Atmosphere of the forum, Take 2

[cnorman18]

I'm going to try this again on a new thread. Let me begin a bit more provocatively this time:

In a bitter moment awhile back, I wrote down what appear to be the new forum rules for nontheists. I look at them now, and I think they are dead on:

1. The default approach to conversation with a theist is a contemptuous sneer. Not civility and courtesy, and certainly not respect; derision and ridicule are the order of the day. Though rational and reasoned argument may be involved, an attitude of contemptuous disdain must be maintained and expressed at all times and in all exchanges.

2. Never pass up a chance to take a shot at theism. It may be cheap, facile, false, offensive, insulting, or other; as long as it demeans and trivializes religion, it's acceptable and even praiseworthy and admirable.

3. Personal respect, friendliness, and good will are no longer relevant nor necessary. Theists, of any kind, are neither worthy of nor deserve any of these. If one cannot think rationally and clearly enough to reject any kind of supernatural or religious belief whatever, one may be and ought to be spit upon, sneered at, and openly despised, and this too is wholly admirable and praiseworthy.

4. Thou shalt not criticize or correct another nontheist. Team loyalty trumps the most obnoxious or objectionable behavior, so long as it is directed at theists. They deserve whatever they get, so do not take exception to anything a fellow nontheist says. That will be seen as defending theism, gross disloyalty, and taking the side of irrationality.
.
I realize it would be very easy to write a similar list of "rules" for a few of our new fundamentalists, and ignore all my concerns here in favor of returning the focus to them. That is all that has happened so far on the other thread--not a single nontheist has even considered that his own side might have any tiny bit of culpability at all here--and that is tantamount to blaming the entire problem here on one side only.

Some members have even said that in so many words; only theists are to blame here, and nontheists have done nothing wrong. Straight out.

Let's deal with that fiction right up front, so this thread will not be similarly derailed. It was alleged on the other thread that:

(1) Only theists who are arrogant, doctrinaire, refuse to engage in debate as opposed to preaching, etc., are receiving this treatment.

That is false. I have, and so have other theists who are not of that description. I would venture to say that all of us have.

(2) There have never been any actual instances of disrespect or contempt, but only challenges to unsupported logic and specious claims.

That is also a falsehood. We have at least one member who openly admits to deliberately and consciously using mockery and derision as tools in debate, and many nontheists members are applauding and justifying that practice and following his lead. Indeed, his posts are not easily distinguishable from those of others.

Let's not all pretend that this isn't happening. It happens in many ways, and they are not subtle nor accidental nor unintended. Allusions to Santa Claus and pink unicorns are one thing, for instance, but allusions to the most studiedly and deliberately outrageous and demeaning examples of false and ridiculous beliefs are going beyond logical analogy and indulging in outright ridicule. The same point could be made without a series of questions about the God of Small Awnings, e.g. That is not analogy, but derision and insult, and it is quite deliberate.

That's one method; there are others. Pretending that these are not deliberately intended to be baiting, insulting, and offensive is intellectually dishonest and cowardly.

(3) Hostile and contemptuous attitudes from nontheists toward all theists must be understood, excused, and accepted without complaint, because of the misbehavior of some theists.

That is clearly entirely hypocritical and unacceptable. If anyone thinks that is logical or fair, let him defend it; but don't forget that that gives a license for unlimited abuse of everyone from the other side as well, and if that's a reasonable view, we might as well shut this site down and go read some books.

In short, don't talk to me about the incredibly rude and arrogant new Christians here in relation to this problem. I see them, and I don't defend them; in fact, I have criticized them strongly, and I am not the only theist who has done so. As I've said elsewhere, one expects fanatics to behave like fanatics.

That is no excuse, of course; but their bad behavior is even less of an excuse for equally bad behavior on the part of those who claim to take pride in being the voices of rationality, reason, and civilization. That is far, far more shocking and disturbing. Religious ideologues will behave like what they are. Should self-described rationalists and humanists behave the same way?

In any case: The fundamentalists are not the problem, and I can prove it:

This forum has changed radically in just the last couple of months; but they have always been here.

At times, they have been even worse. Does anyone remember Smersh? Where was the chorus of protests, insults and vituperation directed at him?

"Member X et. al. are so outrageous, it justifies anything we say to anyone."

Sorry; no, it doesn't. We have had members, Smersh for one--I could name others, as any longtime member knows--who were more aggressive and dogmatic and doctrinaire, not to mention viciously, openly hateful and bigoted, than anyone currently posting; and we somehow managed to continue to address each other with respect and courtesy even when they were active. Even Smersh himself was addressed with personal respect and dignity as others took exception to his outrageous statements.

The fundamentalists are not, at bottom, relevant to this problem. Blaming this kind of thing on them is intellectually dishonest and wrong, and most of you are honorable and wise enough to know that.

Without apology; I am one of the most rational, most intelligent, and least objectionable theists on this forum, and have been so told many, many times; but I am now routinely being treated like I am a fundamentalist clone, and frankly, it disturbs me that even some of our older members suddenly seem to be okay with that and are joining in.

I am not a fundamentalist, and I don't think the behavior of, objectively, a few of them justifies this contemptuous and sneering attitude toward every member here who believes in God.

I don't think it even justifies that treatment of them. I think that is sinking to a level, frankly, that is lower than theirs; at least they have the excuse of being fanatics. Those who engage in this kind of sneering and baiting and claim to be rational and civilized and enlightened ought to be ashamed.

"Look at what HE did!" is not the defense of a mature, rational adult for bad behavior.

Who among the nontheists here has the moral courage to admit that this is a problem?

I say again; I have been happy here for the better part of a year. I have had many civil, even cordial, and certainly productive conversations with many atheists and nontheists, with no shortage of vigorous and impassioned debates.

Where are those debates now? I have had a few begin; but then someone will ring in and drop a derision bomb on the conversation and question my right to discuss anything at all if I can't prove the objective truth of the existence of God. This has become a one-topic forum.

Disagreement, debate, even vigorous debate, I can stand, and in fact even enjoy; but this constant, unrelenting, atmosphere of snickering up the sleeve at theists qua theists, and the strong and routinely expressed implication that we are all idiots, are depressing and disheartening. If this kind of thing is now acceptable, I don't think I'm going to be around much longer.

A lot depends on the response to this OP. Well, not a lot; but whether or not I, for one, decide to delete my bookmark for DC&R and seek another forum where the ideal of "civil and respectful debate" is actually sought, and not ignored and discounted as unimportant, largely does.

If anyone wants to dismiss this as mere whining because I'm unable to debate, or hypersensitivity in a rough environment, or otherwise if no account and to be ignored, I would point to the 200-plus threads on which I have been a participant. I am no newbie, and no thin-skinned virgin to open and honest debate. I've been here far longer than those to whose behavior I most object. This place has changed, and I don't like it, and am saying so. We'll see who has the intestinal fortitude to actually address this problem, as opposed to finding excuses, rationalizations, snd justification for conduct that this forum claims to find unacceptable.

Bluntly: are we, collectively, going to return to being the civil, respectful and fair debaters we have been in the past, or are we going to continue to dial up, justify, and find excuses for these ugly and toxic attitudes and behavior?

Is the best and only remedy that I might reasonably expect to have for being sneered at is simply to abandon my belief and become an atheist, too?

Is that the price of respect here now?

Is that reasonable?

Is this forum going to be what it claims to be and once was, or not?

[McCulloch]

I, for one, admit to some derision and ridicule, cheap shots which trivialize the deeply held beliefs of others. I make no excuses, I will try to remember that even though I disagree, sometimes to the point that I find some viewpoints ridiculous, that it takes real courage to expose your beliefs to open debate. I will endevour to retain a focus on others' humanity and dignity, while crushing their cherished beliefs under the heel of reason and logic. I cannot promise to always avoid sarcasm.

I have been privileged to have been invited to act as a moderator here. While my primary purpose here, like most of the mods, is to debate, I see that one of my roles as a moderator is to foster an atmosphere where each side will strive to win the debates honorably leaving the dishonorable tactics, tacit admission of defeat, to the other side.

[C-Nub]

Hi dude. Off the bat, I'm going to state upfront; I like you, I have enjoyed almost all of what you've contributed, and I value the fact that you provide a Jewish perspective on what often turns into a Christian vs. Atheists sort of scenario.

I'm going to try this again on a new thread. Let me begin a bit more provocatively this time:

Fair enough, but expect more provactive answers in return.

1. The default approach to conversation with a theist is a contemptuous sneer. Not civility and courtesy, and certainly not respect; derision and ridicule are the order of the day. Though rational and reasoned argument may be involved, an attitude of contemptuous disdain must be maintained and expressed at all times and in all exchanges.

That's a pretty big brush there, with all due respect sir. I think we all do this to a certain degree, under certain situations. Many of us atheists disagree strongly with theism, and for a percentage of us, the belief in the super-natural is somewhat ridiculous. We're wrong to react by being condescending there, absolutely we are, but only in the context of this board and its rules. I'm probably a little guilty of this myself, but we're not wrong to view it that way in general, anymore than you're are to think, if you happen to think, that we're missing out on something by not accepting God in some form or another.

