On the civility of Theological Positions

[Divine Insight]

People reject Christianity for many different reasons.

Non-theists May Simply Reject Supernatural Claims

Often times they cite the absurdity of the supernatural claims made by the Christian doctrine. They claim that it's nonsense to believe in talking serpents, talking donkeys, someone living in the stomach of a whale for 3 days, or someone being resurrected from the dead, etc

I understand the objection to those type of claims, but I myself do not dismiss the supernatural. I allow that if a supernatural God were to actually exist, then it could certainly perform supernatural feats. So rejecting this religion on the claim that supernatural events can't possibly occur is not a debate argument that I would employ. It's not my theological position (or anti-theological position if you prefer).

I allow for supernatural events when considering supernatural religious theologies.

Non-Theists May Reject a Theology based on Conflicts with Known Science

Everyone is aware of the continual debates over Creationism versus Evolution for example. People often cite scientific reasons why the Great Flood could not have occurred, and so on. There many conflicts between religion and science. They may even point out that the religion had taught that demon possession was responsible for disease when science has revealed natural causes, etc.

While I agree that many of these objections to religious myths have very strong merit, I do not reject Christianity, or Islam based on these principles alone.


Non-Theists May Reject a Theology based simply because they see no evidence for it.

This is once again a valid reason to reject a theology. Theological claims that cannot be supported by compelling evidence can be just as easily dismissed without any compelling evidence.

I think this is an especially good position to hold against religions where it is claimed that the God demands that a person must believe in the religion without good evidence.

But once again, I don't simply dismiss Christianity merely because it has no compelling evidence to support it.

Non-Theists May Reject a Theology based on the position that the God it describes would necessarily be an immoral monster.

This is the theological position that I take. I firmly believe that this theological position is a valid argument against Christianity. This is in fact, the strongest reason that has compelled and convinced me that the religion cannot possibly be true.

Even if I allow for supernatural magic. Even if I allow for apparent conflict with science to be dismissed. Even if I accept it on pure faith without asking for it to be supported by evidence. I would still need to reject it soley on the grounds that the God character it portrays would necessarily be extremely immoral. A monster unworthy of anyone's worship.

This is a valid theological position (or anti-theological position if you prefer). It is my sincere reasons for rejecting all the Abrahamic religions. I even refrain from dismissing other potential spiritual pictures of reality such as some Easter Mystical Philosophies, precisely because they don't demand that God is an immoral monster.

~~~~~

However, when I make these theological arguments I'm often accused of being "uncivil". Like as if it's uncivil to suggest that a God might be an immoral monster.

But if that's the crux of my theological position, then why should this be considered to be "uncivil".

I reject Christianity because as far as I can see, in order for it to be true the God it portrays would necessarily need to be an extremely immoral entity. A monster. A demon in his own right.

That is my theological position. It's not intended to be an uncivil attack against a religion. It's a sincere theological position. I reject Christianity (and Islam) precisely because, in my assessment, both of these religions have twisted their Gods into extremely hateful and uncaring monsters.

And for that view, I get blamed for having an "uncivil" attitude toward these religions.

It's a well-thought-out perspective, and I sincerely stand by it as being a valid position to take on these theologies.

This is the reason I reject these religion. And I should be able to argue for this position without being accused of being "uncivil" just because I point out that these Gods would need to be immoral monsters.

That's my true reason for rejecting these religions. Why should I be punished or silenced for holding this valid theological position?

[Clownboat]

People reject Christianity for many different reasons.

Non-theists May Simply Reject Supernatural Claims

Often times they cite the absurdity of the supernatural claims made by the Christian doctrine. They claim that it's nonsense to believe in talking serpents, talking donkeys, someone living in the stomach of a whale for 3 days, or someone being resurrected from the dead, etc

I understand the objection to those type of claims, but I myself do not dismiss the supernatural. I allow that if a supernatural God were to actually exist, then it could certainly perform supernatural feats. So rejecting this religion on the claim that supernatural events can't possibly occur is not a debate argument that I would employ. It's not my theological position (or anti-theological position if you prefer).

I allow for supernatural events when considering supernatural religious theologies.

Non-Theists May Reject a Theology based on Conflicts with Known Science

Everyone is aware of the continual debates over Creationism versus Evolution for example. People often cite scientific reasons why the Great Flood could not have occurred, and so on. There many conflicts between religion and science. They may even point out that the religion had taught that demon possession was responsible for disease when science has revealed natural causes, etc.

While I agree that many of these objections to religious myths have very strong merit, I do not reject Christianity, or Islam based on these principles alone.


Non-Theists May Reject a Theology based simply because they see no evidence for it.

This is once again a valid reason to reject a theology. Theological claims that cannot be supported by compelling evidence can be just as easily dismissed without any compelling evidence.

I think this is an especially good position to hold against religions where it is claimed that the God demands that a person must believe in the religion without good evidence.

But once again, I don't simply dismiss Christianity merely because it has no compelling evidence to support it.

Non-Theists May Reject a Theology based on the position that the God it describes would necessarily be an immoral monster.

This is the theological position that I take. I firmly believe that this theological position is a valid argument against Christianity. This is in fact, the strongest reason that has compelled and convinced me that the religion cannot possibly be true.

Even if I allow for supernatural magic. Even if I allow for apparent conflict with science to be dismissed. Even if I accept it on pure faith without asking for it to be supported by evidence. I would still need to reject it soley on the grounds that the God character it portrays would necessarily be extremely immoral. A monster unworthy of anyone's worship.

This is a valid theological position (or anti-theological position if you prefer). It is my sincere reasons for rejecting all the Abrahamic religions. I even refrain from dismissing other potential spiritual pictures of reality such as some Easter Mystical Philosophies, precisely because they don't demand that God is an immoral monster.

