Atheism

[SteveII]

I think the list I made seeks to identify four tests that, if a religion were to fail them, they have a big gaping hole that would be hard to overcome--from a rational-belief perspective. Perhaps #3 is weaker than the others.

Beyond the point noted, the first three of your criteria detail what men do in response to knowledge of the gods.  How exactly that is a question of the truth claims of a religious experience, or even of the religion, is something I don't fully understand.  The gods may be real and yet men may react to them differently.  The difference in cultures and theological assumptions explain the latter without impugning the former.  So the first three criteria aren't really questions about the truth claims, but rather about how men have responded to revelations, with the clear implication that a Western, analytical tradition is superior.  Coming from a Hindu background myself, I recognize that the differences between the theology of the west and that of India are largely products of cultural differences.  That's a clear bias, as noted before.  Religion in India was fundamentally pluralistic, whereas religion in the Christian tradition was viciously exclusive.  Even if the Western analytical tradition was in some sense superior, that would not indicate that the revelations underlying those traditions were more likely true as a result.  As to your fourth criteria, I find that both Christianity and Hinduism likely fail that test.

So, as criteria for the truth of revelation, you've posited three criteria which are specifically friendly to Christianity, yet generally irrelevant to the revelations themselves, and a fourth which doesn't really distinguish the two.   It may be true that you've pointed out weaknesses in the religion as a religion, but we're not interested in the virtues of the religion as a religion but rather the likely truth or falsity of the underlying truth claims.  With the possible exception of #4, which Christianity also does poorly on, none of your criteria are appropriately aimed.

For reference:

1. Is Hinduism theology internally consistent?
2. Does it have a coherent understanding of reality?
3. Is there some sort of body of natural theology that support the tenent of the faith?
4. Are the facts of Krishna's life believable (as a god)? (demons, killing, war, wives, children, died of an arrow wound)

I think some of your points are correct. Here is a more generic list that I think avoids your charges:

Assumption: For any religion x, any interpretations of revelations and inferences made from those revelations is an attempt to derive a true belief.
1. Can the revelations and inferences of religion x be systematized into a framework that is internally consistent? In other words, do the revelations fit together so as not to contradict each other? Contradictory or ad hoc beliefs suggests an internal problem that needs to be resolved to increase likelihood of deriving a true belief.
2. Does the revelations and inferences of religion x square with science, cause/effect, our observations of our reality, and our intuitions? Contradictions need to be reconciled or they undercut the likelihood of a set of true beliefs.
3. Every religion has a narrative. Whether the narrative is pre-history or historical, is it metaphysically possible: cause/effect, logically possible, and tells us something about the nature of existence and objects and their properties? Is it actually possible: is their historical evidence or contradictions that need to be considered? The less these questions are addressed, the less likely that the narrative is a true belief. 
Conclusion: For any religion x, you can establish criteria aimed at ascertaining whether the religion is more or less likely to consist of true beliefs. Such criteria is also relevant in comparing religions against each other.

[Amarok]

I think the list I made seeks to identify four tests that, if a religion were to fail them, they have a big gaping hole that would be hard to overcome--from a rational-belief perspective. Perhaps #3 is weaker than the others.

Your criteria is horseshit built to try and an artificial distinction between your fairy tales and others and then filled with excuses to force your nonsense to fit it  . Sorry no one here is  buying it .

[RoadRunner79]

You're only picky about what objection you hide from because can't give a good or even antiquate answer to.So drop your pretentious bullshit your not half a smart as you like to believe yourself .

I must admit that, IMO, Steve's "peanut gallery" comments do come off as negative and insulting.  Out of curiosity, when people refer to their opponents in this negative way, have they considered that their opponents may see them in a similar way? How can reasonable, meaningful dialog occur under such circumstances?

If you look at what is constantly said to Christians here, the attacking of the person, calling them stupid and delusional, assuming motives, rejecting anything that doesn’t come from the atheism echo chamber. Constantly disrespecting our beliefs (not just disagreeing with them). When you look at the intolerance and hate. I don’t think that “peanut gallery” is all that bad. I respect Steve’s patience, and wish I was that strong at times. Sometimes it’s tiring just to try and have a conversation and discuss ideas, to ignore those who are uncivil and not interested in truth or rational ideas.

---

And just to note K.S. I’m not saying that you do these things, or that everyone does. It’s just a little surprising that amongst everything else, you find the comment of “peanut gallery” so harsh and in need of correction.

