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.

[theleftone]

I can be labeled with whatever names so desired. If one decides to call me a 'passive atheist' rather than 'ignorant,' then so be it. It renders the term 'passive atheist' rather useless for anything more than a propaganda term though.

None of us are born theists. We start as atheistic of Jesus as we do of Fredrigo.

I do not make such an argument.

Yet, there is a problem with the accusations made above. I have not rejected the god. I remain ignorant of the god. I know nothing of its attribute. It remains nothing more than a name. Thus, it would be inappropriate to accept or reject the god as incompatible with the Christian God. Is it possible this name could be another name for the Christian God? I would have to wait and see.

You know enough to accept or reject Fredrigo. Besides his name, you know that he is the patron god of small awnings. As I'm sure you're aware, this means that small awnings are his domain. If your small awning is broken or if you simply want to praise your small awning, please direct your prayers to Fredrigo. However, if the awning is large, pray to Rodrigo. Does it matter if his hair is golden or he is bald? You worship Jesus and yet you lack a consistent physical description of him.

It is necessary to know the attributes of a god to determine its compatibility with the Christian God.

How does a person not doing something do it? This is the claim being presented. It is being claimed that a person rejecting gods is not doing an action. Yet, rejection is an action. So, the claim is logically invalid.

This is the focus of your error: disbelief is a state, not an action.

Disbelief is the "refusal or reluctance to believe; to doubt the truth about something; a rejection of belief; the act of disbelieving; mental rejection of something as untrue; not to believe or credit; to refuse credence to: a. a statement or (alleged) fact: To reject the truth or reality of; a state of the mind in which one is fully persuaded that an opinion, assertion, or doctrine is not true; refusal of assent, credit, or credence; denial of belief."

If I am mistaken about disbelief being an action, then I am in good company. However, the important issue is not word choice. Rather, allow us to focus on the ideas being presented. Please see the bottom of this response where I refer back to the necessary comments.

I have not rejected nor accepted Fredrigo. I remain in a state of ignorance.

You are in a state of disbelief with regard to Fredrigo. You were ignorant, but now that you've heard the Gospel but refuse to accept it, ignorance is no longer an excuse available to you.

I have not rejected nor accepted Fredrigo. I still remain ignorant of Fredrigo's attributes. Hence, I cannot determine this god's compatibility with the Christian God. However, I find argument by analogy to be problematic and tedious. Hence, I will no longer respond to comments on Fredrigo. Let us focus on the actual issues, and not become bogged down in arguing analogies.

Passive is non-action. Disbelief is an action. Passive disbelief is an illogical construct.

This is a matter of semantics, so I turn to the dictionary. Disbelief is "the inability or refusal to believe or to accept something as true".

I agree. This is a matter of semantics. It seems clear from the definitions presented the most common definition of disbelief is 'active' in nature. However, it appears there are some less common definitions which include a potential form of passivity (i.e., inability). Thus, we will continue and focus upon the ideas.

--- Returning to the argument...

The original claim is the atheist is more consistent in applying the criteria for rejecting gods than the theist. To defend this claim, it has been argued both the atheist and theist begin with the same initial criteria. It was suggested the initial criteria is finding "no reason to believe" in gods "they weren't indoctrinated" with. The evidence presented to support the existence of the initial criteria is passive atheism.

There are a few problems with this argument.

(i) Any proposed initial criteria is irrelevant to one's consistency with one's current criteria. Why does a person reject gods now?
(ii) Passive atheism does not support the existence of the initial criteria. How can such existence be established?
(iii) There is confusion surrounding passive atheism. Is passive atheism an absence of belief or a rejection of god?

[Thought Criminal]

None of us are born theists. We start as atheistic of Jesus as we do of Fredrigo.

I do not make such an argument.

Some theists do. They claim that even atheists nonetheless "know" that God exists because we are born with the knowledge. This is usually brought up as an explanation for how atheists manage to be moral.

It is necessary to know the attributes of a god to determine its compatibility with the Christian God.

I have provided all the attributes you could reasonably need. Your refusal to admit that you disbelieve in Fredrigo changes nothing. Admit to your small-awning atheism!

Disbelief is the "refusal or reluctance to believe; to doubt the truth about something; a rejection of belief; the act of disbelieving; mental rejection of something as untrue; not to believe or credit; to refuse credence to: a. a statement or (alleged) fact: To reject the truth or reality of; a state of the mind in which one is fully persuaded that an opinion, assertion, or doctrine is not true; refusal of assent, credit, or credence; denial of belief."

If I am mistaken about disbelief being an action, then I am in good company. However, the important issue is not word choice. Rather, allow us to focus on the ideas being presented. Please see the bottom of this response where I refer back to the necessary comments.

These aren't very good definitions, but they still leave plenty of room for passive atheism. For example, "not to believe or credit". You can argue that it connotes something active. Perhaps, but speaking of "passive disbelief" suffices to overcome that connotation while being compatible with the denotation.