~~~~~

However, when I make these theological arguments I'm often accused of being "uncivil". Like as if it's uncivil to suggest that a God might be an immoral monster.

But if that's the crux of my theological position, then why should this be considered to be "uncivil".

I reject Christianity because as far as I can see, in order for it to be true the God it portrays would necessarily need to be an extremely immoral entity. A monster. A demon in his own right.

That is my theological position. It's not intended to be an uncivil attack against a religion. It's a sincere theological position. I reject Christianity (and Islam) precisely because, in my assessment, both of these religions have twisted their Gods into extremely hateful and uncaring monsters.

And for that view, I get blamed for having an "uncivil" attitude toward these religions.

It's a well-thought-out perspective, and I sincerely stand by it as being a valid position to take on these theologies.

This is the reason I reject these religion. And I should be able to argue for this position without being accused of being "uncivil" just because I point out that these Gods would need to be immoral monsters.

That's my true reason for rejecting these religions. Why should I be punished or silenced for holding this valid theological position?

To the bold. Your position seems valid and to not be allowed to make it would be unfair.

It has been discussed here how the same part of your brain lights up when discussing religion as does when discussing your favorite football team for example. We all know some nutty sports fans that get awfully emotional about their team, especially when discussing them with a rival or comparing them to a rival team.

I can only assume that some religious people are getting overly emotional by your what seems to be, valid position. I understand how that can happen, but I don't understand how that is your fault.

If your position wasn't valid, I would think they would show that it is not valid, not run to the moderators. IMO, your position must be valid due to some believers seeming to get uncomfortable over it and I assume the inability to counter it.

All of us, believers included can be more civil at times of course. This means you too Boat!

[Divine Insight]

If your position wasn't valid, I would think they would show that it is not valid

That's all I ask.

[OnceConvinced]

Non-theists May Simply Reject Supernatural Claims

This is definitely my stance now. I used to believe in the supernatural, ie miracles, angels, demons, magic, witchcraft, psychic powers... and others, but as I have become more educated I have started to learn that many of these things aren't all they are claimed to be.

As I have learnt the truth about these things, I have come to reject them and now there is very little that still defies explanation. I am just simply unable to believe in the supernatural anymore. Everything seems to have a scientific explanation and I see no need to invoke "Goddidit" for anything, even if I don't have a scientific answer. To me saying "Goddidit" is giving into ignorance.

Non-Theists May Reject a Theology based on Conflicts with Known Science

Yes, definitely a huge issue for me. I see nothing supernatural, so supernatural explanations just don't cut the mustard.

Non-Theists May Reject a Theology based simply because they see no evidence for it.

Indeed, the evidence I see steers me towards evolution not creation.

Non-Theists May Reject a Theology based on the position that the God it describes would necessarily be an immoral monster.

Yes, unless you wish to make loads and loads of justifications and excuses, the bible god does appear to be very malevolent.

However, when I make these theological arguments I'm often accused of being "uncivil". Like as if it's uncivil to suggest that a God might be an immoral monster.

As God is not a member of this site, nor a contributor, then anything said about him can't be considered a personal attack. I don't see it as uncivil.

But if that's the crux of my theological position, then why should this be considered to be "uncivil".

The thing I have been seeing in your posts recently that I deem to be uncivil is referring to people's opinions as "nonsense" or "absurd". Or even insinuating that someone is lying. These are the things that I feel should definitely be given warnings for.

I reject Christianity because as far as I can see, in order for it to be true the God it portrays would necessarily need to be an extremely immoral entity. A monster. A demon in his own right.

That is my theological position. It's not intended to be an uncivil attack against a religion. It's a sincere theological position. I reject Christianity (and Islam) precisely because, in my assessment, both of these religions have twisted their Gods into extremely hateful and uncaring monsters.