[Amarok]

If you look at what is constantly said to Christians here, the attacking of the person, calling them stupid and delusional, assuming motives, rejecting anything that doesn’t come from the atheism echo chamber. Constantly disrespecting our beliefs (not just disagreeing with them). When you look at the intolerance and hate. I don’t think that “peanut gallery” is all that bad. I respect Steve’s patience, and wish I was that strong at times. Sometimes it’s tiring just to try and have a conversation and discuss ideas, to ignore those who are uncivil and not interested in truth or rational ideas.

---

And just to note K.S. I’m not saying that you do these things, or that everyone does. It’s just a little surprising that amongst everything else, you find the comment of “peanut gallery” so harsh and in need of correction.

And this is a steaming pile

Essentially this is long whiny rant about how we don't give apologist bullshit respect it does not deserve and those peddling even less and scream "INTOLERANCE " Your beliefs are not entitled to any respect . As for patience we given you and Steve's nonsense more patience it deserves . So save your persecution complex for a Christian forum.

[LadyForCamus]

---

Correct.


I think that what one means by ‘supernatural’, is a necessary clarification in a discussion about evidence.  As I said in my previous post, if we are defining supernatural as ‘not natural’, then it would be a category error to ask for evidence of that which cannot be evident by its own definition. This is why I walked back on my proposition: supernatural claims require extraordinary evidence.

OTOH, if you’re defining ‘supernatural’ as an extension of the natural world, then it would fall into the category of ‘natural things’, or just, ‘things’, and its interactions with other things that exist could produce evidence.

Do you have any objections to the above?  


Where is ‘outside the natural universe’ besides ‘not in the universe’? Is it a physical space? If ‘not-natural’ things exist there, what are they made of? Matter? Something else that’s different from matter but also physical? What qualities or attributes eliminate these things from the category of ‘natural’? Where is this line of demarcation, and what is the rational justification for drawing one at all?

(A)These are not ontological explanations. They’re merely negative descriptions of things we already know exist.  You’re saying what they’re not, instead of what they are. That’s like someone asking me to explain what light is, and I answer: ‘Well, light is...not-dark.’ So, I still don’t understand what you mean by ‘supernatural’.


(B) I agree. As I said above, whatever effects it has on the world that it belongs to would fall under the purview of science, and if these interactions leave behind physical evidence, we may have access to it.


©Correct.  That would be considered personal testimony.


(D) Correct.  Ofc, physical evidence, and enough of it, makes a much stronger case for any claim than testimony.  I can’t imagine that would be in dispute, would it?


This statement is problematic for a couple of reasons:

1. We haven’t adequately defined what ‘supernatural’ is, or what ‘outside the natural world’ is. As someone else mentioned in another post, a logical, causal connection between a natural effect and a supernatural cause cannot be made if that cause can’t even be properly defined, or described. Any argument that claims the cause of an effect must be ‘not-natural’ because we don’t know of a natural explaination, is an argument from ignorance.  

2. You’re propping up these ‘extra-natural’ claims on testimony alone, while failing to consider in context, the well-evidenced facts about the world that disagree with them.

(E) So, have you noticed what happened here? I conceded to your argument that there is no category error by way of allowing the definition of supernatural to mean: an extension of, but still included in, the category of natural things. My concession now allows us to reasonably apply the principles of evidence and evidence analysis uniformly across all claims. This is what you were arguing for at the beginning of the discussion.

The result?  Lack of evidence is still a major problem for biblical claims.

(F) It is a scientific fact that human semen is necessary for human conception. The body of high-quality, scientific evidence supporting this fact is overwhelming. It lands itself at the very top of the evidence hierarchy.  (G) In order for that fact to be overturned, you would need a body of evidence at least as strong as the evidence that supports it. Testimony, at the bottom of the hierarchy, doesn’t even come close.

---

Hello Lady,

(I've included footnotes in red referencing what you wrote)

As I said, I don't get too hung up on the words natural or supernatural. There are a number of miracles in the Bible, which can have natural explanations, although it is the timing which makes them miraculous.  Some are threatened by this, I find it very interesting.  People have some varied meanings about what "supernatural" means, and if you would prefer another definition that is fine with me.  Just let me know what we are talking about.   I was curious so I looked it up.  The first dictionary gave almost exactly the same definition as I did (I must have looked it up before).   However they added outside of science; which I think would follow if it is outside of nature (as that is sciences realm).

