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]

Sorry, Daedalus, but these ideas just don't work.

I accept that I may have added a little acid to the mix but I see it a little differently.

The "acid" you have added has convinced no one, and offended many. Me, for one, and I am rather notably not easy to offend.

1. I would be glad to grab a beer with anyone of you and discuss things. I don't feel we are mortal enemies.

Nor do I; but you often express yourself in a way that implies, and rather heavily, that anyone who believes in God in any manner is worthy of contempt and mockery only. That is not conducive to debate or even civility. Who, exactly, is going to be persuaded to reconsider their beliefs and consider yours in the face of that kind of hostility?

Perhaps you should try to express yourself here more as you would if it were over that friendly beer.

2. I believe that when you have convictions, you can be passionate about them. This includes being passionately opposed to the contrary position.

That's all true, but it is not a license for verbal abuse and ridicule. If you think it is, you know less about actual, meaningful debate than the people you criticize.

3. We are about to start the school year. This means the ugly head of Religion in our schools will be raised once again - which leads me to the larger point:

These types of forums have come and gone over the years. Some lasting many years.

In all of those years, and the hundreds of years preceding in which these arguments have been made the outcome is always the same.

A person new to the debate comes in and says "I am just here to learn" and then they start the same arguments over and over again: as if Aquinas never existed. Or, that it's obvious they have never read one jot or tittle of William Lane Craig, or some other apologist - or ever read a debate between an atheist and theist.

These arguments are done. The ONLY thing that keeps them alive is that a new generation, ignorant of them, swings in with the arrogance and confidence of their parent's teachings (or their Pastors) and declares "God exists because....!"

All of these arguments have been met and rebutted.

The only reason I continue is because I believe supernaturalism is dangerous. If atheists stay quite, all those rebuttals disappear and the religious return to power. They sweep all reason under the rug and continue on their merry way.

Again, let me repeat: ALL ARGUMENTS FOR GOD HAVE BEEN REBUTTED. In fact, there are arguments against the existence of a god that have not been met by Theists.

The only reason we continue is because of new blood. A new generation must be met head-on otherwise they go on to be leaders of Congress, Judges or Voters, and even Presidents.

The logical conclusion that ought to be reached here is that you are engaged in the business of continuing education. I fail to see why that should enrage you.

You admit that you atheists are in the minority. That's a fact. Who but you, then, is going to teach people these things? Do you expect the greater society, which is overwhelmingly theistic, to do your work for you?

Doesn't it make more sense to patiently explain these things to people who don't know them, even over and over, rather than to be furious that they don't already know? "The History of Atheism" isn't a required course in any school I've ever heard of.

Like it or not, teaching that course is your job, and by coming here you have accepted it just as I have accepted the job of teaching "Basic Judaism." Stop complaining and do it.

Trust me on this one; Gentiles are even more ignorant of Judaism than theists are about arguments rebutting those for the existence of God. As I said, I have corrected the same elementary and very basic misconceptions about Judaism dozens and dozens of times here. Do I get tired of it? Sure. But at the moment, I'm the only Jew here. If I don't do it, who will?

I don't think they shouldn't be banned, don't get me wrong, I just think that we have freedom of speech and this kind of Bronze Age thinking should be met forcefully. Since I don't believe in censorship (as the religious do), I use the next social catalyst at my disposal. One that has been proven: Mockery.

We mocked people in public if they were racist or sexist and through that method we were able to push those ugly ideas into the privacy of the bigots own home.

That only could have worked after such attitudes became the majority view and something to be ashamed of. You aren't there yet, and you won't be for a long time; and that wasn't what did it anyway.

Further, if one is convinced of the rightness of one's beliefs, mockery only increases one's dedication and deepens one's convictions. In my segregated childhood, I was routinely mocked as a "niggerlover" for my refusal to condone bigotry. My position hardened; the only result was an even deeper hatred of bigotry on a personal level.

Mockery didn't even work on racists as you claim. What changed the tone of race relations in the South--and remember, I was there--was that racism became unacceptable among educated and intelligent whites. Racists weren't mocked into submission; they were disowned and marginalized, avoided with embarrassment, ostracized.

On the contrary, it was the racists who mocked the enlightened. Watch a tape or newcast of a Klan rally. They still do. Mockery has always been the weapon of the sadist and the bully, not the reformer or the teacher.

