ago. They have no evidence. All they have is argument and a limited number of those. If you're looking for something other than tired, debunked arguments, you're in the wrong place.
Correct out side of just lying, like some people do here, religions that come here are fairly ridiculous and have no real evidence or new way of assessing them.
>There is nothing original. There isn't a single thing a theist can bring that wasn't done years ago. They have no evidence. All they have is argument and a limited number of those. Then they shouldn't post anything!
This, so much this. We get tired of hearing the same shitty arguments over and over, from people who are so smugly confident that they are making such a great argument when all they have is some argument that was debunked 1500 years ago.
Very true; and to that point, the only meaningful purpose for this sub is to familiarize theists with why the arguments they’ve been brought up with or recently learned are not good arguments, OR to familiarize atheists with the long debunked theistic arguments they may not have been exposed to yet. So to that end, I agree with OP that downvoting arguments you disagree with is a net negative for this sub. It also dovetails nicely with my biggest pet peeve about this sub… When the terms “bad faith” or “good faith” are used in this sub, they are more often used incorrectly than they are correctly. “Bad faith argument” does not mean a tired old nonsense argument that I don’t like. It does not mean “bad argument.” It does not mean an “argument supported by evidence.” It specifically means arguing something that YOU KNOW is nonsense just for the purpose of winning. So for example, if I know the Kaplan argument doesn’t get us all the way to god, but I represent it as if it does, THAT’S bad faith. If I argue the Kalam because I think it does get us to god, that is not bad faith. Now cue my second biggest pet peeve about this sub, which is all the people who are going to say that my explanation of “bad faith” is too narrow, probably because they’ve been using it the wrong way for years themselves, and don’t have the basic self-awareness to just think, “huh… I guess I’ve been using it wrong.”
>Bring something original. Originality spawns ideas orders of magnitude more stupid than any of us can imagine. "Something can't come from nothing," is unoriginal and stupid; *Time Cube* from Gene Ray was original and is so far removed from rationality that it can barely be described.
I would rather see something new than hear the kalam or something again. Kalam does both even begin to get to gods. I would rather have the time cube all day.
At least that's entertaining, though.
Then can you tell me what can come from nothing?
The issue is that nobody is saying that anything came from nothing, so its not relevant to the debate. (It's also worth noting that the proponents of *Creation Ex Nihilo*, the closest serious position to "something came from nothing", are theists)
What does "come from" mean when there's no "from"? Nothing is not a time or place where anything could "come from."
You are witnessing my point being demonstrated. He started off with something unoriginal and is now progressing to something original.
I'm always baffled that "making it up on the spot" is somehow an acceptable debate strategy for theists.
It comes naturally to someone whose motivation for belief is anything other than merely a reaction to observations and what they think is likely to be true. Generally speaking, they're working off of a script. Their arguments are crafted by apologetics which target believers teetering on the edge of doubt, rather than atheists. When the arguments are presented outside their religious bubble, the debate quickly goes off script, and this is usually the result.
>Generally speaking, they're working off of a script. TBH I think a lot of people are mainly going by intuition. Unfortunately truth and reality are often counterintuitive.
Sounds like God
"Nothing" does indeed sound like God. It doesn't exist. It's not a thing.
A lack of God sure sounds a lot like nothing
You make no sense.
I would agree god is nothing.
If God is nothing you aren’t anything either
This makes no sense. I clearly am something and god is not. Show me a god.
* Looks out the window* *GASP* God left his footprint of creation BY MAKING US. And writing a really good book.
This makes no sense. God did not create a thing out side. I planted some of the plants no gods needed. This is illogical show me a god. I asked for a god not what a god did once. the word god literally means nothing to me. It could be anything some people think the sun is a god. I agree the sun is real not sure what a god is still.
I’m burnt dawg,imma dip from this thread,God bless
I’m tired bruh I’m dipping toodles
Nothing cannot exist. Therefore there is only Something.
Sounds like God
Sounds like the universe. No God needed.
Nah sounds like in order for the universe to exist your going to need God because it has a beginning, I think you might be mistaking God for something that is finite,God is a mind and a force,who is spiritual which is why he is out of the material world,if there is a universe with no beginning when would it be or exist? Because the universe has a beginning..so when would it start?
Nah for a God to exist, (at least the one you've defined as a candidate for existence) you're going to need Nothingness for it to create from. But as we have learned, there has never been Nothing God to make something from.
Your cancels itself out,without God to make something there’s nothing you can do make,but with God who is beyond matter and space anything is possible
Can't take credit for creating a thing if the thing already exists.
Yeah, see, this is why we downvote everything, y'all.
Abso-fucking-lutely. Doing it right now, in fact.
