on the atmosphere of this forum

[cnorman18]

Expanded from a comment on another thread:

For some of our newer members, anything less than a total rejection and denial of anything even vaguely "spiritual" or "religious" is evidence of mental defect, aka "irrationality" (as in "you don't know how to think") and worthy of only contempt and derision. In any other context, such an attitude would be called. "intolerant," "doctrinaire," and "disrespectful," but here on the forum of late, civility, tolerance and mutual respect seem to be taking a back seat to scorched-earth tactics and open contempt.

I would readily grant that there are some on the fundamentalist side, again some relative newbies in particular, who are equally guilty of such behavior; but the misdeeds of either side do not justify or make acceptable the incivility of the other, particular when that incivility is applied indiscriminately and not just to the other side's offenders.

I would like to see more moderator intervention, not less. It is one thing to say, "I respectfully disagree." It is quite another to add heavy doses of ridicule, contempt and derision, not to mention personal aspersions on one's ability to reason or one's personal morality and "spiritual vision" or "maturity."

I have been happy here for many months. DC&R has been a place where I could enjoy, as billed, "intelligent, civil, courteous and respectful debate among people of all persuasions." I have found it stimulating, fun, and thought-provoking.

Those days are largely gone. An authentic exchange of ideas is still possible here, but to find it one must wade through and filter out an ocean of spiritual pride, self-righteousness, intellectual arrogance, inflexibly doctrinaire definitions and pronouncements, and, worse than all of these, constant, unrelenting, personally offensive, and sneering contempt for oneself and one's opinions.

I have been posting here virtually every day since November of last year, and I think I have made some significant contributions.
But I no longer feel like I am coming to a friendly, welcoming place where I can quietly talk and compare ideas with friends who like, respect and accept me. I feel like I am going to a fistfight with people who have no regard for me as a human being, who dislike me personally on account of my beliefs, and who neither have nor express any respect whatever for either those views or me. Even some of our older members are beginning to be infected by this uncivil and disrespectful attitude. I think this is a tragedy.

This is becoming an unpleasant place to spend one's time. Some members have already left, including some fine new ones; and I think more will leave if this ugly and acrimonious atmosphere does not change. In fact, I think that is certain.

Early on, I myself threatened to leave this forum on account of what I perceived as unpoliced and unopposed antisemitism. That problem was resolved. This one may be more difficult to handle. It threatens the very reason for the existence of this forum--civil and respectful debate.

Let me make this clear: I DO NOT CARE if you think yourself to be on a righteous crusade to either win the world for Jesus or rid the world of the pernicious plague of religious superstition. Personal respect for the other members of this forum AND FOR THEIR OPINIONS is more important than your "vital mission." How will you argue for your point of view if everyone you would argue it TO leaves in disgust?

As I said on another thread: If you are about disrespecting and demeaning other people, claiming to be spiritually or intellectually superior to them, and sneering at those who do not think or believe as you do--well, as far as I'm concerned, you're full of crap no matter what you believe or how smart you are.

[Thought Criminal]

Was my choice arbitrary thought? (Please define arbitrary.)

Yes, of course it was. If it weren't, then you could show us the objective basis for this decision. By definition, faith is arbitrary.

I think you know what it means to be arbitrary, but for the sake of clarity, it is defined as "subject to individual will or judgment without restriction; contingent solely upon one's discretion: an arbitrary decision.".

Requiring an objective basis would be precisely the sort of restriction you are rejecting.

The suggested initial criteria for accepting or rejecting beliefs has been is "believing things only when there is sufficient basis." How do we know this? I have additional questions about the 'sufficient basis' component (see below).

What do you mean by "how do we know this"? These are our initial criteria for rationally accepting any belief.

It seems the 'sufficient basis' component means something which is 'rational.' What is the criteria for establishing something as rational?

Just the obvious stuff: a logical analysis of the totality of the evidence must support this particular hypothesis above the rest.

I do? I have? What evidence exists of these? (This is a subtle hint to move away from addressing the person. Let's focus on ideas, not people.)

Yes, you do. Or do you deny being basically rational in your everyday life? The fact that you were able to type up your message belies this.