The thing is, in order to be able to move forward in this conversation we have to be absolutely clear on what we mean by, ‘supernatural.’  The dictionary definition of the word is rather ambiguous; leaving its implications open to subjective interpretation. Do you consider the supernatural to be an extension of the natural world, or entirely apart from it? Can its activity leave behind evidence?  Is your position that these are seperate categories of things, or a singular category with a superset? (Or subset, depending on how you look at it). This is a linchpin in any discussion regarding what is real, and we’ve got to be brave enough to take positions in order to have productive dialogue.

 My positon is this:

If the supernatural can interact with the natural and leave behind physical evidence, then we’re really just talking about one category: types of natural things. If an object or event exists, and can affect the natural world, then it is a part of that world, and no longer beyond the reaches of science. If this is the case, ‘supernatural’ versus ‘natural’ is a distinction without a meaningful difference.

OTOH, if the supernatural can’t interact with the natural world or produce evidence that it exists, we’re talking about two seperate categories of things. Existing things that are evident, and...whatever the opposite of that is. I’m still waiting for someone to explain it to me.  

I believe this is a true dichotomy.  Do you disagree?

I can understand you complaint about negative definitions (A) However, when we define what A is , then we naturally define NOT A as well.

Not quite. Just because we can determine what something is not, doesn’t necessarily mean we have successfully described what it is.  Let me try another analogy. If you ask me to explain to you what a dog is, and my answer is: ‘well, it’s not a cat, or a bird’, then I haven’t actually described a dog, have I? If something exists, but cannot be evident, what is the rational justification for believing it exists at all?

I had asked you a couple of pointed questions about the supernatural in my previous response that I notice you didn’t answer.  I would really like for you to address them, because I think they’re important. If you can’t answer them, that’s fine. No harm in just saying “I don’t know.”  I have bolded the one that I think is most pivotal to the discussion going forward.

Where is ‘outside the natural universe’ besides ‘not in the universe’? Is it a physical space? If ‘not-natural’ things exist there, what are they made of? Matter? Something else that’s different from matter but also physical? What qualities or attributes eliminate these things from the category of ‘natural’? Where is this line of demarcation, and what is the rational justification for drawing one at all?

Thanks!

which would be anything that doesn't fit into the category of A.   I wouldn't have thought this would be a problem, considering how often the definition of atheist is given here :

’Not a theist’ is neither the definition nor description of ‘atheist’ though, is it? My cat is ‘not a theist’, but that doesn’t make him an atheist.  We can do a far more thorough job of describing the characteristics of atheism. Can we say the same for the word ‘supernatural’?  I’ll point to my questions above.

I agree, one or more people relaying the information for what they have seen would be personal testimony evidence.   As well, there may be evidence which lends itself to scientific study.  Corroborating evidence is always good, and the more the better.  I agree.  However I wouldn't agree, that physical evidence always trumps testimony or direct evidence.   It may (depending on the evidence),  but often testimony can tell you so much more.  In any case, I am leery if there is only a single item of uncorroborated evidence though.  It's more difficult for multiple independent items of evidence to be in error.

Sure. Critical thinking skills are necessary any time we are assessing a cumulative body of evidence and attempting to draw conclusions from it.

Concerning your bullet points.  

1.  If you no what natural is, then you no what supernatural is (according to the definition I gave).   We may not be able to say what exactly supernatural consists of, but we can identify it.

Again, I’m not sure how you could identify something that can’t even be coherently described in concept.

2.  We use evidence to give us knowledge about what we don't know and to support those claims to others.  I think that if you see something or others see something which contradicts your world view, then that is evidence against your prior understanding.

Science isn’t a world view.  It’s a tool for modeling and describing the reality we exist in.

Our science and knowledge changes.   If you look up parthenogenesis, there is reproduction from a single parent.  There was one who accidentally did so in a lab, and this has been used to produce stem cells as well.   It normally only produces females (No X chromosome) however, there is also Chimeraism, where a person could have two sets of DNA, which can be a female and a male set.    I found a lot, that it was said, that it is technically possible, but highly unlikely to happen naturally in humans.

I’m perplexed as to why you would use an example of a well-evidenced, observable, scientifically demonstrated occurrence in a lab in support of an argument in favor of a biblical miracle. Are you saying that Mary’s immaculate conception had a natural cause describable via science?

If an alleged event is accessible to us via scientific inquiry, then it is subject to the same rigorous evidential standards as any other claim about reality, whether you’re calling it natural, or supernatural, or extra-natural, etc.