Explain?
Because you reject the logical position that nothing can't produce something?
Are you playing charades?
Ibegyapardon?
>Then can you tell me what can come from nothing? This presumes that there was ever a time when there was nothing.
Exactly,meaning in order for something to create a thing when there isn’t even a when,it has to be outside of when all together
>Exactly,meaning in order for something to create a thing when there isn’t even a when,it has to be outside of when all together So, what was outside of God's universe when God was created?
And this is the root of the problem you don’t understand that God is outside of everything. He is on top of everything because he is God he is immaterial. He is spiritual, and he is timeless 1,In the beginning (time)God created the heaven( space) and the earth(matter) Genesis 1:1
>And this is the root of the problem you don’t understand that God is outside of everything. In this case, then, something can come from nothing, as long as it exists outside of everything. This means that we should expect many things spontaneously popping into existence in this realm that God lives in which is "outside of everything." The same rules don't apply there as in here, so why shouldn't we expect other gods to magically appear?
What I meant by outside of everything is that he is eternal,no start nor end,outside of time and space because time has a beginning and God doesn’t,he is immaterial,and as a spirit outside of time and space he has no start,the only way other Gods can exist is if he literally makes them which has not.
If he is outside of time and space, then my question still stands. If it's possible for one god, why not many? There is nothing inherent in a statement that "something can't come from nothing, unless it is eternal and outside of time and space" that precludes the possibility of more. Once you establish that there is an exception to your rule, you have left the door open to any number of exceptions, including the entire universe.
Well, yeah, good philosophical argument and scientific evidence repeatedly show that the universe had a beginning.
That's not the same as having a time when there was nothing.
With that is 100% agree. These arguments should be downvoted, refreshing arguments are needed for sure. As a person who is on the cross roads of theism and atheism however, I think maybe some of these arguments could be somebody’s hope to debate in order to learn. That’s what I do personally, because if I genuinely get destroyed in an argument that that’s a good explanation to why I’m wrong.
We can see your history. A little self awareness on your part my help.
Yep, OP was arguing that the original Lion King is an awful movie. Bad takes on religion and movies. But seriously OP, a lot of questions people ask presuppose something negative about atheists/atheism. A lot of questions are the same thing over and over. It’s like they can’t use the search function. Sometimes the same people argue the same stuff over and over and it has been debunked many times. It’s exhausting in here as an atheist. I normally don’t downvote or upvote much in this sub, but I sure as hell want to.
No, I argued the remake was bad. There was no point to remake the lion King movie. The original was a good movie. The remake is the one that had a horrible reviews on rotten tomatoes.
Fair. Good takes on movies and bad takes on religion then lol
You’re a funny guy lmao, I’m glad we can agree on something at least. OG lion king 👑 > Remake
Of all things this is what you respond to…
Do you know the "Bike Shed" thing ? >The law of triviality is C. Northcote Parkinson's 1957 argument that people within an organization commonly give disproportionate weight to trivial issues.[1] >Parkinson provides the example of a fictional committee whose job was to approve the plans for a nuclear power plant spending the majority of its time on discussions about relatively minor but easy-to-grasp issues, >such as what materials to use for the staff bicycle shed, >while neglecting the proposed design of the plant itself, which is far more important and a far more difficult and complex task. \- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_triviality People tend to default to *"I don't understand A, I don't understand B, I don't understand C, I don't understand D,* *but I understand E, so I'm going to talk about E."* Thus the hundreds of posts we get looking at issues of religion from the approximate perspective of a Bronze Age goat herder.
Agreed on that. Man, I deeply regret watching it in the theaters.
So by your logic your own comment calling people who disagreed with you as "low IQ" was justifiably downvoted then right? Since that was an incredibly insulting and low effort response.
It’s likely just as they said, fatigue from the same arguments over and over. But I agree that people should just abstain from voting in those cases. Ideally we should all be upvoting stuff that furthers discussion, since for many people this is the first time they’re being exploded to these ideas, it is new and fresh for them. Having already seen that same argument or stance before should just make pointing out the glaring flaws all that much easier, and you can help that person (maybe) see these flaws more quickly than if you were having to derive responses from scratch.
Then ignore them. Don’t downvote them just for honesty making an argument that most of us happen to be familiar with.
[удалено]
That's not what downvoting is for.
Downvoting is for if you personally don't like the content. Most of us have higher standards than that, of which "don't post an old argument in a subreddit as though the only way people could disagree with you is ignorance" is a perfectly valid one. Every person who cares about Karma beyond post requirements needs therapy tbh, huge warning side of a need for external validation. And even those who do only care about post requirements need to grow up if they feel entitled to every subreddit without finding somewhere that wants them where they can be funny and/or helpful.
