While we need to press the believers on their beliefs and failed arguments we don't want to descend into mere sht slinging. Mockery is great as it illustrates how useless their arguments are.
Another thing I caught a great video today where the atheist was explaining the difference between an atheist and an anti-theist. Often I see the theist posters on here equate atheist as the exact same thing as an anti-theist but the two are quite different. Perhaps we need to educate our theist friends on the difference between the two.
If they were educated on the difference the more reasonable ones may have a better dialog and experience on here. What do you think?
<quoted text>It's a peculiar human trait. For some reason, we then to believe that we understand our adversaries better than they understand themselves, or at least well enough to expound to the forum at large on their motivations. We all do it, but I think that we atheists really ought to know better. We don't really know why other anonymous writers behave the way they do on this forum, and we ought to stop pretending that we do. It is so tempting to counter ever attack with accusations that match the tenor of those aimed at us, but it's a temptation that leads us into endless cycles of just making stuff up. the easiest place to stop i at the beginning of the cycle. Let them hurl their baseless accusations--everyone except (maybe) their cronies will see those jibes for what they are--and who the adults are.
Transactional analysis identifies three basic human roles: child, parent, and adult. Communicating from a child role evokes either a child or parent response; the parent role is designed to put others in a child role. But relentlessly adult responses short-circuits both approaches, forcing others to either respond as adults or be seen as petty squabblers or arrogant bullies. In the end, the relentlessly adult invariably prevail. Refusing to descend to the levels of those who make personal attacks is a winning strategy.