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.

[theleftone]

So true! We should be allowed to assume anything at all as first principles. I personally assume the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the Invisible Pink Unicorn, the divine right of kings and the roundness of squares. Clearly, these are just as valid as any other set of choices, and anyone who says otherwise is a fundamentalist. Now that I've said this, we can have a free and open debate in which we run around and make animal noises instead of putting forth logical arguments. It's just as good!

Mockery is uncivil and emotionally based.

If you think I'm factually incorrect, you should explain how making first principles arbitrary leads to anything other than the situation I have portrayed. Good luck.

Facts can be presented in a mocking manner. Thus, whether arbitrary choices for first principles leads to silliness or not is irrelevant. The post is still mockery. And hence, it is uncivil and emotionally based.

[Thought Criminal]

This is incorrect. Passive disbelief is an illogical construct. Disbelief involves action. To lack belief, be without belief, or have an absence of belief are passive because the individual is the recipient of the action. They are not doing the action themselves.

Do you believe in Fredrigo, Patron God of Small Awnings?

Then allow us to return to the original claim of 'more consistency.' Do atheists and theists use the same or different criteria for rejecting gods?

I see no reason to repeat myself; scroll up.

TC

[Cephus]

The assumption is a necessary one for rational discourse to happen.

The assumption that you have the complete and absolute truth and no amount of evidence to the contrary will change your mind? That assumption kills any possibility of rational discourse.

If one desires rational discourse, one should avoid emotional responses. That is, one should avoid being insulted or insulting. For rational discourse to work, we must work together. I understand it's not always easy, but it is something we should work towards.

Unfortunately, when you're dealing with beliefs based on nothing but emotion, that's virtually impossible to achieve. We see in this very thread, someone who insists that nothing could ever possibly sway his beliefs and he believes, not based on evidence, but based on emotion. How can you possibly debate that?

[theleftone]

This is incorrect. Passive disbelief is an illogical construct. Disbelief involves action. To lack belief, be without belief, or have an absence of belief are passive because the individual is the recipient of the action. They are not doing the action themselves.

Do you believe in Fredrigo, Patron God of Small Awnings?

Where ignorance exists of a concept of ideas, belief and disbelief (acceptance and rejection) are impossible. I know nothing of this god which you speak. Therefore, I am incapable of accepting or rejecting it.

Then allow us to return to the original claim of 'more consistency.' Do atheists and theists use the same or different criteria for rejecting gods?

I see no reason to repeat myself; scroll up.

Is this a reference to the following answer?

Everyone has the same initial basis for rejecting gods they weren't indoctrinated in; they simply find no reason to believe.

If so, then we have already concluded this is invalid.

No particular action is involved, past being born.

To reject something is an action. With no action, there can be no rejection. It is impossible to reject something which one has no knowledge of. Thus, the 'same initial criteria for rejecting gods' answer is invalid.

If this was not the answered being referenced, then I will need help in finding the answer to my question.

[Thought Criminal]

Do you believe in Fredrigo, Patron God of Small Awnings?

Where ignorance exists of a concept of ideas, belief and disbelief (acceptance and rejection) are impossible. I know nothing of this god which you speak. Therefore, I am incapable of accepting or rejecting it.

Until you heard the Gospel of Fredrigo, you were a passive atheist with regard to this particular god. Now that you have, though, I bet you've become an active atheist. I think you understand this just fine, but you dislike my terminology. Your dislike is noted and properly filed away.

Did you reject Fredrigo because the Bible tells you to? I've read the Bible twice and nowhere did it mention Fredrigo by name! Ok, what if I had simply said that he is a patron saint rather than a patron deity? Would that change anything?

Everyone has the same initial basis for rejecting gods they weren't indoctrinated in; they simply find no reason to believe.

If so, then we have already concluded this is invalid.

We? Do you have a mouse in your pocket? Or are you Queen of England? We did no such thing; you did, unilaterally and without cause.

I've shown that you reject Fredrigo for no better reason that a lack of any reason to believe. After all, I could describe any number of gods, like Fred, and you would have precisely as little reason to believe in any of them.

Feel free to offer an alternative explanation, and then back it up.

No particular action is involved, past being born.

To reject something is an action. With no action, there can be no rejection. It is impossible to reject something which one has no knowledge of. Thus, the 'same initial criteria for rejecting gods' answer is invalid.

Passive disbelief does not require actively rejecting. Active rejection is needed for active disbelief.

TC

[theleftone]

The assumption is a necessary one for rational discourse to happen.

The assumption that you have the complete and absolute truth and no amount of evidence to the contrary will change your mind? That assumption kills any possibility of rational discourse.

No.

You are assuming that some of these people are capable of rational discourse.

This is the assumption being referenced.

If one desires rational discourse, one should avoid emotional responses. That is, one should avoid being insulted or insulting. For rational discourse to work, we must work together. I understand it's not always easy, but it is something we should work towards.

