on the atmosphere of this forum

[cnorman18]

Expanded from a comment on another thread:

For some of our newer members, anything less than a total rejection and denial of anything even vaguely "spiritual" or "religious" is evidence of mental defect, aka "irrationality" (as in "you don't know how to think") and worthy of only contempt and derision. In any other context, such an attitude would be called. "intolerant," "doctrinaire," and "disrespectful," but here on the forum of late, civility, tolerance and mutual respect seem to be taking a back seat to scorched-earth tactics and open contempt.

I would readily grant that there are some on the fundamentalist side, again some relative newbies in particular, who are equally guilty of such behavior; but the misdeeds of either side do not justify or make acceptable the incivility of the other, particular when that incivility is applied indiscriminately and not just to the other side's offenders.

I would like to see more moderator intervention, not less. It is one thing to say, "I respectfully disagree." It is quite another to add heavy doses of ridicule, contempt and derision, not to mention personal aspersions on one's ability to reason or one's personal morality and "spiritual vision" or "maturity."

I have been happy here for many months. DC&R has been a place where I could enjoy, as billed, "intelligent, civil, courteous and respectful debate among people of all persuasions." I have found it stimulating, fun, and thought-provoking.

Those days are largely gone. An authentic exchange of ideas is still possible here, but to find it one must wade through and filter out an ocean of spiritual pride, self-righteousness, intellectual arrogance, inflexibly doctrinaire definitions and pronouncements, and, worse than all of these, constant, unrelenting, personally offensive, and sneering contempt for oneself and one's opinions.

I have been posting here virtually every day since November of last year, and I think I have made some significant contributions.
But I no longer feel like I am coming to a friendly, welcoming place where I can quietly talk and compare ideas with friends who like, respect and accept me. I feel like I am going to a fistfight with people who have no regard for me as a human being, who dislike me personally on account of my beliefs, and who neither have nor express any respect whatever for either those views or me. Even some of our older members are beginning to be infected by this uncivil and disrespectful attitude. I think this is a tragedy.

This is becoming an unpleasant place to spend one's time. Some members have already left, including some fine new ones; and I think more will leave if this ugly and acrimonious atmosphere does not change. In fact, I think that is certain.

Early on, I myself threatened to leave this forum on account of what I perceived as unpoliced and unopposed antisemitism. That problem was resolved. This one may be more difficult to handle. It threatens the very reason for the existence of this forum--civil and respectful debate.

Let me make this clear: I DO NOT CARE if you think yourself to be on a righteous crusade to either win the world for Jesus or rid the world of the pernicious plague of religious superstition. Personal respect for the other members of this forum AND FOR THEIR OPINIONS is more important than your "vital mission." How will you argue for your point of view if everyone you would argue it TO leaves in disgust?

As I said on another thread: If you are about disrespecting and demeaning other people, claiming to be spiritually or intellectually superior to them, and sneering at those who do not think or believe as you do--well, as far as I'm concerned, you're full of crap no matter what you believe or how smart you are.

[cnorman18]

Before joining this site I spent a few weeks reading threads in deciding whether I should get involved. As I read through I noted a heavy persecution of Christians by atheists and Jews. Upon that discovery I decided to jump in. Now that those oppressors have their former estate upset they complain. Why were the Christians left to the whims of their enemies so long and without remedy? It appears to me the bullies in the schoolyard have become a bit threatened through advancement of knowledge they are not used to.

I think this post is a pretty good example of what I'm talking about. Not in the content of this post itself or in that of others of Swordsman's, though there are obviously problems there; but in the reaction he is revealing.

It seems clear that Swordsman equates mere disagreement with "persecution"; but that misunderstanding is no doubt exacerbated by the frequently expressed personal disdain and contempt for Christianity and Christians that is seen here so often. In calling that "persecution," Swordsman is not far wrong.