I have not rejected nor accepted Fredrigo. I still remain ignorant of Fredrigo's attributes. Hence, I cannot determine this god's compatibility with the Christian God. However, I find argument by analogy to be problematic and tedious. Hence, I will no longer respond to comments on Fredrigo. Let us focus on the actual issues, and not become bogged down in arguing analogies.

And here you actively become an atheist with regard to Fredrigo instead of continuing to be passively atheistic. Infidel!

This is a matter of semantics, so I turn to the dictionary. Disbelief is "the inability or refusal to believe or to accept something as true".

I agree. This is a matter of semantics. It seems clear from the definitions presented the most common definition of disbelief is 'active' in nature. However, it appears there are some less common definitions which include a potential form of passivity (i.e., inability). Thus, we will continue and focus upon the ideas.

Indeed.

--- Returning to the argument...

The original claim is the atheist is more consistent in applying the criteria for rejecting gods than the theist. To defend this claim, it has been argued both the atheist and theist begin with the same initial criteria. It was suggested the initial criteria is finding "no reason to believe" in gods "they weren't indoctrinated" with. The evidence presented to support the existence of the initial criteria is passive atheism.

To restate briefly: We are all atheists with regard to almost all gods. Your basis for choosing one exception is arbitrary, hence you are being inconsistent.

There are a few problems with this argument.

(i) Any proposed initial criteria is irrelevant to one's consistency with one's current criteria. Why does a person reject gods now?

The current criteria do not supplant the initial criteria, as addition is not replacement. We start as universal passive atheists, as we don't know of any god claims. Moreover, we have been presented with no reason thus far to believe any of these, so we are consistent with our policy of believing things only when there is sufficient basis. In fact, even after we hear these claims, the lack of supporting evidence means all we can do is convert from passive to active atheism with regard to these gods. We remain passive atheists with regard to any we have not considered, of course.

Now, some people choose to believe in a particular god and, having done so, now reject all other gods on the additional basis of monotheism. Note that I call it additional, as it merely serves to supplement the pre-existing active and passive atheism with regard to other gods. It's an extra reason, when no extra reason is needed.

The problem is that the initial basis for rejecting all gods has not been overcome. Yes, you've arbitrarily chosen one god, but it's entirely arbitrary, as you have no rational basis for this choice. It is an act of faith, which is to say a bowing to social pressures to believe what is locally popular. When in Rome, worship Jupiter, and so on. This leaves you in a position of inconsistency.

Ultimately, the issue is that you normally require evidence to accept claims, but you have removed this requirement for the claims of your religion. In short, the inconsistency follows necessarily from the existence of faith.

(ii) Passive atheism does not support the existence of the initial criteria. How can such existence be established?

I believe I just explained how passive atheism is the default stance, based on the initial criteria of not holding arbitrary beliefs, and how it shifts to active atheism even without faith.

(iii) There is confusion surrounding passive atheism. Is passive atheism an absence of belief or a rejection of god?

If you consider a particular god and reject it, that's active atheism. Even if you've never considered a particular god, you still don't believe in it now, so that's passive atheism. You were a passive atheist with regard to Fredrigo, and now you are an active atheist. May Fredrigo have mercy on your small awnings!

TC

[Cephus]

We debate with reason and kindness. If it becomes too much, then we remove ourselves from the debate.

Unfortunately, that's untrue. Theists cannot debate with reason because theist beliefs are not based on, nor defensible via reason. Therefore, by your statement, all should remove themselves from the debate, but we all know they do not.

[Cephus]

Just keep pointing out their false statements and logical fallacies.

We do, then they whine that we're being mean to them. Go figure.

[FinalEnigma]

Well God would condemn people who's only real crime is refusal to worship him, so why wouldn't he condemn otters as well?

I sure hope he doesn't! I'll have some words for him when I die if he does-otters are too cute and playful to go about condemning.

he problem is that the initial basis for rejecting all gods has not been overcome. Yes, you've arbitrarily chosen one god, but it's entirely arbitrary, as you have no rational basis for this choice. It is an act of faith, which is to say a bowing to social pressures to believe what is locally popular. When in Rome, worship Jupiter, and so on. This leaves you in a position of inconsistency.

I'm not certain you can show that all belief in God of any variety is arbitrary. theres the obvious example that some people believe things that are against the social norm for their area. For example, me-an atheist in a Christian family in the bible belt.

for a theistic example I happen to know a Muslim at UALR(my college) who also lives here in the bible belt. She is a middle-class white American who spent her whole life here in Arkansas and has a Christian family-who are quite obviously rather unhappy with her choice of religion.

also there are people who convert from one religion to another because they believe the religion they are converting to is more accurate/sensible. for example, Cnorman.

[McCulloch]

Well God would condemn people who's only real crime is refusal to worship him, so why wouldn't he condemn otters as well?

I sure hope he doesn't! I'll have some words for him when I die if he does-otters are too cute and playful to go about condemning.

My mistake, it is humans not God who condemn otters.

[theleftone]

I have a little free time, so I thought I would post a response.

