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.

[Zzyzx]

.

I have had to commit to secular universities for many years to further my former career objectives, the institutions chosen and paid for by the US government as part of a required continuing education program to keep professionals on top of their fields. In many of the courses I found myself having to make a choice whether to stand up for my convictions when the inevitable subject of the Bible came up, or to sit back in silence.

I taught many courses taken by professionals to retain their credentials through continuing education. My subjects were Earth sciences, often geology. The bible did NOT come up at all (and certainly not "invariably") except when raised by a student. The topics in geology class have nothing to do with the bible; however, some students attempted to inject their religious beliefs into the subject.

Doing so is NOT "standing up for one's beliefs" – because beliefs are NOT being discussed. Geology is being discussed. Attention is focused upon Earth materials and processes NOT upon theology. If an individual student chooses to reject the material they are free to leave the class but they are NOT free to proselytize their particular god belief in class.

The problem was "intellectual bigotry" or "intellectual snobbery", which precludes any form of true debate.

A college science class is NOT the place to attempt to debate religion – just as a theology class is not the place to debate geology. Both are inappropriate.

What many identify as "intellectual bigotry" or "intellectual snobbery" is refusal to accept unverified opinions and conjectures that some ill informed people attempt to present as fact.

Non-theists revel in identifying a "Fundie Christian" in their midst, their primary answer being one of rebuff, not on the issue of content, but on the basis of the carrying of a label.

I have not encountered a Christian capable of defending fundamental interpretations of bible stories and "miracles" in honorable and open debate. Do you feel qualified to do so?

The argument centers on their perception of rightness based on their personal beliefs, while the personal beliefs of the "Fundie" should be rejected from the outset since the non-theists already "know" what "Fundies" believe.

Kindly verify the claim that "non-theists already 'know' what 'Fundies' believe" (or that such a claim is made).

Professors have the floor and demand a certain format in discussions.

That is what is known as a college class. The professor TEACHES the class and sets the format. What is disagreeable about that system?

I always chose to speak up, sometimes to the losing of a grade.

A college classroom is NOT intended as a debate environment. By "speaking up" about religious beliefs you may well have taken the class away from its subject matter (unless it was a theology class). The class is NOT being taught just for your benefit. Your views on religion are NOT what other students are paying to learn.

Typical is a professor that meets any belief in the Bible as being a belief not admissible in his or her classroom.

In what subject is belief in the bible by a student material to the issues being discussed?

It's always with them a matter of "prove that" when much of what they teach is unsupportable, being a lot of personal opinions.

Are you an expert on what is being taught in the classes you are/were taking? If so, why take the class? Most students recognize that they attend college to learn – not to teach. Perhaps you are an exception.

Here we have people that simply believe the Bible, with verses that do stand as references to "a knowledge" I consider higher than any other set of facts.

You are free to consider the bible as higher than any other knowledge. Others are free to regard the bible as worthless.

Do you go to a doctor when ill or injured?

No man can refute that knowledge as false, but only disagreeable to them, perhaps because some scholar in the past opposed that knowledge without satisfying the bulk of his peers. No scientist today would retain respect if not satisfying the bulk of his peers in "peer review" processes.

Do you regard yourself as having an anti-science bias?

What is your field of expertise?

No science scholar is considered with respect that ignores the majority of peers, those peers wanting to evaluate the empirical evidences behind an hypothesis. The typical response is derision, name-calling, and other forms of snobbery, with no debate whatsoever.

Have you attended a lot of high-level scientific meetings? Have you conducted valid scientific research and presented your findings to others?

Much of what is revealed there of an invisible God is simply dismissed as folly without a single point of evidence to the contrary. Geophysicists abound that have opinions on the state of the world's total aquifer (or the top causes of global warming), yet none can certify they are 100% right about the facts that are available.

Do you see the lack of 100% certainty as a defect in science?

In fact, that is an ASSET of science. They who are absolutely certain that they possess truth are unable to learn or to incorporate new information.

