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.

[Word_Swordsman]

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.

Never once has anyone in a classroom or in a debate forum posed empirical proofs the claims of the bible are wrong. Such claims against validity of the Bible are merely opinions. Saying something is not true doesn't make it untrue. Such responses to claims ruled throughout history resulting in the killing of many people with beliefs nobody can prove untrue, by people believing their negative beliefs were the truth. Rationality is not a science, not a set of absolutes all must follow, but is subject to the topic matter.

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.

I've had many instances of Bible faith work for me, but non-theists persist in not believing any claims unless there's proof. Well, in a court of law many first hand witnesses can give testimony of something seen or experienced toward a conviction for a crime, yet none can produce empirical proofs. Testimony alone is admissible in a court of law, a jury allowed to take into consideration words alone. Atheists insisting on their testimonies of things not seen or experienced are irrational testimonies, having no corroborative testimonies of an event to support their negative claims.

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.

Many facts of science have been proposed as valid accompanied by supportive data, used as the basis for a strongly held belief among other scientists sometimes for centuries. Often the data remains unchanged, but some hypotheses of scientists have been proved in error. Therefore, after the fact, the scientist who concluded wrongly had no "good argument" but it was a "good argument" when proposed? Saying "that is the nature of science" would not be rational in that case. Instead truth tellers should admit nobody has a license on reason, logic, knowledge, or any other area of human intelligence since anything believed is subject to being disproved.

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.

Since no man can adequately refute the knowledge contained in the Bible, none can deny the knowledge of it. You have no empirical facts against that knowledge. Most opponents of Bible knowledge tend to resort to ridicule and simple denials, having no real reasoning or logic to oppose with. Even dead-end runs in scientific research becomes knowledge of what doesn't work. You seem to put "knowledge" into a very small box. It's a broad subject.

There is nothing about non-theism that can be demonstrated empirically either. It is belief versus belief. A non-theist can't demonstrate his negative beliefs except in words, while I have under my belt many events many friends and family have witnessed that indicate my acting on faith in God resulted in the desired outcome. I'd rather listen to a man who says he done seen something he saw than to one who hasn't seen it.

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.

These forums don't afford a way to prove what a group of people see on a regular basis. All I could do is collect some affidavits to post here, but I doubt all that work would be accepted as proof. I find it interesting atheists don't tend to go to the places where God works among people. I've seen major miracles but no journalists showed up to record them. They are biased not to follow up on such reports, or if showing up dismiss such events as staged. I've had several personal miracles as a result of hundreds of people praying for me. A typical response in a forum like this would not be like a reply a court of law would allow.

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 ask of non-theists some believable support for their blanket rejection of theist testimonies, but that doesn't happen. Do you personally believe Plato actually existed as written of? If you believe it, why? Can you prove your belief? Will you cite many ancient writings prove it? Where is the empirical proof Plato was not an imaginary figure? There are millions of people believing he existed.

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.

You are entitled to your own unsupported beliefs, failing to prove anything you wrote.

[Word_Swordsman]

The salient point here is that debate can and ought to be carried out without resort to veiled or implied personal attack, insult, or mockery, as it has been here.

The problem comes in when the theist, after having their claims soundly disproven, simply ignores that and keeps making the same claims over and over and over again because their faith demands it of them. After spending a long time debating a brick wall who keeps claiming victory dishonestly, it's a matter of frustration that leads one to insult those who will not pay attention to reason.

If you're looking for the cause of insults, look to the theist side, I rarely ever see atheists leading off that way, only ending up that way.

I agree some theists have written stuff not supported in the Bible, which are easily disproved. I've dealt with some of those here. However, I don't believe it is accurate to say that is a major problems here. It works both ways, some non-theists caught in irrationality and unsupported claims who persist in promoting disinformation.

[olavisjo]

The problem comes in when the theist, after having their claims soundly disproven, simply ignores that and keeps making the same claims over and over and over again because their faith demands it of them. After spending a long time debating a brick wall who keeps claiming victory dishonestly...

I have claimed victory arround here on occasion, but I have noticed that claim of victory is not respected anymore than any of my other claims.
It seems that victory can not be claimed here, but one must just sit back and wait for it to be given by others, especially those we consider opponents.

[cnorman18]

The salient point here is that debate can and ought to be carried out without resort to veiled or implied personal attack, insult, or mockery, as it has been here.

The problem comes in when the theist, after having their claims soundly disproven, simply ignores that and keeps making the same claims over and over and over again because their faith demands it of them. After spending a long time debating a brick wall who keeps claiming victory dishonestly, it's a matter of frustration that leads one to insult those who will not pay attention to reason.

If you're looking for the cause of insults, look to the theist side, I rarely ever see atheists leading off that way, only ending up that way.

I would agree, but in a significantly larger sense.

I think that fundamentalist attitudes and approaches are so common here that it is often assumed that there are no other kinds of theists around. I know that I have very often been accused, explicitly and implicitly, of holding such views when I patently don't.

I take no offense; the error is certainly understandable, and I usually try to correct it without rancor. I think it's my job here to educate people about modern Judaism, as opposed to proselytizing for it.

