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]

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.

Did you use the swords gunfight analogy because you were responding to a member who has sword in his name? Or are you saying that the Bronze Age thinkers can't stand up to the challenges of the Technological Age thinkers?
If I were to say something similar to you, would you be offended?

[otseng]

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

We were wondering why those posts were reported.

Being on topic is primarily for debate threads. Discussion threads are generally allowed to be off topic. However, debating within discussion threads are generally not allowed and should be done within the debate subforums.

[otseng]

I'm also moving this thread to general chat.

[Cephus]

I honestly see the problem being caused by many theists assuming that religion, simply because it is religion, deserves a measure of automatic respect and reverence that we simply do not give to any other aspect of life. There is no other area of human debate, be it politics or philosophy or music or movie tastes, where people demand that not only is their right to believe as they wish valid, but the beliefs themselves are automatically assumed to be valid. A Democrat, debating a Republican, can't say "you have to accept that my position is true or you're being mean to me!" yet that's exactly what many theists here do.

Like it or not, religion is not a sacred cow. It doesn't get special rights and priviledges. There is quite a difference between respecting your right to believe what you want to believe and demanding that we respect your actual beliefs. Edgar Mitchell has every right to believe in aliens and UFOs and I respect his right to do so. However, the belief itself is absolutely idiotic. The reason it's idiotic is because it has never been demonstrated to be rational, there has been no evidence, no logic, no rationality, it's simply an assertion based on nothing but his say-so and as such, any rational, reasonable individual must reject it as being unsupported. The same goes for beliefs about Bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster, unicorns, pixies and honest politicians. And yes, the same goes for God. Until theists manage to actually back God's factual existence up with something beyond empty claims, there is no reason for a rational person to accept God's factual existence, no matter how much theists wish it were otherwise.

Further, you have a lot of theists who are utterly unable to separate their own self-image from their beliefs. If someone challenges their beliefs, they take it as a personal attack upon themselves. I would certainly hope there is no one older than a teenager who holds the position that if you don't like their favorite band, you must hate them as a person, but that's exactly the kind of attitude we see coming from otherwise mature adult theists. If you cannot draw a distinction between the two, I'll tell you right now that you have a very unhealthy self-concept and need help. Religion is not special, you don't get to make separate rules for how you view supernatural beliefs.

To sum up, your beliefs aren't magically special nor do they automatically deserve respect. Respect is earned, not simply granted by demand or decree. If you want your beliefs to be respected, you need to demonstrate that they are valid, true and worthwhile, not just to you, but in general terms. Don't simply assert that they are true, demonstrate it. Back it up with objective evidence, solid reasoning and logic. If you can't, don't enter into a debate. That's what we see around here more often than not, simple assertion and demanded respect and as soon as someone questions the validity of the belief, you see "waaaah, you're not respecting me!"

Life doesn't work that way.

[olavisjo]

Edgar Mitchell has every right to believe in aliens and UFOs and I respect his right to do so. However, the belief itself is absolutely idiotic. The reason it's idiotic is because it has never been demonstrated to be rational, there has been no evidence, no logic, no rationality, it's simply an assertion based on nothing but his say-so and as such, any rational, reasonable individual must reject it as being unsupported. The same goes for beliefs about Bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster, unicorns, pixies and honest politicians. And yes, the same goes for God. Until theists manage to actually back God's factual existence up with something beyond empty claims, there is no reason for a rational person to accept God's factual existence, no matter how much theists wish it were otherwise.

I don't believe in UFOs, because they do not fit my Biblical world view, but I would never say that life could not have evolved on a distant planet, and that life could not have found a way to transport itself here.
As for Bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster, unicorns, pixies and honest politicians. They are not entirely myth, a horse with a single horn is not ruled out by biological evolution, and there is always Jimmy Carter.

To sum up, your beliefs aren't magically special nor do they automatically deserve respect. Respect is earned, not simply granted by demand or decree. If you want your beliefs to be respected, you need to demonstrate that they are valid, true and worthwhile, not just to you, but in general terms. Don't simply assert that they are true, demonstrate it. Back it up with objective evidence, solid reasoning and logic. If you can't, don't enter into a debate. That's what we see around here more often than not, simple assertion and demanded respect and as soon as someone questions the validity of the belief, you see "waaaah, you're not respecting me!"

I don't really see the Christians asking for respect around here, I do see them not giving as much respect as they should though, as an excuse I will say that we are a work in progress and hopefully we will get there sooner than later.

[Word_Swordsman]

To sum up, your beliefs aren't magically special nor do they automatically deserve respect. Respect is earned, not simply granted by demand or decree. If you want your beliefs to be respected, you need to demonstrate that they are valid, true and worthwhile, not just to you, but in general terms. Don't simply assert that they are true, demonstrate it. Back it up with objective evidence, solid reasoning and logic. If you can't, don't enter into a debate. That's what we see around here more often than not, simple assertion and demanded respect and as soon as someone questions the validity of the belief, you see "waaaah, you're not respecting me!"