2. Never pass up a chance to take a shot at theism. It may be cheap, facile, false, offensive, insulting, or other; as long as it demeans and trivializes religion, it's acceptable and even praiseworthy and admirable.

I don't know if this one is fair. I know that I personally go back over a lot of my posts and take out 'shots' before I hit the 'submit' button. I'm very conscious of my tendancy towards sarcasm and do a lot of self-censoring on the subject. That said, sometimes something gets said that really, really, really does warrent sarcasm. That happens on both sides. Daedalus' recent behavior is an excellent example of an atheist who deserved a sarcastic smackdown. Sarcastic comments and witty (or supposedly witty) one liners are a part of some people's arguing style. That doesn't excuse it, necessarily, but it should be taken into consideration when assessing culpability.

3. Personal respect, friendliness, and good will are no longer relevant nor necessary. Theists, of any kind, are neither worthy of nor deserve any of these. If one cannot think rationally and clearly enough to reject any kind of supernatural or religious belief whatever, one may be and ought to be spit upon, sneered at, and openly despised, and this too is wholly admirable and praiseworthy.

I recently came across a post that refered to those of shaken faith, those who doubted, or atheists in general as having an 'open wound'. It was a metaphor, sure, but it sure didn't come across as friendly or respectful. I think you're overstating the atheist position here, at least in most cases. I certainly don't spit on your point of view, and generally derride people for their poor arguments, and not the positions that spawned them.

I think you're wrong to suggest that 'all' atheists behave this way while simialr rules we'd write would only apply to the fundies, it shows something of a double-standard at play.

4. Thou shalt not criticize or correct another nontheist. Team loyalty trumps the most obnoxious or objectionable behavior, so long as it is directed at theists. They deserve whatever they get, so do not take exception to anything a fellow nontheist says. That will be seen as defending theism, gross disloyalty, and taking the side of irrationality.

This one is pure BS, I've spoken up on multiple occasions regarding the positions my fellow atheists hold, and have sent PM's to quite a few more regarding the means in which they presented 'our' case, usually in a critical though occasionally in a complimentary faction. I'm sorry Norman, really I am, but you're seeing this one with whatever the angry equivilant of rose-colored glasses are. Let's say teal.

I realize it would be very easy to write a similar list of "rules" for a few of our new fundamentalists, and ignore all my concerns here in favor of returning the focus to them. That is all that has happened so far on the other thread--not a single nontheist has even considered that his own side might have any tiny bit of culpability at all here--and that is tantamount to blaming the entire problem here on one side only.

I think its funny to post a set of rules only for Atheists / Non-Theists then talk about our approach to culpability. I'm not perfect, and have certainly on occasion made comments that were either rude or could be taken to be rude, but at the same time, uh, it's a debate forum. That's going to happen. On both sides. I've already suggested in a couple of places, mostly the "Atheists are Fools" quote-debate thing that happened that a very easy solution is to man-up and scroll past the parts that offend you or strike you as rude. Disrespect isn't a powerful weapon for either side, and treating it as anything other than an extremely mild inconvinience purpetrated by those who lack actual debating skills is only going to empower those who lean that way more so. I'm going to pat myself on the back for that sentence now.

I will admit, here, as a non-theist, that my side has exactly 50% of the culpability in this situation. No more, no less. Does that help at all?

Some members have even said that in so many words; only theists are to blame here, and nontheists have done nothing wrong. Straight out.

Well, those people are probably idiots. Don't read what they say anymore, and you'll have a lot less issue with them.

(1) Only theists who are arrogant, doctrinaire, refuse to engage in debate as opposed to preaching, etc., are receiving this treatment.

That is false. I have, and so have other theists who are not of that description. I would venture to say that all of us have.

My hypocrasy detector is going off. You started this thread by writing a general series of rules for all non-theists that you asserted were pretty much dead on. As such, you included me in that group, despite the fact that my behavior has, at least generally, not reflected your so called rules. You also failed to assign any culpability to the theists for their behavior, despite the recent problems some atheists have expressed to theist signatures calling them fools.

If you want to hold this thread to a standard, its one you're going to have to maintain. Expecting non-theists to talk about what they're doing 'wrong' in your eyes without at the same time addressing what they see your 'side' of this particular argument doing is just not going to happen.

(2) There have never been any actual instances of disrespect or contempt, but only challenges to unsupported logic and specious claims.

That is also a falsehood. We have at least one member who openly admits to deliberately and consciously using mockery and derision as tools in debate, and many nontheists members are applauding and justifying that practice and following his lead. Indeed, his posts are not easily distinguishable from those of others.

Of course there have. Go to the forum where rule-breakers are listed, there's names from both sides.

I may be the one member that openly admits to mocking people sometimes, but if you actually go and read my posts, they're not really set up like that at all. Mockery, teasing, if you will, has its place. It's how you address an extraordinarily badly composed argument or thesis, and not an entire side. Some of the people on my side treat all theists with contempt, they're wrong. Some people on your side treat all non-theists with the same contempt. They're also wrong.

That is, probably always has been, and always will be, part of a religious debate. People take this stuff extremely personally because of how important it is to the 'core' of who they are. People are going to feel insulted on both sides, sometimes justifiably, sometimes not, and they are going to insult back, sometimes justifiably, sometimes not, because that's what people do. If you're somehow better than that, then I applaud you for it, but it's an unrealistic standard to hold us to.

Let's not all pretend that this isn't happening. It happens in many ways, and they are not subtle nor accidental nor unintended. Allusions to Santa Claus and pink unicorns are one thing, for instance, but allusions to the most studiedly and deliberately outrageous and demeaning examples of false and ridiculous beliefs are going beyond logical analogy and indulging in outright ridicule. The same point could be made without a series of questions about the God of Small Awnings, e.g. That is not analogy, but derision and insult, and it is quite deliberate.

You're right, so long as you accept that it's a two way street. We all have to police ourselves in this regard, and at the same time, we have to accept that we're human, and that sometimes people will say things with a very poor understanding of how they'll be recieved. I shoot for funny a lot, sometimes I'm not funny, sometimes I'm offensive. I know that, and I try to avoid it, but not enough to quit trying to work a laugh or two into my posts here.

That's one method; there are others. Pretending that these are not deliberately intended to be baiting, insulting, and offensive is intellectually dishonest and cowardly.

Exactly like the signature calling all of us fools. Sure, you can come and say that it isn't what it says, but its there in pretty much plain english, and the poster's interpretation of its meaning does nothing to take away from the actual words used. People who interpret it to be calling them fools are no less right or wrong than those who think its only applicable under a long and somewhat tedious explanation that was totally NOT included in the signature. I should point out that my opinion on that particular signature is that it's totally harmless, and am only using it as an example because it's one that most readers should be somewhat familiar with, I think, maybe.

Again, this is a two sided street, and trying to address only one side of the problem is only going to further offend the people you're trying to deal with. If you want to talk to us about this, then talk to us like equals, and not from a position that seems to be on a pedestal. I mean no disrespect here, but you're talking down to all atheists here, and that's not going to get anyone to accept the parts you're actually right about.

(3) Hostile and contemptuous attitudes from nontheists toward all theists must be understood, excused, and accepted without complaint, because of the misbehavior of some theists.

Absolutely correct. Atheists are very guilty of this, of lumping all theists together into one melting pot of supernatural crazies. We should do less of this, and spend more time listening to moderate theists who have a depth of philosophy we can learn from despite the underlying premise that bases it on God. Your own philosophy of religious tolerance has proven very helpful to me.

Of course, theists shouldn't be treating all atheists like condescending, theist hating debate-nazis.

Like this thread is doing...

That is clearly entirely hypocritical and unacceptable. If anyone thinks that is logical or fair, let him defend it; but don't forget that that gives a license for unlimited abuse of everyone from the other side as well, and if that's a reasonable view, we might as well shut this site down and go read some books.

The opening sentence smacks of irony. Are you somehow not of the opinion that we have not weathered some abuse and disrespect too? Takling about only one side of the problem is, yet again, futile. All you're succeeding in doing is alienating the people you're hoping to reach with this.

In short, don't talk to me about the incredibly rude and arrogant new Christians here in relation to this problem. I see them, and I don't defend them; in fact, I have criticized them strongly, and I am not the only theist who has done so. As I've said elsewhere, one expects fanatics to behave like fanatics.

Um, sorry, but that's just unreasonable. If we're going to talk about the problem of disrespect and forum atmosphere, then we're going to talk about the WHOLE problem. Atheists are no more a single-body of assholes than Theists are, and both sides, apparently, need to learn that. Theist behavior is going to be talked about in this thread. And it should be. Even if you don't think so. This isn't to take attention away from what atheists are doing wrong, at least, it shouldn't be, and it certainly isn't intended to be when I do it. Your misbehavior doesn't make mine ok, and the opposite is just as true.

If you expect and excuse fundy-fanatics for behaving as fanatics do, then accept the same for atheists. If, however, you're going to hold atheists responsible for our fanatical views and behavior, then do the same for your theistic bretheren. Honestly, I don't know how someone as reasonable as you has managed to seperate the two.