"In order for that fact to be overturned, you would need a body of evidence at least as strong as the evidence that supports it."  This sounds a lot like a rewording of extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”

It’s not simply a rewording; it’s a different statement altogether from, “supernatural claims require extraordinary evidence.” It’s what I’ve been trying to explain to you this whole discussion. It’s why I’ve been trying to get out of you what you mean by natural versus supernatural.  I can’t tell if you really don’t understand, or if you’re pretending not to.

If we have something which we do a 999 times, and get a certain result.   Then on the one thousand time, we get a different result.  Do we need to repeat and see the abnormal result 1000 times in order to count what we seen as evidence?

No. We would just need enough evidence to demonstrate that it happened the one time. If the claim, if true, would be a scientific anomaly that contradicts an enormous body of evidence indicating such a occurrence is highly unlikely, we should require equally strong, scientific evidence to demonstrate that it happened at all. Again, testimony from thousands of years ago doesn’t even come close

I will get to the last part of your response soon as I can! Thanks, RR!

[Minimalist]

Constantly disrespecting our beliefs (not just disagreeing with them).

You deserve to have your beliefs disrespected.  They are stupid.  It's the 21st century, man.  Not the 8th.  There are no fucking miracles.  The problem with xtians is that for centuries, while you had the power to do so, you would routinely murder those who disputed your bullshit.  I get that you look upon them as the good old days but those days are gone.  If you can't produce evidence to support your claims - and you never have - then you are simply shit out of luck.  Stop whining.

[RoadRunner79]

---

Hello Lady,

(I've included footnotes in red referencing what you wrote)

As I said, I don't get too hung up on the words natural or supernatural. There are a number of miracles in the Bible, which can have natural explanations, although it is the timing which makes them miraculous.  Some are threatened by this, I find it very interesting.  People have some varied meanings about what "supernatural" means, and if you would prefer another definition that is fine with me.  Just let me know what we are talking about.   I was curious so I looked it up.  The first dictionary gave almost exactly the same definition as I did (I must have looked it up before).   However they added outside of science; which I think would follow if it is outside of nature (as that is sciences realm).

The thing is, in order to be able to move forward in this conversation we have to be absolutely clear on what we mean by, ‘supernatural.’  The dictionary definition of the word is rather ambiguous; leaving its implications open to subjective interpretation. Do you consider the supernatural to be an extension of the natural world, or entirely apart from it? Can its activity leave behind evidence?  Is your position that these are seperate categories of things, or a singular category with a superset? (Or subset, depending on how you look at it). This is a linchpin in any discussion regarding what is real, and we’ve got to be brave enough to take positions in order to have productive dialogue.

 My positon is this:

If the supernatural can interact with the natural and leave behind physical evidence, then we’re really just talking about one category: types of natural things. If an object or event exists, and can affect the natural world, then it is a part of that world, and no longer beyond the reaches of science. If this is the case, ‘supernatural’ versus ‘natural’ is a distinction without a meaningful difference.

OTOH, if the supernatural can’t interact with the natural world or produce evidence that it exists, we’re talking about two seperate categories of things. Existing things that are evident, and...whatever the opposite of that is. I’m still waiting for someone to explain it to me.  

I believe this is a true dichotomy.  Do you disagree?

I can understand you complaint about negative definitions (A) However, when we define what A is , then we naturally define NOT A as well.

Not quite. Just because we can determine what something is not, doesn’t necessarily mean we have successfully described what it is.  Let me try another analogy. If you ask me to explain to you what a dog is, and my answer is: ‘well, it’s not a cat, or a bird’, then I haven’t actually described a dog, have I? If something exists, but cannot be evident, what is the rational justification for believing it exists at all?

I had asked you a couple of pointed questions about the supernatural in my previous response that I notice you didn’t answer.  I would really like for you to address them, because I think they’re important. If you can’t answer them, that’s fine. No harm in just saying “I don’t know.”  I have bolded the one that I think is most pivotal to the discussion going forward.

Where is ‘outside the natural universe’ besides ‘not in the universe’? Is it a physical space? If ‘not-natural’ things exist there, what are they made of? Matter? Something else that’s different from matter but also physical? What qualities or attributes eliminate these things from the category of ‘natural’? Where is this line of demarcation, and what is the rational justification for drawing one at all?