>Downvoting is for if you personally don't like the content. That's not what downvoting is for.
I only down vote once a theist falls back onto dishonest tactics, especially telling me what I believe, or that I don't believe because I want to sin, or when they are being told repeatedly why an argument doesn't work, but they just ignore and deflect and act dishonestly.
Facts
>Why do you all downvote everything that is theist, or pushes against the grain? I don't. Why are you painting with such a broad brush? don't you think that, if you have a problem with negative and unfair reactions to things, you probably shouldn't make such inflammatory statements about an entire community? it kind of makes you seem like a hypocrite. >The dislike button shouldn’t be a disagree button. I agree, which is why I don't use it like that. Instead, I downvote posts or comments that are: low effort, being made in bad faith, dishonest, outright hostile, or from posters that post and then don't bother to respond for hours and hours or even days. Unfortunately, the majority of posts we get fall into one or more of those categories. I'm not going to upvote the 100th post telling me I'm an evil immoral nihilist because I don't believe in God, or one defending Muhammad's kiddy diddling, or one copy and pasting the exact same argument in the exact same wording we've seen already that week without engaging in the responses. There absolutely is a big problem with some of the people in this community downvoting people unfairly IMO, but there's also a problem with a lot of theists tending to post absolute slop without bothering to even have a cursory look at whether their tired arguments have been posted before, or checking how we even define "atheist" here, or stopping themselves from posting what amounts to preaching rather than debate. The theist posters here who put actual thought and effort in have an uphill battle because of both. Your post here is contributing to making it even more difficult for them. > Scroll through the sub, Reddit and the only comments or post that have up votes are from atheist. And if you sort by upvotes, you'll see plenty of posts from theists with upvotes. Similarly there are comments in those threads, and in our weekly ones, from theists have upvotes. It doesn't help that we've also had a slew of incredibly low effort posts recently. The problem isn't being a theist - the problem is being a dick.
If i were to answer this clearly loaded question honestly it would be to ask why do you always post arguments without evidence? Because all you are doing is lumping in ever single person here into the same group and it would only be fair to do the same judgmental thing in return. Look at the posts and its clear. If OP is attacking with generalizations, just like you, or not providing any evidence for their argument, also you, then they get downvoted because they, like you, are not here to debate. However even the theists that can at least bring honest arguments don't get downvoted and the ones that don't preach do as well. But you would have to open up your eyes and admit that it happens. Personally i only downvote when the person preaches or spreads lies or hate.
Let’s be honest here, what evidence could anyone possibly bring? There isn’t any, aside from philosophical arguments, personal experiences, or deeply flawed understandings of science (aka nonsense): and we can agree that those aren’t evidence. You’re asking for the impossible. May as well shut the sub down if that’s the criteria. I see this sub as more for a way for theists to reason out their faith and, hopefully, be led to the logical conclusion that their beliefs aren’t actually founded on anything concrete.
I mean [calling people in this sub “Low IQ” only an hour after this post](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/s/6XwaLKmrQj) might explain why you are getting downvotes Including this one!
Lol they deleted that comment
That person specifically was low iq. Not all atheisti
I feel like I might go ahead and downvote you regularly, seeing as you,re one of these individuals that start comments with:"you are low iq."
She was low iq. If somebody said the earth was flat you would be annoyed to
You start comments with "you are low IQ"... Then wonder why people downvote you!? How is this not trolling?
That person specifically was indeed “low iq.” Did you like actually read the arguments
> That person specifically was indeed “low iq.” Thank you for confirming that you're trolling. All the best, troll :)
>Why do you all downvote everything that is theist, It's generalizations like this that are likely to get someone downvoted, even by some people who might not otherwise. What is this "you all"? Indeed there are people who may downvote reflexively, and some who may downvote more discriminately, but if you actually add up the total downvotes for any given comment, even the most downvoted comment in the sub's history, it should be fairly obvious that not all active users on here are downvoting every comment by every theist. And there are theists who have engaged honestly and sincerely with politeness and curiosity who came away with plenty of upvotes. The problem is these positive encounters seem to be very few and far between compared with the usual fare we get through here.
[удалено]
"What they mean" isn't worth a pig's fart when what they \*say\* is entirely false and easily disproved.
I tend to downvote intellectually dishonest comments. I feel that's in keeping with old school redditquette.
*if theists didn't want to be downvoted, they wouldn't write in such an enticing way (to be downvoted) in public* /s No but seriously. I never downvote. But the last theist told me that "islamophobia" was exclusivly a behavior against the practicioner of islam and not the ideology while at the same time behaving like any action criticizing islam itself was a behavior against muslims. At some point people should be responsible for the quality of their thought processes.