What evidence is there that initial and normal criteria are one in the same? Where evidence is there that initial and normal criteria never change over the course of one's life?

You never gave up on your initial basis; you use it constantly. You've only made a special exception, which is unprincipled.

To invoke the initial criteria is to evaluate an idea. To evaluate an idea one must have knowledge about the idea. Passive atheism is rooted in the ignorance of gods. Therefore, passive atheism cannot be based on the initial criteria.

I am passively atheistic about every sort of supernatural God entity that I've yet to hear of. Why? Because there's no evidence for any of them. If you define one more or less clearly, I shift to active, but nothing has changed. In all cases, when there is no rational basis for believing, I do not believe.

Contrast this with the passive theist, who believes that all the gods that others believe in are, in some sense, real. Such a person, when informed about a specific God, becomes an active theist with regard to it.

And as such, atheism and atheist are only beneficial for invoking emotional responses.

Passive atheism demonstrates that our default is atheism.

TC

[Thought Criminal]

Was my choice arbitrary thought? (Please define arbitrary.)

Yes, of course it was. If it weren't, then you could show us the objective basis for this decision. By definition, faith is arbitrary.

I think you know what it means to be arbitrary, but for the sake of clarity, it is defined as "subject to individual will or judgment without restriction; contingent solely upon one's discretion: an arbitrary decision.".

Requiring an objective basis would be precisely the sort of restriction you are rejecting.

The suggested initial criteria for accepting or rejecting beliefs has been is "believing things only when there is sufficient basis." How do we know this? I have additional questions about the 'sufficient basis' component (see below).

What do you mean by "how do we know this"? These are our initial criteria for rationally accepting any belief.

It seems the 'sufficient basis' component means something which is 'rational.' What is the criteria for establishing something as rational?

Just the obvious stuff: a logical analysis of the totality of the evidence must support this particular hypothesis above the rest.

I do? I have? What evidence exists of these? (This is a subtle hint to move away from addressing the person. Let's focus on ideas, not people.)

Yes, you do. Or do you deny being basically rational in your everyday life? The fact that you were able to type up your message belies this.

What evidence is there that initial and normal criteria are one in the same? Where evidence is there that initial and normal criteria never change over the course of one's life?

You never gave up on your initial basis; you use it constantly. You've only made a special exception, which is unprincipled.

To invoke the initial criteria is to evaluate an idea. To evaluate an idea one must have knowledge about the idea. Passive atheism is rooted in the ignorance of gods. Therefore, passive atheism cannot be based on the initial criteria.

I am passively atheistic about every sort of supernatural God entity that I've yet to hear of. Why? Because there's no evidence for any of them. If you define one more or less clearly, I shift to active, but nothing has changed. In all cases, when there is no rational basis for believing, I do not believe.

Contrast this with the passive theist, who believes that all the gods that others believe in are, in some sense, real. Such a person, when informed about a specific God, becomes an active theist with regard to it.

And as such, atheism and atheist are only beneficial for invoking emotional responses.

Passive atheism demonstrates that our default is atheism.

TC

[theleftone]

Was my choice arbitrary though? (Please define arbitrary.)

Yes, of course it was. If it weren't, then you could show us the objective basis for this decision. By definition, faith is arbitrary.

Definition for arbitrary, noted. Now, please define 'objective.' I want to clearly understand what you mean before responding.

The suggested initial criteria for accepting or rejecting beliefs has been is "believing things only when there is sufficient basis." How do we know this?

What do you mean by "how do we know this"? These are our initial criteria for rationally accepting any belief.

How do we know this is the initial criteria?

It seems the 'sufficient basis' component means something which is 'rational.' What is the criteria for establishing something as rational?

Just the obvious stuff: a logical analysis of the totality of the evidence must support this particular hypothesis above the rest.

Does a logical analysis necessarily lead to only one conclusion?

I do? I have? What evidence exists of these? (This is a subtle hint to move away from addressing the person. Let's focus on ideas, not people.)

Yes, you do. Or do you deny being basically rational in your everyday life? The fact that you were able to type up your message belies this.

It seems my previous attempt was too subtle. Allow me to try again. Let's focus on ideas, not people.

