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.

[olavisjo]

Yes, and nowhere does he say he will feed the hungry (only the "spiritually hungry), save the drowning, or help children afflicted with terminal diseases or conditions.

God left that job for you and me.

35 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:

36 Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.

37 Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?

38 When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee?

39 Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?

40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.

[daedalus 2.0]

Yes, and nowhere does he say he will feed the hungry (only the "spiritually hungry), save the drowning, or help children afflicted with terminal diseases or conditions.

God left that job for you and me.

35 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:

36 Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.

37 Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?

38 When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee?

39 Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?

40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.

It's not what you are looking for. You are cherry-picking: taking verses out of context.

If you are right, and it does say what you want it to then Jesus is liar.

People die everyday. In fact, every 5 seconds a child dies of starvation.

Where is Jesus now? 1,2 ,3,4,5. and Now? 1-2-3-4-5- and now? 1-2-3-4-5- and now? 1-2-3-4-5- and now? 1-2-3-4-5- and now? 1-2-3-4-5- and now? 1-2-3-4-5- and now? 1-2-3-4-5- and now? 1-2-3-4-5- and now? 1-2-3-4-5- and now? 1-2-3-4-5- and now? 1-2-3-4-5- and now? 1-2-3-4-5- and now? 1-2-3-4-5- and now? 1-2-3-4-5- and now? 1-2-3-4-5- and now? 1-2-3-4-5- and now? 1-2-3-4-5- and now? 1-2-3-4-5- and now? 1-2-3-4-5- and now? 1-2-3-4-5- and now? 1-2-3-4-5- and now? 1-2-3-4-5- and now?

20 children have starved to death in the time it took you to read this.

Great use of our time, eh?

Sure! Because we are getting to know ourselves! Getting to know how Jesus feels about our personal life. (1-2-3-4-5-dead)

Funny that you, as a believer, aren't being called to save those kids (1-2-3-4-5-dead), instead of defending you position that your god is real and present and inspires you to change your life.

What are you waiting for? Or, rather, what is Jesus waiting for? Why hasn't he called you?

[Sjoerd]

I tried to read through the thread but I managed only till page 6 and 10-11, correct me if I repeat something that someone has already pointed out.

First: I object strongly against any notion that debate should be completely rational. Everyone holds different irrational ideals: faiths, beliefs, sentiments and axioms that cannot be proven: 2+2=4, it is better to live than to die, it is good to have friends, etc. Fortunately, we share many of these ideals because humans have much in common. Still, there are plenty of ideals to disagree on.
This is not a forum on strategies for economic growth, it is on religion. There will always be first-order, fundamental, irrational faiths and beliefs, playing a role in a debate on religion.

Second: Based on these ideals, everyone builds a more or less consistent, rational framework of ideas and opinions. All kinds of things mix in at this stage: knowledge and perceived knowledge about the world, conflict between different ideals, and, most definitely, rationalization of pre-held beliefs. Scientific research has again and again demonstrated that humans rationalize after they form an opinion, not beforehand. Therefore, it is good to debate them so that we gain more insight into ourselves and into others.

Third: Debating is done using words, and words are tricky. I can define "opinion" as I have done above (second order idea, rationalized, open to debate); someone else may define "opinion" in the way I defined "ideal" (first order idea , irrational, cannot be argued upon).

So, you can have three kinds of disagreements: first, second and third-order.
The third-order ones are the easiest: it is nice that you and the other person were agreeing all along, you just used different definitions.
Second-order disagreements are open to rational debate and discussion: providing facts unknown to the other, pointing out logical inconsistencies and flaws. However, people build these second-order opinions based on unspoken ideals. You should criticise another person's opinion based on his ideals, not your own. You can start out with the assumption that you and the other have the same ideals, and find out along the way if this is true or not.
Finally, ideals themselves should be criticised only with respect and advocated humbly, because they cannot be proven or supported rationally.

I have had very nice debates with Thought Criminal, resolving in a third-order (definition) disagreement, and with Charles Norman, resolving in a first-order (ideal) disagreement . In both cases, the debate was friendly and respectful.
On the other hand, I have made some posts in which I objected somewhat sarcastically against a logical flaw, or against an ideal (personal belief, sentiment) being presented as an opinion (an idea with rational support). Maybe this is not very nice of me, but I don't mind when people ruthlessly attack my own second-order opinions. That's what's debate is for.

I do object against people ruthlessly attacking my ideals or personal beliefs, especially when I have made clear that these are personal and that I make no claim that every sane person should hold them, too.

[McCulloch]

Moderator Warning

Please review the Rules . Refrain from making negative comments about the other debaters.

reality doesn't seem to concern you much.

That, my friend, makes you a bald-faced liar.

When the moderators feel the rules have been violated, a notice will frequently occur within the thread where the violation occurred, pointing out the violation and perhaps providing other moderator comments. Moderator warnings and comments are made publicly, within the thread, so that all members may see when and how the rules are being interpreted and enforced. However, note that any challenges or replies to moderator comments or warnings should be made via Private Message. This is so that threads do not get derailed into discussions about the rules.

[Sjoerd]

Okay I have read the whole thread now and I would like to pay my respect to olavisjo, who has the courage to admit that his beliefs cannot be defended rationally, even while it got him some seriously ad hominem attacks.

[Thought Criminal]

Okay I have read the whole thread now and I would like to pay my respect to olavisjo, who has the courage to admit that his beliefs cannot be defended rationally, even while it got him some seriously ad hominem attacks.

At the risk of being redundant, I suggest that your notion of rationality is arbitrarily limited. Mine is broad enough to encompass the things that you would claim are irrational or nonrational or whatever.

reason: the faculty or power of acquiring intellectual knowledge, either by direct understanding of first principles or by argument.

TC

[Cephus]

If you insult the beliefs, many of which certainly deserve insult, theists interpret this as a personal attack and insult upon themsleves.

How does an emotional response to an idea promote rational discourse?

You are assuming that some of these people are capable of rational discourse. I won't mention names, I don't need to, but there are a lot of people around here, some in this very thread, who insist that they have the absolute truth and nothing anyone says can ever sway them from their fanatical beliefs. These people are simply incapable of having an intellectual discussion based on reasoning and evidence.

Beyond that, I agree with you, an emotional response to an idea cannot help a rational discussion, but that is exactly what happens regularly, especially in the realm of religion. Many theists act like religion is a sacred cow, it magically deserves extreme respect because it is something they hold dear, not because it has earned that respect in the forum of ideas.

[Sjoerd]

reason: the faculty or power of acquiring intellectual knowledge, either by direct understanding of first principles or by argument.

What first principles? I suppose that "God exists" is not one of them, right?

[olavisjo]

These people are simply incapable of having an intellectual discussion based on reasoning and evidence.

I am sure that they are capable of having an intellectual discussion based on reasoning and evidence, they just lack the ability to arrive at the same conclusions that you would arrive at.

[Thought Criminal]

reason: the faculty or power of acquiring intellectual knowledge, either by direct understanding of first principles or by argument.

What first principles? I suppose that "God exists" is not one of them, right?

A first principle is defined as "any axiom, law, or abstraction assumed and regarded as representing the highest possible degree of generalization". You'll have to explain to me how theism fits into here, except of course as a counterexample.

TC