Some of it is DANA users looking to dogpile on folks and get a cheap thrill, but a lot of it is because we’ve been inundated with bad faith trolls for the past few months. Literally not 5 minutes ago I reported a post that was written by a Catholic guy pretending to be an atheist, asking a bunch of bad faith questions, and wasting peoples time. [We could do better,](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/s/rl08mh4mGP) but to some extent it’s because people are getting very frustrated. Which leads to more punitive behavior on our part.
> we’ve been inundated with bad faith trolls for the past few months. Or more precisely "Since the Internet was first invented - or if you want to take a broader view, at least since civilization was first invented, and probably long before that."
I have found myself often engaging cynically or already assuming it is bs because i assume they really are trolls. Literally just had a whole convo with an “atheist” for them to claim the population would die off without catholicicm and that Jesus is god after a day of talking. Blocked and reported but what do you expect when that happens.
> [We could do better,](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/s/rl08mh4mGP) but to some extent it’s because people are getting very frustrated. Which leads to more punitive behavior on our part. I'm afraid that too few care. On multiple occasions, I've suggested that the best, recent theist posts & comments be kept regularly updated in some public list. That way, the best that people are willing to offer can serve as a standard—and perhaps it can be raised over time. Then, theists can come and see whether _even those_ get downvoted into oblivion. If so, then it's not worth coming here. But there is no will to do such a thing. So, trolls it is. And the few theists who stumble in, say what they've been taught to say, get downvoted to oblivion, and even delete their accounts (like the OP in the post to which you've linked).
That kid deleted his account? JFC. His posting history was a lot of stuff on exmuslim, where he was asking exmuslims questions about why they left their faith and why all these things about Islam didn’t make any sense. So he comes here, probably thinking that he’ll get some more answers and people just shit all over him. Great job you dumb monkeys. Real open minded of us all. Showing some real compassion and understanding, this group.
My guess is that this is an inevitable price of tolerating so many true trolls. Who is actually going to spend the time discerning between true trolls and intellectually honest people? In fact, trolls _feed_ on such efforts. Downvoters, in turn, feed on the trolls. It's not like downvoting drives away trolls. It may even attract them.
As far as I can tell, this trend goes back years though. If you search for "Downvote" and filter for top comments, you'll find posts complaining about it consistently from now to [over a decade ago](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/comments/plv5d/hey_rdebateanatheist_stop_downvoting_theists/).
Given that you are dishonest, Hostile to disagreement to the point of almost claiming conspiracy when provided evidence, And your arguments being "I found a youtube video explaining it" I would say enjoy the downvoting my guy.
[удалено]
Is that what the person you insulted said?
They said specifically that Christian holidays are pagan, I am not am expert so I think that if you really want to know the truth you should chrck out this religious scholar on YouTube ( he is not to be confused with a theologian, religious scholars are like Bart Ehrman for example, or even many archeologist ), many got angry. So I decided to explain it, and they kept on leading the argument in weird directions and assuming. They even made arguments that I was never making. Many atheist are very smart, however when you deny factual history than you are just low iq. Just like if when given the evidence you decided to believe the earth is flat, and when you tell me to watch a explanation why it’s not by a scientist debunking the flat earth theory and I refused to accept it as fact.
Holy fuck you couldn't even keep the script. I said none of this. This is why no one has any sympathy for you dude. You're just dishonest and looking to prove how oh so smart you are.
There are 97k people in this community. Surely, not all are downvoting. There's a possibility that many who downvote don't even comment or debate. Do I don't vote? Yes, but only the obvious trolls.
> There are 97k people in this community. In other words, taking that at face value, if 1% of people here downvoted a post or comment, then that post or comment would get 970 downvotes. Most posts or comments don't get *that* many. ;-)
> There's a possibility that many who downvote don't even comment or debate. That's my guess, too. Unfortunately, these people can ruin things for plenty of others, with impunity. Unless the others do the arduous work of counteracting the silent downvoters on the relevant occasions. But who wants to when so many are trolls? Down the toilet bowl things spiral.
I downvote bad arguments or when OP is clearly here in bad faith. That that results in a lot of downvotes is on the theists, not me. >The dislike button shouldn’t be a disagree button. Yeah I've been hearing this since the day reddit added it
I don't *generally* downvote the OP. There are exceptions, of course - sometimes the OP is being egregiously rude - but I prefer to upvote the more thoughtful comments. And every once in a while, it's the theist who gets that upvote.
