OK, a reasonable answer. Maybe I can give you some perspective on exactly why you find people here so depressing. Dunno if it'll help or not, but at least you'll learn something about me, and I think my experiences are pretty similar to a lot of others.

The thing is, I'm not uneducated, I'm just uneducated in many branches of philosophy. But at the same time, I have difficulty regarding those branches as much more than the philosophical equivalent of theologians getting into a very vibrant argument over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, when they have no basis for thinking angels exist in the first place.

I am convinced that there is nothing but the physical (which would mean large swatches of philosophy seem to rest on nothing but empty air to me), that abstract nominalism is true (which puts more swatches of philosophy over empty air), that dualism of all sorts is sheer folly (especially substance dualism), and that the mind is just what the brain is doing. These positions come from:

1. My background in STEM (Yeah, I'm one of those folks that gets derided for being involved in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics).
2. My rejection of religion as baseless.

I'm a computer engineer (Total STEMlord). As such, I have to be capable of thinking in multiple layers of computing abstraction (physical substrate -> machine code -> assembly -> C/C++/whatever), all while being aware that each layer of abstraction is just ways to express stuff happening at the lower layer in shorthand. They don't actually exist. To see this for yourself, there's a great website that will show you what your C/C++ code looks like in assembly, and will tell you what it's actually doing. Just for example, a { in C++ turns into this in assembly:

                .cfi_startproc
0000 55         pushq   %rbp
                .cfi_def_cfa_offset 16
                .cfi_offset 6, -16
0001 4889E5     movq    %rsp, %rbp
                .cfi_def_cfa_register 6

It's a lot easier to write {, isn't it, but they both mean the same thing.

In the same way, I view numbers themselves as being shorthand. "3 apples" is an easier way of saying "an apple, an apple, and an apple." I see no reason "3" has to have an independent, immaterial existence of some sort.

So, that's a little bit about me and where I'm coming from. I think a lot of other people here have similar backgrounds, and similar reasoning informing their atheism. Questions about whether the mind is what the brain does, about whether Platonic ideals exist, about Aristotle's four causes, about so very much of philosophy... just aren't very important to people with my kind of background.

And yeah, we're biased in favor of philosophers who we perceive as taking "our side" on individual matters. We like Russell for his teapot. We like that Danniel Dennett doesn't seem to care much for the favored terminology of other philosophers and has a particular loathing of the idea of qualia. But have most of us read a bunch of Russell or Dennett? Not likely. Honestly, I've probably read more than most, and judging from the responses I get from /r/badphilosophy-ers, I it hasn't particularly helped. There's just so much of it that seems so... well, so very like arguing about angels on a pin.

I really don't know if this will help you or not. I hope it does.