That is no excuse, of course; but their bad behavior is even less of an excuse for equally bad behavior on the part of those who claim to take pride in being the voices of rationality, reason, and civilization. That is far, far more shocking and disturbing. Religious ideologues will behave like what they are. Should self-described rationalists and humanists behave the same way?

You have a point here, and I have no choice but to acknowledge it. We atheists would very much like to be seen as rational, logical and deductive, and we need to set that example and hope that theists can follow it. Theists, however, pride themselves on the love, mercy and forgiveness of their Gods. We preach and ideology of logic and evidence, and we should stick to that. Now lets see you guys try that 'other cheek' thing I hear so much about. (You're excused for your Jewishness on this count, since that was Jesus' bag anyways)

If we're going to expect people to adhere to their supposed virtues, then again, it's a two way street.

In any case: The fundamentalists are not the problem, and I can prove it:

This forum has changed radically in just the last couple of months; but they have always been here.

At times, they have been even worse. Does anyone remember Smersh? Where was the chorus of protests, insults and vituperation directed at him?

Don't bother 'proving' it to anyone, no SINGLE side is a problem. Hell, both sides, collectively, aren't 'the problem'. It's individual behavior and choices, and honestly, I think the mods are as on top of it as they need to be. I've said it before, recently, and to someone else, but it's just as valid here; Man up. They're just words. They won't hurt you unless you let them.

The fundamentalists are not, at bottom, relevant to this problem. Blaming this kind of thing on them is intellectually dishonest and wrong, and most of you are honorable and wise enough to know that.

What??? Really? So one side being disrespectful and bigotted is not the problem, and the other side being disrespectful and bigoted is?!?! Are you serious?

Without apology; I am one of the most rational, most intelligent, and least objectionable theists on this forum, and have been so told many, many times; but I am now routinely being treated like I am a fundamentalist clone, and frankly, it disturbs me that even some of our older members suddenly seem to be okay with that and are joining in.

Without apology indeed. I've said pretty much the same about you, but this thread certainly takes away about that. I'm not an idiot either, and have been told so occasionally, by my mother, who also thinks I'm handsome. It distrubes me that you think this is entirely a one sided problem, and that we atheists are out of line. Personally, I think it has to do with how poorly the theists have been fairing in otherwise fair debates, and I don't mind saying so.

I am not a fundamentalist, and I don't think the behavior of, objectively, a few of them justifies this contemptuous and sneering attitude toward every member here who believes in God.

Contempt for an opinion and contempt for a person are two very different things. I make no apology for the fact that I believe that 'faith' in magical beings is ridiculous. Your belief in God is no different to me than someone who believes in dragons, big foot, or just for fun, a giant talking toaster. They're all equal parts absurd, and the fact that theists hold their absurd notions to be of value does nothing to actually validate that belief. We have the right to see an opinion as ridiculous and express why.

That said, those of us that treat the opinion holder with contempt are out of line. You're wrong, and the opinion you have that there's a god is stupid. That's my opinion, it might be incorrect, but I have every right to put it as bluntly as I see fit, though I usually sugar coat it a little more than that. I do not think you're stupid, nor have I ever treated you or anyone who wasn't openly and obviously stupid as if they were. I resent being addressed even as part of a group that behaves in such a way just as much as you resent being treated as a fundamentalist. This is EXACTLY what you're doing with this thread, and its so obvious that you are that I'm almost wondering if its an experiment on your part to see what would happen if you did just that.

I don't think it even justifies that treatment of them. I think that is sinking to a level, frankly, that is lower than theirs; at least they have the excuse of being fanatics. Those who engage in this kind of sneering and baiting and claim to be rational and civilized and enlightened ought to be ashamed.

Your fanatics would no more admit to being so than ours. Atheism has fanatics. Some are on this board. They behave as inappropriately as the ones on your side, and should be given exactly the same amount of rope as the ones who believe in God. Do what I do, and use it to hang them.

"Look at what HE did!" is not the defense of a mature, rational adult for bad behavior.

Since this whole thread is a big, stinking pile of 'Look what the atheists are doing!', I think you've rather undermined your point.

Who among the nontheists here has the moral courage to admit that this is a problem?

It doesn't take moral courage, although the problem is much, much smaller than this over-dramatic 2nd take at a plea for moderacy would have us believe.

... is moderacy a word?

Where are those debates now? I have had a few begin; but then someone will ring in and drop a derision bomb on the conversation and question my right to discuss anything at all if I can't prove the objective truth of the existence of God. This has become a one-topic forum.

I'm actually with you here. I'm very tired of seeing someone demand proof for God or a definition thereof, mostly because these questions should, by now, have common sense responses.

Of course, my solution is a lot easier; ignore them. No one says you have to address everything that is said. Respond the the question and debators who are challenging you in ways you wish to be challenged, you absolutely have that freedom. This is tantamount to whinning about someone being on your side of the car, and its not going to help anything. It really isn't.

Disagreement, debate, even vigorous debate, I can stand, and in fact even enjoy; but this constant, unrelenting, atmosphere of snickering up the sleeve at theists qua theists, and the strong and routinely expressed implication that we are all idiots, are depressing and disheartening. If this kind of thing is now acceptable, I don't think I'm going to be around much longer.

Its a lot less frustrating when you see both sides of the problem. At least then you don't feel ganged up on. If you wish to distance yourself from the fundies, by all means, go ahead, but allow us that same luxery with our more militant bretheren.

A lot depends on the response to this OP. Well, not a lot; but whether or not I, for one, decide to delete my bookmark for DC&R and seek another forum where the ideal of "civil and respectful debate" is actually sought, and not ignored and discounted as unimportant, largely does.

In a word, lame. It's the internet, and like it or not, assholes are everywhere. If you wish to take your pity-party elsewhere, you're certainly free to do so, but this sort of emotional blackmail, passive-aggressive as it is, doesn't help anything. I have seen lots of civil and respectful debate here, and much of it is completely unfettered with the disrespect you seem to see everywhere. I'm not saying the disrespect isn't out there, but I'll be damned if it isn't incredibly simple to ignore. If someone has some sort of unfounded opinion of you, if they treat you like an irrational fundementalist moron, what do you care? That person is ignorant and, apparently, illiterate. Why waste your time replying, let alone being bothered to the point that you post TWO of these things.

If anyone wants to dismiss this as mere whining because I'm unable to debate, or hypersensitivity in a rough environment, or otherwise if no account and to be ignored, I would point to the 200-plus threads on which I have been a participant. I am no newbie, and no thin-skinned virgin to open and honest debate. I've been here far longer than those to whose behavior I most object. This place has changed, and I don't like it, and am saying so. We'll see who has the intestinal fortitude to actually address this problem, as opposed to finding excuses, rationalizations, snd justification for conduct that this forum claims to find unacceptable.

In so doing, should we also point them to the much older thread where you basically say the same thing? No one understands or treats you appropriately, and as such, you threatened to leave?

I, as I have said already, respect you, but I don't respect this on your part. If you want an open and honest debate, have one. There's nothing stopping you. Even if the first ten posts after yours are calling you down, you can choose only to reply and dignify the 11th. It's not as if its a great hardship to scroll down, and if something is against the rules, report it. The mods have, in my experience, been really good at dealing with people who step out of line, including myself once.

Regardless of your history here, this is hypersensitivity and, I'll add, a heaping dose of hypocrasy, not necessarily on your part, but on the part of the 'side' you seem to be representing here by painting all atheists the same color.

Bluntly: are we, collectively, going to return to being the civil, respectful and fair debaters we have been in the past, or are we going to continue to dial up, justify, and find excuses for these ugly and toxic attitudes and behavior?

Neither. We, as individuals, will make unique choices every time we author a post. Those of us that aspire to follow the rules will, at least largely, do so, with the occasional forgivable lapse in judgment. Those of us, on both sides, that do not hold the rules of the forum to be quite so valuable will continue to behave as children until the moderators weed us out. Threads like this will do nothing to expidite the process.

Is the best and only remedy that I might reasonably expect to have for being sneered at is simply to abandon my belief and become an atheist, too?

It would certainly be a point in your favor, but then you'll have to endure the same sort of vacant-eyed pity that theists ignorantly throw our way from time to time, which, I assure you, is no less annoying than whatever we (collectively, apparently) have done to offend you.

Is that the price of respect here now?

Everyone has different criteria. Theists don't respect atheists as much as fellow theists, and vice versa. That's just true. You might consider yourself an exeption to that, one who treats everyone equally, and you can feel free to state so, but I doubt I'll believe you.

Is that reasonable?

No. people should be judged on the entirety of their character and not a singular opinion they hold. That's why, after this, I will continue to respect you.

Is this forum going to be what it claims to be and once was, or not?

A little bit of melodrama there? I think so. This forum, which I grant you I haven't been a member of for more than a couple of months now, seems to be exactly what it was advertised as. It is largely respectful.

You have to realize that both sides are pretty much trying to convince the other that we're right. That's the purpose here. That's going to breed a little conflict, it's human nature. Having something as deeply important to some people as their faith questioned is only gonig to breed more of it. It doesn't justfiy it when it happens, but it does tell you that it is going to happen, and it always has.

