Internet atheism: one of secularism's biggest enemies (Mormons, gospel, believe)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
.... One has to wonder what it is about atheism that prompts people to think that discussions about the human conditions are cat fights to be won at all costs, including the refusal to allow one's self to see anything other than one's own personal view of the world, instead of seeing discussions as opportunities to understand other people better.
This kind of behavior makes much clearer why atheists are generally so negatively regarded in society.
this addresses a point touched on earlier in a different post by mordant. he stated a view that beliefs stand on their own merit without regard to a person's behavior. my view is that a person's behavior can cause their beliefs to be rejected out of hand, even without discussing the beliefs, based wholly on the person's behavior.
it also is how a few in a group can give the group a bad name. let's say on this forum there are a few atheists who consistently engage in offensive, toxic behavior. They self-identify as atheists. They regularly smear the forum and disrupt discussions with their verbal feces of insults, sarcasm, condescension, name-calling, berating, mocking, and belittling. The more it happens, the more strongly people associate the toxic offensive behavior with atheists. The obvious association is "Atheists act this way. Ewwwww. I don't want to be part of that."
is it true? is it logical? is it reasonable? it doesn't matter because that is the conclusion people make. it makes atheists look bad.
when the offensive behavior is brought up to atheists, and it is defended, rationalized, justified, even glorified and canonized (="regarded as being above reproach; of great significance") it hammers the nail even further into the coffin that is the bad name atheism has. the message it sends is, "this is how atheists act."
so atheists may think they are shouting by the rooftops about how smart they are, about how moral they are, about how kind and generous they are ("don't need religion for any of that") about how superior they are, but guess what...we don't believe you because we don't see it. because we don't see behavior that is kind, we don't see conversations that are smart, we don't see attitudes that are generous or ethical. what we see and hear are: insults, condescension, name-calling, ridicule, mocking, belittling, and attitudes that are dogmatic, imperious, and domineering. That's not smart or intellectual or appealing. That is how the behavior of atheists causes atheism to be seen in a very negative way, which relates to the topic of this thread.
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 05-23-2016 at 06:45 PM..
this addresses a point touched on earlier in a different post by mordant. he stated a view that beliefs stand on their own merit without regard to a person's behavior. my view is that a person's behavior can cause their beliefs to be rejected out of hand, even without discussing the beliefs, based wholly on the person's behavior.
it also is how a few in a group can give the group a bad name. let's say on this forum there are a few atheists who consistently engage in offensive, toxic behavior. They self-identify as atheists. They regularly smear the forum and disrupt discussions with their verbal feces of insults, sarcasm, condescension, name-calling, berating, mocking, and belittling. The more it happens, the more strongly people associate the toxic offensive behavior with atheists. The obvious association is "Atheists act this way. Ewwwww. I don't want to be part of that."
is it true? is it logical? is it reasonable? it doesn't matter because that is the conclusion people make. it makes atheists look bad.
when the offensive behavior is brought up to atheists, and it is defended, rationalized, justified, even glorified and canonized (="regarded as being above reproach; of great significance") it hammers the nail even further into the coffin that is the bad name atheism has. the message it sends is, "this is how atheists act."
so atheists may think they are shouting by the rooftops about how smart they are, about how moral they are, about how kind and generous they are ("don't need religion for any of that") about how superior they are, but guess what...we don't believe you because we don't see it. because we don't see behavior that is kind, we don't see conversations that are smart, we don't see attitudes that are generous or ethical. what we see and hear are: insults, condescension, name-calling, ridicule, mocking, belittling, and attitudes that are dogmatic, imperious, and domineering. That's not smart or intellectual or appealing. That is how the behavior of atheists causes atheism to be seen in a very negative way, which relates to the topic of this thread.
What you are describing here is the very reason for the term confirmation bias. And why it was determined to be useful for solving problems of all sorts (not limited to science). Similar to the need to have parameters for communication such as language. Without a common language, we couldn't communicate as effectively. We could more easily mistake certain grunts for aggression or as threats. That isn't simply something that works best for me....it works best for any person trying to communicate for any reason.
Similarly, controlling for confirmation bias, using logic, and believing true things works best for a person who wishes to survive in a world full of small and large mysteries on a daily basis. And even if believing something untrue doesn't cause imminent demise....it does lower your chances to make the most optimal survival decisions based on the reality we exist in.
You have stated that you aren't interested in whether the things you believe are actually true . I take that to mean, that so long as what you believe makes you feel good, it doesn't matter whether it's true. So a sweetly worded lie is better than harshly worded truths. While you certainly aren't obligated to think otherwise, this does diminish the credibility and value system that your assertions of abusive dialog are coming from.
