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.

[Thought Criminal]

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.

Odd, I seem to remember you saying that you would believe in God no matter what the evidence, that your mind was entirely closed. Correct me if my memory errs.

TC

[Beto]

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?

Why isn't "Russell's teapot exists" a first principle? Do you think it should be?

[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?

Why isn't "Russell's teapot exists" a first principle? Do you think it should be?

I was going to suggest the existence of the FSM...

TC

[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?

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

Hmm.. it is hard to get a more abstract and generalized statement than "God exists", except for "the Universe exists". Both "God" and "the Universe" are blankets that can cover any phenomenon you want.

Of course, when you ask "What kind of God?", it suddenly gets more specific and interesting...

However, since rational arguments are based on other arguments or on first principles, it seems that we cannot have a rational debate unless we agree a priori on the first principles.
This kind of "rational debate" gets nowhere. Why not accept that people have different first principles and debate only on the arguments? Like "Okay, you can believe A and B but then you cannot believe C, because..." ?

[Thought Criminal]

Hmm.. it is hard to get a more abstract and generalized statement than "God exists", except for "the Universe exists". Both "God" and "the Universe" are blankets that can cover any phenomenon you want.

That's flatly untrue. Saying that the universe exists is just an awkward way to acknowledge that some things exist. It is self-evidently true and cannot be denied without self-contradiction. Saying that God exists ranges from meaningless to false. It is not a concept that occurs to people without indoctrination and there is no logical conflict in denying it.

Sorry, but you don't get to arbitrarily assume your conclusion. You have to prove it or accept that it's false.

Of course, when you ask "What kind of God?", it suddenly gets more specific and interesting...

No matter what non-trivial form of God you choose, it's still not a first principle.

However, since rational arguments are based on other arguments or on first principles, it seems that we cannot have a rational debate unless we agree a priori on the first principles.

Oh, we can have a rational debate just so long as you don't irrationally bring in false assumptions.

This kind of "rational debate" gets nowhere. Why not accept that people have different first principles and debate only on the arguments? Like "Okay, you can believe A and B but then you cannot believe C, because..." ?

Yes, some people have erroneous first principles, such as by including theism. These people need to fix their errors before they can join the rest of us.

TC

[Sjoerd]

Saying that the universe exists is just an awkward way to acknowledge that some things exist. It is self-evidently true and cannot be denied without self-contradiction.

Seems to me that these are all very good qualifications for a first principle. "2+2=4" and "two parallell lines never intersect" aren't really gems of brilliance, either. The reasoning based on those principles is the interesting part.

Saying that God exists ranges from meaningless to false. It is not a concept that occurs to people without indoctrination and there is no logical conflict in denying it.
...
Sorry, but you don't get to arbitrarily assume your conclusion. You have to prove it or accept that it's false.
...
No matter what non-trivial form of God you choose, it's still not a first principle.
...
Yes, some people have erroneous first principles, such as by including theism. These people need to fix their errors before they can join the rest of us.

"God" is a concept. Concepts can be defined. The definition of a concept is not a conclusion, it is a first principle that can be arbitarily rejected or accepted by the participants of a debate.
This is so unless people claim that the concept of "God" can be derived, by reason, from other first principles.
I deny that claim. I define "God" as equal or greater than "the Universe". This is a respectable theistic stance called "panentheism". I do not claim that my concept of God is derived from other first principles. Therefore, you can arbitrarily accept or reject my concept of God, but you cannot logically conclude that it is false. Truly, a rational debate about first principles is completely meaningless.

You may enter a debate with other theists who believe that the existence of God can be derived from other first principles, most notably from the first principle that your senses are the primary source of knowledge (empiricism).
Those theists will claim that the existence of God can be experienced through the senses or from scientific evidence or whatever.

I make no such claim. You can reject my concept of God, but your rejection will be irrational, just as my acceptance of God is irrational.

[theleftone]

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.

The assumption is a necessary one for rational discourse to happen.

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.

Likewise, to label ideas using emotive and derogatory terms (e.g., stupid, retarded, brainless, etc.) is an emotional response. And, as agreed, an emotional response does not promote rational discourse.

If one desires rational discourse, one should avoid emotional responses. That is, one should avoid being insulted or insulting. For rational discourse to work, we must work together. I understand it's not always easy, but it is something we should work towards.