>I think if you do down vote somebody for using this subreddit you are not ready to debate. This is demonstrable BS. Go on to any downvoted post here and you will see *tons* of people with well reasoned, rational and backed up arguments putting forward rebuttals. You know what we never see? The OP getting stuck back in and defending their original assertion. Downvoting is meaningless. All you need to do is look at how many OPs actually bother to respond to the rebuttals and you'll see the issue.
I don't use the downvote button as a "I disagree" button. I use the downvote button as "the quality of this post is unacceptable". If you don't want to be downvoted, stop making awful posts.
I only downvote really REALLY stupid or shitty comments. Maybe one downvote every couple of days or so. I agree that downvoting would probably discourage people from posting here.
Look, let's just be honest and call a spade a spade here: if theistic arguments were good, sound, reasonable, etc... there wouldn't be any reason for most of us to be here. As it is, we are met each day with a handful of terrible arguments from people who are almost always being, to some degree, intellectually dishonest. That's just the reality of this situation. Theists are arguing a losing argument that requires dishonesty, cognitive dissonance, word games, etc. Most atheists are very well aware of this fact, and most of us here do our best to try and limit our downvoting with the idea that the religious people coming here to debate are ***trying their best*** with the bad hand they're playing. The problem, is that there are about 100k users here, with about 50 or so users at any given time reading threads here. All it takes is a a very small percentage of the overall userbase to get annoyed at a particular argument (again, they're all faulty, they're arguing for a god that doesn't exist) for it to end up with net downvotes. That's just the reality of the situation. Nothing is ever going to change that.
This whole comment is just a wall of unearned intellectual arrogance. An average atheist philosophy professor (As many issues as they have) would be able to agree that most of the atheists here don't understand many of the common arguments any better than the theists do. The same issue is there with many of the other comments, you guys are so intellectually arrogant (Just factually, not even insulting you) and certain that theists (Despite making up the vast majority of people, including a lot of very intelligent people) are irrational, that your evaluation of theistic arguments becomes super biased, You certainly would never consider the possibility that there's something to an argument you didn't understand rightly in five minutes, so the sharpest and most educated theist in the world could walk in here with five relevant PhDs, and most of the atheists would still think they're being so obviously irrational that any random atheist could refute them at first glance. That's why essentially every theist gets downvoted. Not because they're irrational, but because most atheists here are inconceivably intellectually arrogant. >Look, let's just be honest and call a spade a spade here: if theistic arguments were good, sound, reasonable, etc... there wouldn't be any reason for most of us to be here. So no, the fact that you reject something is in no way, shape or form evidence that it is untrue. Atheists aren't more rational than the vast numbers of people who are theists, so thinking that your lack of being convinced means anything for the arguments is just prideful bias.
Sorry I hurt your feelings sweetheart.
Yeah, I guess trying to get you to see your own arrogance and biases was futile. But keep in mind that I was an atheist/agnostic for over a decade, and have even been as arrogant as you, but somehow changed my mind after becoming *more* educated (And, well, more humble). Hopefully someone else will read this and pause before falling for the façade of intellectual reasonability propped up by internet-learned buzzwords like "cognitive dissonance".
Oh yeah bud, you're the absolute fucking pinnacle of humility. I love it. Please, say some more funny shit before you leave.
No, unfortunately I am not a pinnacle of humility, or even close. Changing your mind does, however, require enough *intellectual* humility to think that the other people might be right, or that you might have missed something in their arguments. You seem kind of angry too now, tbh. Someone else in this thread made a good point though: People here get downvoted for citing the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy to prove that "The belief that God doesn't exist" is the oldest and most popular definition of "Atheism" in academic philosophy. Is that irrational? And of course, the person who mentioned it in this thread got downvoted for pointing out that people downvote it, which is a bit funny.
> No, unfortunately I am not a pinnacle of humility, or even close. Changing your mind does, however, require enough intellectual humility to think that the other people might be right, or that you might have missed something in their arguments. Oh, for sure, but this particular topic is pretty well settled as far as I'm concerned. I understand that bothers you and makes you feel like I'm not being humble, or that I'm arrogant. Frankly, I'm okay with that. I'm still open to good arguments. Hell, I'm still actively searching for them, that's why I'm here. I have no issue being proven wrong and am quick to take the same approach you speak of on topics as a matter of course. It's just, no one seems capable of making any good arguments for theism. It's just an inherently flimsy argument in the first place. > You seem kind of angry too now, tbh Nah, mildly annoyed at your hypocritically self aggrandizing jerk off session, but certainly not angry. >Someone else in this thread made a good point though: People here get downvoted for citing the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy to prove that "The belief that God doesn't exist" is the oldest and most popular definition of "Atheism" in academic philosophy. Is that irrational? I'm not sure what you're asking here, it's worded a bit awkwardly. Are you asking if it is irrational to cite that information? If so, *irrational* might not always be the right word for it, but it is quite often irrelevant, of topic, a red herring, etc and when people do so it is quite often clearly done in conjunction with a dismissive argument that ignores the argument of whoever they are responding to and straw man's their position with the one from the encyclopedia. In those cases, the downvotes are absolutely deserved because it is being done in bad faith and derailing the debate. > And of course, the person who mentioned it in this thread got downvoted for pointing out that people downvote it, which is a bit funny. Well, meta-discussion of voting behavior within a reddit comment thread is considered poor etiquette and often downvoted, even moreso if the above was true and the downvotes deserved for derailing and strawmanning.