I myself have heaped opprobrium on Swordsman and other fundamentalists from time to time, and I hereby apologize and express my regret for that; and I reaffirm my conviction that anyone, whatever their views, is entitled to personal respect and honor. Even if I or others find a person's views repugnant, those views are best opposed with rational argument and not insult.

If rational argument is ineffective, well, let that be on the head of the one who holds to repugnant views. Let it not be blamed on the fact that opposition to them was expressed with hostility and personal contempt. That is as convenient an excuse to disregard them as any.

I disagree with Swordsman's ideas and attitudes, on virtually every topic and level, about as strongly as can be imagined; but, that said, I would also note that Swordsman's views have been more often countered by insults, ridicule and dismissals than by rational arguments. No wonder he thinks he's winning.

[Thought Criminal]

I think this post is a pretty good example of what I'm talking about. Not in the content of this post itself or in that of others of Swordsman's, though there are obviously problems there; but in the reaction he is revealing.

It seems clear that Swordsman equates mere disagreement with "persecution"; but that misunderstanding is no doubt exacerbated by the frequently expressed personal disdain and contempt for Christianity and Christians that is seen here so often. In calling that "persecution," Swordsman is not far wrong.

I myself have heaped opprobrium on Swordsman and other fundamentalists from time to time, and I hereby apologize and express my regret for that; and I reaffirm my conviction that anyone, whatever their views, is entitled to personal respect and honor. Even if I or others find a person's views repugnant, those views are best opposed with rational argument and not insult.

If rational argument is ineffective, well, let that be on the head of the one who holds to repugnant views. Let it not be blamed on the fact that opposition to them was expressed with hostility and personal contempt. That is as convenient an excuse to disregard them as any.

I disagree with Swordsman's ideas and attitudes, on virtually every topic and level, about as strongly as can be imagined; but, that said, I would also note that Swordsman's views have been more often countered by insults, ridicule and dismissals than by rational arguments. No wonder he thinks he's winning.

I agree hostility and personal contempt are never justified merely by someone's views being mistaken. We all make mistakes, so the right way to respond is to politely point out the error and correct it.

But when this effort is met with evasion and dishonesty, then hostility and personal contempt become, if nothing else, entirely understandable. Having said that, expressing these reactions is likely to become counterproductive. The real solution is for the moderators to be ruthless in punishing people for violating the requirements of debate.

It is an error to focus on incivility that comes as the result of people breaking the rules of debate. Instead, people like Word Swordsman need to be beaten into submission until they stop pulling our collective chains and start debating. If they can't, then they need to leave. Anything else is an insult to those of us who come here for honest debate.

TC

[cnorman18]

I think a "lack of respect for the very concept of god(s)." is problematic in itself. That implies more than a profound disagreement with that concept and a rejection of it; it necessarily implies disrespect for those who hold such views, and I think that is completely and totally unacceptable, in all times and places. Period, full stop.

Not all concepts of god(s) warrant the same measure of respect.

I quite agree, but such respect ought to be assumed for purposes of dialogue anyway. "That is stupid and you are an idiot" does not typically lead to further communication.

The thing of the matter is, the more respect a concept of god is entitled to, the more likely it is the result of an admittedly personal, subjective, and inherently undebatable experience. I have a great measure of respect for your specific belief as you defend it, but I find it's not really open to debate.

LOL! Perhaps it appears that way, but my views have changed a great deal since I first came here, entirely as a direct result of debate. Deciding who is 100% right and who is 100% wrong is not the only reason to engage in debate. One's views may be changed, revised, and refined as well. The process of the exchange of ideas and reactions to ideas is the point, not the conclusion reached.

Many others pretend their concepts are open to debate but then fail to understand what "open to debate" means. If a belief system aims to be respected in debate, it must earn that respect by actually being liable to refutation.

I would think a proper reaction to that would be to explain why falsifiability is a requirement for a rational belief, or at least for debate.