The only real difference is that, in the past, as you yourself mentioned, it came from the fundementalists. Something that the atheists present at the time don't appear to have made a big deal out of and that you yourself excused because of the fact that they are fundementalists. Now, apparently, the pendulum has swung a little bit in the other direction, and all of a sudden, its unfair, not what the forum was founded on, and is ruinning the experience for you.

My lack of faith was called an open wound, dude, and this is the only thread I've mentioned it in. It's not a big deal. There's an 'ignore' button that will take care of this for you, no problem. Try it out.

[OnceConvinced]

1. The default approach to conversation with a theist is a contemptuous sneer. Not civility and courtesy, and certainly not respect; derision and ridicule are the order of the day. Though rational and reasoned argument may be involved, an attitude of contemptuous disdain must be maintained and expressed at all times and in all exchanges.

2. Never pass up a chance to take a shot at theism. It may be cheap, facile, false, offensive, insulting, or other; as long as it demeans and trivializes religion, it's acceptable and even praiseworthy and admirable.

3. Personal respect, friendliness, and good will are no longer relevant nor necessary. Theists, of any kind, are neither worthy of nor deserve any of these. If one cannot think rationally and clearly enough to reject any kind of supernatural or religious belief whatever, one may be and ought to be spit upon, sneered at, and openly despised, and this too is wholly admirable and praiseworthy.

4. Thou shalt not criticize or correct another nontheist. Team loyalty trumps the most obnoxious or objectionable behavior, so long as it is directed at theists. They deserve whatever they get, so do not take exception to anything a fellow nontheist says. That will be seen as defending theism, gross disloyalty, and taking the side of irrationality

I think these are a problem, but not all are guilty of it. I wonder how much of the contempt is aimed at particular doctrones rather than just everything a theist says.

Admittedly I do sometimes cringe when I see good natured theists who come in here and are immediately ganged up on and often even disrespected by non-theists. However I also notice that very rarely do any other theist members jump in to assist that member. For people who claim to have the Holy spirit in them, I'd expect more unity.

As for pulling up a fellow member of the board for obnoxious and objectionable behavior, this does not happen too often on the theist side either. This is tricky. I have sometimes considered saying something (and I even stuck up for 2bitsmedia lately with regards to his signature), but we are being told we should leave that sort of thing up to the moderators. And as far as I can see they are even handed in this sort of thing.

In any case: The fundamentalists are not the problem, and I can prove it:

This forum has changed radically in just the last couple of months; but they have always been here.

So have the non-theists who you accuse of causing the deterioration of this message board.

Interesting that you should mention the last couple of months. It's only been in the last couple of months that a lot of insults have been hurled at atheists about being "fools". It's those comments and similar that have riled up many members of the forum.

Bluntly: are we, collectively, going to return to being the civil, respectful and fair debaters we have been in the past, or are we going to continue to dial up, justify, and find excuses for these ugly and toxic attitudes and behavior?

We all need to make an effort and try to be less biased in favour of those who we agree with.

[FinalEnigma]

I think I'm going to have to speak to both sides on this one.

and apologies in advance for the long post.

Norman is using a rather wide brush at the moment, but save for a few exceptions, I don't think he is wrong to do so.

I like to think that I tend toward civility here, though I have to admit that at times I have responded with a bit less of it than I should have. I am at times guilty of responding to ad homs with an ad hom myself. I don't go out of my way to insult people, though I do sometimes accidentally insult people by mis-stating myself(in addition to the occasional uncivil response)

But of the threads I have read in the past few days, 30-50% of them that went over 4 or 5 pages required moderator intervention at some point. That is nothing like how I remembered this site to be in the past. Primarily I think there are a few people who are staring the insults, and other people respond in kind-because it is very difficult not to.

I would ask however, that if somebody does try to start it with you, don't do it back. And don't be one of the ones starting it.

The secondary reason I think that ad homs start is that some people have grown very weary of responding to the same evasions and points(sometimes already refuted) over and over-on both sides.

I won't speak here to the quality of anyones post, but some people tend to repeat the same basic thing in nearly every thread they participate in, which can very easily cause high amounts of frustration. for example Zzyzx tends to have the same basic premise very, very often, and while that premise may be true or accurate(note may be. I am not endorsing or condemning his posts) I for one can attest that were I a theist I would have long since become incredibly frustrated with it.
I myself probably do the same thing to a degree, however...

Bear in mind everyone while reading Cnorman's post, that he is rather frustrated-and rightfully so-so he may be prone to some exaggeration.

1. The default approach to conversation with a theist is a contemptuous sneer.

I am seeing this more and more in posts lately, again, there is some exaggeration of the issue, but it is an issue

3. Personal respect, friendliness, and good will are no longer relevant nor necessary. Theists, of any kind, are neither worthy of nor deserve any of these.

This has been blatantly been said by at least one atheist on these boards, and applied to a couple theists on these boards-not to all theists by all atheists so it's an exaggeration, but again its an issue. I have seen members walk into a thread without even the pretense of civilized debate.

4. Thou shalt not criticize or correct another nontheist.

I can't speak to this one so much-I haven't honestly seen much in the way of correction of either 'side' by their own 'side' but I cannot speak to what is said in PMs

In short, don't talk to me about the incredibly rude and arrogant new Christians here in relation to this problem. I see them, and I don't defend them; in fact, I have criticized them strongly, and I am not the only theist who has done so. As I've said elsewhere, one expects fanatics to behave like fanatics.

This is true, again of both sides. It is an easy error to generalize the behavior of some theists(or atheists) to all of them and respond in kind-to the wrong person.

...but I am now routinely being treated like I am a fundamentalist clone...

I have seen this. Cnorman and some other theists have been treated unreasonably-as if they are the same as the people who come on this site and make bald assertions that nobody can possibly prove and then insult you when you disagree.

Where are those debates now? I have had a few begin; but then someone will ring in and drop a derision bomb on the conversation and question my right to discuss anything at all if I can't prove the objective truth of the existence of God. This has become a one-topic forum.

This I have seen as well. A thread will be going along just fine, then somebody comes in and says something ridiculous and it derails the entire thread. and there is no recourse for the author of the thread who is understandably upset and frustrated that somebody entered their thread about a subject they wanted to discuss-and derailed it horribly. I have been the victim of this as well.

Admittedly I do sometimes cringe when I see good natured theists who come in here and are immediately ganged up on and often even disrespected by non-theists. However I also notice that very rarely do any other theist members jump in to assist that member. For people who claim to have the Holy spirit in them, I'd expect more unity.

That's no kind of response to the issue. while I know quite well that it wasn't your intent, that comes off as "theists should take care of their own, it's not my business."

I for one, don't tend to want to jump into a thread where I am likely to be insulted or demeaned for agreeing with someone. If they are doing it to the first theist, they are likely to do the same to the second one in the thread.

I've already suggested in a couple of places, mostly the "Atheists are Fools" quote-debate thing that happened that a very easy solution is to man-up and scroll past the parts that offend you or strike you as rude. Disrespect isn't a powerful weapon for either side, and treating it as anything other than an extremely mild inconvinience purpetrated by those who lack actual debating skills is only going to empower those who lean that way more so. I'm going to pat myself on the back for that sentence now.

The point is C-nub, we shouldn't have to. This is one position I would actually consider sneering at. do you know what happens when you ignore misbehavior? It gets worse.

And to be honest, I absolutely loathe that stance. Do you want to know why? when I was in school(elementary mostly-i'd learned better by highschool) if kids are screwing with you(and I was seriously screwed with-those who know me know why) and you do what you are told to do(which I unfortunately usually do until I realize it's dumb) and go to a teacher or administrator, what do they tell you?
Oh ignore them, words can't hurt you.

Words have tortured and killed more children of school age than you could even guess.

so the stance to just ignore that kind of behavior is just disgusting to me. It teaches that it is all right to behave like that, and while none of us here are children people will gladly go on to teach their children that kind of behavior, and to accept that kind of behavior in society, and that is completely unacceptable.

My hypocrasy detector is going off. You started this thread by writing a general series of rules for all non-theists that you asserted were pretty much dead on. As such, you included me in that group, despite the fact that my behavior has, at least generally, not reflected your so called rules. You also failed to assign any culpability to the theists for their behavior, despite the recent problems some atheists have expressed to theist signatures calling them fools.

If you want to hold this thread to a standard, its one you're going to have to maintain. Expecting non-theists to talk about what they're doing 'wrong' in your eyes without at the same time addressing what they see your 'side' of this particular argument doing is just not going to happen.

No, it's not. but the last thread on this topic did rather solidly turn into "its the theists fault"

Partly, but it's also partly the atheists fault.

People are going to feel insulted on both sides, sometimes justifiably, sometimes not, and they are going to insult back, sometimes justifiably, sometimes not, because that's what people do. If you're somehow better than that, then I applaud you for it, but it's an unrealistic standard to hold us to.

I don't feel that it is an unrealistic standard. It's the necessary standard. It doesn't matter who starts it, don't perpetuate it. either report it, or if you really prefer, ignore it.