What evidence is there that initial and normal criteria are one in the same? Where evidence is there that initial and normal criteria never change over the course of one's life?

You never gave up on your initial basis; you use it constantly. You've only made a special exception, which is unprincipled.

And we disagree. Though, I suspect our reason for disagreement will appear when the above questions are answered.

To invoke the initial criteria is to evaluate an idea. To evaluate an idea one must have knowledge about the idea. Passive atheism is rooted in the ignorance of gods. Therefore, passive atheism cannot be based on the initial criteria.

I am passively atheistic about every sort of supernatural God entity that I've yet to hear of. Why? Because there's no evidence for any of them. If you define one more or less clearly, I shift to active, but nothing has changed. In all cases, when there is no rational basis for believing, I do not believe.

To shift from no position (passive) to a position (active) is a change. And to claim the passive atheist has 'no rational basis for believing' is misleading.

Contrast this with the passive theist, who believes that all the gods that others believe in are, in some sense, real. Such a person, when informed about a specific God, becomes an active theist with regard to it.

What is a passive theist? Is passive theism rational?

Passive atheism demonstrates that our default is atheism.

How does a definition demonstrate a truth?

[Thought Criminal]

[Definition for arbitrary, noted. Now, please define 'objective.' I want to clearly understand what you mean before responding.

I hardly think you need me to repeat the dictionary back at you; you have the ability to look these words up yourself, and you can be assured that I will stick to dictionary definitions rather than making up my own. For example, I'm confident that you could dig through the definitions of "objective" until you found "not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion."

How do we know this is the initial criteria?

As I've already explained but you seem to have forgotten, they're the criteria we have all along. We demand evidence when people make claims.

Does a logical analysis necessarily lead to only one conclusion?

What you're trying to do here is to claim that there are many, equally good conclusions and it's purely a matter of personal opinion. In other words, you're struggling to make rationality arbitrary, but that just won't fly.

Since the logical arguments are there for all of us to see and since evidence is necessarily verifiable independently, an analysis yields no more than a small set of plausible options. Typically, it clearly points to one above all others.

It also effectively rules out anything that doesn't make it to that small set. To give you a not so subtle hint, when there's no evidence that a thing exists, the claim is always rejected.

There will always be people who nonetheless get results that are completely unmerited by the data, usually because they're ignorant, stupid or irrational. These people are mistaken.

It seems my previous attempt was too subtle. Allow me to try again. Let's focus on ideas, not people.

My whole point here is that what I'm saying applies to all of us. We are basically rational in our everyday lives. We react to evidence rather than following delusions.

And we disagree. Though, I suspect our reason for disagreement will appear when the above questions are answered.

The issue here isn't that we disagree, but that we do so because you make an arbitrary exception.

To shift from no position (passive) to a position (active) is a change. And to claim the passive atheist has 'no rational basis for believing' is misleading.

If you tell anyone that the Greeks believed in a god named Zeus, what's their reaction going to be? Are they going to be like the hypothetical passive theist, who immediately decides the Greeks must have been right? Or will they move immediately from passive to active atheism with regard to Zeus? Think this through before responding.

What is a passive theist? Is passive theism rational?

I just explained; do pay attention.

Passive atheism demonstrates that our default is atheism.

How does a definition demonstrate a truth?

[/quote]
The existence of passive atheism is what demonstrates that atheism is the default.

TC

[Cephus]

Okay, allow me to reword my statements. Theists routinely provide defenses for their belief using inductive reasoning. The effectiveness of these defense can be debated, but the existence of these defenses cannot.

It doesn't really help any because inductive reasoning provides no evidence that the reasoning or the premises are true or valid to begin with. It provides for a conclusion, but does not show that the conclusion is true, only that it is believed. By taking the premise that God is real, one can answer any question with "God did it," yet this doesn't demonstrate that any of your claims are valid.

This premise is debatable. What makes something rational? What criteria should we use to determine the rationality of a premise?