I would think that any belief system ought to be assumed worthy of respect from the start; it may then forfeit that respect by showing itself--or, more likely, the approach or tactics of the debater--to be so dogmatic or doctrinaire that it cannot be debated in good faith. That's rather an inverse approach to saying that it must "earn respect," but it ends up in the same place and puts the onus on the one presenting undebatable views for disqualifying them instead of upon another for declaring them to be so a priori.

That simply isn't a possibility for fundamentalist theists, and neither they, nor their god concepts, earn any respect from me.

Again; that is a generalization. Though I admit it is largely an accurate one, there are exceptions; I have personally known many, and even seen some change their views as a result of rational and respectful debate. I have seen none do so in the face of insult, derision or contempt.

I think it better to approach debate with anyone with an attitude of respect. If that respect is forfeited, so be it, but that should be on account of the fundamentalist's (or whoever) attitude and statements and not assumed in advance. That could be called prejudice and a refusal to consider another point of view, and justly so.

If you refuse to allow respect for another point of view before debate even begins, who is really refusing to debate? You, or he?

[Thought Criminal]

I would think that any belief system ought to be assumed worthy of respect from the start; it may then forfeit that respect by showing itself--or, more likely, the approach or tactics of the debater--to be so dogmatic or doctrinaire that it cannot be debated in good faith. That's rather an inverse approach to saying that it must "earn respect," but it ends up in the same place and puts the onus on the one presenting undebatable views for disqualifying them instead of upon another for declaring them to be so a priori.

I agree that it's wrong to initially decide that a person's beliefs are unworthy of respect. Respect must be earned, yes, but in order to do so, we must first offer them a starter loan. So, yes, we should show people's beliefs a modicum of respect and hope their response shows that we were right to do so. If they default on the loan, though, we'll just have to forclose.

TC

[Beto]

If you refuse to allow respect for another point of view before debate even begins, who is really refusing to debate? You, or he?

Everyone should be mindful that applies to all, theists and atheists alike. You know what a fundamentalist ideology is. Some theists here call themselves "Fundamentalist Christians", have the temerity to presume they're "debating", as if the tenets of such an ideology are even remotely debatable to the fundamentalist, and I'm supposed to respect this point of view? No, sorry but I reject it upfront. With some other members, a few posts are all it takes to spot a fundamentalist. This type of theist is increasing in the forum, what they do is not "debate", and the uncivil atmosphere is a direct consequence. While rule #5 remains outside moderator scope of intervention they will keep filling threads with bare assertions, frustrating honest debaters. Personally, I'm ignoring a lot of members, but that doesn't really help me, because there are other debaters that feel they can be reasoned with, and the threads go down the drain. But I'm fed up with it. I'll ignore half the forum members if I have to, but I'll really try not to be uncivil, or use sarcastic and mocking tones. I simply don't have the experience at the levels some people attempt to sink me down to.

[olavisjo]

...well, as far as I'm concerned, you're full of crap no matter what you believe or how smart you are.

I can relate to that, and I am sure some would consider me guilty here, and I have to admit that when I can't get a point across to someone it is tempting to reach for a hammer rather than the oil can.
People of religion and those who are not, may speak the same language but the words mean very different things when strung together, even single words form different images in peoples brains. For example the word 'God' brings an image of a gray haired man sitting on the clouds to some, and to others it is something unimaginable that existed before the big bang. So it is understandable that one would call the other irrational and the other limited in mental imagery.
My problem is that I do not mind the hostility, but what gets me down is if my response honestly hurts someone else, then I really do feel bad. I am not concerned about my feelings being hurt, but I am concerned about hurting other peoples feelings.
Most of my life I have thought of myself as a mirror, I like to return to people what they give me, because that is how I want others to treat me. It is the eye for an eye mentality, this is how I treat my friends, but when a person becomes my enemy, I can no longer treat them this way, but I must then love them as Jesus commanded me to, not with fuzzy feelings but with a respect earned or not.
If anyone ever feels that I am too harsh, arrogant or otherwise, just tell me and I will immediately back off, or explain why I said what I said and how it was not really as bad as it looked.