Life doesn't work that way.

I have had to commit to secular universities for many years to further my former career objectives, the institutions chosen and paid for by the US government as part of a required continuing education program to keep professionals on top of their fields. In many of the courses I found myself having to make a choice whether to stand up for my convictions when the inevitable subject of the Bible came up, or to sit back in silence. The problem was "intellectual bigotry" or "intellectual snobbery", which precludes any form of true debate. Non-theists revel in identifying a "Fundie Christian" in their midst, their primary answer being one of rebuff, not on the issue of content, but on the basis of the carrying of a label. The argument centers on their perception of rightness based on their personal beliefs, while the personal beliefs of the "Fundie" should be rejected from the outset since the non-theists already "know" what "Fundies" believe. Professors have the floor and demand a certain format in discussions. I always chose to speak up, sometimes to the losing of a grade. Typical is a professor that meets any belief in the Bible as being a belief not admissible in his or her classroom. It's always with them a matter of "prove that" when much of what they teach is unsupportable, being a lot of personal opinions.

All this is similar to the debate on whether America ought to sacrifice energy independence and continue to rely on foreign powers (that we could go to war against) for a supply of "efficient" energy, liberals insisting on not tapping national sources for the sake of the environment, while accepting great damage to the world environment in the process of buying energy from nations that pollute the world's atmosphere. The data is plentiful, so it seems there is no reason for any debate on that subject, but it continues.

Here we have people that simply believe the Bible, with verses that do stand as references to "a knowledge" I consider higher than any other set of facts. No man can refute that knowledge as false, but only disagreeable to them, perhaps because some scholar in the past opposed that knowledge without satisfying the bulk of his peers. No scientist today would retain respect if not satisfying the bulk of his peers in "peer review" processes. No science scholar is considered with respect that ignores the majority of peers, those peers wanting to evaluate the empirical evidences behind an hypothesis. The typical response is derision, name-calling, and other forms of snobbery, with no debate whatsoever. Much of what is revealed there of an invisible God is simply dismissed as folly without a single point of evidence to the contrary. Geophysicists abound that have opinions on the state of the world's total aquifer (or the top causes of global warming), yet none can certify they are 100% right about the facts that are available. Much of what they believe is presumption, guesswork, hypotheses galore, to the possible demise of modern civilization if the majority proves wrong. Yet when it comes to religion most will dismiss it all as folly, yet standing on as good if not better grounds than what they operate on.

What I see in all theist v. non-theist forums is a continuation of a demand by non theists for theists to prove, using empirical evidence, something like matters of science that cannot yet be proved with empirical evidence to the satisfaction of all the users of a collective mass of data. I would submit it is technically impossible to properly debate either side except by citation of facts on either side, listeners left to decide. The decisions would be on a purely mental level, a spiritually inspired level, or a combination of those.

As to "debate" here, if I base my personal beliefs on scriptures, how is it that debate is happening by opponents merely deriding the source? True debate ought to involve either:

1. Proving a source to be a forgery without simply citing someone who wrote it is that, showing some believable fact that disputes the validity of the source.
2. Proving the source is being used in an unscholarly manner within the context of the source. The source used in a debate must be admitted unless, as in a court of law testimony, proved to be inadmissible on the basis of proved ineligibility.

If we were debating energy we could see actual debate using empirical evidence on both all sides. I submit there is no empirical evidence available to atheists concerning the efficacy of any religious beliefs unless said religion is of recent origins and sufficient historical records adequately dismiss claims of the formers of said religion.

It seems to me that if there is to be any debate whatsoever of a non-theist challenging a theist, the non-theist is the one holding the bag of refutation on the basis of #1 or #2 above, avoiding unscholarly responses that add nothing at all to a debate, but serve to sentence the unscholarly opponent to be deemed without any worthy argument.

[Cephus]

I don't believe in UFOs, because they do not fit my Biblical world view, but I would never say that life could not have evolved on a distant planet, and that life could not have found a way to transport itself here.
As for Bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster, unicorns, pixies and honest politicians. They are not entirely myth, a horse with a single horn is not ruled out by biological evolution, and there is always Jimmy Carter.

No offense or anything, but logically that's kind of a silly reason to reject UFOs. It's no more rational than saying "I don't believe in God because he doesn't fit my extraterrestrial worldview". But then again, both are silly. A rational person does not accept anything for which sufficient evidence or logical reason does not exist.

And for the sake of argument, a horse with a single horn does not a unicorn make, the horn has to be magical and the unicorn can only be riden by virgins.

I don't really see the Christians asking for respect around here, I do see them not giving as much respect as they should though, as an excuse I will say that we are a work in progress and hopefully we will get there sooner than later.

Sorry to say it, but you're not really looking then. I see it constantly, theists (and I don't limit it just to Christians) who seem to think that religious belief is somehow special and deserving of special treatment.