From Wikipedia: It is believed by most philosophers (A.C Grayling) and experts, that a good rationale must be independent of emotions, personal feelings or any kind of instincts. Any process of evaluation or analysis, that may be called rational, is expected to be highly objective, logical and "mechanical". If these minimum requirements are not satisfied i.e. if a person has been, even slightly, influenced by personal emotions, feelings, instincts or culturally specific, moral codes and norms, then the analysis may be termed irrational, due to the injection of subjective bias.

That pretty much describes why religion can never be rational, doesn't it?

[Sjoerd]

Okay, allow me to reword my statements. Theists routinely provide defenses for their belief using inductive reasoning. The effectiveness of these defense can be debated, but the existence of these defenses cannot.

It doesn't really help any because inductive reasoning provides no evidence that the reasoning or the premises are true or valid to begin with. It provides for a conclusion, but does not show that the conclusion is true, only that it is believed. By taking the premise that God is real, one can answer any question with "God did it," yet this doesn't demonstrate that any of your claims are valid.

This premise is debatable. What makes something rational? What criteria should we use to determine the rationality of a premise?

From Wikipedia: It is believed by most philosophers (A.C Grayling) and experts, that a good rationale must be independent of emotions, personal feelings or any kind of instincts. Any process of evaluation or analysis, that may be called rational, is expected to be highly objective, logical and "mechanical". If these minimum requirements are not satisfied i.e. if a person has been, even slightly, influenced by personal emotions, feelings, instincts or culturally specific, moral codes and norms, then the analysis may be termed irrational, due to the injection of subjective bias.

That pretty much describes why religion can never be rational, doesn't it?

I think that it pretty much describes why no religious position can ever be rational. Theism is based on the premise of God. Agnosticism is based on the premise of scepticism. Atheism is based on the premise of parsimony. Choose whichever premise you feel is best suited to the matter.

[Thought Criminal]

I think that it pretty much describes why no religious position can ever be rational. Theism is based on the premise of God. Agnosticism is based on the premise of scepticism. Atheism is based on the premise of parsimony. Choose whichever premise you feel is best suited to the matter.

Hmm, that last part is, of course, entirely wrong. Actually, the middle part's not so great, either. Agnosticism is based on the idea that there's more or less a balance of evidence for either side and/or we need more evidence before drawing any conclusions. Atheism is based on having drawn the most strongly supported conclusion. Parsimony and skepticism are found in both the agnostic and atheistic positions, but are absent in the theistic one.

TC

[theleftone]

Definition for arbitrary, noted. Now, please define 'objective.' I want to clearly understand what you mean before responding.

I hardly think you need me to repeat the dictionary back at you; you have the ability to look these words up yourself, and you can be assured that I will stick to dictionary definitions rather than making up my own. For example, I'm confident that you could dig through the definitions of "objective" until you found "not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion."

To clarify, I ask to avoid misrepresenting position. Don't consider it a nuisance. Consider it a courtesy. Please see my comments below, for a response.

How do we know this is the initial criteria?

As I've already explained but you seem to have forgotten, they're the criteria we have all along. We demand evidence when people make claims.

I see an assertion. I don't see an explanation.

Does a logical analysis necessarily lead to only one conclusion?

What you're trying to do here is to claim that there are many, equally good conclusions and it's purely a matter of personal opinion. In other words, you're struggling to make rationality arbitrary, but that just won't fly.

(a) An argument can be logical, but the conclusion still be false. I don't believe this needs more explanation. (b) People do not reason in a bubble. We reason based on what we know. We begin with premises taken from our knowledge bank. (c: inference) People can argue from false premises and derive logically valid conclusions. (d) No two people have the same knowledge bank. This implies no two people will approach the 'totality of the evidence' from the same perspective. (e: inference 2) Thus, it is fully plausible a 'rational' conclusion from two different individuals could vary wildly.

Therefore, what is the objective basis for knowing a given hypothesis is indeed the best supported by the evidence rather than it merely being our perspective?

Since the logical arguments are there for all of us to see and since evidence is necessarily verifiable independently, an analysis yields no more than a small set of plausible options. Typically, it clearly points to one above all others.

Why must evidence necessarily be independently verifiable?

It also effectively rules out anything that doesn't make it to that small set. To give you a not so subtle hint, when there's no evidence that a thing exists, the claim is always rejected.