Mainly because I can't be reasonably certain that you are only choosing to see violations of your decorum in those you have disagreement with, while ignoring the violations of those you share agreement with. And your lack of desire to control for your own confirmation bias, tells me that you only have distaste for certain abusers, while excusing and applauding the abuses of others....going by your own stated standards.
You have stated that you aren't interested in whether the things you believe are actually true . I take that to mean, that so long as what you believe makes you feel good, it doesn't matter whether it's true. So a sweetly worded lie is better than harshly worded truths. While you certainly aren't obligated to think otherwise, this does diminish the credibility and value system that your assertions of abusive dialog are coming from.
no i did not say that
your statement about me is not true at all. in reading what you wrote above not a single word of it describes me or my views. It is thoroughly inaccurate, however i appreciate your participation in the conversation.
i know what is true for me. it is according to my criteria of truth, based on my views and personal experience and understanding and learning and trial and error, and from those who are more advanced than i am that have qualities i seek to emulate, and from their written lessons, that have proven to me to be trustworthy, reliable, and worthy of practical application. so no my criteria for truth and what i believe is not "whatever makes me feel good." truth and honesty are very important to me. first and foremost that is truthful with self and honesty about my intentions and motivations.
you know what is true for you. you determine that. there are views you may hold which are true for you for instance "there is no god and humans do not have a soul." To you that is true. To me that is false. It appears to me you believe there is an "actually true" out there, some independent objective definitive "truth." With regards to religion and spirituality that is not the case.
regarding what defines dogmatic behavior, I rely on dictionary definitions so that we have a common ground for conversation. regarding what defines toxic offensive behavior, I rely on mental health professionals such as counselors, social workers, and therapists. for me those are credible sources, because they have my best interests at heart and promote healthy communication and safe relationships.
in the area of toxic behavior, someone who is NOT credible source is someone who rejects professional mental health standards and seeks to justify, defend, rationalize, and glorify toxic behavior that causes harm and damage.
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 05-23-2016 at 09:34 PM..
this addresses a point touched on earlier in a different post by mordant. he stated a view that beliefs stand on their own merit without regard to a person's behavior.
I believe my point was that a thing is true or not depending on the facts in evidence, not depending on the attractiveness of the presentation or the attitude thereof. That's not to say that you can't undermine a point or your credibility by behaving badly and, as you suggest, cause someone to decline to consider what you're presenting. I certainly endorse the saying that in general you can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.
But the flip side of that is that if you insist that a person frame a thing so as to be pleasing to you before you will give it any consideration you may fail to learn something. In fact there are whole classes of things you can't take on board without a good deal of discomfort. It doesn't even have to come from the presenter or their tone but from the unwelcomeness of the information itself. And it is a known fact that unwelcome information can cause one to shoot the messenger, and so that represents a self-reinforcing feedback loop if ever there was one. And then the question becomes, assuming for the sake of argument I come bearing unwelcome information or reasoning, who is it up to, to break that vicious circle? Arguably both of us, but you can only control your responses and emotions, not mine.
Using aesthetics as a filter for BS in other words is not a very good strategy unless you are of the belief that truth is always pleasant and never disconfirms any assumptions you currently operate under. I can testify to that personally because I used to do quite a bit of that sort of thing. As a result I did not realize I was barking up a number of completely wrong trees philosophically speaking until my life had become enough of a mess that the pain of not embracing reality about my beliefs became greater than the pain of denying it.
There is an option that seems to seldom be considered by denizens of these fora, which is that no one is holding a gun to anyone's head to be here. If the conversation isn't edifying or enlightening, it IS possible to leave the conversation. There are after all heavily moderated echo chambers where never is heard a dissenting word if that is what is actually desired.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel
so atheists may think they are shouting by the rooftops about how smart they are, about how moral they are, about how kind and generous they are ("don't need religion for any of that") about how superior they are, but guess what...we don't believe you because we don't see it. because we don't see behavior that is kind, we don't see conversations that are smart, we don't see attitudes that are generous or ethical. what we see and hear are: insults, condescension, name-calling, ridicule, mocking, belittling, and attitudes that are dogmatic, imperious, and domineering. That's not smart or intellectual or appealing. That is how the behavior of atheists causes atheism to be seen in a very negative way, which relates to the topic of this thread.
