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]

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.

I think that I have a point of view that might reduce your level of frustration. Remember that you are not going to get the dogmatists to admit the error of their ways. Ever. Theist or Atheist (yes, I admit it can happen). Don't try. You'll only hurt your head. But remember also that there are lots of intelligent thoughtful people who may not have made up their minds, who may be open to reason, who can be convinced. Some of them participate here. Many others of them lurk, following the debates. They are your audience. The inflexible dogmatist, is only acting as a foil.

From that point of view, what then becomes the most effective strategy?

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

I ignore any declarations of victory. If the last response in a debate is inane and not worth responding to, no thinking individual will deem that to be a win on the part of the dogmatist making it. And what is the point of trying to reason with the not thinking individual?

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.

Listen to what he is saying. He is right. You're not going to convince him. Stop trying. Be satisfied in convincing intelligent readers who might be swayed by their arguments if not for a reasoned rebuttal. However, take the opportunity, if necessary, to restate. If the dogmatist failed to understand it, maybe a more intelligent person might find it difficult as well. If you can put it a different way, it might help end any possible confusion. OTOH, it might not.

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.

Don't you see how that plays out to the objective undecided reader? Theists who behave like that are just shooting themselves in the foot. They lose any credibility they have with potential converts and hand us the win on a silver platter. And they don't even know that they're doing it. I don't see a reason to complain.

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".

And do you think that priest wins many converts with that strategy? He is no friend to Christianity or theism.

[Cephus]

But remember also that there are lots of intelligent thoughtful people who may not have made up their minds, who may be open to reason, who can be convinced.

Unfortunately, as you point out, most of them don't post and therefore if we just sit around and refuse to deal with the fanatics, we largely have nothing to do. A silent, invisible audience is not much of an audience in a debate, they provide no feedback, give no answers and ask no questions. If our only purpose here is to prove that fundamentalists are unthinking, unreasoning fanatics, consider it job accomplished. Proving it over and over and over again really accomplishes nothing.

I ignore any declarations of victory.

You might but the invisible viewing audience largely doesn't. When you get the fundie running around waving their arms screaming that the atheists can't answer their questions, therefore they've proven God is real, no matter how irrational or ridiculous that claim may be, it gets attention. Whether it should or not is irrelevant, the fact is that it does.

Listen to what he is saying. He is right. You're not going to convince him. Stop trying.

I'm not trying and I've even commended him for being honest about it. Most fundamentalists around here aren't. That doesn't change the fact that these people are here attempting to take part in debates in which they refuse to actually debate. They simply assert claims without support and whine about being challenged.

If the dogmatist failed to understand it, maybe a more intelligent person might find it difficult as well.

The dogmatist doesn't understand because they refuse to understand. Anything that goes against their heartfelt beliefs is going to be outrightly ignored and we both know it. They do not evaluate it because they cannot. The more intelligent person probably got it the first time and if they didn't, they're perfectly capable of popping up, either in public or through a PM, and asking questions for clarification.

Theists who behave like that are just shooting themselves in the foot.

If that was true, then theists would have no credibility in the world whatsoever. Unfortunately, that assumes that the audience is thinking about things critically and rationally and we all know that isn't necessarily the case. If Fred Phelps, being a complete amoral asshat, has a following, what makes you think these other people who aren't quite as morally reprehensible, wouldn't as well?

And do you think that priest wins many converts with that strategy? He is no friend to Christianity or theism.

But that doesn't stop Christians from following him, does it?

[FinalEnigma]

If Fred Phelps, being a complete amoral asshat, has a following, what makes you think these other people who aren't quite as morally reprehensible, wouldn't as well?

I didn't recall off the top of my head who Fred Phelps is(I don't pay attention to names) so I youtubed it. then I instantly remembered. but in the process, I found a very amusing video-

[OnceConvinced]

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 meant it more as a general type of situation, not just when it comes to insults or demeaning of the person. If a newbie comes to this site and finds they have a large number of non-theists debating against them (even in a civil manner) and no other theist comes in along side of them, they're likely to be turned off from staying around.

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.

I'd agree. Cnorman has got a raw deal from a lot of people here, Christians as well as non-Christians.

[JoeyKnothead]

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.

This points directly to the double standard Christians are allowed in these forums. When I call Christians retards for believing as they do, I'm told to quit. When I complain about the double standard, I'm told to 'man up', 'quit being so melodramatic', and what have you. My specific argument was that outside of being wrong, It was being used as a signature, and thus quite undebatable. What am I to do, follow around and rebut that signature every time it is posted?

Some saw my complaint as just someone over reacting, but I still stand by the principle that if one is allowed to put another down, then there must be some recourse. A statement that insults another should be censored, but this one is not. When anyone tries to respond to it they get shouted down. This is the definition of a double standard.

I recently called Islam some bad things, and I was rightly chastised for it, but as long as it's from a Christian, and from the Bible, I must accept such language. There is no Atheist's Bible from which I can pull insulting comments, so I am left with no way to respond to Biblical comments that call me a fool. Just because some people are not offended by a statement does not mean I should not be. If there is to be civil debate, then why are Christians exempt?

[Thought Criminal]

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?

That's very persuasive. I think the only solution is to pick a loud atheist and kick them out. This will not only thin the ranks a bit, it will teach the survivors a lesson about the price of free speech.

TC

[Goat]

That's very persuasive. I think the only solution is to pick a loud atheist and kick them out. This will not only thin the ranks a bit, it will teach the survivors a lesson about the price of free speech.

TC

I suggest that a lot of it is regaining an atmosphere where people are actually respectful and civil to each other. It doesn't matter if a person is a theist or an atheist.. respect and a civil manner is what important.

If someone is overly uncivil... it doesn't matter if I agree with them or not, they are not getting their point across and they are disrupting the board.

[OnceConvinced]

I think the only solution is to pick a loud atheist and kick them out. This will not only thin the ranks a bit, it will teach the survivors a lesson about the price of free speech.

TC

Or one can attempt to become a martyr and get themselves kicked off too. But what is that going to achieve?

[Thought Criminal]

I think the only solution is to pick a loud atheist and kick them out. This will not only thin the ranks a bit, it will teach the survivors a lesson about the price of free speech.

Or one can attempt to become a martyr and get themselves kicked off too. But what is that going to achieve?

As I've said elsewhere, I can be persuaded, but not forced. I simply disagree with the generic moderation here, so I'm not going to change my behavior, even with the threat of a ban hanging over my head. If being true to myself amounts to being a martyr, so be it.

TC

[Cephus]

I didn't recall off the top of my head who Fred Phelps is(I don't pay attention to names) so I youtubed it. then I instantly remembered. but in the process, I found a very amusing video-

LOL! I heartily recommend everyone watch that too! That's priceless.