We disagree on what qualifies as evidence.

There will always be people who nonetheless get results that are completely unmerited by the data, usually because they're ignorant, stupid or irrational. These people are mistaken.

We agree here.

It seems my previous attempt was too subtle. Allow me to try again. Let's focus on ideas, not people.

My whole point here is that what I'm saying applies to all of us. We are basically rational in our everyday lives. We react to evidence rather than following delusions.

I am not convinced, given the narrow definition of evidence necessary for rationality, that we can be 'basically rational.' I believe rationality plays a role within our daily decisions. But, it is not the only factor. And I am not convinced that it is even the primary factor.

And we disagree. Though, I suspect our reason for disagreement will appear when the above questions are answered.

The issue here isn't that we disagree, but that we do so because you make an arbitrary exception.

We disagree because I am not wholly convinced it was arbitrary.

To shift from no position (passive) to a position (active) is a change. And to claim the passive atheist has 'no rational basis for believing' is misleading.

If you tell anyone that the Greeks believed in a god named Zeus, what's their reaction going to be? Are they going to be like the hypothetical passive theist, who immediately decides the Greeks must have been right? Or will they move immediately from passive to active atheism with regard to Zeus? Think this through before responding.

How is a shift or move not a change?

Contrast this with the passive theist, who believes that all the gods that others believe in are, in some sense, real. Such a person, when informed about a specific God, becomes an active theist with regard to it.

Let's try a different approach. Please explain how one can possess a belief in something which they are ignorant of. Please explain how a belief could be passive.

Passive atheism demonstrates that our default is atheism.

How does a definition demonstrate a truth?

The existence of passive atheism is what demonstrates that atheism is the default.

This will need explanation. I don't see how the existence of passive atheism demonstrates atheism as the 'default.' (Default what?)

[theleftone]

Okay, allow me to reword my statements. Theists routinely provide defenses for their belief using inductive reasoning. The effectiveness of these defense can be debated, but the existence of these defenses cannot.

It doesn't really help any because inductive reasoning provides no evidence that the reasoning or the premises are true or valid to begin with. It provides for a conclusion, but does not show that the conclusion is true, only that it is believed. By taking the premise that God is real, one can answer any question with "God did it," yet this doesn't demonstrate that any of your claims are valid.

So, inductive reasoning is invalid?

This premise is debatable. What makes something rational? What criteria should we use to determine the rationality of a premise?

From Wikipedia: It is believed by most philosophers (A.C Grayling) and experts, that a good rationale must be independent of emotions, personal feelings or any kind of instincts. Any process of evaluation or analysis, that may be called rational, is expected to be highly objective, logical and "mechanical". If these minimum requirements are not satisfied i.e. if a person has been, even slightly, influenced by personal emotions, feelings, instincts or culturally specific, moral codes and norms, then the analysis may be termed irrational, due to the injection of subjective bias.

That pretty much describes why religion can never be rational, doesn't it?

What exists which could meet this criteria?

[Thought Criminal]

As I've already explained but you seem to have forgotten, they're the criteria we have all along. We demand evidence when people make claims.

I see an assertion. I don't see an explanation.

Are you denying that we respond to claims with requests for evidence? Or are you saying that you'll believe anything I say and never ask me to back it up?

What you're trying to do here is to claim that there are many, equally good conclusions and it's purely a matter of personal opinion. In other words, you're struggling to make rationality arbitrary, but that just won't fly.

(a) An argument can be logical, but the conclusion still be false. I don't believe this needs more explanation. (b) People do not reason in a bubble. We reason based on what we know. We begin with premises taken from our knowledge bank. (c: inference) People can argue from false premises and derive logically valid conclusions. (d) No two people have the same knowledge bank. This implies no two people will approach the 'totality of the evidence' from the same perspective. (e: inference 2) Thus, it is fully plausible a 'rational' conclusion from two different individuals could vary wildly.

I think you've made it clear that I was right about your goals. You are hostile to the notion that rationality allows us to objectively determine what's true, likely because this leaves little room for religion. You want to water rationality down so that it's weak enough to allow arbitrary beliefs, starting with theism.