Much of what they believe is presumption, guesswork, hypotheses galore, to the possible demise of modern civilization if the majority proves wrong. Yet when it comes to religion most will dismiss it all as folly, yet standing on as good if not better grounds than what they operate on.

Kindly demonstrate that religion stands on "as good if not better grounds than what they operate on". I challenge you to show that to be a true statement.

What I see in all theist v. non-theist forums is a continuation of a demand by non theists for theists to prove, using empirical evidence, something like matters of science that cannot yet be proved with empirical evidence to the satisfaction of all the users of a collective mass of data.

What I observe in these debates is theists making claims that invisible, undetectable super beings exist and influence human lives.

When asked to demonstrate that they speak truth they have nothing to offer beyond speculation, opinion, hearsay, testimonials, legends, fables and quotes from Bronze Age storytellers.

I would submit it is technically impossible to properly debate either side except by citation of facts on either side, listeners left to decide. The decisions would be on a purely mental level, a spiritually inspired level, or a combination of those.

"Spiritually inspired levels" of debate may be appropriate in Holy Huddle or in church. Debates may reasonably be expected to be mental – BASED on evidence that can be demonstrated or observed.

As to "debate" here, if I base my personal beliefs on scriptures, how is it that debate is happening by opponents merely deriding the source?

Au contraire. When you make a claim in debate, you are expected to substantiate that claim. See forum rule #5.

True debate ought to involve either:
1. Proving a source to be a forgery without simply citing someone who wrote it is that, showing some believable fact that disputes the validity of the source.
2. Proving the source is being used in an unscholarly manner within the context of the source. The source used in a debate must be admitted unless, as in a court of law testimony, proved to be inadmissible on the basis of proved ineligibility.

Is the bible admissible as evidence in a court of law?

[cnorman18]

I have had to commit to secular universities for many years to further my former career objectives, the institutions chosen and paid for by the US government as part of a required continuing education program to keep professionals on top of their fields. In many of the courses I found myself having to make a choice whether to stand up for my convictions when the inevitable subject of the Bible came up, or to sit back in silence.

The problem is that convictions don't make one's beliefs true. Faith is not a substitute for evidence and once you start evaluating the Bible based on the evidence, you find that it doesn't fare well. Faith and facts are not equivalent, they do not have equal worth or validity. That crazy guy on the street corner who thinks he's Napoleon is wrong, period. It doesn't matter how strong his faith is that he's Napoleon, faith doesn't change reality, he's simply mistaken and likely insane to boot. You don't just leave him on the street corner to revel in his delusion, you correct him and you help him to understand why he's wrong (and probably help him to get anti-psychotic medications as well). Whether or not he's happier believing he's Napoleon is irrelevant, he simply isn't.

The problem was "intellectual bigotry" or "intellectual snobbery", which precludes any form of true debate.

No, there's no "intellectual bigotry" involved, there's simply facts and evidence and logic. The Bible cannot survive even a cursory evaluation by anyone looking at it rationally, it simply makes claims that are unsupportable by evidence and logic, just like every so-called "holy book" does. Faith, no matter how strong, cannot make a fact out of a fantasy.

Typical is a professor that meets any belief in the Bible as being a belief not admissible in his or her classroom.

While I cannot speak for individual situations or professors, I'd venture to say that it wasn't the belief in the Bible, but the irrational and unsupported faith therein and the failure to adequately support your claims with demonstrable evidence that caused the loss of grades. I'd be willing to wager that someone who stood up and said the same kinds of things about Bigfoot or aliens or unicorns without supporting their claims would likewise lose grade points, as well they should. Unfortunately for you, religion isn't a sacred cow, it doesn't get special privileges. If it's unsupported by evidence and in defiance of logic, it's not worth believing.

All this is similar to the debate on whether America ought to sacrifice energy independence and continue to rely on foreign powers (that we could go to war against) for a supply of "efficient" energy, liberals insisting on not tapping national sources for the sake of the environment, while accepting great damage to the world environment in the process of buying energy from nations that pollute the world's atmosphere. The data is plentiful, so it seems there is no reason for any debate on that subject, but it continues.