But; I have also often found that the contempt toward fundamentalism, which may or may not be deserved (and I admit I share that contempt and have often expressed it, perhaps inappropriately) is very often extended to all theists of any variety whatever, and I think that is simply wrong.

I do not accept the thesis that rudeness, implied insults, personal disdain and general disrespect is only being directed at theists who violate the rules of civil debate and have it coming. All of those have often, and even routinely, been directed at me.

[McCulloch]

I have claimed victory around here on occasion, but I have noticed that claim of victory is not respected anymore than any of my other claims.
It seems that victory can not be claimed here, but one must just sit back and wait for it to be given by others, especially those we consider opponents.

What is the point of claiming victory?
Most of us believe that our arguments are compelling and persuasive, or we would not make them. Most of us believe that the arguments made against us are in some ways flawed, or else we would change our point of view.
How then to determine victory? Clearly a self-claim by one of the participants is not suitable. We have no unbiased, impartial adjudicators. Your opponent conceding defeat, is a good way, but as you point out, this is not always going to happen.
Suggested criteria for determining victory:

1. Opponents resort to ad hominem attacks rather than debate.
2. Opponents drop the debate without refuting your arguments.
3. First one to invoke Hitler automatically loses
4. Opponents make 20 or more posts which are off-topic.

[Cephus]

Never once has anyone in a classroom or in a debate forum posed empirical proofs the claims of the bible are wrong.

Wrong.

We can absolutely prove that the creation story in the Bible never happened.

Further, we can absolutely prove that the flood story in the Bible never happened. Heck, we can demonstrate that many of the stories of Noah came from Hindu sources, including the names of his three sons, taken from the Hindu Matsya Purana, including this story that appears almost verbatim in the Bible:

To Satyavarman, that sovereign of the whole earth, were born three sons: the eldest Shem; then Sham; and thirdly, Jyapeti by name.

They were all men of good morals, excellent invirtue and virtuous deeds, skilled in the use of weapons to strike with, or to be thrown; brave men, eager for victory in battle.

But Satyavarman, being continually delighted with devout meditation, and seeing his sons fit for dominuion, laid upon them the burdens of government.

Whilst he remained honouring and satisfying the gods, and priests, and kine, one day, by the act of destiny, the king, having drunk mead

Became senseless and lay asleep naked. Then, was he seen by Sham, and by him were his two brothers called:

To whom he said, "What now has befallen? In what state is this our sire?" By these two he was hidden with clothes, and called to his senses again and again.

Having recovered his intellect, and perfectly knowing what had passed, he cursed Sham, saying, "Thou shalt be the servant of servants."

And since thou wast a laugher in their presence, from laughter thou shalt acquire a name. Then he gave Sham the wide domain on the south of the snowy mountains.

And to Jyapeti he gave all on the north of the snowy mountains; but he, by the power of religious contemplation, attained supreme bliss.

In fact, we can absolutely prove that a lot of the stories in the Old Testament were adapted from older mythologies from surrounding cultures that existed long before the Hebrews were a distinct sect.

The real fact, however, is that never once has anyone posed empirical proofs that the supernatural claims of the Bible are factually true. Why don't you give it a shot?

I've had many instances of Bible faith work for me, but non-theists persist in not believing any claims unless there's proof.

Having faith "work for you" has about as much meaning as having astrology "work for believers" or wishful thinking "work for believers". You're taking a subjective view on the effectiveness of a belief system but you cannot demonstrate that it's the belief system that is actually doing anything for you. It's like waving a magic wand in the morning and saying "I don't want to get run over by a car today" and then crediting the wand-waving for your surviving the day.

Since no man can adequately refute the knowledge contained in the Bible, none can deny the knowledge of it.

Except that I already have, you mean.

You have no empirical facts against that knowledge.

Except that I already proved you wrong.

A non-theist can't demonstrate his negative beliefs except in words, while I have under my belt many events many friends and family have witnessed that indicate my acting on faith in God resulted in the desired outcome. I'd rather listen to a man who says he done seen something he saw than to one who hasn't seen it.

But non-theism isn't a belief, it's a rejection of an unwarranted belief system based on a complete lack of corroboratory evidence. It's like the guy who thinks he can jump off the top of a building, flap his arms and fly claiming that those who think he's wrong have "faith". In the past 2000 years, not one theist has ever demonstrated that their beliefs are valid and true, not a single one. Until you manage it, then you've got no credibility that anyone needs to have "faith" against.

These forums don't afford a way to prove what a group of people see on a regular basis.

No one mentioned these forums as the sole method of demonstrating validity. Theists have completely failed to prove their case in *EVERY* capacity and *EVERY* form since the origin of theism.

I find it interesting atheists don't tend to go to the places where God works among people.

Sure they do and have for centuries, they just don't actually see anything happening because nothing is happening. Instead, you find perfectly normal, natural events which theists blindly claim are supernatural in origin. One example I often use are Christians who get into automobile accidents and credit God with saving their life, completely ignoring the paramedics, ambulance drivers, doctors, nurses and advanced medical technology that actually did it. It's like the sports team that credits God for winning the game but never says "Jesus made me fumble the ball".