[Thought Criminal]

Seems to me that these are all very good qualifications for a first principle. "2+2=4" and "two parallell lines never intersect" aren't really gems of brilliance, either. The reasoning based on those principles is the interesting part.

At least they aren't obvious false.

"God" is a concept. Concepts can be defined. The definition of a concept is not a conclusion, it is a first principle that can be arbitarily rejected or accepted by the participants of a debate.

Concepts are cheap. Unicorn is a concept, too, yet unicorns as such don't exist and any attempt to sneak them in as a first principal isn't going to fly.

This is so unless people claim that the concept of "God" can be derived, by reason, from other first principles.

Well, of course it's derived. You start with what's real, negate it, then put a human face over it.

I deny that claim. I define "God" as equal or greater than "the Universe". This is a respectable theistic stance called "panentheism". I do not claim that my concept of God is derived from other first principles. Therefore, you can arbitrarily accept or reject my concept of God, but you cannot logically conclude that it is false. Truly, a rational debate about first principles is completely meaningless.

No more respectable than other theistic stances, which is to say, not at all. You can have any concept of God you like, you just can't claim it's instantiated. It exists, but only as a concept, not what is referred to.

You may enter a debate with other theists who believe that the existence of God can be derived from other first principles, most notably from the first principle that your senses are the primary source of knowledge (empiricism).
Those theists will claim that the existence of God can be experienced through the senses or from scientific evidence or whatever.

I hear that one a lot. What I never hear is how we can distinguish genuine religious experiences from hallucinations and delusions.

I make no such claim. You can reject my concept of God, but your rejection will be irrational, just as my acceptance of God is irrational.

It is entirely rational to reject unsupported positive claims of existence. You do, for all the other gods that have ever been believed except your own. I'm just more consistent.

TC

[Sjoerd]

Well, of course it's derived. You start with what's real, negate it, then put a human face over it.

"God" does not automatically mean "bearded human face in the sky". Maybe in your mind, but not in mine.

No more respectable than other theistic stances, which is to say, not at all. You can have any concept of God you like, you just can't claim it's instantiated. It exists, but only as a concept, not what is referred to.

My concept of God refers to the Universe, which is out there, fully instantiated.

I hear that one a lot. What I never hear is how we can distinguish genuine religious experiences from hallucinations and delusions.

We can't. Does that bother you?

It is entirely rational to reject unsupported positive claims of existence. You do, for all the other gods that have ever been believed except your own. I'm just more consistent.

I am a Christian heretic and a pagan, I will not deny the existence of any god. If people prefer the restoring aspect of God and call it Vishnu and worship it, that is completely fine with me. If they claim that their aspect of God is the whole of God, that I would reject.

[Zzyzx]

.

Well, of course it's derived. You start with what's real, negate it, then put a human face over it.

"God" does not automatically mean "bearded human face in the sky". Maybe in your mind, but not in mine.

When you use the term "god" in debate it is very reasonable for a person to ask exactly what you mean by the term you use. I am asking. What, exactly, does "god" mean when you use the term in debate?

No more respectable than other theistic stances, which is to say, not at all. You can have any concept of God you like, you just can't claim it's instantiated. It exists, but only as a concept, not what is referred to.

My concept of God refers to the Universe, which is out there, fully instantiated. [/quote]
Are you saying that the universe IS "god"?

I hear that one a lot. What I never hear is how we can distinguish genuine religious experiences from hallucinations and delusions.

We can't. Does that bother you?

It certainly does not bother me. I expect that.

However, being unable to distinguish between supposedly genuine religious experiences and hallucinations or delusions destroys the credibility of claims of such experiences.

It is entirely rational to reject unsupported positive claims of existence. You do, for all the other gods that have ever been believed except your own. I'm just more consistent.

I am a Christian heretic and a pagan, I will not deny the existence of any god. If people prefer the restoring aspect of God and call it Vishnu and worship it, that is completely fine with me. If they claim that their aspect of God is the whole of God, that I would reject.

What is your reaction if people

1. Maintain that there is insufficient evidence relating to "gods" upon which to make a decision?

2. Deny the existence of "gods"?

3. Promote polytheism?