Unfortunately, when you're dealing with beliefs based on nothing but emotion, that's virtually impossible to achieve. We see in this very thread, someone who insists that nothing could ever possibly sway his beliefs and he believes, not based on evidence, but based on emotion. How can you possibly debate that?

We debate with reason and kindness. If it becomes too much, then we remove ourselves from the debate.

[Furrowed Brow]

We see in this very thread, someone who insists that nothing could ever possibly sway his beliefs and he believes, not based on evidence, but based on emotion. How can you possibly debate that?

Just keep pointing out their false statements and logical fallacies.

[Sjoerd]

Just keep pointing out their false statements and logical fallacies.

I prefer the answer given by your signature.

[theleftone]

Do you believe in Fredrigo, Patron God of Small Awnings?

Where ignorance exists of a concept of ideas, belief and disbelief (acceptance and rejection) are impossible. I know nothing of this god which you speak. Therefore, I am incapable of accepting or rejecting it.

Until you heard the Gospel of Fredrigo, you were a passive atheism with regard to this particular god. Now that you have, though, I bet you've become an active atheist. I think you understand this just fine, but you dislike my terminology. Your dislike is noted and properly filed away.

Did you reject Fredrigo because the Bible tells you to? I've read the Bible twice and nowhere did it mention Fredrigo by name! Ok, what if I had simply said that he is a patron saint rather than a patron deity? Would that change anything?

I can be labeled with whatever names so desired. If one decides to call me a 'passive atheist' rather than 'ignorant,' then so be it. It renders the term 'passive atheist' rather useless for anything more than a propaganda term though.

Yet, there is a problem with the accusations made above. I have not rejected the god. I remain ignorant of the god. I know nothing of its attribute. It remains nothing more than a name. Thus, it would be inappropriate to accept or reject the god as incompatible with the Christian God. Is it possible this name could be another name for the Christian God? I would have to wait and see.

Everyone has the same initial basis for rejecting gods they weren't indoctrinated in; they simply find no reason to believe.

If so, then we have already concluded this is invalid.

We? Do you have a mouse in your pocket? Or are you Queen of England? We did no such thing; you did, unilaterally and without cause.

No, we. See below.

No particular action is involved, past being born.

How does a person not doing something do it? This is the claim being presented. It is being claimed that a person rejecting gods is not doing an action. Yet, rejection is an action. So, the claim is logically invalid.

I've shown that you reject Fredrigo for no better reason that a lack of any reason to believe. After all, I could describe any number of gods, like Fred, and you would have precisely as little reason to believe in any of them.

I have not rejected nor accepted Fredrigo. I remain in a state of ignorance.

Passive disbelief does not require actively rejecting. Active rejection is needed for active disbelief.

Passive is non-action. Disbelief is an action. Passive disbelief is an illogical construct.

[Thought Criminal]

I can be labeled with whatever names so desired. If one decides to call me a 'passive atheist' rather than 'ignorant,' then so be it. It renders the term 'passive atheist' rather useless for anything more than a propaganda term though.

None of us are born theists. We start as atheistic of Jesus as we do of Fredrigo.

Yet, there is a problem with the accusations made above. I have not rejected the god. I remain ignorant of the god. I know nothing of its attribute. It remains nothing more than a name. Thus, it would be inappropriate to accept or reject the god as incompatible with the Christian God. Is it possible this name could be another name for the Christian God? I would have to wait and see.

You know enough to accept or reject Fredrigo. Besides his name, you know that he is the patron god of small awnings. As I'm sure you're aware, this means that small awnings are his domain. If your small awning is broken or if you simply want to praise your small awning, please direct your prayers to Fredrigo. However, if the awning is large, pray to Rodrigo. Does it matter if his hair is golden or he is bald? You worship Jesus and yet you lack a consistent physical description of him.

There is nothing about Fredrigo that is incompatible with the Christian God. And if you're bothered with the fact that I call Fredrigo a god, feel free to consider him a patron saint or an angel, instead. Either way, you pray to him for all your small awning concerns.

How does a person not doing something do it? This is the claim being presented. It is being claimed that a person rejecting gods is not doing an action. Yet, rejection is an action. So, the claim is logically invalid.

This is the focus of your error: disbelief is a state, not an action. We are all born passively disbelieving all the things we do not believe. Once we are exposed to an idea, we can actively accept it by believing or reject it by disbelieving. But none of us believed in Fredrigo last week because none of us had heard the Gospel. We were united in our disbelief.

I have not rejected nor accepted Fredrigo. I remain in a state of ignorance.

You are in a state of disbelief with regard to Fredrigo. You were ignorant, but now that you've heard the Gospel but refuse to accept it, ignorance is no longer an excuse available to you.

Passive is non-action. Disbelief is an action. Passive disbelief is an illogical construct.

This is a matter of semantics, so I turn to the dictionary. Disbelief is "the inability or refusal to believe or to accept something as true". Until you heard of Fredrigo and his dominion over small awnings, you you unable to accept the truth of his existence. Now you are able to accept or reject. Apparently, you have chosen the latter, you atheist.

TC