Do you think that we Jews might know a bit about mockery? Just a tiny bit?

Are we still here?

You can pretend that you mock and ridicule theists to convince them to keep their beliefs to themselves or abandon them, but I doubt very much that anybody who has read your posts is buying that line. And tell me: How is that working out for you? Seen a lot of theists abandon their faith to avoid being mocked and pilloried, have you?

As one who has been on the receiving end of it, I can tell you that the most significant effect has been a personal animosity toward you and a reluctance to consider your other arguments on the ground that they come from a hostile, unprincipled and untrustworthy source.

Ridicule and mockery have no noble Higher Purpose. They are about the inflation of one's own ego at the expense of the degradation and demeaning of others. If there was ever a case of the end not justifying the means, this is one.

This is how I view religion - specifially any religion that attempts to subvert Reason and Logic. It is also for protection of EVERYONE'S private beliefs.

Be a religionist, be a racist or misogynist - I don't care: just don't do it in the Public arena and expect for the government to support you.

So, if the discourse gets heated - I don't care. These debates are well documented. Anyone with half-an-interest can read them. Smarter people than us have worked through the logic.

To rehash them is an insult to human learning and the brain-trust our forefathers established.

No. To rehash them is to educate another generation. As I said, when atheists are in the majority and the subject is required in school, you can complain of people's ignorance. Till then, it's up to atheists like you to carry the torch. The system is not going to push people to study things that strike at its foundations.

Have you noticed that I'm arguing from an atheist point of view here? I too think that people ought to know these things, that they ought to have been studied by everyone. But this is an Internet forum open to the public, not a graduate seminar in comparative religion, and most people just haven't. Get over it and do your job like I do mine.

People who continue to bury their faces in the Bible and then come to these sites quoting it, or McDowell or C.S. Lewis are misologists of the highest degree. The fact that most Xians (or other religionists) don't even know the history of the making of the Bible is absurd to me: God comes to Earth (allegedly), you claim you believe it - but you couldn't be bothered to read up on it? To learn the original language? To know the history? Pathetic.

But keeping silent only lets the 80% of religionists push their agenda unopposed, so I must speak out. And as an atheist, 10% of the population, I use what is available: Reason, Logic and Mockery.

The first two are fine. The third is illogical, unreasoning, provably counterproductive and hurtful.

I make no excuses about being passionate about ones convictions. I don't expect others to do so. Sure, it would be nice if we had respectful debate - but how respectful is it to enter a debate when you haven't even read up on your subject? When you don't know the topic other than your warm fuzzy feelings and what your parents told you?

So not being educated and well-read to YOUR standards on subjects and authors that interest YOU is disrespectful? Well, I guess I should accuse everyone who is not familiar with Jewish history, culture and ritual, the Talmud, the Responsa, and the differences between the branches and with Christianity of disrespect, then.

Christians read Christian books, not Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens. And that is not going to change.

I find it offensive that religionists keep offering the same 12 arguments for God as if they are new and need rebuttal. It's offensive that they haven't read one debate or know the basics about the counter position (atheism).

Should I be offended that you have not read Rabbi Milton Steinberg's Basic Judaism, Rabbi Joseph Telushkin's Jewish Literacy, Abraham Joshua Heschel's God in Search of Man, or even a single elementary introduction to Judaism? Judaism for Dummies, maybe?

Did you not read those books because you did not think them worth your time or consideration?

Why would you think theists would treat atheism differently?

To me, it is these people that start the disrespectful dialogue by making a joke of the incredible thought and time that has gone into these matters.

Bah humbug!

You are basically infuriated by the fact that most theists have never come in contact with the principles and ideas of atheism.

You know what?

This forum is where that contact takes place.

If you don't like that, you should go find one with a required reading list.

[Beto]

You are basically infuriated by the fact that most theists have never come in contact with the principles and ideas of atheism.

You know what?

This forum is where that contact takes place.

If you don't like that, you should go find one with a required reading list.

You keep reiterating the idea that atheists get upset at any theist they come in contact with, that is ignorant of their arguments, and that's just not true. Most uncivil behavior from atheists in the forum is directed at members that have a solid history of dishonest debating. I very much doubt you can demonstrate a tendency to aggressive or less civilized behavior towards new theist members.

[Zzyzx]

.
I agree that there has been a change in the forum recently – but my impression is a bit different than those of others (surprise?).

