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.

[Beto]

I hear that one a lot. What I never hear is how we can distinguish genuine religious experiences from hallucinations and delusions.

We can't. Does that bother you?

I don't know about TC, but it does kind of bother me, that you would rather believe in something you can't detect, over the alternative that you can. This can't be justified with logic and reason, so yeah it bothers me a little. Especially because this behavior tends to spread like a disease.

[theleftone]

It is entirely rational to reject unsupported positive claims of existence. You do, for all the other gods that have ever been believed except your own. I'm just more consistent.

Apples and oranges. The Christian and atheist reject deities for different reasons. The atheists rejects deities for a believed lack of support. The Christian rejects all other deities because belief in other gods is incompatible with belief in the Christian God.

[Thought Criminal]

Well, of course it's derived. You start with what's real, negate it, then put a human face over it.

"God" does not automatically mean "bearded human face in the sky". Maybe in your mind, but not in mine.

Not necessarily a literal one, althought there's always Morgan Freeman or George Burns.

What I mean by a human face is human characteristics applied through anthropomorphism to the rather nonhuman universe.

As for negating what's real, consider that God is defined as infinite in a few ways, while all that is real is finite.

My concept of God refers to the Universe, which is out there, fully instantiated.

The universe is real, but there's nothing Goddish about it. You might as well say God is love, love exists, therefore God exists. Proof my misdefinition.

We can't. Does that bother you?

Dunno. Does it bother you that, in the absence of any evidence that genuine ones exist, we must continue to conclude that those experiences are merely errors.

I am a Christian heretic and a pagan, I will not deny the existence of any god. If people prefer the restoring aspect of God and call it Vishnu and worship it, that is completely fine with me. If they claim that their aspect of God is the whole of God, that I would reject.

Do you deny the existence of Atheos, the Non-Existent God of Atheism that all atheists implicitly worship?

TC

[Thought Criminal]

It is entirely rational to reject unsupported positive claims of existence. You do, for all the other gods that have ever been believed except your own. I'm just more consistent.

Apples and oranges. The Christian and atheist reject deities for different reasons. The atheists rejects deities for a believed lack of support. The Christian rejects all other deities because belief in other gods is incompatible with belief in the Christian God.

Yes, but all theists reject all other gods but their own. You migtht as well claim atheists reject all gods because they are incompatible with the nonexistence of gods.

TC

[theleftone]

It is entirely rational to reject unsupported positive claims of existence. You do, for all the other gods that have ever been believed except your own. I'm just more consistent.

Apples and oranges. The Christian and atheist reject deities for different reasons. The atheists rejects deities for a believed lack of support. The Christian rejects all other deities because belief in other gods is incompatible with belief in the Christian God.

Yes, but all theists reject all other gods but their own. You migtht as well claim atheists reject all gods because they are incompatible with the nonexistence of gods.

I am addressing the 'more consistency' claim. How is the Christian being inconsistent in rejecting other deities?

[Thought Criminal]

It is entirely rational to reject unsupported positive claims of existence. You do, for all the other gods that have ever been believed except your own. I'm just more consistent.

Apples and oranges. The Christian and atheist reject deities for different reasons. The atheists rejects deities for a believed lack of support. The Christian rejects all other deities because belief in other gods is incompatible with belief in the Christian God.

Yes, but all theists reject all other gods but their own. You migtht as well claim atheists reject all gods because they are incompatible with the nonexistence of gods.

I am addressing the 'more consistency' claim. How is the Christian being inconsistent in rejecting other deities?

Because the choice of this particular difficulty is arbitrary. If you were born in Saudi Arabia, it'd be Allah, and so on.

TC

[theleftone]

It is entirely rational to reject unsupported positive claims of existence. You do, for all the other gods that have ever been believed except your own. I'm just more consistent.

Apples and oranges. The Christian and atheist reject deities for different reasons. The atheists rejects deities for a believed lack of support. The Christian rejects all other deities because belief in other gods is incompatible with belief in the Christian God.

Yes, but all theists reject all other gods but their own. You migtht as well claim atheists reject all gods because they are incompatible with the nonexistence of gods.

I am addressing the 'more consistency' claim. How is the Christian being inconsistent in rejecting other deities?

Because the choice of this particular difficulty is arbitrary. If you were born in Saudi Arabia, it'd be Allah, and so on.

This is moving the target, or not understanding the problem with the original claim. I will clarify.

I can see two possible interpretations of the claim. (1) Theists and atheists use the same criteria for rejecting gods. (2) Theists and atheists use different criteria, but theists are inconsistent in applying their own criteria and atheists are consistent.

1. Same criteria

The original claim suggests an atheist is more consistent than a theist in applying 'the' criteria for rejecting gods. This claim rests upon two notable premises: (i) there is one criteria for rejecting gods; and (ii) no gods were capable of being supported.

(i) This premise is false. The atheist and Christian, who is a theist, use different criteria for rejecting gods.
(ii) This premise is contingent. One might be convinced of the premise, but this does not make it true.

Thus, with one necessary premise being wrong and the other being contingent, we can reject the claim as stated.

2. Different criteria

The theist and atheist employ different criteria to reject gods. The Christian, a subset of theists, applies an incompatibility criteria. The atheist applies the unsupported gods criteria. To argue the atheist is more consistent, it would be necessary to show the Christian has inconsistently applied their own criteria.