[cnorman18]

I think this post is a pretty good example of what I'm talking about. Not in the content of this post itself or in that of others of Swordsman's, though there are obviously problems there; but in the reaction he is revealing.

It seems clear that Swordsman equates mere disagreement with "persecution"; but that misunderstanding is no doubt exacerbated by the frequently expressed personal disdain and contempt for Christianity and Christians that is seen here so often. In calling that "persecution," Swordsman is not far wrong.

I myself have heaped opprobrium on Swordsman and other fundamentalists from time to time, and I hereby apologize and express my regret for that; and I reaffirm my conviction that anyone, whatever their views, is entitled to personal respect and honor. Even if I or others find a person's views repugnant, those views are best opposed with rational argument and not insult.

If rational argument is ineffective, well, let that be on the head of the one who holds to repugnant views. Let it not be blamed on the fact that opposition to them was expressed with hostility and personal contempt. That is as convenient an excuse to disregard them as any.

I disagree with Swordsman's ideas and attitudes, on virtually every topic and level, about as strongly as can be imagined; but, that said, I would also note that Swordsman's views have been more often countered by insults, ridicule and dismissals than by rational arguments. No wonder he thinks he's winning.

I agree hostility and personal contempt are never justified merely by someone's views being mistaken. We all make mistakes, so the right way to respond is to politely point out the error and correct it.

Agreed.

But when this effort is met with evasion and dishonesty, then hostility and personal contempt become, if nothing else, entirely understandable. Having said that, expressing these reactions is likely to become counterproductive. The real solution is for the moderators to be ruthless in punishing people for violating the requirements of debate.

Agreed again. Claiming Scripture as irrefutable and inarguable support for one's views isn't an explicit breach of the forum rules at present, since the poster can claim it as "evidence" under Rule #5; but it ought to be, and repeated infractions ought to result in probation and barring.

It is an error to focus on incivility that comes as the result of people breaking the rules of debate. Instead, people like Word Swordsman need to be beaten into submission until they stop pulling our collective chains and start debating. If they can't, then they need to leave. Anything else is an insult to those of us who come here for honest debate.

TC

Yes, but the "beating" should and must be done by the moderators and not by other members. I agree with Otseng that compounding a rule violation with a dozen others "piling on" only clouds the issue and makes enforcement more difficult.

---

Let me be frank; I don't like the way that this thread is veering into a discussion of excesses and violations from the fundamentalist side only. I am much more disturbed by the sneers and disrespect coming from the non-theist side.

One expects religious fanatics to be fanatical; it is much more of a problem, in my opinion, when disrespect and contempt come from those who claim to represent detached, logical and impersonal rationality.

Ridicule and derision, in particular, have become common from that quarter, and I have seen any number of threads degenerate into gigglefests where atheists take turns making fun of theists in general and patting each other on the back for being so well-informed, rational, and wise. Great fun, I'm sure, but more than a little self-congratulatory and sophomoric.

Doctrinaire, arrogant fundamentalists, like the poor, will be with us always; but doctrinaire, arrogant, and frankly sneeringly superior atheists, while not new, are becoming more and more dominant around here, and I find that disturbing, disillusioning, and depressing.

In the past, my relationships with many, even most, of the atheists and non-theists on this forum have been cordial, warm, and even resulted in several deep friendships offline. Our mutual respect has always been clear and firmly established. But from many of the new non-theist members, I feel only disdain and undisguised contempt. My own style and approach has not changed.

I will not apologize for taking the conversations on this forum personally. Because of the nature of my work and my lifestyle, this is to a very great extent the only human contact I have, and until very recently, it has been a warm and positive experience. That has changed, and the change has been in the attitudes and styles of the non-theists here, and nowhere else.

I don't like it.

