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?

[Sjoerd]

I completely agree with you, Charles.

I usually debate only in the threads related to philosophy or science, avoiding the "Is God real?"-like threads since I can't imagine what rational debate could be had about that. Therefore, I probably miss most of the fundie hate posts, and since it involves science I usually find myself on the atheist side of a debate.

Still, I feel that most of the uncivilness comes from atheists. When a creationist comes with some unfounded blanket statement, it is usually so naive that he doesn't even dare to respond against all the (justified) criticism against him. It gets annoying to see *again* a misformulation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics, but I haven't seen any creationist try to weasel himself out of it, they just run away. Whereas some atheists just debate, well.. ratty. They don't answer any requests to support their statements, demanding that you provide more support first, and when you do, they try to change the subject. I have seen some completely irrational blanket statements and unfounded assertions made in the name of rationality. If a fundie quotes five pages of scripture instead of giving rational proof, I just ignore it. But this thing gets on my nerves.

[Assent]

Wow, long thread. I'm afraid I didn't have time to read more than the first post and the gist of the responses. For the sake of the readers, then, I'll keep my own response short.

I am in complete agreement that civility maintained is more productive than anger expressed. I recall hearing advice at one point that, if you wish to respond in anger to someone, you should write the angry response, then place it in your desk and wait a day. If you still wish to send the letter, then do so, but in most cases, you will usually find that with the passion of the moment gone, the topic no longer deserves such bile. Of course, the speed of debate and ease of posting precludes the application of this technique in internet forums, which may partially explain why the internet is in general angrier than other long-range medias. Nevertheless, I encourage those among you who may be tempted to respond to angry or insulting posts in kind to try to forget about the debate for a minute or two, just long enough for the emotion to fade.

[Beto]

Whereas some atheists just debate, well.. ratty. They don't answer any requests to support their statements, demanding that you provide more support first, and when you do, they try to change the subject. I have seen some completely irrational blanket statements and unfounded assertions made in the name of rationality. If a fundie quotes five pages of scripture instead of giving rational proof, I just ignore it. But this thing gets on my nerves.

I sympathize wholeheartedly, even if my perception is diametrically opposite. I see that behavior as almost exclusively theist. One of us is seriously biased. I hope it's not me, but...

In any case, theists don't need atheistic blanket statements to be theists, whereas theistic blanket statements and lack of support for their assertions are quite often the reasons that drive people towards atheism. "Lack of belief" can't be taught... it can only be arrived at from, precisely, blanket statements and lack of support for assertions. If there are so many atheists in this forum, it is because of the theistic behavior you impute on atheists.

[cnorman18]

Whereas some atheists just debate, well.. ratty. They don't answer any requests to support their statements, demanding that you provide more support first, and when you do, they try to change the subject. I have seen some completely irrational blanket statements and unfounded assertions made in the name of rationality. If a fundie quotes five pages of scripture instead of giving rational proof, I just ignore it. But this thing gets on my nerves.

I sympathize wholeheartedly, even if my perception is diametrically opposite. I see that behavior as almost exclusively theist. One of us is seriously biased. I hope it's not me, but...

In any case, theists don't need atheistic blanket statements to be theists, whereas theistic blanket statements and lack of support for their assertions are quite often the reasons that drive people towards atheism. "Lack of belief" can't be taught... it can only be arrived at from, precisely, blanket statements and lack of support for assertions. If there are so many atheists in this forum, it is because of the theistic behavior you impute on atheists.

As the guy in the middle--neither fundamentalist nor atheist--it looks to me like there is plenty of blame to go around.

In my OP, I wasn't speaking of paucity of arguments or willingness to engage or any of that. On that score, I have said elsewhere that theists will always be at a disadvantage.

I was speaking of rudeness, contemptuous attitudes, and general offensiveness. On that score, neither side has clean hands. If you want a specific example on the nontheist side, Daedalus will do. He was banned for good reason.

[Sjoerd]

I see that behavior as almost exclusively theist. One of us is seriously biased. I hope it's not me, but...

Hehe... I guess that everyone has a different location of his or her "annoy-me-button". I will try to keep it well in mind though, that something that seriously annoys or insults me may be shrugged off by others and vice versa. All the more reason to listen to Norman's point that it's the underlying attitude that counts.