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.

[Sjoerd]

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?
...
Are you saying that the universe IS "god"?

Sorry if I seem to be dodging the question. For me, God is the universe as I experience it plus the universe as I would be experiencing it if all illusions and limits of perspective would be broken. I believe that we are using metaphors and simplifications to make God and the Universe more understandable, ranging from "God says that killing is bad" to "light is both a wave and a particle".

But I will not bring my concept of God into any debate. If someone else talks about God or evil or sin or any other concept, I will try to guess what that person is likely to mean by it. If my guess leads to a contradiction in that person's argument, I will point it out. That person can then correct my guess.

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?

I don't know about TC, but it does kind of bother me, that you would rather believe in something you can't detect, over the alternative that you can. This can't be justified with logic and reason, so yeah it bothers me a little. Especially because this behavior tends to spread like a disease.

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.

There are of course rules of thumb to give credibility to such experiences. "Having it seen with your own eyes" is a good one, and "Confirmed by someone you trust" is another. It is up to you to trust or distrust people who claim such experiences, or to believe alternative explanations.

What is your reaction if people

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

Sounds reasonable to me. Pending their religious decision, I would suggest that they at least dedicate their lives to something, to an ideal, a philosophy, a system of ethics, or to another person. Everyone needs something to give direction to his or her life.

2. Deny the existence of "gods"?

I think that they cling to a limited definition of "existence" and of "gods". If people claim that the bearded man in the sky is not really there, I agree with them. Such metaphors are for simple folk anyway. If I were to explain television to a Middle Ager, I would use a lot of metaphors too. In everyday life, I still treat a television as if it were a magical box responding to button presses to show me images and sounds. I fully accept that there are boundaries to my mind so that I need metaphors to have any grasp at all. They just become more complicated metaphors during the process of thinking.

3. Promote polytheism?

I do not object. If people want to divide God into a Trinity or into a pantheon, go ahead. These are all aspects of God to me.

[Zzyzx]

.

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

There are of course rules of thumb to give credibility to such experiences. "Having it seen with your own eyes" is a good one, and "Confirmed by someone you trust" is another.

What you are saying appears to be an acknowledgement that one CANNOT distinguish between religious experience and hallucination or delusion.

"Rules of thumb" are used when precise information is lacking or when rigorous decision structure is not being applied. "Rules of thumb" are often inaccurate or misleading.

Seeing with your own eyes and being confirmed by someone you trust MAY be accurate, or may not. Misinterpretation of what is seen is NOT uncommon. Witnesses to an event often tell very different versions.

How does any of this relate to being able to distinguish between "religious experience" and hallucination or delusion"? If a person has what they think is a "religious experience", how can they tell that they have not merely experienced an hallucination or delusion?

It is up to you to trust or distrust people who claim such experiences, or to believe alternative explanations.

How does one decide which people to trust and which to not trust – particularly if all they know about the person is that they claim to have had a religious experience?

What is your reaction if people

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

Sounds reasonable to me. Pending their religious decision, I would suggest that they at least dedicate their lives to something, to an ideal, a philosophy, a system of ethics, or to another person. Everyone needs something to give direction to his or her life.

Why do you suggest that people "dedicate their lives to something"?

Why do you choose to believe that "everyone needs something to give direction to his or her life"? Is that true for YOU?

If you need something external to give your life direction you may ASSUME that everyone needs similar direction – without knowing that is true.

Perhaps it would be useful to consider that others may be capable of engaging significantly "an ideal, a philosophy, a system of ethics, AND another person" (and many other issues) without "dedicating their life to" any one of them?

Using yourself for example, to what single issue do you "dedicate your life"? How did you come to decide to dedicate your life to whatever it is?

[theleftone]

Everyone has the same initial basis for rejecting gods they weren't indoctrinated in; they simply find no reason to believe. For example, none of us even take Zeus vaguely seriously, nor should we. We are all born passively atheistic with regard to all gods, and this is the backdrop for all else.

How do people ignorant of an idea reject it? How is the initial criteria for rejection be relevant to the present criteria for rejection?

Theists, in addition, make an exception for their chosen deity, believing it exists even though there's no more evidence than for any other. They call this arbitrary exception "faith" and pretend it constitutes a method. The embarrassing problem, of course, is that faith could have just as easily supported any other religion, so it's important for the belief system to explicitly deny the truth of other religions. This forms a fake sort of criterion for rejecting other Gods.

I want evidence to support the underlying assumptions of this argument. These assumptions are: (i) Theists are aware of more than one god when choosing to believe; and (ii) theists are aware of the lack of evidence for all gods, or the god they are choosing.

If evidence cannot be provided for these two assumptions then the above argument is nothing more than conjecture.

[Zzyzx]

.

Everyone has the same initial basis for rejecting gods they weren't indoctrinated in; they simply find no reason to believe. For example, none of us even take Zeus vaguely seriously, nor should we. We are all born passively atheistic with regard to all gods, and this is the backdrop for all else.

How do people ignorant of an idea reject it? How is the initial criteria for rejection be relevant to the present criteria for rejection?

Is active "rejection" of god concepts required to categorize one as "atheistic" OR is that an artificial constraint imposed by non-atheists? If a person "passively" does not accept god theories, what is their "designation" with these criteria?

"Find no reason to believe" is apt description and adequate reason to decline to make a decision to believe – whether initial or present.