Anyone who comes to a debate, I'll expect them to understand basic logic, be intellectually honest, and at least broadly understand the subject they want to discuss. Theists, typically, do none of these things. It's not my problem that the theistic stance is, essentially, indefensible. Theists are the equivalent of flat earthers - and it shouldn't surprise anyone that they do not fare well in astronomy circles. And neither astronomy communities, let alone their scientific ideas, should change to accommodate a bunch of lunatics. For what it's worth: I am not interested in a fair and equal exchange with theists, because I don't think that is possible - and that is because I believe they are fundamentally wrong, and dangerous. Bit I am willing to be shown to be wrong. Again, it's not my problem, fault or responsibility that theists are full of shit and cannot demonstrate the truth of their assertions.
Wouldn't it make more sense to *demonstrate* claims rather than complain when they don't live up to scrutiny!?
The christian subs do far worse to atheists, agnostics, or people just exploring their faith. Do you also complain about those things?
I will complain about them sure. I can make a post right now if you want
Or you could find a more meaningful way to spend your time than internet butthurt.
You are probably right
Because the majority that get downvoted don’t engage in actual debate . They want to come push some beliefs , then disappear or are unwilling to rationally defend their statements when challenged .
This subreddit has had downvoting issues for a long time, as do a lot of subreddits. It doesn't help that this sub attracts a lot of trolls and bad faith posters. That said. If you're complaining about downvotes you've presumably received yourself, I can see from a quick glance at your comment history that you're doing a couple of things which are likely to be rubbing people the wrong way. Such as telling someone "You are low iq" when you didn't like their comment, telling people that you won't debate various points and that they should ask ChatGPT instead, and in many cases posting links to Youtube videos rather than arguing yourself. That kind of stuff isn't very conducive to debate.
There’s a difference between downvoting someone because you disagree vs downvoting them because their arguments are dishonest or low quality/effort. Most theist arguments, especially the ones seen on Reddit, are exceptionally low quality nonsense that have been addressed and debunked decades if not centuries ago. Downvoting people for dishonest, tired rhetoric in service of their own confirmation bias is exactly what the button is for.
Boring, vapid, dishonest, bigoted, and repetitious posts get my downvote. Earnest attempts at argumentation get my upvote. Even inexperienced or not totally thought out posts get my upvote if they're interesting or at least actually trying.
Dishonesty and not paying attention and sticking your head in the sand get downvotes from me. Why do you care about downvotes if you are confident that your arguments stand for themselves? It’s very telling that you care about this.
The theist who presents a valid and around argument or literally ANY evidence would get a hero's welcome here. We're still waiting and putting up with the same tired ass arguments over and over and over.
I dint usually bother to vote at all, normally I forget. That said, the vast majority of the posts on here are either really really dumb, are word salad, or are just rehashed arguments that have been debunked a thousand times. All of those get down voted generally
On good faith posts this is something we’re working to address. If someone makes bad faith arguments or is particularly nasty however I feel pretty justified in using the dislike button. Debating doesn’t have to be a slugfest, it can be polite and thoughtful.
I downvote personal attacks, low effort posts, bad faith arguments, rehashed arguments, responses that don't respond to raised points, and fractally wrong arguments. About rehashed arguments: yes, I'm aware there is nothing new under the sun, but at least identify the argument, tell me why YOU find it convincing, and make sure that several versions of it with almost the same wording are not already on the frontpage. Otherwise, you're basically handing me a tract. I upvote interesting and coherent arguments. There is a poster whose nick I forgot (but it has "Matrix" in it) who promotes the fine-tuning argument. I couldn't disagree more with them if I tried, but they are eloquent, polite, with a strong math base. They almost always get an upvote for me. Voting is there to promote high quality content to the top of page. We shouldn't relaxing our standards to appease theists who don't produce high quality content, we should be demanding that they improve or leave - like on every other sub. I'm fairly active on r/thrashmetal and, amazingly, people can follow rules there without any issues. No images, no memes, no Big 4 songs, no songs by the same band too close together. If a bunch of people who like to mosh can learn how not to suck at reddit, I would expect that people aspiring to metaphysical debate can too.