Anyone who cannot provide data to support their claims doesn't have a good argument. Pointing to other people who are doing it wrong also doesn't give you license to do it wrong.

Here we have people that simply believe the Bible, with verses that do stand as references to "a knowledge" I consider higher than any other set of facts.

It's not "knowledge", it's faith. Knowledge requires a basis in reality and an ability to demonstrate that the knowledge is factually true and valid. Simply asserting, without evidence, that your beliefs are true doesn't prove they are, it only proves that you believe them. There are people out there who strongly believe that gray-skinned aliens called Raelians control the government and rule the world. They have no evidence to back up their claims, they only have faith. There is no reason whatsoever to take their claims seriously, any more than there is reason to take yours seriously. Fundamentally, there is no difference between faith in God and faith in Raelians.

No man can refute that knowledge as false, but only disagreeable to them, perhaps because some scholar in the past opposed that knowledge without satisfying the bulk of his peers.

If you were talking about knowledge, you certainly could refute or confirm it, but again, you're talking about blind faith without a shred of objective evidence to support it.

What I see in all theist v. non-theist forums is a continuation of a demand by non theists for theists to prove, using empirical evidence, something like matters of science that cannot yet be proved with empirical evidence to the satisfaction of all the users of a collective mass of data.

Then you're obviously not paying attention. We ask that if you're going to make a claim, you back it up. I'll agree with you, there are a lot of global-warming fanatics who are operating on faith and little more and in fact, their beliefs should be discounted and discarded as unsupported twaddle. You do have scientists working with what evidence we have available to draw conclusions and most of them are perfectly willing to change their minds as better information comes along. That's not how religion works however, you have nothing to show for yourself except an ancient book of mythology, which you insist is true, while at the same time, discarding all other ancient books of mythology as false.

Sure, that makes logical sense.

I'd like to hold up Cephus's response here, and Zzyzx's that followed it, as examples of the kind of posts that ought to be admired and imitated.

They were forceful and pulled no no punches, but were still wholly logical and respectful--even in response to statements that might easily be lampooned and ridiculed. No aspersions were cast on Swordsman's ability to think or on his right to hold beliefs with which others disagree, but only on his behavior and the defensibility of his statements in debate. Nothing out of line here (excepting only the mildly and excusably sarcastic tone of the last line of Cephus's post, which is nothing to get excited about). .

As a kinda-sorta "theist" myself, I do not necessarily agree with all of Cephus's and Zzyzx's statements here, of course; but I have to say that I agree with Swordsman's even less. Whatever. That's of no importance in regard to the topic of this thread. The salient point here is that debate can and ought to be carried out without resort to veiled or implied personal attack, insult, or mockery, as it has been here.

I salute both of you, our differences of opinion notwithstanding. Well done.

[Cathar1950]

Before joining this site I spent a few weeks reading threads in deciding whether I should get involved. As I read through I noted a heavy persecution of Christians by atheists and Jews. Upon that discovery I decided to jump in. Now that those oppressors have their former estate upset they complain. Why were the Christians left to the whims of their enemies so long and without remedy? It appears to me the bullies in the schoolyard have become a bit threatened through advancement of knowledge they are not used to.

I have hardly seen any advancement of knowledge coming from you and find your calling others agents of Satan or claiming they are going to hell more bullying then what you have accused others of. Your approach is just more of the same and amount to poor preaching.
I have enjoyed my 1278 Days on this forum and have a great deal of respect for many of the Christians and Jews that have participated.
This is at least twice I have read you boasting of your contribution and claiming to put those that disagree with your dogma in there place.
Those that protest to some that claim otters are going to hell or that they should get down on their knees and repent are not persecuting anyone and they are hardly oppressers. You think way to highly of your contributions.

[OnceConvinced]

Before joining this site I spent a few weeks reading threads in deciding whether I should get involved. As I read through I noted a heavy persecution of Christians by atheists and Jews. Upon that discovery I decided to jump in. Now that those oppressors have their former estate upset they complain. Why were the Christians left to the whims of their enemies so long and without remedy? It appears to me the bullies in the schoolyard have become a bit threatened through advancement of knowledge they are not used to.