As for the argument itself, it's pretty easy to tear apart. Point A is an irrelevant attack against infallibilism. Point B ignores the fact that knowledge can be shared. For example, some people start off denying evolution, but when I explain what evolution is, they change their minds. Point C is neither an inference nor correct. Conclusions aren't "valid", arguments are. In specific, an argument is valid if the truth of its premises would lead to the truth of its conclusion. Point D, in much the same vein, ignores the fact that evidence is independently verifiable, so if someone doesn't start off with certain evidence, we can remedy that lapse. Point E, which is likewise not really an inference, is false and misleading. In particular, it ignores the fact that agreement is iterative, not ballistic.

In short, it's not so much an argument as a repetition of the same key error in a rather muddled format. The key error is your denial of the fact that evidence and arguments, and therefore knowledge, can be shared.

Therefore, what is the objective basis for knowing a given hypothesis is indeed the best supported by the evidence rather than it merely being our perspective?

As I pointed out just now, it's an iterative process. If I start without access to key bits of evidence, I may well provisionally draw the wrong conclusion. Fortunately, it doesn't end there. Someone can share that evidence, showing how it's relevant, and thereby convince me to change my mind. This sort of thing happens constantly in science. We don't count on any one person being perfect, we rely on people working together to fill each other's gaps. The scientific method is based on keeping each other honest.

Why must evidence necessarily be independently verifiable?

Ah, here you go again, trying to shove a wedge in so that you can overturn the objectivity of rationality. You want "private evidence", such as revelation and hunches, to be allowed where real evidence is needed.

The problem is that, for something to be evidence, it must be evident. If you tell me you have evidence but cannot make it evident for all of us to see for ourselves, all you offered was hearsay and we've just called your bluff.

Fundamentally, rationality means applying the same standards to yourself as you would to others. If my claim wouldn't convince an objective third party, then I must likewise reject it. Since I wouldn't accept any claim you make based on evidence that you promise but cannot produce, I do not believe anything that depends on my unverifiable personal experience.

The other way to look at it is through the lens of parsimony. If nobody else sees the pink elephant, perhaps a better explanation for it's appearance is that it exists only in my mind. Parsimony dictates that it's more likely for you to be mistaken than for the whole world to be unable to detect what you think is evidence.

Ultimately, rationality requires objectivity, honesty, humility and an adherence to parsimony. It's hard, but it's worth it. I recommend that you try it sometime.

We disagree on what qualifies as evidence.

Not exactly. We both know what evidence is, but you want to lower the bar so that anything goes.

My whole point here is that what I'm saying applies to all of us. We are basically rational in our everyday lives. We react to evidence rather than following delusions.

I am not convinced, given the narrow definition of evidence necessary for rationality, that we can be 'basically rational.' I believe rationality plays a role within our daily decisions. But, it is not the only factor. And I am not convinced that it is even the primary factor.

I have no idea what you're talking about and I doubt that you do, either.

The issue here isn't that we disagree, but that we do so because you make an arbitrary exception.

We disagree because I am not wholly convinced it was arbitrary.

That's ok, it's not my goal to convince you. Rather, I am only obligated to put forth enough to convince a hypothetical objective third party. If you fall short of the level of rationality that this third party would exhibit, the failing is your own.

How is a shift or move not a change?

In either case, I don't believe in Zeus. Initially, it's because I never heard of him, but no amount of hearing about Zeus will change this, because I'm rational. I will only believe if I am compelled to do so by the force of the evidence and arguments.

Let's try a different approach. Please explain how one can possess a belief in something which they are ignorant of. Please explain how a belief could be passive.

My brain doesn't store every belief explicitly. It couldn't because each leads to an endless stream of corollaries. Instead, I may store P explicitly and also that P leads to Q, but Q itself may well be left implicit for now. The only way to determine if I do believe in Q is to force me to think it through and come up with an explicit statement. In a real sense, I don't know if I believe Q until asked.

The existence of passive atheism is what demonstrates that atheism is the default.

This will need explanation. I don't see how the existence of passive atheism demonstrates atheism as the 'default.' (Default what?)

Default stance with regard to all gods.

TC