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.

[Thought Criminal]

Yes, but the "beating" should and must be done by the moderators and not by other members. I agree with Otseng that compounding a rule violation with a dozen others "piling on" only clouds the issue and makes enforcement more difficult.

It should, but when it doesn't, it leaves others frustrated. This is not an excuse for incivility and back-slapping, but it is an honest explanation. The solution is to enforce the rules.

TC

[daedalus 2.0]

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

1. I would be glad to grab a beer with anyone of you and discuss things. I don't feel we are mortal enemies.
2. I believe that when you have convictions, you can be passionate about them. This includes being passionately opposed to the contrary position.
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.

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. 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. 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.

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?

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).

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!

[olavisjo]

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

You bring the acid, I will bring the base.
Yes, these things have all been said and done before, but is it possible that we may have overlooked something because we bring a little too much intellect, reasoning, learning and mockery to the table.
Jesus said...

At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes.

[Beto]

Jesus said...

At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes.

So in order for them to know "God" we must teach our children not to be wise or prudent, is that about right?

[olavisjo]

So in order for them to know "God" we must teach our children not to be wise or prudent, is that about right?

No, we do not need to teach them anything, they are already babes and know God intuitively, it is us grown ups that need to learn to be like babes, so that God may reveal himself to us. But you will not find God by wisdom.

For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.

[Beto]

So in order for them to know "God" we must teach our children not to be wise or prudent, is that about right?

No, we do not need to teach them anything, they are already babes and know God intuitively, it is us grown ups that need to learn to be like babes, so that God may reveal himself to us.

How do you know I "knew God intuitively" as a child? I have no recollection of knowing "God" at all. I think it's one of those memories that would "stick". Regardless, how does one go about learning "to be like a babe"? What exactly does that mean "like a babe"? Quotes from the Bible don't mean much to me, so I'd appreciate an alternate explanation. A new thread perhaps?

[Thought Criminal]

No, we do not need to teach them anything, they are already babes and know God intuitively, it is us grown ups that need to learn to be like babes, so that God may reveal himself to us. But you will not find God by wisdom.

Babies are cute but dumb. They know intuitively how to suck on a nipple, but have no intuitions about God. We know this because, unless we lie to them by saying God exists, children don't come up with the notion.

However, if you said that the notion of God builds on the childish view of a parent figure as perfect, then you'd have something going for you. The notion of God is based on seeing the inanimate universe through a human-centered lens, applying idealized properties of parenthood to the sun in the sky. It would almost be poignant if it weren't so pathetic.

Anyhow, look at your own words and really think about what they mean. If wisdom doesn't lead to God then this means it is unwise to believe in God. The sort of rampant anti-intellectualism you espouse is deeply offensive.

For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.

See what I mean about anti-intellectualism?

TC

[cnorman18]

If you refuse to allow respect for another point of view before debate even begins, who is really refusing to debate? You, or he?

Everyone should be mindful that applies to all, theists and atheists alike. You know what a fundamentalist ideology is. Some theists here call themselves "Fundamentalist Christians", have the temerity to presume they're "debating", as if the tenets of such an ideology are even remotely debatable to the fundamentalist, and I'm supposed to respect this point of view? No, sorry but I reject it upfront. With some other members, a few posts are all it takes to spot a fundamentalist. This type of theist is increasing in the forum, what they do is not "debate", and the uncivil atmosphere is a direct consequence. While rule #5 remains outside moderator scope of intervention they will keep filling threads with bare assertions, frustrating honest debaters. Personally, I'm ignoring a lot of members, but that doesn't really help me, because there are other debaters that feel they can be reasoned with, and the threads go down the drain. But I'm fed up with it. I'll ignore half the forum members if I have to, but I'll really try not to be uncivil, or use sarcastic and mocking tones. I simply don't have the experience at the levels some people attempt to sink me down to.

I would think that if one is unable to enter a conversation--or a debate--with another person without expressing contempt and disrespect, then not entering the thread at all is the proper action.

Does my post suggest I condone entering a thread with contempt and disrespect for another person? I think your replies tend to insinuate I hold the positions you criticize.

I certainly didn't mean to imply that, though I see now that I did. You certainly don't condone entering a thread with those attitudes, because from your own words, you don't. I was trying to commend you for ignoring posters that you find unworthy of your time, if not your respect. I phrased it as I did to imply that it was good advice for others who might have those attitudes, not you. I apologize for not expressing myself more carefully.

[C-Nub]

No, we do not need to teach them anything, they are already babes and know God intuitively, it is us grown ups that need to learn to be like babes, so that God may reveal himself to us. But you will not find God by wisdom.

Statements like this one send up all kinds of red flags to me, and without meaning to be terribly rude, are totally and unequivicably false. I have a child, she's four now, and it wasn't until she went to Church with her grandmother, which I have no problem with, that she had ANY idea whatsoever about God. They don't know God intuitively, in fact, it's unlikely that, left to their own devices in the world, that they would come to supernatural conclusions similar to yours in any way, shape or form.

I didn't talk to my daughter about God one way or another, I still don't, because she's too young, she doesn't understand the idea of a God or the arguments for or against. She knows I don't believe, I've told her that, and she switches every week to knowing there's a God and knowing there isn't.

I do agree very much with your conclusion, you will not find God with wisdom, and I would like to add that you won't find wisdom with God. You also don't make friends with Salad.

I challenge you to support that claim, to demonstrate that we all know 'God' intuitively, despite the fact that many people the world over worship different versions of a magical creator-force deally.

[OnceConvinced]

So in order for them to know "God" we must teach our children not to be wise or prudent, is that about right?

No, we do not need to teach them anything, they are already babes and know God intuitively, it is us grown ups that need to learn to be like babes, so that God may reveal himself to us.

How do you know I "knew God intuitively" as a child? I have no recollection of knowing "God" at all. I think it's one of those memories that would "stick". Regardless, how does one go about learning "to be like a babe"? What exactly does that mean "like a babe"? Quotes from the Bible don't mean much to me, so I'd appreciate an alternate explanation. A new thread perhaps?

It means you need to have blind faith.