As far as I'm concerned, I don't see why people should not be allowed to voice their feelings on things like this. It's not a personal attack. Nor is it really uncivil to anyone. I don't think we should have to worry about offending people in that way. It's when the comments get personal that it becomes an issue.

And for that view, I get blamed for having an "uncivil" attitude toward these religions.

It's not just about putting down someone's God.

That's my true reason for rejecting these religions. Why should I be punished or silenced for holding this valid theological position?

Do you feel it's ok to call someone's point of view nonsense or absurd? Do you feel that is civil? Do you feel it's ok to accuse or insinuate that someone is a liar?

[Divine Insight]

Do you feel it's ok to call someone's point of view nonsense or absurd? Do you feel that is civil?

If someone claims that some God died to pay for my sins and that's their "view", I think it's civil for me to say that I see that claim as being absurd.

Also, from my perspective I'm hardly saying something about "their personal claim" since they clearly didn't come up with that ideology on their own. So we're not really talking about their "views" we're talking about what a particular theology teaches and holds to be true.

So, in that sense, I don't feel that I'm suggesting that their "views" are absurd, but rather the theology they are attempting to "preach" or "debate" is absurd.

And I would think that should a fair assessment without any need to claim that it's a personal insult. It's the theological position that I am claiming to be absurd.

And then we could move on to debate the validity of that theological position.

For example, if someone tells me that "Christ died to pay for my sins and I owe him a debt". My natural response is going to be, "That's absurd".

Then we can move on to debating why I think it's absurd and the other person does not. What's wrong with that?

Do you feel it's ok to accuse or insinuate that someone is a liar?

In the specific case when they make totally unwarranted claims about me personally, yes.

If someone claims that I have been rejecting some imagined demigod who they claim has been knocking on my door repeatedly, I think the suggestion that they are not speaking truthfully is justified.

Also, if they claim to be speaking live to some supernatural demigod I think it's fair to say that I don't accept that claim as being true. I wouldn't say that this amounts to calling them a "liar". They aren't necessarily lying. They could simply be mentally deluded.

I think others have addressed this issue as well. When someone claims to be talking to a God and then claims to know certain things about you that you know are not true, then clearly they are either extremely deluded and fooling themselves, or they are indeed making up outright intentional lies.

Something's got to give if you know that what they are accusing you of is not true.

[Ancient of Years]

Concerning the supernatural, I am willing to take on a suspension of disbelief attitude in order to evaluate evidence fairly. (Decades of engineering and computer work have taught me not to assume anything. Surprises lurk around every corner.) However I have yet to see any evidence that is anywhere near convincing. My loss of belief originally resulted from examining scriptures for the purpose of confirming my faith, as I had been told it would. Instead I realized that the supposed evidence was nothing of the sort and that there was clear indication of agenda driven invention.

I continue to entertain evidence, argumentation etc. provided to me but have not seen anything new in many years and nothing of any noticeable credibility ever. But I am perfectly willing to be civil about it.

[OnceConvinced]

Do you feel it's ok to call someone's point of view nonsense or absurd? Do you feel that is civil?

If someone claims that some God died to pay for my sins and that's their "view", I think it's civil for me to say that I see that claim as being absurd.

Also, from my perspective I'm hardly saying something about "their personal claim" since they clearly didn't come up with that ideology on their own. So we're not really talking about their "views" we're talking about what a particular theology teaches and holds to be true.

So, in that sense, I don't feel that I'm suggesting that their "views" are absurd, but rather the theology they are attempting to "preach" or "debate" is absurd.

And I would think that should a fair assessment without any need to claim that it's a personal insult. It's the theological position that I am claiming to be absurd.

And then we could move on to debate the validity of that theological position.

For example, if someone tells me that "Christ died to pay for my sins and I owe him a debt". My natural response is going to be, "That's absurd".

Then we can move on to debating why I think it's absurd and the other person does not. What's wrong with that?

But do you need to say it's absurd? Readers can make that judgement themselves. It's things like that, that get people's backs up. Why not just give your counter argument without saying what they have said is absurd? If we had to point out what arguments were absurd we would be saying that for almost every Christian argument given. LOL

Do you feel it's ok to accuse or insinuate that someone is a liar?

In the specific case when they make totally unwarranted claims about me personally, yes.

If someone claims that I have been rejecting some imagined demigod who they claim has been knocking on my door repeatedly, I think the suggestion that they are not speaking truthfully is justified.

Also, if they claim to be speaking live to some supernatural demigod I think it's fair to say that I don't accept that claim as being true. I wouldn't say that this amounts to calling them a "liar". They aren't necessarily lying. They could simply be mentally deluded.