I'm curious whether there is anything in my reply right here that you regard as supercilious, unkind, ungenerous, stupid, unethical, insulting, condescending, name-calling, ridiculous, mocking, belittling, dogmatic, imperious or domineering. While I realize you are speaking in general here, and not necessarily specifically about me, it seems sometimes like you do perceive a great deal of what I say in this intensely negative light, so let's get down to specific cases. How would you suggest I improve this specific message?
Because I don't find anything in it that fits the above stream of invective.
I'm curious whether there is anything in my reply right here that you regard as supercilious, unkind, ungenerous, stupid, unethical, insulting, condescending, name-calling, ridiculous, mocking, belittling, dogmatic, imperious or domineering. While I realize you are speaking in general here, and not necessarily specifically about me, it seems sometimes like you do perceive a great deal of what I say in this intensely negative light, so let's get down to specific cases. How would you suggest I improve this specific message?
Because I don't find anything in it that fits the above stream of invective.
nope! there is nothing in your behavior or tone of post #124 that i find objectionable. this allows a discussion to occur that is dignified and respectful, even if we disagree on many points. thank you for your thoughtful response and observations and participation and conversation.
And it is a known fact that unwelcome information can cause one to shoot the messenger....
...I did not realize I was barking up a number of completely wrong trees philosophically speaking until my life had become enough of a mess that the pain of not embracing reality about my beliefs became greater than the pain of denying it.
... no one is holding a gun to anyone's head to be here. If the conversation isn't edifying or enlightening, it IS possible to leave the conversation.
what you said touches on a good topic and bears further discussion: how we respond or react to unwelcome information, difficulties, or conflict; and how our belief system addresses these unpleasant circumstances when our life is falling apart. how do we react? what do difficulties represent?
yes people can leave. and they do. my view is that if there was not so much name-calling and belittling and mocking and ridiculing, then we would hear more voices and more views, and we would all benefit. perhaps that is what the disrupters are after, no discussion at all on the religion and spirituality forum because they detest it and seek to shut it all down. there are several voices that i miss. there are several people i would like to hear more from.
yes people can leave. and they do. my view is that if there was not so much name-calling and belittling and mocking and ridiculing, then we would hear more voices and more views, and we would all benefit. perhaps that is what the disrupters are after, no discussion at all on the religion and spirituality forum because they detest it and seek to shut it all down. there are several voices that i miss. there are several people i would like to hear more from.
I mentioned that there are heavily moderated forums where people are kicked out pretty much by popular vote if something is disagreed with, and that keeps things just as the members want it -- polite, genteel, and in my view, boring as heck. Diversity is a good thing. Uniformity is the father of boredom.
On the other hand though I occasionally peruse and post on a forum that is far LESS moderated than THIS one. You can cuss like a sailor if you wish for example and no one will stop you (and no I don't personally test those limits). You can mount personal attacks and insults and so long as they don't cross the line into racist or X-ist hate speech no one will stop you. It is intense, frank, and very real.
One interesting thing I note about that site though is that no one there, including theists, ever complains that they are put upon or persecuted or treated badly. One gets the usual gamut of deeply flawed non-arguments and deflections from theists but there is no equivalent to JeffBase with his persecution narrative for example or at least no one who directs complaints at other posters. Maybe it's because he would be immediately shut down with some pretty harsh appellations and guys like that usually can dish it out but can't take it. But there are plenty of believers who visit and engage regularly and some of them are very high quality people with good (if somewhat fevered) minds.
This phenomenon had not occurred to me until now. Why the paucity of aggrieved and offended believers on that other site? Does the tenor of the site merely self-select for people with thick skin? I rather suspect that something else is going on: it's a BS free zone, including the BS of not calling BS, BS. In a crazy overdetermined way it actually makes the discourse cleaner and debate more honest. It has a charm all its own. The only reason I don't spend more time there is because the quality of the atheist side's arguments are a bit lower than here, largely because there are a heavier concentration of youngsters. I prefer people over 40 when it comes to philosophy or metaphysics. Too much angst sometimes from the youngsters.
Even in that wild-west moderation environment I've never actually seen people call people out just to be mean. Someone actually has to say something genuinely and aggressively illogical or disingenuous to get a drubbing. But I must say the drubbings make the "Shirina shellackings" here seem pretty genteel. The general sentiment is "begone, and come back when you get your head out of your ..." well, you know.
that is how YOU find data to make decisions in YOUR life
I myself have a number of methods and sources for data in my life. Books. My own research. Observation. And much more. But one key source for me is to ask people who espouse beliefs, what the basis of those beliefs are. This is often the most informative way to getting data, in many spheres of discourse.