Many of the "old" fundamentalist members who apparently considered themselves "superior" (sneeringly so) by virtue of their worship practices have disappeared. Their mainstays, ad hominem and insult, are not missed.

One or two of the "old" fundamentalist group who once conveyed similar attitudes toward those who worship differently, or different "gods" or who do not worship "gods" appear to be attempting to become less offensive (or more effective). It is possible that some learning has occurred.

The forum has become unbalanced in favor of "the opposition" to supernaturalism (and particularly opposition to fundamental, organized, commercial religion).

In my opinion the unbalance reflects the fact that such beliefs cannot be promoted or defended in fairly administered public debate because the basic issue is a attempt by one "side" to promote or defend their favored "gods" as being "the only true god" and worship practices as being "the way to heaven" – without any more evidence than can be provided for the other thousands of "gods" available for worship. Reason, evidence and convincing argument are NOT present to answer the question "why should I believe what you say?"

Religionists often mistake and misunderstand their opposition (or "enemy"). Recurring reference to any form of non-theism as being "Atheist" is an example of such ignorance. Another major form of ignorance of the opposition is concluding that atheism is a belief system or a form of dogma when it is actually ONLY disbelief in "gods". Mounting an argument against the "belief of atheism" is fighting non-existent enemies – not very effective.

A person who cannot distinguish between my Non-Theist position and an Atheist position is NOT capable of addressing my questions or comments effectively since they wrongly conclude that I deny the existence of "gods". In fact, I am open to consider the existence of "gods" but simply ask for evidence that one or more of the "gods" is real. The proper response is simply to supply evidence (not excuses for absence of evidence). Those who cannot supply evidence have no right to complain that I will not accept their claims.

Many seem to be offended when I refer to multiple "gods" – as though their favorite must be accepted as exclusive possessor of the title; when, in fact, there are thousands of proposed "gods" – none of which can be shown to be any more "real" than any other. Likewise, many seem offended that I refuse to accept their "holy book" as representing truth, accuracy or history. Those same people reject other "gods" and other "holy books" for the same reasons I reject theirs – lack of evidence of truth.

I have mixed feelings regarding the topic of respect. In my view respect is EARNED not assumed. Several members here, from both sides of the aisle, have earned my respect. Others have earned my disrespect. Should I show equal respect to the two groups? Must I apportion my "respect" to insure that those at the bottom receive a "welfare" amount that they have not earned?

I do, however, agree that offensive posts should not be answered but should be reported. It appears as though such reports are beginning to produce effects whereas in the past it did not seem as though reporting offensive posts accomplished anything. If the rules are fairly and consistently enforced the logical action is to refuse to respond to offensive or rule-breaking posts and to report them (which is my current practice).

[daedalus 2.0]

In the spirit of this thread: These were great responses. I think we all understand the stakes. We are talking about beliefs and what we hold dear - if not the truth we accpet (for now) then the appearance of looking moderately intelligent. Appearing to be a strong member of the human species. Or, to know that you have really explored the issue to the best of your ability.

None of us want to find out we believed something that is patently wrong and the info was available but we missed it.

cnorm, I'm love for you to work your magic on people and then you can send them to me....

What a civil discource would look like to me would be an honest attempt by two members okaying both sides of the fence,

That is, Me and cnorm, e.g.: He argues for Theism, I for Atheism. Then, he agues Atheism and I Theism. We each offer the strengths and weakness of each point. Those losing points get dropped: never to return (with a caveat),

We try to hone in on the crucial matter.

[cnorman18]

You are basically infuriated by the fact that most theists have never come in contact with the principles and ideas of atheism.

You know what?

This forum is where that contact takes place.

If you don't like that, you should go find one with a required reading list.

You keep reiterating the idea that atheists get upset at any theist they come in contact with, that is ignorant of their arguments, and that's just not true.

Once again, we are bedeviled by the fact that the English language does not distinguish between "you" singular and "you" plural.

The remarks of mine quoted here--and in fact, all my remarks in that post--were not addressed to atheists in general, but to one atheist in particular, that being Daedalus 2.0, and were based on and in response to his own words.

I have never said nor thought that all, or most, or even many atheists "get upset at any theist they come in contact with, that is ignorant of their arguments." As far as I know, that is true of only one, the one to whom my remarks were addressed.

I would guess that most atheists take the fact that non-atheists are unfamilar with atheist thought for granted.