If I am mistaken about disbelief being an action, then I am in good company. However, the important issue is not word choice. Rather, allow us to focus on the ideas being presented. Please see the bottom of this response where I refer back to the necessary comments.

These aren't very good definitions, but they still leave plenty of room for passive atheism. For example, "not to believe or credit". You can argue that it connotes something active. Perhaps, but speaking of "passive disbelief" suffices to overcome that connotation while being compatible with the denotation.

True, but this was not my point. Anyway, moving on.

The original claim is the atheist is more consistent in applying the criteria for rejecting gods than the theist. To defend this claim, it has been argued both the atheist and theist begin with the same initial criteria. It was suggested the initial criteria is finding "no reason to believe" in gods "they weren't indoctrinated" with. The evidence presented to support the existence of the initial criteria is passive atheism.

To restate briefly: We are all atheists with regard to almost all gods. Your basis for choosing one exception is arbitrary, hence you are being inconsistent.

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

(i) Any proposed initial criteria is irrelevant to one's consistency with one's current criteria. Why does a person reject gods now?

The current criteria do not supplant the initial criteria, as addition is not replacement. We start as universal passive atheists, as we don't know of any god claims. Moreover, we have been presented with no reason thus far to believe any of these, so we are consistent with our policy of believing things only when there is sufficient basis. In fact, even after we hear these claims, the lack of supporting evidence means all we can do is convert from passive to active atheism with regard to these gods. We remain passive atheists with regard to any we have not considered, of course.

We agree passive atheism is merely a state of ignorance, and one cannot accept or reject a god of which they are ignorant, correct? If so, then we both agree passive atheism has no relevance to the criteria debate. With that solved, let's turn to the initial criteria.

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).

The problem is that the initial basis for rejecting all gods has not been overcome. Yes, you've arbitrarily chosen one god, but it's entirely arbitrary, as you have no rational basis for this choice. It is an act of faith, which is to say a bowing to social pressures to believe what is locally popular. When in Rome, worship Jupiter, and so on. This leaves you in a position of inconsistency.

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

Ultimately, the issue is that you normally require evidence to accept claims, but you have removed this requirement for the claims of your religion. In short, the inconsistency follows necessarily from the existence of faith.

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.)

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?

(ii) Passive atheism does not support the existence of the initial criteria. How can such existence be established?

I believe I just explained how passive atheism is the default stance, based on the initial criteria of not holding arbitrary beliefs, and how it shifts to active atheism even without faith.

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.

(iii) There is confusion surrounding passive atheism. Is passive atheism an absence of belief or a rejection of god?

If you consider a particular god and reject it, that's active atheism. Even if you've never considered a particular god, you still don't believe in it now, so that's passive atheism.

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

[theleftone]

We debate with reason and kindness. If it becomes too much, then we remove ourselves from the debate.

Unfortunately, that's untrue. Theists cannot debate with reason because theist beliefs are not based on, nor defensible via reason. Therefore, by your statement, all should remove themselves from the debate, but we all know they do not.

Theists routinely provide defenses for their belief using inductive reasoning. The effectiveness of these defenses can be debated, but the existence of reasoned arguments from a theistic perspective cannot.

Reason is not purely deductive. If it were then life would become impossible to live. We routinely and necessarily make decisions and accept beliefs based on incomplete information.

[Cephus]

Theists routinely provide defenses for their belief using inductive reasoning. The effectiveness of these defenses can be debated, but the existence of reasoned arguments from a theistic perspective cannot.

But by that same reasoning, you can say that people who think they are Napoleon can offer "reasoned arguments from a Napoleonic perspective". The fact is, theists assume, a priori, that their beliefs are true, then they set about to defend them. They're not really interested in determining if their beliefs are factually true.

Reason is not purely deductive. If it were then life would become impossible to live. We routinely and necessarily make decisions and accept beliefs based on incomplete information.

Incomplete information, certainly. Discredited information, hopefully not. When one starts with faulty premises, one comes to faulty conclusions. Because theists start with a premise that cannot be rationally supported, they reach conclusions that cannot be rationally supported. It's really no different than making political decisions based on the unwarranted assumption that Raelians are in control of the government. You can never come to any good conclusion based on that assumption.

[theleftone]

Theists routinely provide defenses for their belief using inductive reasoning. The effectiveness of these defenses can be debated, but the existence of reasoned arguments from a theistic perspective cannot.

But by that same reasoning, you can say that people who think they are Napoleon can offer "reasoned arguments from a Napoleonic perspective". The fact is, theists assume, a priori, that their beliefs are true, then they set about to defend them. They're not really interested in determining if their beliefs are factually true.

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.

Reason is not purely deductive. If it were then life would become impossible to live. We routinely and necessarily make decisions and accept beliefs based on incomplete information.

Incomplete information, certainly. Discredited information, hopefully not. When one starts with faulty premises, one comes to faulty conclusions.

I agree.

Because theists start with a premise that cannot be rationally supported

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