Again, this is a two sided street, and trying to address only one side of the problem is only going to further offend the people you're trying to deal with. If you want to talk to us about this, then talk to us like equals, and not from a position that seems to be on a pedestal. I mean no disrespect here, but you're talking down to all atheists here, and that's not going to get anyone to accept the parts you're actually right about.

I've been coming down pretty hard on the theists side, mainly because nobody else is standing up for the theists here, and they have a point. But so do you.

Cnorman, I understand your frustration, but try to bear in mind your goal when you post-and while it certainly feels good to vent a little bit, it doesn't really help you much. And yes, I know it is incredibly presumptuous of me to say that, but I honestly feel it applies.

What??? Really? So one side being disrespectful and bigotted is not the problem, and the other side being disrespectful and bigoted is?!?! Are you serious?

That wasn't what he meant. He meant that fundamentalists aren't the root of the problem, which the other thread seemed to be arguing.

I'm not saying the disrespect isn't out there, but I'll be damned if it isn't incredibly simple to ignore. If someone has some sort of unfounded opinion of you, if they treat you like an irrational fundementalist moron, what do you care? That person is ignorant and, apparently, illiterate. Why waste your time replying, let alone being bothered to the point that you post TWO of these things.

I already spoke on this. I will not ignore blatant out of line behavior.

In so doing, should we also point them to the much older thread where you basically say the same thing? No one understands or treats you appropriately, and as such, you threatened to leave?

He has a point. Out of all the people on this site I think I can safely say that Cnorman has gotten the most unjustified crap out of people's mouths. from atheists because hes a theist, and from christians because hes a Jew.

Everyone has different criteria. Theists don't respect atheists as much as fellow theists, and vice versa. That's just true. You might consider yourself an exeption to that, one who treats everyone equally, and you can feel free to state so, but I doubt I'll believe you.

this is just not true. I could make a long list of atheists on this board for whom I have a lot less respect than Cnorman and Micatala. In fact, the list of atheists I respect more would be very short indeed.

[cnorman18]

Don't freak out now, C-Nub, but yours is exactly the kind of thoughtful and reasoned response I was hoping for.

I intended, as I said, this OP to be provocative, and I quite deliberately overstated the case. You will now find out that I agree with you on virtually every point.

Hi dude. Off the bat, I'm going to state upfront; I like you, I have enjoyed almost all of what you've contributed, and I value the fact that you provide a Jewish perspective on what often turns into a Christian vs. Atheists sort of scenario.

Thanks. I'll reciprocate in a moment.

I'm going to try this again on a new thread. Let me begin a bit more provocatively this time:

Fair enough, but expect more provactive answers in return.

I did. Thanks for providing one.

1. The default approach to conversation with a theist is a contemptuous sneer. Not civility and courtesy, and certainly not respect; derision and ridicule are the order of the day. Though rational and reasoned argument may be involved, an attitude of contemptuous disdain must be maintained and expressed at all times and in all exchanges.

That's a pretty big brush there, with all due respect sir. I think we all do this to a certain degree, under certain situations. Many of us atheists disagree strongly with theism, and for a percentage of us, the belief in the super-natural is somewhat ridiculous. We're wrong to react by being condescending there, absolutely we are, but only in the context of this board and its rules. I'm probably a little guilty of this myself, but we're not wrong to view it that way in general, anymore than you're are to think, if you happen to think, that we're missing out on something by not accepting God in some form or another.

Okay, first; I was and am aware that there are many nontheists who do not come on strong with this attitude, and I ought to have acknowledged that; I didn't, precisely because, as many have said, overstating one's case is a sure-fire way to get a response. I didn't think the other thread addressed much in the way of misbehavior on the nontheist side, so I cranked up the complaints a few notches.

2. Never pass up a chance to take a shot at theism. It may be cheap, facile, false, offensive, insulting, or other; as long as it demeans and trivializes religion, it's acceptable and even praiseworthy and admirable.

I don't know if this one is fair. I know that I personally go back over a lot of my posts and take out 'shots' before I hit the 'submit' button. I'm very conscious of my tendancy towards sarcasm and do a lot of self-censoring on the subject. That said, sometimes something gets said that really, really, really does warrent sarcasm. That happens on both sides. Daedalus' recent behavior is an excellent example of an atheist who deserved a sarcastic smackdown. Sarcastic comments and witty (or supposedly witty) one liners are a part of some people's arguing style. That doesn't excuse it, necessarily, but it should be taken into consideration when assessing culpability.

I do a bit of self-censoring myself. Oddly enough, my own intemperate remarks seem to be directed at some of my fellow (?) theists, too.

To be honest, I just learned (or noticed) that Daedalus has been banned a short time ago, after I composed and posted this message, and that relieves about half of my concern here. .

3. Personal respect, friendliness, and good will are no longer relevant nor necessary. Theists, of any kind, are neither worthy of nor deserve any of these. If one cannot think rationally and clearly enough to reject any kind of supernatural or religious belief whatever, one may be and ought to be spit upon, sneered at, and openly despised, and this too is wholly admirable and praiseworthy.

I recently came across a post that refered to those of shaken faith, those who doubted, or atheists in general as having an 'open wound'. It was a metaphor, sure, but it sure didn't come across as friendly or respectful. I think you're overstating the atheist position here, at least in most cases. I certainly don't spit on your point of view, and generally derride people for their poor arguments, and not the positions that spawned them.

That is often true, but not always. Theism seems to be derided in general, and I can understand that; but I think it gets personal much more than it should. But, as I say, one of the chief offenders is gone now, and perhaps we'll see less of that sort of thing from others in the future.

I think you're wrong to suggest that 'all' atheists behave this way while simialr rules we'd write would only apply to the fundies, it shows something of a double-standard at play.

Granted. Mea culpa. But that was my intent. I wanted to focus some attention on the other side of the problem; I think the excesses of certain of our newer fundies is well known and noted, and I have commented on them myself.

I have posted many, many messages about how foolish it is to use the Bible as "evidence" when one is talking to a person who doesn't believe in it. Threats of Hell are even worse.

One thing that has just occurred to me is this: I tend to avoid threads which are specific to Christianity, and after a PM I just got, I don't think I've even seen as much of the anti-atheist vitriol as you might suppose. I suspect there's more of it around than I was aware of.

4. Thou shalt not criticize or correct another nontheist. Team loyalty trumps the most obnoxious or objectionable behavior, so long as it is directed at theists. They deserve whatever they get, so do not take exception to anything a fellow nontheist says. That will be seen as defending theism, gross disloyalty, and taking the side of irrationality.

This one is pure BS, I've spoken up on multiple occasions regarding the positions my fellow atheists hold, and have sent PM's to quite a few more regarding the means in which they presented 'our' case, usually in a critical though occasionally in a complimentary faction. I'm sorry Norman, really I am, but you're seeing this one with whatever the angry equivilant of rose-colored glasses are. Let's say teal.

I can only say I've seen very, very little of that. If I had, I wouldn't have said what I did. I can only think of one post, for instance, where the unlamented Daedalus was criticized by another nontheist. I guess I just haven't been on the right threads.

All credit to those on both sides who criticize and police their own. I vote for more of the same. It has a much greater impact when one is corrected by a person with whom one largely agrees.

I realize it would be very easy to write a similar list of "rules" for a few of our new fundamentalists, and ignore all my concerns here in favor of returning the focus to them. That is all that has happened so far on the other thread--not a single nontheist has even considered that his own side might have any tiny bit of culpability at all here--and that is tantamount to blaming the entire problem here on one side only.

I think its funny to post a set of rules only for Atheists / Non-Theists then talk about our approach to culpability. I'm not perfect, and have certainly on occasion made comments that were either rude or could be taken to be rude, but at the same time, uh, it's a debate forum. That's going to happen. On both sides. I've already suggested in a couple of places, mostly the "Atheists are Fools" quote-debate thing...

Case in point; I never bothered to look at that thread. The title was so silly, I didn't see much point in it. I was also aware that it was started by an atheist. Had no idea why.

...that happened that a very easy solution is to man-up and scroll past the parts that offend you or strike you as rude. Disrespect isn't a powerful weapon for either side, and treating it as anything other than an extremely mild inconvinience purpetrated by those who lack actual debating skills is only going to empower those who lean that way more so. I'm going to pat myself on the back for that sentence now.

And well you should. It's good advice; I admit to being a bit compulsive about responding to posts. I have had long conversations with a person here who is not, shall we say, famous for actually engaging, but rather well-known for finding ways to avoid it.
I'm also not famous for letting something go by without comment when I feel offended. I'll have to work on that.

That said, FinalEnigma has a point too. As I remarked elsewhere, ignoring misbehavior is condoning it, and if this trend continues, we'll soon be scrolling past everything.

I will admit, here, as a non-theist, that my side has exactly 50% of the culpability in this situation. No more, no less. Does that help at all?

Absolutely. Now that D is gone, I would say possibly less than that.

Some members have even said that in so many words; only theists are to blame here, and nontheists have done nothing wrong. Straight out.

Well, those people are probably idiots. Don't read what they say anymore, and you'll have a lot less issue with them.

Hmmm. I'll take that under advisement.

It's hard to ignore a guy when he starts doing a victory dance and crows that you're not answering because he's right and you can't.