Most uncivil behavior from atheists in the forum is directed at members that have a solid history of dishonest debating.

That is clearly and certainly true; but I would say that there are some atheists who direct a very great deal of incivility at all theists without exception. There has certainly been a good deal directed at me, and I have no such history.

I very much doubt you can demonstrate a tendency to aggressive or less civilized behavior towards new theist members.

Considering that some of the most objectionable theists here are new, I think that inaccurate; but the incivility would not be due to their newness.

I have fewer objections to rudeness directed at theists who, frankly, have it coming; that ought not happen either, but it is at least understandable. And I admit that the worst and most egregious rudeness is directed at them. If that were all, I would not have started this thread.

I am most annoyed at the rudeness, mockery, veiled insults, derision, and contempt directed at ME, as well as at other theists who patently do NOT have it coming and DO deserve respect. That is happening, and it is both futile and a falsehood to pretend that only the doctrinaire fundamentalists are getting that kind of treatment. We all are.

I hope I have now made myself clear.

[olavisjo]

A person who cannot distinguish between my Non-Theist position and an Atheist position is NOT capable of addressing my questions or comments effectively since they wrongly conclude that I deny the existence of "gods". In fact, I am open to consider the existence of "gods" but simply ask for evidence that one or more of the "gods" is real. The proper response is simply to supply evidence (not excuses for absence of evidence). Those who cannot supply evidence have no right to complain that I will not accept their claims.

I am guilty of assuming that Non-Theist and Atheist are synonyms. However, I do understand that people have many different reasons to not believe in a deity, ranging from "I never gave it much thought", to "I hate the idea of god" to "I don't see any convincing evidence" etc.
Also I feel that you hold evidence and proof as being synonymous, as there is tons of evidence for the existence of a god, granted that some is very weak at best yet still evidence, but there is no definitive proof that we can all share for now.
Also, I do not want you to accept my claims, all I ask is that you understand them, as I also desire to understand yours.

[cnorman18]

.
I agree that there has been a change in the forum recently – but my impression is a bit different than those of others (surprise?).

Many of the "old" fundamentalist members who apparently considered themselves "superior" (sneeringly so) by virtue of their worship practices have disappeared. Their mainstays, ad hominem and insult, are not missed.

I have noticed that too, and I quite agree.

One or two of the "old" fundamentalist group who once conveyed similar attitudes toward those who worship differently, or different "gods" or who do not worship "gods" appear to be attempting to become less offensive (or more effective). It is possible that some learning has occurred.

Also noted. You and I could both name one, at least, though, who has not improved at all, but only grown more adept at avoiding debate. .

The forum has become unbalanced in favor of "the opposition" to supernaturalism (and particularly opposition to fundamental, organized, commercial religion).

I don't know if that's true in terms of sheer numbers, but certainly in terms of the intellectual power of their posts, it is.

In my opinion the unbalance reflects the fact that such beliefs cannot be promoted or defended in fairly administered public debate because the basic issue is a attempt by one "side" to promote or defend their favored "gods" as being "the only true god" and worship practices as being "the way to heaven" – without any more evidence than can be provided for the other thousands of "gods" available for worship. Reason, evidence and convincing argument are NOT present to answer the question "why should I believe what you say?"

Well, I would say that there are few if any here that are up to that task, anyway. As we've noted before, the theists on Internet forums tend to be very heavily weighted toward fundamentalism, while the more liberal mainstream Christians are in short supply.

As for Jews--well, there's me, and I don't claim to be able to prove anything, Heaven and Hell aren't on my playlist, either, and I don't think the content of one's beliefs is all that important anyway.

I sometimes feel like the only duck who showed up at a cockfight.

Religionists often mistake and misunderstand their opposition (or "enemy"). Recurring reference to any form of non-theism as being "Atheist" is an example of such ignorance.

I am as guilty of that as anyone, and I apologize again. "Atheist" has become shorthand for all atheist, non-theist and agnostic positions here, and that is both inaccurate and unfair.

I can identify. I am endlessly annoyed at the fact, unavoidable though it may be, that I am routinely lumped in with "theists" as if we were all the same--especially since there is not a single "theist" here who shares my beliefs to any significant degree.

Another major form of ignorance of the opposition is concluding that atheism is a belief system or a form of dogma when it is actually ONLY disbelief in "gods". Mounting an argument against the "belief of atheism" is fighting non-existent enemies – not very effective.