[olavisjo]

A rational person does not accept anything for which sufficient evidence or logical reason does not exist.

I do not claim to be a rational person, I claim that even God's foolishness is more rational than any man can be rational.

I don't really see the Christians asking for respect around here, I do see them not giving as much respect as they should though, as an excuse I will say that we are a work in progress and hopefully we will get there sooner than later.

Sorry to say it, but you're not really looking then. I see it constantly, theists (and I don't limit it just to Christians) who seem to think that religious belief is somehow special and deserving of special treatment.

Would you PM some names to me? Or would that be a problem?

[McCulloch]

I do not claim to be a rational person, I claim that even God's foolishness is more rational than any man can be rational.

Why are you on a debating site? How can you debate if you have abandoned even the pretense of being rational?

[Cephus]

I have had to commit to secular universities for many years to further my former career objectives, the institutions chosen and paid for by the US government as part of a required continuing education program to keep professionals on top of their fields. In many of the courses I found myself having to make a choice whether to stand up for my convictions when the inevitable subject of the Bible came up, or to sit back in silence.

The problem is that convictions don't make one's beliefs true. Faith is not a substitute for evidence and once you start evaluating the Bible based on the evidence, you find that it doesn't fare well. Faith and facts are not equivalent, they do not have equal worth or validity. That crazy guy on the street corner who thinks he's Napoleon is wrong, period. It doesn't matter how strong his faith is that he's Napoleon, faith doesn't change reality, he's simply mistaken and likely insane to boot. You don't just leave him on the street corner to revel in his delusion, you correct him and you help him to understand why he's wrong (and probably help him to get anti-psychotic medications as well). Whether or not he's happier believing he's Napoleon is irrelevant, he simply isn't.

The problem was "intellectual bigotry" or "intellectual snobbery", which precludes any form of true debate.

No, there's no "intellectual bigotry" involved, there's simply facts and evidence and logic. The Bible cannot survive even a cursory evaluation by anyone looking at it rationally, it simply makes claims that are unsupportable by evidence and logic, just like every so-called "holy book" does. Faith, no matter how strong, cannot make a fact out of a fantasy.

Typical is a professor that meets any belief in the Bible as being a belief not admissible in his or her classroom.

While I cannot speak for individual situations or professors, I'd venture to say that it wasn't the belief in the Bible, but the irrational and unsupported faith therein and the failure to adequately support your claims with demonstrable evidence that caused the loss of grades. I'd be willing to wager that someone who stood up and said the same kinds of things about Bigfoot or aliens or unicorns without supporting their claims would likewise lose grade points, as well they should. Unfortunately for you, religion isn't a sacred cow, it doesn't get special privileges. If it's unsupported by evidence and in defiance of logic, it's not worth believing.

All this is similar to the debate on whether America ought to sacrifice energy independence and continue to rely on foreign powers (that we could go to war against) for a supply of "efficient" energy, liberals insisting on not tapping national sources for the sake of the environment, while accepting great damage to the world environment in the process of buying energy from nations that pollute the world's atmosphere. The data is plentiful, so it seems there is no reason for any debate on that subject, but it continues.

Anyone who cannot provide data to support their claims doesn't have a good argument. Pointing to other people who are doing it wrong also doesn't give you license to do it wrong.

Here we have people that simply believe the Bible, with verses that do stand as references to "a knowledge" I consider higher than any other set of facts.

It's not "knowledge", it's faith. Knowledge requires a basis in reality and an ability to demonstrate that the knowledge is factually true and valid. Simply asserting, without evidence, that your beliefs are true doesn't prove they are, it only proves that you believe them. There are people out there who strongly believe that gray-skinned aliens called Raelians control the government and rule the world. They have no evidence to back up their claims, they only have faith. There is no reason whatsoever to take their claims seriously, any more than there is reason to take yours seriously. Fundamentally, there is no difference between faith in God and faith in Raelians.

No man can refute that knowledge as false, but only disagreeable to them, perhaps because some scholar in the past opposed that knowledge without satisfying the bulk of his peers.

If you were talking about knowledge, you certainly could refute or confirm it, but again, you're talking about blind faith without a shred of objective evidence to support it.

What I see in all theist v. non-theist forums is a continuation of a demand by non theists for theists to prove, using empirical evidence, something like matters of science that cannot yet be proved with empirical evidence to the satisfaction of all the users of a collective mass of data.

Then you're obviously not paying attention. We ask that if you're going to make a claim, you back it up. I'll agree with you, there are a lot of global-warming fanatics who are operating on faith and little more and in fact, their beliefs should be discounted and discarded as unsupported twaddle. You do have scientists working with what evidence we have available to draw conclusions and most of them are perfectly willing to change their minds as better information comes along. That's not how religion works however, you have nothing to show for yourself except an ancient book of mythology, which you insist is true, while at the same time, discarding all other ancient books of mythology as false.

Sure, that makes logical sense.