(1) Only theists who are arrogant, doctrinaire, refuse to engage in debate as opposed to preaching, etc., are receiving this treatment.

That is false. I have, and so have other theists who are not of that description. I would venture to say that all of us have.

My hypocrasy detector is going off. You started this thread by writing a general series of rules for all non-theists that you asserted were pretty much dead on.

As I said, I shouldn't have said that. I will note that I never said "all," though the implication was there. I admit I was pissed off when I wrote it and knew better; but I also had another reason.

As such, you included me in that group, despite the fact that my behavior has, at least generally, not reflected your so called rules.

You are right again, and you are not the only non-theist I regard as civil, reasonable, and an all-around good guy. There are many here who know that I feel that way about them, and I know that some, at least, knew that I was not talking about them. We are just getting to know each other, but I will say that you are one of them, too.

My intent was specifically to provoke the innocent, as I have. Read on.

You also failed to assign any culpability to the theists for their behavior, despite the recent problems some atheists have expressed to theist signatures calling them fools.

If you want to hold this thread to a standard, its one you're going to have to maintain. Expecting non-theists to talk about what they're doing 'wrong' in your eyes without at the same time addressing what they see your 'side' of this particular argument doing is just not going to happen.

As I said; the other side of this problem has been addressed pretty regularly and thoroughly, and I think everyone here knows that. I wanted to provoke at least SOME discussion of THIS side.

If you'll look at the OP of the other thread, I was pretty even-handed. The discussion on that thread focused almost entirely on the (absolutely dreadful) excesses of some, but--I would in turn remind YOU--not all of the Christians around here.

That has been the case on a very great many threads. I wanted to see some acknowledgement that this problem DOES involve both sides--just as you say.

(2) There have never been any actual instances of disrespect or contempt, but only challenges to unsupported logic and specious claims.

That is also a falsehood. We have at least one member who openly admits to deliberately and consciously using mockery and derision as tools in debate, and many nontheists members are applauding and justifying that practice and following his lead. Indeed, his posts are not easily distinguishable from those of others.

Of course there have. Go to the forum where rule-breakers are listed, there's names from both sides.

I may be the one member that openly admits to mocking people sometimes...

No. That was D. He was quite vocal and proud about it.

...but if you actually go and read my posts, they're not really set up like that at all. Mockery, teasing, if you will, has its place. It's how you address an extraordinarily badly composed argument or thesis, and not an entire side.

I don't recall that u've ever read a post of yours that I thought objectionable.

Some of the people on my side treat all theists with contempt, they're wrong.

And those are the ones I was writing about.

Some people on your side treat all non-theists with the same contempt. They're also wrong.

Even more so. Fanatic or not, Christianity is supposed to be about live and forbearance and humility and all that (and I have remarked on the "humility" issue there many times).

That is, probably always has been, and always will be, part of a religious debate. People take this stuff extremely personally because of how important it is to the 'core' of who they are. People are going to feel insulted on both sides, sometimes justifiably, sometimes not, and they are going to insult back, sometimes justifiably, sometimes not, because that's what people do. If you're somehow better than that, then I applaud you for it, but it's an unrealistic standard to hold us to.

Oh, I think I've done my share of over-the-top overreacting. This post may be an example, though it was more deliberate. More on that in a moment.

Let's not all pretend that this isn't happening. It happens in many ways, and they are not subtle nor accidental nor unintended. Allusions to Santa Claus and pink unicorns are one thing, for instance, but allusions to the most studiedly and deliberately outrageous and demeaning examples of false and ridiculous beliefs are going beyond logical analogy and indulging in outright ridicule. The same point could be made without a series of questions about the God of Small Awnings, e.g. That is not analogy, but derision and insult, and it is quite deliberate.

You're right, so long as you accept that it's a two way street. We all have to police ourselves in this regard, and at the same time, we have to accept that we're human, and that sometimes people will say things with a very poor understanding of how they'll be recieved. I shoot for funny a lot, sometimes I'm not funny, sometimes I'm offensive. I know that, and I try to avoid it, but not enough to quit trying to work a laugh or two into my posts here.

Levity is welcome around here. We need more of it. My only objection is to humor that hinges on the humiliation or degradation of others (which is why I could never stand Andy Kaufman). "Look how stupid these Christians are" is pretty common arouind here, and I don't like it. "Look how stupid this argument is" is quite another matter.

That's one method; there are others. Pretending that these are not deliberately intended to be baiting, insulting, and offensive is intellectually dishonest and cowardly.

Exactly like the signature calling all of us fools. Sure, you can come and say that it isn't what it says, but its there in pretty much plain english, and the poster's interpretation of its meaning does nothing to take away from the actual words used. People who interpret it to be calling them fools are no less right or wrong than those who think its only applicable under a long and somewhat tedious explanation that was totally NOT included in the signature. I should point out that my opinion on that particular signature is that it's totally harmless, and am only using it as an example because it's one that most readers should be somewhat familiar with, I think, maybe.

The reputation of the person who uses that signature is well known here. I think I'd better stop and say no more about that.

For the record, I think it inexcusable and no explanation, long, tedious or otherwise, will change that. It's intended to he insulting, and it is.

But in that case, one considers tbr source, and, well, I'd better stop again.

Again, this is a two sided street, and trying to address only one side of the problem is only going to further offend the people you're trying to deal with. If you want to talk to us about this, then talk to us like equals, and not from a position that seems to be on a pedestal. I mean no disrespect here, but you're talking down to all atheists here, and that's not going to get anyone to accept the parts you're actually right about.

See below.

(3) Hostile and contemptuous attitudes from nontheists toward all theists must be understood, excused, and accepted without complaint, because of the misbehavior of some theists.

Absolutely correct. Atheists are very guilty of this, of lumping all theists together into one melting pot of supernatural crazies. We should do less of this, and spend more time listening to moderate theists who have a depth of philosophy we can learn from despite the underlying premise that bases it on God. Your own philosophy of religious tolerance has proven very helpful to me.

Of course, theists shouldn't be treating all atheists like condescending, theist hating debate-nazis.

Like this thread is doing...

LOL! And quite intentionally, too. Again, see below.

That is clearly entirely hypocritical and unacceptable. If anyone thinks that is logical or fair, let him defend it; but don't forget that that gives a license for unlimited abuse of everyone from the other side as well, and if that's a reasonable view, we might as well shut this site down and go read some books.

The opening sentence smacks of irony. Are you somehow not of the opinion that we have not weathered some abuse and disrespect too? Takling about only one side of the problem is, yet again, futile. All you're succeeding in doing is alienating the people you're hoping to reach with this.

And again.

In short, don't talk to me about the incredibly rude and arrogant new Christians here in relation to this problem. I see them, and I don't defend them; in fact, I have criticized them strongly, and I am not the only theist who has done so. As I've said elsewhere, one expects fanatics to behave like fanatics.

Um, sorry, but that's just unreasonable. If we're going to talk about the problem of disrespect and forum atmosphere, then we're going to talk about the WHOLE problem. Atheists are no more a single-body of assholes than Theists are, and both sides, apparently, need to learn that. Theist behavior is going to be talked about in this thread. And it should be. Even if you don't think so. This isn't to take attention away from what atheists are doing wrong, at least, it shouldn't be, and it certainly isn't intended to be when I do it. Your misbehavior doesn't make mine ok, and the opposite is just as true.

All agreed.

If you expect and excuse fundy-fanatics for behaving as fanatics do, then accept the same for atheists. If, however, you're going to hold atheists responsible for our fanatical views and behavior, then do the same for your theistic bretheren. Honestly, I don't know how someone as reasonable as you has managed to seperate the two.

I haven't. You'll get it in a minute.

That is no excuse, of course; but their bad behavior is even less of an excuse for equally bad behavior on the part of those who claim to take pride in being the voices of rationality, reason, and civilization. That is far, far more shocking and disturbing. Religious ideologues will behave like what they are. Should self-described rationalists and humanists behave the same way?

You have a point here, and I have no choice but to acknowledge it. We atheists would very much like to be seen as rational, logical and deductive, and we need to set that example and hope that theists can follow it. Theists, however, pride themselves on the love, mercy and forgiveness of their Gods. We preach and ideology of logic and evidence, and we should stick to that. Now lets see you guys try that 'other cheek' thing I hear so much about. (You're excused for your Jewishness on this count, since that was Jesus' bag anyways)

Right again; that's not part of the Jewish ethic. We don't think "love your enemies" makes much sense either.

If we're going to expect people to adhere to their supposed virtues, then again, it's a two way street.

In any case: The fundamentalists are not the problem, and I can prove it:

This forum has changed radically in just the last couple of months; but they have always been here.

At times, they have been even worse. Does anyone remember Smersh? Where was the chorus of protests, insults and vituperation directed at him?

Don't bother 'proving' it to anyone, no SINGLE side is a problem. Hell, both sides, collectively, aren't 'the problem'. It's individual behavior and choices, and honestly, I think the mods are as on top of it as they need to be. I've said it before, recently, and to someone else, but it's just as valid here; Man up. They're just words. They won't hurt you unless you let them.