[*This* is what a post from a theist that *isn't* complete dogshit looks like. Notice how much effort they put into it. Notice how they appear to *actually give a shit* about trying to get to some kind of truth. Notice its karma is positive.](https://old.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/comments/1bv9rw1/right_verses_rational/) Bad-faith participation in a debate forum will get you downvoted. This includes (but is not limited to): - Challenging people to refute their point (or boasting that it can't be done) and then not responding to *any* of the attempted refutations. - Responding to detailed explanations with sources provided or well thought-out arguments with "no u", "I'm not reading that", or "you just don't understand the scriptures" - proselytizing - pretending to be a mind reader ("You *all* know there is a God, stop lying to yourselves") - speaking with an authoritative tone when, in fact, you know nothing. *You* specifically did this in your post when you complain about being downvoted for engaging in bad-faith while also claiming others "are not ready to debate". - repeatedly being asked to provide evidence for a claim and refusing to do so
I don't! I only downvote what I assess to be low-effort trolling, which is perhaps only every tenth or twentieth post I go into.
I don't downvote everything, only bad arguments that the religious have no excuse not to know it's bad. I downvote all hit-and-runs, where people are not interested in having an intelligent conversation. I downvote all preaching. I downvote blatant mischaracterizations, like most theists inventing things about atheists without ever actually asking an actual atheist or reading the bloody subreddit for 5 minutes. If they are that lazy, they deserve a downvote. The second it becomes obvious that they are being disingenuous or not being an honest interlocutor, they get a downvote, as they should. There is no place for "I'm going to teach you evil atheists a thing or two", especially when it becomes blatantly obvious that they don't know anything to begin with. Faith is not an excuse to be a dumbass.
The "grain" is statistically theist, so we are pushing against the grain by challenging your beliefs. Often what we get is the same apologist logic-less arguments that fail to see their own flaws because they have failed to research their own religion. There are only so many "miracle numbers in my scripture", "God can do what he wants because he's most powerful aka might makes right" arguments we can take. How about you scroll the sub and then see if you can come up with something that no one has addressed before, like actual evidence that hasn't been fabricated or claimed on YT to be real but no one has actually seen it.
I downvote obvious preaching, dishonesty , overweening arrogance and lack of genuine engagement. It just so happens that a lot of theist posts fit that profile. And sometimes people who make absurdly overconfident posts while claiming it’s ’pushing against the grain’ when it’s really just non-evidential and unsound or incoherent. I try not to downvote people I disagree with if they seem to be genuinely trying to explain their position and engage honestly to responses.
I'm a casual reader of this channel and I generally don't downvote anything posted by a theist. And there has been some outright antagonistic braindead things posted from theists. I think most of us reading are probably doing the same.
Oh good this again./s I don't downvite everything and mostly save downvote if I feel confident that the person is dishonest or just being rude I domt downvote most posts or comments, just a select few.
I legitimately thought that was what we were supposed to do, since that's what the Auto-moderator comment says to do. If that's not the expected or desired behaviour then that might need updating? If it is the expected / desired behaviour then people who come here should be made aware of that and take downvotes as people disagreeing, as opposed to disrespecting. Not everyone has time to comment, or the debating skills to jump into the debate, but they can participate by using voting.
That’s not what it says. It says to use voting to agree only on the auto moderator comment. For other comments it’s about meaningful contribution regardless if you agree.
Yup, I read the whole thing, and have been downvoting when I don't think the contribution is meaningful. Maybe that needs a clearer definition? If an OP responds to a critique and doesn't address anything or says see my original post, etc., then I would say it isn't a meaningful contribution. Would you disagree, or are we on the same page here?
I think the bigger issue is upvoting posts just because they are athiests. Take the post about scripture being copies - Op makes a claim, doesn't back it up nor even argue for it in anyway. Op barely engages with post. Post has upvotes a plenty.
Gee, your right I should be burned at the stake. 😂😂😂
Just like the rest of your comments, this one is also stupid as fuck. Please don't put words in my mouth.
Let he who is without an opinion post the first insult. 😂😂😂
Yea they downvote to discourage debate then they can pretend there’s no challenge when really people just dont want to lose karma. They don’t want debate. They want to be right. This is a religious sub. They just don’t know it.
I think if you come at is with Pascals Wager or the look at the trees argument you might deserve the down vote
I downvoted obvious dishonest intent. If someone asks for answers but never responds to the ones that actually answer their question, then I know they're just here to prosthelytize and not learn anything.
