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.

[Cephus]

I'm not looking for an argument; I just wonder what you mean. Surely not that there is no such thing as moral right or wrong; that would imply that it would be perfectly okay to abolish the teaching of evolution in the schools and replace it with "Creationism"...?

It depends on how you define "sin". Most theists use it to refer to wronging some supernatural being's feelings and therefore, since there's no reason to believe supernatural beings exist, sin is a meaningless concept. If you expand the term to include anything "wrong", then you may have a point, but since we already have a perfectly good term for that, why bother using "sin" at all?

[Cephus]

Let's be clear; all that justifies disagreement. It does not justify derision, insults and open contempt, which is the subject here.

Yet many theists interpret any disagreement as derision, insults and open contempt because someone dares to question their heartfelt beliefs. In theory, I certainly agree with you, but in concept it doesn't necessarily work that way. Secondly, because we see so many theists making baseless claims, engaging in debate, being proven absolutely wrong, and turning around to make those same claims again verbatim, you can hardly be surprised that such dishonest acts would be met with insults and contempt, the theists brought it on themselves.

Are you saying that contempt and disrespect for theists on the part of non-theists have never been evident on this board?

No, I'm saying that it isn't so much disrespect for fundamentalists per se, but disrespect for the ideas and practices that fundamentalists display. This, once again, shows the inability of theists to separate themselves from their beliefs. If you insult the beliefs, many of which certainly deserve insult, theists interpret this as a personal attack and insult upon themsleves.

I'm also saying that the opposite is more often true and contempt for non-theists by theists is much, much, much more common.

No one has ever leveled those charges at me but you, and I have conclusively proven them false more than once.

Hardly. I've corrected your strawmen time and time again and you simply repost them verbatim. You insist that I'm asking questions that I have never asked, yet you refuse to answer the questions that I factually have asked.

That, my friend, makes you a bald-faced liar.

[Thought Criminal]

Sin doesn't exist...

I'm really curious about what you mean by this.

Jews don't the term nearly as often as Christians, and we look at it in a different way; but the concept is still there.

I'm not looking for an argument; I just wonder what you mean. Surely not that there is no such thing as moral right or wrong; that would imply that it would be perfectly okay to abolish the teaching of evolution in the schools and replace it with "Creationism"...?

Sin is "transgression of divine law". This is literally impossible, since there is no divine law to transgress. There's still morality and immorality, but it has nothing to do with religion.

TC

[daedalus 2.0]

Sin doesn't exist...

I'm really curious about what you mean by this.

Jews don't the term nearly as often as Christians, and we look at it in a different way; but the concept is still there.

I'm not looking for an argument; I just wonder what you mean. Surely not that there is no such thing as moral right or wrong; that would imply that it would be perfectly okay to abolish the teaching of evolution in the schools and replace it with "Creationism"...?

Sin is "transgression of divine law". This is literally impossible, since there is no divine law to transgress. There's still morality and immorality, but it has nothing to do with religion.

TC

Exactly. I have used the definition of sin "an offense to God" - similar to your definition. Both don't exist and are impossible to define.

[cnorman18]

Sin doesn't exist...

I'm really curious about what you mean by this.

Jews don't the term nearly as often as Christians, and we look at it in a different way; but the concept is still there.

I'm not looking for an argument; I just wonder what you mean. Surely not that there is no such thing as moral right or wrong; that would imply that it would be perfectly okay to abolish the teaching of evolution in the schools and replace it with "Creationism"...?

Sin is "transgression of divine law". This is literally impossible, since there is no divine law to transgress. There's still morality and immorality, but it has nothing to do with religion.

TC

I thought it was probably something like that. Thanks for the clarification.

[cnorman18]

Hardly. I've corrected your strawmen time and time again and you simply repost them verbatim. You insist that I'm asking questions that I have never asked, yet you refuse to answer the questions that I factually have asked.

That, my friend, makes you a bald-faced liar.

As I said, repeating your charges doesn't make them true, and they don't concern me much. The record is plain, and I'll stand on it.

It's clear enough that we have had some kind of a profound misunderstanding. I know in my own mind what happened, what I said and what I meant, and how I understood your own remarks; and it appears that you are as certain as I am, but with a wholly different perspective. I don't understand that, but I see nothing I can do about it.

I realize it has upset you, and I hope you get over it; but I am not going to confess to things I know I have not done. You may think and say what you like, and anyone who looks at the record may judge for themselves.

I will say this; the PMs and emails I have gotten on the matter have not supported your accusations nor contradicted my point of view.

In my opinion, we ought to let it go and move on; I had hoped my sincerely saluting you for an excellent post might move us a little in that direction, but apparently not.

I am willing to drop it and refer to it no more. If you aren't, I can't help that, but I will neither confess to things I have not done nor argue about them any longer. I stand on the record. If you want to make this a vendetta or a feud, you'll be doing it alone.

I'm done with it.

[Cephus]

As I said, repeating your charges doesn't make them true, and they don't concern me much. The record is plain, and I'll stand on it.

You do that. Doesn't matter to me, reality doesn't seem to concern you much.

It's clear enough that we have had some kind of a profound misunderstanding. I know in my own mind what happened, what I said and what I meant, and how I understood your own remarks; and it appears that you are as certain as I am, but with a wholly different perspective. I don't understand that, but I see nothing I can do about it.

You could actually read what is written rather than what you want others to have written, but I don't have a lot of faith that that will happen.

I will say this; the PMs and emails I have gotten on the matter have not supported your accusations nor contradicted my point of view.

Convenient that none of these "PMs and emails" appear in public where the could be verified, but I guess that's neither here nor there.

I am willing to drop it and refer to it no more.

Fine by me, I don't pretend that you'll ever answer the questions honestly and I have only responded when I have had to to correct your misrepresentation of what I've said. You don't bring it up anymore, I won't either.

[theleftone]

If you insult the beliefs, many of which certainly deserve insult, theists interpret this as a personal attack and insult upon themsleves.

How does an emotional response to an idea promote rational discourse?

[olavisjo]

They don't deserve a glance from us, since Jesus has decided to ignore them. Jesus, as shown in the Bible only saves one or two people from afflictions as an example to the rest of us. Praise Him!

1 And seeing the multitudes, he went up into a mountain: and when he was set, his disciples came unto him:

2 And he opened his mouth, and taught them, saying,

3 Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

4 Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted.

5 Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.

6 Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled.

7 Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.

8 Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God.

9 Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.

10 Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

11 Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.

12 Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.

[daedalus 2.0]

Yes, and nowhere does he say he will feed the hungry (only the "spiritually hungry), save the drowning, or help children afflicted with terminal diseases or conditions.

In fact, he only says "blessed are they". This obviously does not mean blessed in this world, only in the next - which no one has established exists. Jesus got off easy, as does any snake oil salesman: only make claims that no one can disprove.