I think there are varieties of atheism that are beginning to have their own kinds of dogmas, especially among the more militant types. Denial of anything nonmaterial and of the possibility of any such realm at all, for a start. The apparently short-lived "noncognitivism" fad might be another example. These may signify nothing more than people who happen to have read the same books, but similarities in the statements and positions of different members are becoming more noticeable.

In general, though, you are correct. There are no "doctrines" common to all atheists and nontheists.

A person who cannot distinguish between my Non-Theist position and an Atheist position is NOT capable of addressing my questions or comments effectively since they wrongly conclude that I deny the existence of "gods". In fact, I am open to consider the existence of "gods" but simply ask for evidence that one or more of the "gods" is real. The proper response is simply to supply evidence (not excuses for absence of evidence). Those who cannot supply evidence have no right to complain that I will not accept their claims.

That seems wholly fair.

Many seem to be offended when I refer to multiple "gods" – as though their favorite must be accepted as exclusive possessor of the title; when, in fact, there are thousands of proposed "gods" – none of which can be shown to be any more "real" than any other.

I haven't seen that myself, but then I don't hang out on threads that are exclusively addressed to Christians or concerned with Christianity.

For my part, it's hard for me to understand how one can attribute disrespect of God to someone who doesn't believe in Him. To be an intentional blasphemer, you would first have to believe there is something to blaspheme.

Likewise, many seem offended that I refuse to accept their "holy book" as representing truth, accuracy or history. Those same people reject other "gods" and other "holy books" for the same reasons I reject theirs – lack of evidence of truth.

Or sheer dogmatism. Or just habit, or, most likely of all, they just haven't considered them, which I don't think anyone is obligated to do.

It is strange to me how anyone can seriously present Scripture as proof to someone who doesn't believe in it and expect it to be accepted. Of course, people keep trying to tell me that Paul spoke the truth about Judaism and the Law when I am a Jew and I know better. That's like telling someone that his car is a Chevy when it's actually a Ford--and while he's sitting in it.

I have mixed feelings regarding the topic of respect. In my view respect is EARNED not assumed. Several members here, from both sides of the aisle, have earned my respect. Others have earned my disrespect. Should I show equal respect to the two groups? Must I apportion my "respect" to insure that those at the bottom receive a "welfare" amount that they have not earned?

I am not concerned so much with the amount of respect one feels as the amount one exhibits; and as I tried to make clear a moment ago, rudeness directed at members who patently have it coming is not what annoys me anyway. They bring those problems on themselves. It is the general disdain and contempt directed at ALL theists by some members that I find problematic.

There's a "dogma," if you like; the idea that anyone who believes in God in any form or fashion is ipso facto mentally defective, aka "irrational," as in "you don't know how to think and I do." Not all the atheists and non-theists here are doing that, but their number is growing, and I find that troubling. To me, that's no more legitimate than a fundamentalist claiming that he is spiritually wise and discerning while you are obtuse and blind.

If we're going to talk about undebatable claims, how does one debate the contention that one's brain doesn't work unless one agrees with one's opponent? How can that be falsified?

Whatever happened to "I disagree"? Does it really have to be, "I disagree, and you and anyone who thinks like you is a moron"?

I do, however, agree that offensive posts should not be answered but should be reported. It appears as though such reports are beginning to produce effects whereas in the past it did not seem as though reporting offensive posts accomplished anything. If the rules are fairly and consistently enforced the logical action is to refuse to respond to offensive or rule-breaking posts and to report them (which is my current practice).

And we end on another note of agreement. Those posters who are most justly flamed ought not be flamed, only reported. May that become common practice here. I have already reported a half-dozen posts on this very thread for being wildly offtopic. We'll see what happens.

[Zzyzx]

.

A person who cannot distinguish between my Non-Theist position and an Atheist position is NOT capable of addressing my questions or comments effectively since they wrongly conclude that I deny the existence of "gods". In fact, I am open to consider the existence of "gods" but simply ask for evidence that one or more of the "gods" is real. The proper response is simply to supply evidence (not excuses for absence of evidence). Those who cannot supply evidence have no right to complain that I will not accept their claims.

I am guilty of assuming that Non-Theist and Atheist are synonyms.

Now that you may realize a difference, how do you address someone who is open to the idea of supernaturalism provided that evidence can be presented?