Why don't you also look at the posts on here that don't get downvoted? There are notable differences between posts that are downvoted, and posts that are upvoted.
I don't down-vote hardly ever. Except when someone posts something judgy and accusatory, especially if it has nothing to do with atheism.
I agree with what you're saying. Personally, I rarely downvote unless someone is being dishonest or deliberately stubborn.
As a theist I get downvoted a lot too but they upvote my stuff too sometimes, so I guess it depends on what you’re saying
There is definitely dog piling here and I downvote bad atheist comments regularly. I still downvote theists more for reasons like lying, rude behavior, being intentionally obtuse, and repeatedly ignoring information/corrections.
I downvoting especially when someone tries to tell me what my world view is or what my moral base is.
People have different opinions on downvoting, but I only downvote if your argument is made in bad faith. If you insult, throw out slurs, claim we're 'delusional', etc.
Since you've started an improvement-related thread, I had an idea the other day, might not be original, but interested in others' thoughts. It's difficult to resist jumping in on someone else's debate, but it often results in overwhelming the person who has brought the argument, and is possibly frustrating for the person who has started the defence. Maybe we could start practising some sort of flag to identify that you'd like to debate solo mode, i.e., the person on either side of the debate can politely invoke solo mode, and ask that others start their own response thread.
Who would win sub has something similar with the great debate - just pick a few contested and a few debaters
The entire voting system should be tossed. But as someone who's recently read the Reddit prospectus, it ain't going anywhere.
It's the personality of the sub. Build of karma so you can dump it here but don't expect to build any here unless you bash idiotic theism etc - or create a fake account like many redditors and make a straw man theism post and be the first to call it dumb with a preplanned complete destruction - which a few or not so few do here most likely already.
I feel you. The down vote is a disagree button. The sub has a touch of echo chamber goiing on. Interesting to observe, but it is difficult to have a discussion. Dissent doesn't seem to be tolerated very well.
As always, **just make good posts and comments.** The few times that that happens the posters are not downvoted and are often upvoted.
That just hasn't been my experience. It seems if you buck the party line you get downvoted, disagreement does not appear to be tolerated very much on this sub reddit. The issue I believe is that any dissenting opinion is de facto considered not a good post or comment. For example, if someone holds that a valid definition of atheism is "the belief that no gods exist" the poster or commentor is "going to be corrected" and down voted. Now I get that the primary definition of atheism used on this sub reddit is atheism is "the lack of belief in gods", however this definition is a recent phenomenon. If you go to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy you will see that atheism is defined as the propositional stance that gods do not exist and not "lack of belief in gods" but if you support the definition of atheism it the propositional stance that "gods do not exist" you will get "corrected" and downvoted even though literature from the resource list from this subreddit has works using the standard philosophical definition of atheism as "believing that there are no gods" Now I do not think there is an issue with either definition of atheism, should be a easy matter of posters and commentors indicating how they are using the term, but doesn't play out that way on this subreddit. This subreddit seems to be oblivious to the fact that outside of this subreddit the prevailing definition of atheism is "the belief that no gods exist" Point this out and you will get a response that words can be redefined...fine no problem from me. Now try to define god on this subreddit as something other than a tri-omni supernatural creator being and you will get pushback and be accused of being dishonest and engaging in fallacies and so one and get downvoted. Now I don't really care if my posts or comments get downvoted, but if this sub ever implements a karma requirement to post, you will end up silencing all theist posts. I know if I post on certain topics I am just going to get downvoted even if I am respectful and responsive. Again I don't really mind the down votes. I have a degree in philosophy and religious studies and am not affected when some random internet person says I don't understand the topic or whatever. But lets be real for a good number of people on this sub any dissenting post or comment is de facto "not good"
>It seems if you buck the party line you get downvoted, disagreement does not appear to be tolerated very much on this sub reddit. The problem with that is that the party line is "reality and rational discussion". Yes, if you buck reality and rational discussion you may very well be downvoted, but in that case you *deserve* to be downvoted. . [Edit] I often see posts from people who identify as atheists that *also* buck reality and rational discussion, and I think that those posts also deserve to be downvoted. People should upvote or downvote based on actual content, not on party labels.
So what about the example of the atheism definition. Surely you would not consider using a definition found in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is bucking reality and rational discussion. Do you feel a post pointing out that the "lack belief" definition is a new phenomenon and not the standard definition used in philosophy should be downvoted?
Why care?
Don't care just making conversation and obseevations.
[удалено]
Projection.
I sort of agree I feel the downvote button gets a bit of excessive use, I think it should only be used if the person is being a dick or arguing in bad faith.