The fundamentalists are not, at bottom, relevant to this problem. Blaming this kind of thing on them is intellectually dishonest and wrong, and most of you are honorable and wise enough to know that.

What??? Really? So one side being disrespectful and bigotted is not the problem, and the other side being disrespectful and bigoted is?!?! Are you serious?

Absolutely I am. In the sense that one side's bad behavior does not excuse the other side's.

I am, quite deliberately, being one-sided here, because in my opinion ana from what I have seen, the execrable, unreasonable, fanatical, and often ridiculous behavior of the fundies has been talked to death here, and the increasingly frequent misbehavior of (admittedly, only a relative few) nontheists hasn't gotten much note. This thread wouldn't exist if the other one hadn't instantly fixed on the fundies' offenses and stayed there. Read it and tell me that's not true.

So, yes, if we're just talking about nontheists' behavior, the other side's is no excuse and isn't relevant. If we're talking about theists' misdeeds, then the misdeeds of the nontheists would be just as irrelevant.

Without apology; I am one of the most rational, most intelligent, and least objectionable theists on this forum, and have been so told many, many times; but I am now routinely being treated like I am a fundamentalist clone, and frankly, it disturbs me that even some of our older members suddenly seem to be okay with that and are joining in.

Without apology indeed. I've said pretty much the same about you, but this thread certainly takes away about that. I'm not an idiot either, and have been told so occasionally, by my mother, who also thinks I'm handsome. It distrubes me that you think this is entirely a one sided problem, and that we atheists are out of line. Personally, I think it has to do with how poorly the theists have been fairing in otherwise fair debates, and I don't mind saying so.

As I said, I don't think this is entirely a one-sided problem, but I do think only one side has been discussed much.

Let me be clear; the fundies have always been awful. Until recently, the nontheists weren't. If you guys are going to start acting like them, who's going to be watching the store?

I am not a fundamentalist, and I don't think the behavior of, objectively, a few of them justifies this contemptuous and sneering attitude toward every member here who believes in God.

Contempt for an opinion and contempt for a person are two very different things. I make no apology for the fact that I believe that 'faith' in magical beings is ridiculous. Your belief in God is no different to me than someone who believes in dragons, big foot, or just for fun, a giant talking toaster.

You mean my friend Theophilus? He makes a great Pop-Tart.

They're all equal parts absurd, and the fact that theists hold their absurd notions to be of value does nothing to actually validate that belief. We have the right to see an opinion as ridiculous and express why.

Sure. But there is a line that ought not be crossed. That it's sometimes fuzzy, I don't deny.

We Jews don't have a problem with this, by and large. We laugh at our OWN religion more than most.

"Rabbi! You're eating oysters! And it's Yom Kippur!"

"So, nu? Yom Kippur has an 'R' in it, doesn't it?"

(If anyone doesn't get that one, PM me.)

That said, those of us that treat the opinion holder with contempt are out of line. You're wrong, and the opinion you have that there's a god is stupid. That's my opinion, it might be incorrect, but I have every right to put it as bluntly as I see fit, though I usually sugar coat it a little more than that. I do not think you're stupid, nor have I ever treated you or anyone who wasn't openly and obviously stupid as if they were. I resent being addressed even as part of a group that behaves in such a way just as much as you resent being treated as a fundamentalist. This is EXACTLY what you're doing with this thread, and its so obvious that you are that I'm almost wondering if its an experiment on your part to see what would happen if you did just that.

Not exactly, but you're close.

I don't think it even justifies that treatment of them. I think that is sinking to a level, frankly, that is lower than theirs; at least they have the excuse of being fanatics. Those who engage in this kind of sneering and baiting and claim to be rational and civilized and enlightened ought to be ashamed.

Your fanatics would no more admit to being so than ours. Atheism has fanatics. Some are on this board. They behave as inappropriately as the ones on your side, and should be given exactly the same amount of rope as the ones who believe in God. Do what I do, and use it to hang them.

"Look at what HE did!" is not the defense of a mature, rational adult for bad behavior.

Since this whole thread is a big, stinking pile of 'Look what the atheists are doing!', I think you've rather undermined your point.

Who among the nontheists here has the moral courage to admit that this is a problem?

It doesn't take moral courage, although the problem is much, much smaller than this over-dramatic 2nd take at a plea for moderacy would have us believe.

From where I sit, this isn't a small problem. I have gotten rather a lot of abuse and disrespect lately, and I don't much feel like shrugging it off.

... is moderacy a word?

"Moderation" is the one you're looking for.

Where are those debates now? I have had a few begin; but then someone will ring in and drop a derision bomb on the conversation and question my right to discuss anything at all if I can't prove the objective truth of the existence of God. This has become a one-topic forum.

I'm actually with you here. I'm very tired of seeing someone demand proof for God or a definition thereof, mostly because these questions should, by now, have common sense responses.

Of course, my solution is a lot easier; ignore them. No one says you have to address everything that is said. Respond the the question and debators who are challenging you in ways you wish to be challenged, you absolutely have that freedom. This is tantamount to whinning about someone being on your side of the car, and its not going to help anything. It really isn't.

Like I said, that's good advice and I intend to start taking it. Victory dances aside.

Disagreement, debate, even vigorous debate, I can stand, and in fact even enjoy; but this constant, unrelenting, atmosphere of snickering up the sleeve at theists qua theists, and the strong and routinely expressed implication that we are all idiots, are depressing and disheartening. If this kind of thing is now acceptable, I don't think I'm going to be around much longer.

Its a lot less frustrating when you see both sides of the problem. At least then you don't feel ganged up on. If you wish to distance yourself from the fundies, by all means, go ahead, but allow us that same luxery with our more militant bretheren.

Actually, now you've hit the reason why I posted this.

I wanted to piss off a bunch of nontheists enough so they would say, "Now wait just a damn minute! I don't do all that crap, and I think it's wrong!"

It worked, too.

Very few have had much to say about this up till now, from what I've seen. I just wanted to get it out on the table.

A lot depends on the response to this OP. Well, not a lot; but whether or not I, for one, decide to delete my bookmark for DC&R and seek another forum where the ideal of "civil and respectful debate" is actually sought, and not ignored and discounted as unimportant, largely does.

In a word, lame. It's the internet, and like it or not, assholes are everywhere. If you wish to take your pity-party elsewhere, you're certainly free to do so, but this sort of emotional blackmail, passive-aggressive as it is, doesn't help anything. I have seen lots of civil and respectful debate here, and much of it is completely unfettered with the disrespect you seem to see everywhere. I'm not saying the disrespect isn't out there, but I'll be damned if it isn't incredibly simple to ignore. If someone has some sort of unfounded opinion of you, if they treat you like an irrational fundementalist moron, what do you care? That person is ignorant and, apparently, illiterate. Why waste your time replying, let alone being bothered to the point that you post TWO of these things.

As I say, the first was rather more evenhanded, and I was not satisfied with the response. This one is already much more productive.

If anyone wants to dismiss this as mere whining because I'm unable to debate, or hypersensitivity in a rough environment, or otherwise if no account and to be ignored, I would point to the 200-plus threads on which I have been a participant. I am no newbie, and no thin-skinned virgin to open and honest debate. I've been here far longer than those to whose behavior I most object. This place has changed, and I don't like it, and am saying so. We'll see who has the intestinal fortitude to actually address this problem, as opposed to finding excuses, rationalizations, snd justification for conduct that this forum claims to find unacceptable.

In so doing, should we also point them to the much older thread where you basically say the same thing? No one understands or treats you appropriately, and as such, you threatened to leave?

Why not? I was wrong then. You have proved me wrong again, and I'm grateful for it.

I, as I have said already, respect you, but I don't respect this on your part. If you want an open and honest debate, have one. There's nothing stopping you. Even if the first ten posts after yours are calling you down, you can choose only to reply and dignify the 11th. It's not as if its a great hardship to scroll down, and if something is against the rules, report it. The mods have, in my experience, been really good at dealing with people who step out of line, including myself once.

Regardless of your history here, this is hypersensitivity and, I'll add, a heaping dose of hypocrasy, not necessarily on your part, but on the part of the 'side' you seem to be representing here by painting all atheists the same color.

It was for you to step up and reject the paint. I'm glad you did.

Bluntly: are we, collectively, going to return to being the civil, respectful and fair debaters we have been in the past, or are we going to continue to dial up, justify, and find excuses for these ugly and toxic attitudes and behavior?

Neither. We, as individuals, will make unique choices every time we author a post. Those of us that aspire to follow the rules will, at least largely, do so, with the occasional forgivable lapse in judgment. Those of us, on both sides, that do not hold the rules of the forum to be quite so valuable will continue to behave as children until the moderators weed us out. Threads like this will do nothing to expidite the process.

Is the best and only remedy that I might reasonably expect to have for being sneered at is simply to abandon my belief and become an atheist, too?

It would certainly be a point in your favor, but then you'll have to endure the same sort of vacant-eyed pity that theists ignorantly throw our way from time to time, which, I assure you, is no less annoying than whatever we (collectively, apparently) have done to offend you.

I'm a Jew. I'm rather familiar with that look from Christians.

Is that the price of respect here now?