I have hardly seen any advancement of knowledge coming from you and find your calling others agents of Satan or claiming they are going to hell more bullying then what you have accused others of. Your approach is just more of the same and amount to poor preaching.
I have enjoyed my 1278 Days on this forum and have a great deal of respect for many of the Christians and Jews that have participated.
This is at least twice I have read you boasting of your contribution and claiming to put those that disagree with your dogma in there place.
Those that protest to some that claim otters are going to hell or that they should get down on their knees and repent are not persecuting anyone and they are hardly oppressers. You think way to highly of your contributions.

Exactly. There are plenty of Christians here (and Jews) who have shown themselves to be knowledgable in scripture and who are quite capable of standing up for their God. The fact that they are still here and continue to return time and time again shows their metal. Many of these people I would see as good Christian people who deserve respect.

Many fundamentalists claim to have holy spirit understanding and superior knowledge of scripture. Many of them are very capable of quoting scripture, but most of them find the arguments against them too tough, so they don't hang around for very long, showing in fact, that they lack the Holy Spirit's input.

WS, I don't see how you have brought anything new to the table.

[olavisjo]

I do not claim to be a rational person, I claim that even God's foolishness is more rational than any man can be rational.

Why are you on a debating site? How can you debate if you have abandoned even the pretense of being rational?

A lot of my beliefs are not rational, yet I cling to them because they work. So logically I would not be a rational person. Is there a rule that requires participants on this forum to be rational?

[Zzyzx]

.

I do not claim to be a rational person, I claim that even God's foolishness is more rational than any man can be rational.

Why are you on a debating site? How can you debate if you have abandoned even the pretense of being rational?

A lot of my beliefs are not rational, yet I cling to them because they work.

In what way(s) do you claim that your "not rational" beliefs "work"? How is the term "work" used in that sense?

So logically I would not be a rational person.

I agree

Rational is defined as: " having reason or understanding: relating to, based on, or agreeable to reason"

Irrational is defined as: " not endowed with reason or understanding: lacking usual or normal mental clarity or coherence: not governed by or according to reason".

Is there a rule that requires participants on this forum to be rational?

There is no rule requiring rationality -- nor is there a rule requiring intelligence. However, someone asked why you debate if you have abandoned pretense of being rational. That question has nothing to do with forum rules.

The way you answer questions (if you attempt to answer) shows readers something about your credibility -- and demonstrates the validity of what you write. Being irrational is not an asset in public debate.

[McCulloch]

Those that protest to some that claim otters are going to hell ...

OK, I know it is a typo, but I am just trying to picture someone condemning otters to hell.

[olavisjo]

A lot of my beliefs are not rational, yet I cling to them because they work.
In what way(s) do you claim that your "not rational" beliefs "work"? How is the term "work" used in that sense?

I rely on the promises given to me in the Bible on a daily basis and I have yet to be disappointed.

Rational is defined as: " having reason or understanding: relating to, based on, or agreeable to reason"

Irrational is defined as: " not endowed with reason or understanding: lacking usual or normal mental clarity or coherence: not governed by or according to reason".

The way you answer questions (if you attempt to answer) shows readers something about your credibility -- and demonstrates the validity of what you write. Being irrational is not an asset in public debate.

I do not seek to establish credibility, I desire to demonstrate that there is a way of reasoning that does not fit into your false dichotomy.

[daedalus 2.0]

Those that protest to some that claim otters are going to hell ...

OK, I know it is a typo, but I am just trying to picture someone condemning otters to hell.

Don't give them any ideas!

[Cephus]

The salient point here is that debate can and ought to be carried out without resort to veiled or implied personal attack, insult, or mockery, as it has been here.

The problem comes in when the theist, after having their claims soundly disproven, simply ignores that and keeps making the same claims over and over and over again because their faith demands it of them. After spending a long time debating a brick wall who keeps claiming victory dishonestly, it's a matter of frustration that leads one to insult those who will not pay attention to reason.

If you're looking for the cause of insults, look to the theist side, I rarely ever see atheists leading off that way, only ending up that way.