Alas in SOME spheres of discourse, most notably the topic of religion, this is not so.... as the people espousing certain beliefs there simply dodge and ignore all questions, usually hiding behind some narrative (such as you yourself do with the topic of hostility and offence) designed to make it look like the dodging is the fault of the asker, not the person questioned.
What I have personally observed is the more unsubstantiated and nonsense a claim appears to be, the more likely a person questioned on that claim is to act in this fundamentally dishonest fashion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel
precisely what atheists are doing when they try to "prove" other beliefs as "wrong and stupid."
Yes many atheists are doing no such thing. They are asking theists for substantiation not to "prove" anything, or to show their beliefs to be "wrong" or "stupid". They are doing so to genuinely find out if there IS any substantiation for the claims being made.
If, for example, there genuinely was a god..... or an after life the quality of which is affected by my choices and behaviors here in this life...... this is information I would genuinely want to have and would benefit from having. So if there is ANY truth to those claims..... I genuinely want and need to know.
Yet when I discuss it with theists as to what the substantiation for their claims might be they mostly, as I said above, not only ignore or dodge the questions..... but construct some fantastical nonsense narrative as to why that dodge is my fault and not theirs.
And one can be forgiven, haven observed that dynamic for over 20 years, from coming to the strong suspicion and realization that the most likely explanation on offer for this egregious behavior is that they know as well as I do.... that they are making it all up and they HAVE no substantiation to offer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel
religion would not be the huge part of my life that it is unless i trusted it and found it to be nourishing on every level of my being: body, mind, heart, and soul.
The distinction many atheists would rush to make here however is that regardless of how fulfilling or beneficial YOU find it mentally or emotionally in your life..... that does not in even the tiniest way speak to the TRUTH of the claims. Whether the claims are actually true..... and whether belief in the claims brings you some benefit...... are two ENTIRELY different topics of conversation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel
the people i learn from (in my religion) are wise and smart and kind and giants not only of mind, but of heart and soul as well. i trust them because they have something of value and substance to offer in how i live my life and becoming a better person.
And I can say EXACTLY the same thing, word for word, without religion too. I have a wealth of smart, kind, wise giants of mind, heart and soul in my life too, that add a wealth of substance to my life and the world around them.............. and neither I, nor they, appear to have any religion or subscription to unsubstantiated claims.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel
the person who is doing calculus is not going to find much common ground with people who can't count to ten or claim numbers are dumb and useless.
Agreed! BUT the analogy goes further..... for when someone who does not know calculus comes and asks for the information on data on how to do it..... those of us who can do it will often sit down and work through it with them with love and patience and empathy.
Yet when I do the EXACT same thing with you (the person doing the calculus in your analogy)...... I am rejected, told you have no interest in leading me to the evidence and data you have..... and blamed falsely for being the reason for this dodge and cop out.
In your analogy if someone comes to me and can not count to 10..... I teach them to. When someone comes to you and cant count to 10 you send them on their way rejected.... but not before attempting to blame them for it as they leave.
So yes, great analogy there thanks! I think it perfect to sum up and describe YOUR behavior here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel
another difference between us is that I recognize there are laws that apply to the physical world. and there are laws that apply to the world of spirit.
And I would be interested, should you ever get around to it, in any arguments, evidence, data or reasoning you may be aware of that there even IS a "word of spirit" or how you define what is a "world of spirit" in the first place.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel
so atheists may think they are shouting by the rooftops about how smart they are, about how moral they are, about how kind and generous they are ("don't need religion for any of that") about how superior they are, but guess what...we don't believe you because we don't see it. because we don't see behavior that is kind, we don't see conversations that are smart, we don't see attitudes that are generous or ethical.
And the fact is this goes BOTH ways and very much so. There are a wealth of people on this forum who self describe as theist but act with behaviors that are abysmal and abhorrent. Yet they would see their way of life as the superior and more moral one.... but as you yourself describe..... they are not demonstrating it with their behaviors of hate and insult either.
So what becomes clear very quickly is the narrative you construct here above is NOT an atheist narrative at all. It is a HUMAN narrative. Human in that EVERY group or movement.... atheist or theist..... republican or democrat..... straight or gay....... black or white...... inpat or expat....... every one of them have bad apples with behaviors that let the group down.
And there are right and wrong ways to react to that I feel. For example a right way to react to it is to identify such people in your own group, and pull them aside privately and quietly and attempt to get them to raise their game. I have done this often on this forum. When I see atheists acting poorly I will message them directly off thread and attempt to raise their game. And SOME people on the theist side of this forum are doing the same publicly and privately with people who genuinely make theists and theist look bad.... such as JeffBase40.