Everyone has different criteria. Theists don't respect atheists as much as fellow theists, and vice versa. That's just true. You might consider yourself an exeption to that, one who treats everyone equally, and you can feel free to state so, but I doubt I'll believe you.

I freely admit that I don't; but my opinion of others, as you say, is not based on their beliefs or lack of belief. It is based on their behavior.

There are several members of this forum that have become personal friends of mine offline, some very close and treasured friends. All of them are atheists or nontheists.

Is that reasonable?

No. people should be judged on the entirety of their character and not a singular opinion they hold. That's why, after this, I will continue to respect you.

I do hope so.

Is this forum going to be what it claims to be and once was, or not?

A little bit of melodrama there? I think so. This forum, which I grant you I haven't been a member of for more than a couple of months now, seems to be exactly what it was advertised as. It is largely respectful.

As the old-timers in anything always say, "You should have seen it back when."

You have to realize that both sides are pretty much trying to convince the other that we're right. That's the purpose here. That's going to breed a little conflict, it's human nature. Having something as deeply important to some people as their faith questioned is only gonig to breed more of it. It doesn't justfiy it when it happens, but it does tell you that it is going to happen, and it always has.

The only real difference is that, in the past, as you yourself mentioned, it came from the fundementalists. Something that the atheists present at the time don't appear to have made a big deal out of and that you yourself excused because of the fact that they are fundementalists. Now, apparently, the pendulum has swung a little bit in the other direction, and all of a sudden, its unfair, not what the forum was founded on, and is ruinning the experience for you.

Quite right. I received a PM as I was writing this, from a nontheist, that noted that, for various reasons, I have been on the receiving end of a lot of undeserved disrespect, etc., of late. I think the threads bear that out. Part of my motivation here was, as I said, that I was pissed off about that; and another part was that I wanted to flush out some of the nontheists that DON'T support that kind of attitude and approach. And as I said, it seems to be working.

My lack of faith was called an open wound, dude, and this is the only thread I've mentioned it in. It's not a big deal. There's an 'ignore' button that will take care of this for you, no problem. Try it out.

I prefer to ignore in manual mode, so to speak. I shall do that more often.

Thanks very much, sincerely, for your post. You were right on the money on all counts, including your criticisms. I think I'll decline to say which parts were anticipated and which were not. Suffice it to say that I feel a lot better, am humbled and corrected, and have both learned a lot and been confirmed in what I already thought, all at once.

Thank you.

[Cephus]

1. The default approach to conversation with a theist is a contemptuous sneer.

First, I don't think that's true in the least, it's simply interpretation by the theist. We see all kinds of theists who cry personal attack if anyone even dares to question their beliefs, certainly when they're engaging in a discussion with someone who doesn't take their heartfelt faith seriously, they're going to take that as a personal slight. Secondly, theists have to realize that for most non-theists, we see belief in god(s) as no different than belief in Bigfoot, UFOs and ghosts. It is a wholly irrational, non-logical belief system that probably deserves to be sneered at. Especially for those of us who have been doing this for a very long time and are still seeing the same irrational, illogical arguments and empty claims today that we saw a decade or two ago. When you see a theist making a demonstrably false claim, see them corrected and then see them make the same claim verbatim, how do you expect anyone to react to that?

2. Never pass up a chance to take a shot at theism.

Oh, like Christians ever pass up a chance to take a shot at non-Christians, right? There was a recent article coming out of England where a Catholic priest said something about atheists not respecting Christians, then in the next breath, turns around and calls atheists evil.

Pot... meet kettle.

3. Personal respect, friendliness, and good will are no longer relevant nor necessary.

Respect is earned, it's not simply granted because you bothered to get up in the morning. When theists routinely make ridiculous claims and nonsensical arguments, how are you expecting to get respected for your claims? Beyond that, there's such a long-standing history of disrespect of atheists by theists, it's rather hard not to see some of that coming back.

4. Thou shalt not criticize or correct another nontheist.

I've criticized a lot of nontheists in my time, some of my longest and most heated debates have been against other atheists, both here and on other forums. That's not remotely true.

[McCulloch]

When you see a theist making a demonstrably false claim, see them corrected and then see them make the same claim verbatim, how do you expect anyone to react to that?

Conclude that either they did not read your correction or (more likely) that they did not agree with your argument. One other option is that they forgot your correction since the last time they got inoculated with their theistic dogma.
Given these options, what is the most effective reaction:

1. Contempt and ridicule
2. Repeating the exact same correction as before, possibly referring to the previous attempt.
3. Ignore
4. Restate your correction, bringing in more evidence and clearer reasoning?

2. Never pass up a chance to take a shot at theism.

Oh, like Christians ever pass up a chance to take a shot at non-Christians, right? There was a recent article coming out of England where a Catholic priest said something about atheists not respecting Christians, then in the next breath, turns around and calls atheists evil.

Did you expect to win debates with tu quoque? Isn't that one of the points of thread? If they take cheap shots, thereby admitting that they have run out of good arguments, should we lower ourselves to their standard?

[Cephus]

Conclude that either they did not read your correction or (more likely) that they did not agree with your argument.

Once, maybe. I can understand that someone may not have seen or understood a correction once. Twice, maybe in the extreme realm of possibilities. Three or more times, forget it. They read it, they didn't ask questions, they just ignored it and went on with the same dogmatic nonsense they spouted to begin with.

One other option is that they forgot your correction since the last time they got inoculated with their theistic dogma.

The most likely option, however, is that they have no answer for said correction, thus they simply choose not to deal with it at all. For as long as we've both been here and both know that theists, fundamentalists especially, are absolutely unable to deal with any credible threat to their dogmatic beliefs.

1. Contempt and ridicule

What is more effective as what? When you're talking to a brick wall, nothing you say is going to make a difference to that individual anyhow. In extreme cases, this lessens your own frustration, if nothing else. It's not the best idea in a serious debate, but by the time you come to this, it's stopped being a serious debate at all.

2. Repeating the exact same correction as before, possibly referring to the previous attempt.

Which will simply continue to be ignored. If someone insists, for example, that the sky is purple polka-dots and nothing can ever sway them from their fanatical faith that their belief is true, simply telling them over and over and over again that they are wrong and proving beyond any doubt that they are wrong won't make them actually admit that they are wrong. It just makes them pretend that you're not talking.

3. Ignore

And let them declare victory because you stop responding? No thanks.

4. Restate your correction, bringing in more evidence and clearer reasoning?

Since their original statement was without evidence or reason, why should presenting evidence or reason make them change their minds? As olaviso said in the previous thread, nothing anyone can say or do is ever going to make him question his beliefs, there's no point in trying, he absolutely refuses to even consider the possibility, no amount of proof is ever going to make him, or other fundamentalists, re-evaluate their fanatical beliefs. At least he's honest about it, most fundamentalists aren't.

Your real choices are to not engage in debate in the first place against ridiculous claims and allow the claimant and the audience to think the claims are unchallengable or to debate until you get utterly frustrated with the dishonest debate tactics that seem inherent in theism, especially fundamentalism until you explode.

Unfortunately, around here, we have rules in place that specifically require people to provide evidence for their claims, but we also know that there is a massive double standard. The rules don't apply to theists. Theists can demand, and be backed up by the moderators, that non-theists provide evidence for their claims, but the second anyone demands the same of theists, they get to proclaim their faith and scream that they're being oppressed.

Did you expect to win debates with tu quoque? Isn't that one of the points of thread? If they take cheap shots, thereby admitting that they have run out of good arguments, should we lower ourselves to their standard?

Unfortunately, many theists hold themselves up as deserving special treatment. Take the priest in the case I pointed out. He wants atheists to treat him with high regard and respect, yet he shows he has no respect whatsoever for atheists. It's a severe double standard that these people hold out that says "do as I say, not as I do". A lot of Christians act as if the cross is a shield against personal responsibility for their actions. "I can tell you that you're an evil, amoral animal, not worthy of spitting on, but you'd better respect me because I'm a Christian!"

Ain't so, nor will I ever cowtow to anyone who acts that way. Do I expect to win? Hardly, there's no debating with those people because they lack the basic intellectual and moral integrity to debate in the first place, but will I ever back down from a fight because they demand they deserve special treatment? Hell no.

[JoeyKnothead]

As I am among the guilty, maybe I have no right to post here, but here I go anyway...

I'm thinking maybe there should be a thread, "Stupid, mean (or whatever) things people have said". Maybe folks could privately propose comments to moderators, who would then decide whether to place them in the thread. Maybe keep a running total, either outright, or biased as to actual numbers /theist/non/agno/whatever.The posts could either mention by name, theological stance, or not at all. Maybe they could be listed, and defined as to why they were stupid, mean, or whatever. Maybe even have a vote, to encourage folks to read them, and measure them as to how wrong they are.

I know, "Hall of shame/stupidity"

I can tell you this, those who are most respectful do tend to have the better arguments, at least from my perspective. Not from the politeness angle, but they tend to have the better info.

I'm especially guilty of painting with a 4 inch brush when I mean to use a liner brush, I will try to make sure I make more distinctions in my posts.

(edit for more info)
Maybe even create an icon to tag the 'offender of the week/month'?