I've seen major miracles but no journalists showed up to record them.

Wow, you can schedule your miracles and invite journalists. If that's true, I'd be more than happy to pass on information on how you can have your so-called miracles scientifically tested. I predict you'll decline the opportunity.

I ask of non-theists some believable support for their blanket rejection of theist testimonies, but that doesn't happen.

Because testimony doesn't prove anything. I can find plenty of people who claim to talk to God, Allah, Vishnu and a host of other gods. Are they all right? How about people who see Bigfoot, aliens, ghosts and the Loch Ness Monster? Are they telling the truth? Do these things factually exist or are they simply mistaking real events for supernatural events? The reality is, you don't take testimony seriously either, you only believe the ones that happen to agree with your own personal religious philosophy and reject anything else.

Do you personally believe Plato actually existed as written of?

It's really irrelevant, it doesn't affect me if Plato existed or not.

There are millions of people believing he existed.

Millions of people's beliefs don't affect reality. Either Plato was real or he wasn't, it's irrelevant how many people believe it either way. If there were groups of Platoians running around telling me that Plato was the savior of the planet, I'd be asking them to back it up, just like I ask Christians to back it up.

I suspect both groups would fail.

You are entitled to your own unsupported beliefs, failing to prove anything you wrote.

Except that I didn't. But I suspect you'll ignore that.

[theleftone]

I don't have the time to engage much, but wanted to drop in a little tidbit from Mortimer Adler with some of my own comments to follow.

The second condition or prerequisite for good discussion is that right motive must prevail. The purpose we have in carrying on our conversation must be to learn, really a deep, serious purpose to learn, not just to pass the time in idle chitchat or small talk. And if big talk happens to develop and persons get engaged in serious discussion of serious themes, then their aim must be, as they carry it on, to get at the truth, not to win the argument.

We have failed when a discussion turns into a competition. We have abandoned the purpose of debate. We should want to learn. We should want to know the truth. We should be mature, civil, and humble. If humanity is to progress, we must cherish and defend these values. To abandon these values should be considered immoral, and possibly a crime against humanity.

[Cephus]

I think that fundamentalist attitudes and approaches are so common here that it is often assumed that there are no other kinds of theists around. I know that I have very often been accused, explicitly and implicitly, of holding such views when I patently don't.

Which is fine, but the fact that fundamentalist attitudes and beliefs are outlandishly ludicrous doesn't make less outlandish beliefs any more valid. Pointing at a group of people and saying "they believe in a magic forest, I only believe in a magic tree, therefore my beliefs are better than their beliefs" doesn't make it so. Just because fundamentalism is a bigger and easier target doesn't mean it should be the only target. Irrational, unsupported beliefs should be decried no matter how large or small they may be.

I think it's my job here to educate people about modern Judaism, as opposed to proselytizing for it.

Unfortunately, you're on a debate forum where actually challenging claims is part and parcel of daily life. When you make a claim that cannot be justified by logic, evidence or reason, you should expect to be called on it, that's a fundamental part of debating.

But; I have also often found that the contempt toward fundamentalism, which may or may not be deserved (and I admit I share that contempt and have often expressed it, perhaps inappropriately) is very often extended to all theists of any variety whatever, and I think that is simply wrong.

Because it isn't really a contempt toward fundamentalism per se, but a demand for truth across the board. It doesn't really matter to me whether you believe in a whole forest of magic trees or just one, having that irrational, unjustified belief is sufficient for questioning whether any belief in magic trees is valid.

I do not accept the thesis that rudeness, implied insults, personal disdain and general disrespect is only being directed at theists who violate the rules of civil debate and have it coming. All of those have often, and even routinely, been directed at me.

Then, forgive me for saying this, maybe you need to look in the mirror to figure out why. When you routinely dodge questions that are put to you and create strawmen claims about others, it's hardly surprising that you get a fair amount of disrespect. Respect is something that you earn, not something that you magically get because you want it.

[Cephus]

We have failed when a discussion turns into a competition. We have abandoned the purpose of debate. We should want to learn. We should want to know the truth. We should be mature, civil, and humble. If humanity is to progress, we must cherish and defend these values. To abandon these values should be considered immoral, and possibly a crime against humanity.

That's sort of the problem though, you have a group of people who insist that they already have the truth and are unwilling to test their beliefs in order to see if they do, in fact, have the truth. When you start to insist that you're right and no amount of evidence to the contrary can prove you wrong, you're not debating, you're prosletyzing.

[theleftone]

We have failed when a discussion turns into a competition. We have abandoned the purpose of debate. We should want to learn. We should want to know the truth. We should be mature, civil, and humble. If humanity is to progress, we must cherish and defend these values. To abandon these values should be considered immoral, and possibly a crime against humanity.

That's sort of the problem though, you have a group of people who insist that they already have the truth and are unwilling to test their beliefs in order to see if they do, in fact, have the truth. When you start to insist that you're right and no amount of evidence to the contrary can prove you wrong, you're not debating, you're prosletyzing.

How does maturity, civility, and humility teach us to respond to such people?