Conclusion

I was willing to entertain a second interpretation because I understood the futility of the first. However, it's clear the first interpretation was intended. Thus, the original claim is clearly false because it is based on an false premise.

[Thought Criminal]

This is moving the target, or not understanding the problem with the original claim. I will clarify.

I can see two possible interpretations of the claim. (1) Theists and atheists use the same criteria for rejecting gods. (2) Theists and atheists use different criteria, but theists are inconsistent in applying their own criteria and atheists are consistent.

1. Same criteria

The original claim suggests an atheist is more consistent than a theist in applying 'the' criteria for rejecting gods. This claim rests upon two notable premises: (i) there is one criteria for rejecting gods; and (ii) no gods were capable of being supported.

(i) This premise is false. The atheist and Christian, who is a theist, use different criteria for rejecting gods.
(ii) This premise is contingent. One might be convinced of the premise, but this does not make it true.

Thus, with one necessary premise being wrong and the other being contingent, we can reject the claim as stated.

2. Different criteria

The theist and atheist employ different criteria to reject gods. The Christian, a subset of theists, applies an incompatibility criteria. The atheist applies the unsupported gods criteria. To argue the atheist is more consistent, it would be necessary to show the Christian has inconsistently applied their own criteria.

Conclusion

I was willing to entertain a second interpretation because I understood the futility of the first. However, it's clear the first interpretation was intended. Thus, the original claim is clearly false because it is based on an false premise.

Neither.

Everyone has the same initial basis for rejecting gods they weren't indoctrinated in; they simply find no reason to believe. For example, none of us even take Zeus vaguely seriously, nor should we. We are all born passively atheistic with regard to all gods, and this is the backdrop for all else.

Theists, in addition, make an exception for their chosen deity, believing it exists even though there's no more evidence than for any other. They call this arbitrary exception "faith" and pretend it constitutes a method. The embarrassing problem, of course, is that faith could have just as easily supported any other religion, so it's important for the belief system to explicitly deny the truth of other religions. This forms a fake sort of criterion for rejecting other Gods.

TC

[Sjoerd]

I refuse to take anymore bait.

This used to be a thread on the atmosphere of this forum. At post 105, I tried to make a point that first principles and definitions can be stated but cannot be debated rationally. I view the resulting pointless debate (on the definition of God as first principle) as support for my point.
Some people deny that definitions are arbitrary and deny that another person's ideals and first principles are equally valid to their own. Instead, they insist that there is a single "true" or "rational" set of first principles and definitions and that all others are blind in not embracing these. This completely unfounded lack of respect is IMHO a major pollutant of the atmosphere of any religious debate. I would use the term "fundamentalist" to describe this mental state, but I will not do so, out of respect for olavisjo, whose attitude is much more sensible.

I will try to answer Zzyzx' and Beto's questions in my next post, and then I will withdraw from this thread. Have a good day.

Sjoerd

[Sjoerd]

When you use the term "god" in debate it is very reasonable for a person to ask exactly what you mean by the term you use. I am asking. What, exactly, does "god" mean when you use the term in debate?
...
Are you saying that the universe IS "god"?

Sorry if I seem to be dodging the question. For me, God is the universe as I experience it plus the universe as I would be experiencing it if all illusions and limits of perspective would be broken. I believe that we are using metaphors and simplifications to make God and the Universe more understandable, ranging from "God says that killing is bad" to "light is both a wave and a particle".

But I will not bring my concept of God into any debate. If someone else talks about God or evil or sin or any other concept, I will try to guess what that person is likely to mean by it. If my guess leads to a contradiction in that person's argument, I will point it out. That person can then correct my guess.

I hear that one a lot. What I never hear is how we can distinguish genuine religious experiences from hallucinations and delusions.

We can't. Does that bother you?

I don't know about TC, but it does kind of bother me, that you would rather believe in something you can't detect, over the alternative that you can. This can't be justified with logic and reason, so yeah it bothers me a little. Especially because this behavior tends to spread like a disease.

It certainly does not bother me. I expect that.

However, being unable to distinguish between supposedly genuine religious experiences and hallucinations or delusions destroys the credibility of claims of such experiences.

There are of course rules of thumb to give credibility to such experiences. "Having it seen with your own eyes" is a good one, and "Confirmed by someone you trust" is another. It is up to you to trust or distrust people who claim such experiences, or to believe alternative explanations.

What is your reaction if people

1. Maintain that there is insufficient evidence relating to "gods" upon which to make a decision?

Sounds reasonable to me. Pending their religious decision, I would suggest that they at least dedicate their lives to something, to an ideal, a philosophy, a system of ethics, or to another person. Everyone needs something to give direction to his or her life.

2. Deny the existence of "gods"?

I think that they cling to a limited definition of "existence" and of "gods". If people claim that the bearded man in the sky is not really there, I agree with them. Such metaphors are for simple folk anyway. If I were to explain television to a Middle Ager, I would use a lot of metaphors too. In everyday life, I still treat a television as if it were a magical box responding to button presses to show me images and sounds. I fully accept that there are boundaries to my mind so that I need metaphors to have any grasp at all. They just become more complicated metaphors during the process of thinking.

3. Promote polytheism?

I do not object. If people want to divide God into a Trinity or into a pantheon, go ahead. These are all aspects of God to me.