Theists, in addition, make an exception for their chosen deity, believing it exists even though there's no more evidence than for any other. They call this arbitrary exception "faith" and pretend it constitutes a method. The embarrassing problem, of course, is that faith could have just as easily supported any other religion, so it's important for the belief system to explicitly deny the truth of other religions. This forms a fake sort of criterion for rejecting other Gods.

I want evidence to support the underlying assumptions of this argument. These assumptions are: (i) Theists are aware of more than one god when choosing to believe; and (ii) theists are aware of the lack of evidence for all gods, or the god they are choosing.

If evidence cannot be provided for these two assumptions then the above argument is nothing more than conjecture.

Can you demonstrate that the assumptions concerning existence of ANY god(s) are anything more than conjecture?

That is the base issue in debate concerning religion. Conjecture regarding supernaturalism is promoted or defended as "truth" – without evidence. Any position that cannot be (or is not) verified as truth IS conjecture.

[theleftone]

Is active "rejection" of god concepts required to categorize one as "atheistic" OR is that an artificial constraint imposed by non-atheists? If a person "passively" does not accept god theories, what is their "designation" with these criteria?

There is no active/passive rejection dichotomy. The construct of a passive rejection is illogical. Rejection is an action. Thus, to reject a god one necessarily takes action. To be a passive atheist, one must necessarily avoid all rejection and acceptance of gods. The moment a passive atheist rejects or accepts a god they cease to be a passive atheist.

Thus, to answer the questions: No. No. There is none.

The remainder of the comments and questions are irrelevant to the argument.

[Thought Criminal]

I refuse to take anymore bait.

This used to be a thread on the atmosphere of this forum. At post 105, I tried to make a point that first principles and definitions can be stated but cannot be debated rationally. I view the resulting pointless debate (on the definition of God as first principle) as support for my point.
Some people deny that definitions are arbitrary and deny that another person's ideals and first principles are equally valid to their own. Instead, they insist that there is a single "true" or "rational" set of first principles and definitions and that all others are blind in not embracing these. This completely unfounded lack of respect is IMHO a major pollutant of the atmosphere of any religious debate. I would use the term "fundamentalist" to describe this mental state, but I will not do so, out of respect for olavisjo, whose attitude is much more sensible.

I will try to answer Zzyzx' and Beto's questions in my next post, and then I will withdraw from this thread. Have a good day.

Sjoerd

So true! We should be allowed to assume anything at all as first principles. I personally assume the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the Invisible Pink Unicorn, the divine right of kings and the roundness of squares. Clearly, these are just as valid as any other set of choices, and anyone who says otherwise is a fundamentalist. Now that I've said this, we can have a free and open debate in which we run around and make animal noises instead of putting forth logical arguments. It's just as good!

TC

[theleftone]

So true! We should be allowed to assume anything at all as first principles. I personally assume the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the Invisible Pink Unicorn, the divine right of kings and the roundness of squares. Clearly, these are just as valid as any other set of choices, and anyone who says otherwise is a fundamentalist. Now that I've said this, we can have a free and open debate in which we run around and make animal noises instead of putting forth logical arguments. It's just as good!

Mockery is uncivil and emotionally based.

[Thought Criminal]

Is active "rejection" of god concepts required to categorize one as "atheistic" OR is that an artificial constraint imposed by non-atheists? If a person "passively" does not accept god theories, what is their "designation" with these criteria?

There is no active/passive rejection dichotomy. The construct of a passive rejection is illogical. Rejection is an action. Thus, to reject a god one necessarily takes action. To be a passive atheist, one must necessarily avoid all rejection and acceptance of gods. The moment a passive atheist rejects or accepts a god they cease to be a passive atheist.

Thus, to answer the questions: No. No. There is none.

The remainder of the comments and questions are irrelevant to the argument.

This isn't very complicated at all. Passive disbelief simply means lacking a belief.

No particular action is involved, past being born. We all start off without a belief in neutrons, unicorns or God. When we actively consider these ideas, we have the opportunity to accept or reject them as an action instead of a default. There are people who never hear anything about God that compels them to give the idea enough consideration to change their stance from the default of passive atheism.

TC

[Thought Criminal]

So true! We should be allowed to assume anything at all as first principles. I personally assume the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the Invisible Pink Unicorn, the divine right of kings and the roundness of squares. Clearly, these are just as valid as any other set of choices, and anyone who says otherwise is a fundamentalist. Now that I've said this, we can have a free and open debate in which we run around and make animal noises instead of putting forth logical arguments. It's just as good!

Mockery is uncivil and emotionally based.

If you think I'm factually incorrect, you should explain how making first principles arbitrary leads to anything other than the situation I have portrayed. Good luck.

TC

[theleftone]

This isn't very complicated at all. Passive disbelief simply means lacking a belief.

This is incorrect. Passive disbelief is an illogical construct. Disbelief involves action. To lack belief, be without belief, or have an absence of belief are passive because the individual is the recipient of the action. They are not doing the action themselves.

No particular action is involved, past being born. We all start off without a belief in neutrons, unicorns or God. When we actively consider these ideas, we have the opportunity to accept or reject them as an action instead of a default. There are people who never hear anything about God that compels them to give the idea enough consideration to change their stance from the default of passive atheism.

Then allow us to return to the original claim of 'more consistency.' Do atheists and theists use the same or different criteria for rejecting gods?