An example of a wrong way to act in my view however is to use the narrative of the bad apples in the other group, as a cop out excuse to engage with ANYONE in that group. And I see it often, including from you. You are adamantly refusing to engage with people querying the basis of your world views.... and you are using this narrative to hide behind while you do so. And this is neither helpful to discourse, nor is it honest.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel
you know what is true for you. you determine that. there are views you may hold which are true for you for instance "there is no god and humans do not have a soul." To you that is true. To me that is false.
To me it is neither. It is merely an unsubstantiated claim. You are talking about people who are acting in some 0 and 1, black and white, way where they go around thinking things are either entirely true or entirely false. At least that is how what you write here comes across.
I view the world differently. I see truth claims as lying on a continuum. With 100% true at one end and 100% false at the other. But nothing placed on that continuum EVER reaches the 100% point at either end. For example in science we acknowledge that we do not believe anything to be 100% true or proven. We just view the truth value of a claim as being commensurate with the data set we currently have, or not.
So when a claim comes before me it starts at the middle zero point on that continuum. It then gets moved towards "true" as the claimant offers substantiation or basis for the claim. Or it gets moved towards "false" if it goes against other substantiated claims on the truth side.
For example let us look at the claim that there is an after life.... that is to say that human consciousness, subjectivity and awareness survives the death of the brain. Place this at the zero point on the continuum and then look at the data set we have related to human consciousness.
Incomplete as that data set is..... 100% of it at this time points to an inextricable link between consciousness and the brain. 0% of it suggests any disconnect, or possible disconnect, between the two. And the people claiming such an after life are with 100% consistency offering NO arguments, evidence, data or reasoning to lend credence to their claim.
So the claim is not just unsubstantiated, but moved into the negative truth value on the continuum. And I require NONE of the toxic behavior, that you refer to in the narrative you have constructed, to establish that...... because I am in NO WAY emotionally invested in the claims position on that continuum. I would be just as happy for evidence to exist for an after life..... as I am for none to exist..... because what I am invested in is finding out what is true..... not establishing as true something I have decided in advance I want to be true. I do not care if it is true there is an after life or not..... I care to know the truth of which it is however.
And truth is important enough to me to engage with unsubstantiated claims robustly, intellectually and diligently. And if someone wants to misconstrue my robustness and diligence as hostility and toxicity.... then that is their false narrative and error. Not mine.
this addresses a point touched on earlier in a different post by mordant. he stated a view that beliefs stand on their own merit without regard to a person's behavior. my view is that a person's behavior can cause their beliefs to be rejected out of hand, even without discussing the beliefs, based wholly on the person's behavior. it also is how a few in a group can give the group a bad name.
Precisely. My final comments yesterday were too categorical, such that someone could misconstrue them to imply that all atheists behave like this. That's nonsense, of course. The whole point of distinguishing fundamentalist atheism is to make clear that this kind of behavior is aberrant even among atheists. However, what you're pointing out here is that the behavior of these few fundamentalists probably color the way all atheists in the United States are understood. Recall what Kennedy had to go through to distinguish himself from American Catholics, who at the time were presumed to intend to place obedience to Rome above their oaths to the United States. Romney faced similar concerns. And no matter how you look at it, based on the myriad atheists I know well (members of my church among them), the behavior of fundamentalist atheists in no way reflects anything about my friends or their character, yet they're still tagged with America's prevailing suspicion about atheists, even though that suspicion is likely fostered by the attitudes of the fundamentalists. Like it or not, perceptions are what matters, not the actuality. And the perception of atheists is quite negative.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel
when the offensive behavior is brought up to atheists, and it is defended, rationalized, justified, even glorified and canonized (="regarded as being above reproach; of great significance") it hammers the nail even further into the coffin that is the bad name atheism has. the message it sends is, "this is how atheists act."
And the prevailing expectation would be that a group police itself. How often have we heard folks say that the vast majority of Muslims who oppose terror should be more vocal in their condemnations of fundamentalist Islam? That expectation is perhaps frustrating for groups burdened by a powerful cadre of incorrigible extremists, but the principle is that if you don't defend your brand vigorously then you've lost the right to claim it as your own and define it as you would prefer.
^ And again what you describe above is nothing to do with atheists per se but with all human groups. Just like you describe some atheists having to distinguish themselves from a few aberrant atheists..... so too do many theists have to distinguish themselves from the Ben Steins, Kurt Camerons, Don McLeroys, Bill OReillys and so forth.
Every movement has it's bad apples and we should confront them in our own groups as readily as we confront them in others. And give no apology for doing either.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