However, I do understand that people have many different reasons to not believe in a deity, ranging from "I never gave it much thought", to "I hate the idea of god" to "I don't see any convincing evidence" etc.

How do you address comments to the latter position?

Also I feel that you hold evidence and proof as being synonymous, as there is tons of evidence for the existence of a god, granted that some is very weak at best yet still evidence, but there is no definitive proof that we can all share for now.

Kindly bring forth the "tons" of evidence for the existence of gods.

I acknowledge that there is a difference in what is accepted as evidence. I studied and taught in scientific fields wherein the standard of evidence is relatively high. Therefore, I do not regard hearsay, opinion, fable, or unverified tales as evidence. Do you accept such things as evidence to support god theories that differ from yours?

My Aunt Rose might have thought she saw an "angel" – but her story is NOT evidence. Even though she may have firmly believed that she saw such a thing, there are many alternative explanations that have not been eliminated. Testimonials may be regarded as "evidence" or "weak evidence" by some, but I am not compelled to consider them evidence at all.

Likewise, stories in a work of fiction may be regarded as "evidence" or "weak evidence" by some (but again I am not required to assume that position). Stories in a "holy book" are the same. Many supposed "holy books" claim different things for different gods. Are they all to be regarded as "evidence" that the supposed "gods" exist?

If the standards of what is accepted as "evidence" are set low enough, anything including personal opinion and conjecture can be considered "evidence". I do not agree with such standards. Likewise, I do not regard argumentum ad populum as being a valid argument.

Also, I do not want you to accept my claims, all I ask is that you understand them, as I also desire to understand yours.

What claim(s) do you request that I understand?

Do you want me to "understand" a claim that a dead body came back to life (as many Christians request since the "resurrection" is fundamental to their faith)? If so, please note that I have researched the decay processes that occur in a dead body, and regard death as irreversible. What is it that I should "understand" about a claim that is directly contrary to what we know occurs to a dead body?

Regarding your mention of understanding my claims: Notice that I make very few, if any, claims regarding the subject of supernaturalism. I may state an OPINION but do not claim knowledge of "gods" or other invisible, undetectable beings. I do not know whether "gods" exist or what constitutes a "god" – nor, apparently does anyone else (though many seem to think they know – but are unable to convey their theories effectively to non-believers or skeptical people).

I do not state that "gods" are imaginary or that they are created in the image of man -- even though those seem to me to be the most likely explanation. Some sort of supernatural being may exist. It may be very different from what religionists envision. I do not know how the universe originated or how life began. I do not make up stories to "explain" what I do not know.

What about my position might you seek to understand?

[Zzyzx]

.

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.

"Heavy persecution of Christians"?

Are you saying that Christians, particularly fundamentalists, cannot hold their own in these debates? I agree.

The "persecution" is nothing more than challenge to fanciful ideas that cannot be defended with reasoning and evidence. Of course, "faith" and emotion are not adequate basis for debate – and notice this is a DEBATE site. Those who cannot support their positions become uncomfortable and go away.

The site is very fairly administered and moderated. That is a disadvantage to Christians who may be more accustomed to a "friendly" (unchallenging) environment in which sermons and "scriptures" are not questioned.

Now that those oppressors have their former estate upset they complain.

Imagination is a wonderful thing. It may be worthy of note that swords don't prevail in gunfights – and that gladiators are no longer in high regard or demand.

Why were the Christians left to the whims of their enemies so long and without remedy?

Everyone here is equally open to challenge. Those who cannot defend their positions often feel as though they deserve "protection". They may be more comfortable in Holy Huddle where opposition views are not permitted.

Why does one post in a debate site if they dislike being challenged or opposed?

It appears to me the bullies in the schoolyard have become a bit threatened through advancement of knowledge they are not used to.

"Advancement of knowledge"? When will that happen?

[olavisjo]

I have already reported a half-dozen posts on this very thread for being wildly off topic. We'll see what happens.

Staying on topic is not something that comes naturally to me, I will work on that.
Looking back I have posted 4 times in this thread and three are off topic (post 23,25,36) so I would be responsible for half of the six that you have reported.

Kindly bring forth the "tons" of evidence for the existence of gods.

So that I do not become the clear majority of off topic posts let's take this discussion here, Why do you believe in God? ,it will be a big enough umbrella to cover some of this alleged evidence.