[cnorman18]

If you refuse to allow respect for another point of view before debate even begins, who is really refusing to debate? You, or he?

Everyone should be mindful that applies to all, theists and atheists alike. You know what a fundamentalist ideology is. Some theists here call themselves "Fundamentalist Christians", have the temerity to presume they're "debating", as if the tenets of such an ideology are even remotely debatable to the fundamentalist, and I'm supposed to respect this point of view? No, sorry but I reject it upfront. With some other members, a few posts are all it takes to spot a fundamentalist. This type of theist is increasing in the forum, what they do is not "debate", and the uncivil atmosphere is a direct consequence. While rule #5 remains outside moderator scope of intervention they will keep filling threads with bare assertions, frustrating honest debaters. Personally, I'm ignoring a lot of members, but that doesn't really help me, because there are other debaters that feel they can be reasoned with, and the threads go down the drain. But I'm fed up with it. I'll ignore half the forum members if I have to, but I'll really try not to be uncivil, or use sarcastic and mocking tones. I simply don't have the experience at the levels some people attempt to sink me down to.

I would think that if one is unable to enter a conversation--or a debate--with another person without expressing contempt and disrespect, then not entering the thread at all is the proper action.

[cnorman18]

...well, as far as I'm concerned, you're full of crap no matter what you believe or how smart you are.

I can relate to that, and I am sure some would consider me guilty here, and I have to admit that when I can't get a point across to someone it is tempting to reach for a hammer rather than the oil can.
People of religion and those who are not, may speak the same language but the words mean very different things when strung together, even single words form different images in peoples brains. For example the word 'God' brings an image of a gray haired man sitting on the clouds to some, and to others it is something unimaginable that existed before the big bang. So it is understandable that one would call the other irrational and the other limited in mental imagery.
My problem is that I do not mind the hostility, but what gets me down is if my response honestly hurts someone else, then I really do feel bad. I am not concerned about my feelings being hurt, but I am concerned about hurting other peoples feelings.
Most of my life I have thought of myself as a mirror, I like to return to people what they give me, because that is how I want others to treat me. It is the eye for an eye mentality, this is how I treat my friends, but when a person becomes my enemy, I can no longer treat them this way, but I must then love them as Jesus commanded me to, not with fuzzy feelings but with a respect earned or not.
If anyone ever feels that I am too harsh, arrogant or otherwise, just tell me and I will immediately back off, or explain why I said what I said and how it was not really as bad as it looked.

That seems to me to be a wholly admirable attitude and approach.

I don't recall offhand that we have ever conversed before. Welcome to the forum; that may be belated, but welcome anyway.

[Beto]

If you refuse to allow respect for another point of view before debate even begins, who is really refusing to debate? You, or he?

Everyone should be mindful that applies to all, theists and atheists alike. You know what a fundamentalist ideology is. Some theists here call themselves "Fundamentalist Christians", have the temerity to presume they're "debating", as if the tenets of such an ideology are even remotely debatable to the fundamentalist, and I'm supposed to respect this point of view? No, sorry but I reject it upfront. With some other members, a few posts are all it takes to spot a fundamentalist. This type of theist is increasing in the forum, what they do is not "debate", and the uncivil atmosphere is a direct consequence. While rule #5 remains outside moderator scope of intervention they will keep filling threads with bare assertions, frustrating honest debaters. Personally, I'm ignoring a lot of members, but that doesn't really help me, because there are other debaters that feel they can be reasoned with, and the threads go down the drain. But I'm fed up with it. I'll ignore half the forum members if I have to, but I'll really try not to be uncivil, or use sarcastic and mocking tones. I simply don't have the experience at the levels some people attempt to sink me down to.

I would think that if one is unable to enter a conversation--or a debate--with another person without expressing contempt and disrespect, then not entering the thread at all is the proper action.

Does my post suggest I condone entering a thread with contempt and disrespect for another person? I think your replies tend to insinuate I hold the positions you criticize.