I think others have addressed this issue as well. When someone claims to be talking to a God and then claims to know certain things about you that you know are not true, then clearly they are either extremely deluded and fooling themselves, or they are indeed making up outright intentional lies.

Something's got to give if you know that what they are accusing you of is not true.

Valid points I guess. It could still be construed as a personal attack though.

[otseng]

[Replying to post 1 by Divine Insight]

I'm more lenient on attacking beliefs, but when personal comments are made about another person, the hammer will come down.

The warning that you received was not because of you attacking a position, but attacking a person.

You keep making up absolute nonsense and posting it as if it represent some sort of actual truth.

Doesn't Christianity itself teach you not to lie?

How can you not see the gross dishonesty of this religious cult?

[Clownboat]

Do you feel it's ok to call someone's point of view nonsense or absurd? Do you feel that is civil? Do you feel it's ok to accuse or insinuate that someone is a liar?

If someones point of view is not nonsense nor absurd in debate, but it is being claimed that it is, all they have to do is to show that it is not so. It is a perfect debate opportunity for them to show that their fellow debater is mistaken. It will bolster their credibility while calling into question the others.

If they cannot do so, then the charge of nonsense and absurd would seem accurate would it not? If it is accurate, I'm not sure we can call it 'uncivil'. That would be pandering it would seem.

Liar, of course is a bit more uncivil, however, it is also a great opportunity in debate if you can show that you are not being deceitful (a liar) and would lend further credibility to the person being accused.

IMO, some people here are too quick to go to the mod team. They miss incredible debate opportunities. That is of course, unless they can't show that their point of view is not nonsense or absurd or if they did get caught in a lie. In that case, they made their bed and they need to sleep in it.

Of course there are times when the mods need to get involved due to actually getting personal (I fall victim to this). That is not what I'm talking about here though.

[Danmark]

Non-theists May Simply Reject Supernatural Claims

This is definitely my stance now. I used to believe in the supernatural, ie miracles, angels, demons, magic, witchcraft, psychic powers... and others, but as I have become more educated I have started to learn that many of these things aren't all they are claimed to be.

As I have learnt the truth about these things, I have come to reject them and now there is very little that still defies explanation. I am just simply unable to believe in the supernatural anymore. Everything seems to have a scientific explanation and I see no need to invoke "Goddidit" for anything, even if I don't have a scientific answer. To me saying "Goddidit" is giving into ignorance.

Non-Theists May Reject a Theology based on Conflicts with Known Science

Yes, definitely a huge issue for me. I see nothing supernatural, so supernatural explanations just don't cut the mustard.

Non-Theists May Reject a Theology based simply because they see no evidence for it.

Indeed, the evidence I see steers me towards evolution not creation.

Non-Theists May Reject a Theology based on the position that the God it describes would necessarily be an immoral monster.

Yes, unless you wish to make loads and loads of justifications and excuses, the bible god does appear to be very malevolent.

However, when I make these theological arguments I'm often accused of being "uncivil". Like as if it's uncivil to suggest that a God might be an immoral monster.

As God is not a member of this site, nor a contributor, then anything said about him can't be considered a personal attack. I don't see it as uncivil.

But if that's the crux of my theological position, then why should this be considered to be "uncivil".

The thing I have been seeing in your posts recently that I deem to be uncivil is referring to people's opinions as "nonsense" or "absurd". Or even insinuating that someone is lying. These are the things that I feel should definitely be given warnings for.

I'm with you up until this last. "Nonsense" has a fairly straightforward meaning, but I have to admit it may have connotations that are uncivil. "Absurd" is problematic. If we define it as:
irrational, silly, ludicrous, nonsensical. Absurd, ridiculous, preposterous all mean inconsistent with reason or common sense. Absurd means utterly opposed to truth or reason: an absurd claim. Ridiculous implies that something is fit only to be laughed at, perhaps contemptuously: a ridiculous suggestion,
then it contains some uncivil meanings, particularly as an insinuation of dishonesty, but I don't think that's a fair construction. Being 'opposed to truth' is close to, but different than a claim of knowingly lying.

Don't we agree that certain statements are absurd:
"The moon is made of green cheese.*"
"The hands of a watch are moved by tiny, invisible leprechauns within."

The claims the myths of Genesis represent actual historical events, for me, fit the 'absurd' category. Many statements I've read on this forum strike me as absurd, ridiculous, and literally nonsensical and silly. But I agree the words should be used carefully, in a context that does not show open contempt for the person who publishes his absurd beliefs here.


________________________
*In a rather poorly constructed test I took in the 9th grade, I only missed one question. I checked "highly improbable" instead of "absurd" to characterize the declaration 'The moon is made of green cheese.' The author of the test and I had philosophical differences. But I now agree I was wrong. Isn't the statement absurd rather than highly unlikely?