Thanks!

which would be anything that doesn't fit into the category of A.   I wouldn't have thought this would be a problem, considering how often the definition of atheist is given here :

’Not a theist’ is neither the definition nor description of ‘atheist’ though, is it? My cat is ‘not a theist’, but that doesn’t make him an atheist.  We can do a far more thorough job of describing the characteristics of atheism. Can we say the same for the word ‘supernatural’?  I’ll point to my questions above.

I agree, one or more people relaying the information for what they have seen would be personal testimony evidence.   As well, there may be evidence which lends itself to scientific study.  Corroborating evidence is always good, and the more the better.  I agree.  However I wouldn't agree, that physical evidence always trumps testimony or direct evidence.   It may (depending on the evidence),  but often testimony can tell you so much more.  In any case, I am leery if there is only a single item of uncorroborated evidence though.  It's more difficult for multiple independent items of evidence to be in error.

Sure. Critical thinking skills are necessary any time we are assessing a cumulative body of evidence and attempting to draw conclusions from it.

Concerning your bullet points.  

1.  If you no what natural is, then you no what supernatural is (according to the definition I gave).   We may not be able to say what exactly supernatural consists of, but we can identify it.

Again, I’m not sure how you could identify something that can’t even be coherently described in concept.

2.  We use evidence to give us knowledge about what we don't know and to support those claims to others.  I think that if you see something or others see something which contradicts your world view, then that is evidence against your prior understanding.

Science isn’t a world view.  It’s a tool for modeling and describing the reality we exist in.

Our science and knowledge changes.   If you look up parthenogenesis, there is reproduction from a single parent.  There was one who accidentally did so in a lab, and this has been used to produce stem cells as well.   It normally only produces females (No X chromosome) however, there is also Chimeraism, where a person could have two sets of DNA, which can be a female and a male set.    I found a lot, that it was said, that it is technically possible, but highly unlikely to happen naturally in humans.

I’m perplexed as to why you would use an example of a well-evidenced, observable, scientifically demonstrated occurrence in a lab in support of an argument in favor of a biblical miracle. Are you saying that Mary’s immaculate conception had a natural cause describable via science?

If an alleged event is accessible to us via scientific inquiry, then it is subject to the same rigorous evidential standards as any other claim about reality, whether you’re calling it natural, or supernatural, or extra-natural, etc.

"In order for that fact to be overturned, you would need a body of evidence at least as strong as the evidence that supports it."  This sounds a lot like a rewording of extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”

It’s not simply a rewording; it’s a different statement altogether from, “supernatural claims require extraordinary evidence.” It’s what I’ve been trying to explain to you this whole discussion. It’s why I’ve been trying to get out of you what you mean by natural versus supernatural.  I can’t tell if you really don’t understand, or if you’re pretending not to.

If we have something which we do a 999 times, and get a certain result.   Then on the one thousand time, we get a different result.  Do we need to repeat and see the abnormal result 1000 times in order to count what we seen as evidence?

No. We would just need enough evidence to demonstrate that it happened the one time. If the claim, if true, would be a scientific anomaly that contradicts an enormous body of evidence indicating such a occurrence is highly unlikely, we should require equally strong, scientific evidence to demonstrate that it happened at all. Again, testimony from thousands of years ago doesn’t even come close

I will get to the last part of your response soon as I can!  Thanks, RR!

---

I get that you are having trouble with the definition of supernatural.   But I don't know what to say.  That is the definition.   If you want to define it differently go ahead (as long as it isn't to estranged from the common defintion and you don't try to equivocate) I'll likely make concession the best I can.   As I said, it's not that big of a concern for me.  I would note on your objections, that we describe "extra terrestrials"  similarly.   That they would be beings from outside of this earth.  It wouldn't make sense to ask what color they are, or how tall they are, based on that definition.  One might also make a distinction between aquatic and non-aquatic mammals.   It's a broad definition, which doesn't require specifics which are outside of that definition.   And I would remind you, that you are the one who brought up supernatural

As to your question the quality or attribute that makes the distinction, is that they are outside of (or not a part of) the natural forces of the universe.   That's it.

’Not a theist’ is neither the definition nor description of ‘atheist’ though, is it? My cat is ‘not a theist’, but that doesn’t make him an atheist.  We can do a far more thorough job of describing the characteristics of atheism. Can we say the same for the word ‘supernatural’?  I’ll point to my questions above.

I tend to agree; however, that is exactly how it is often described here.  And I believe that Neo has made that same joke, or something similar.   I personally prefer the old distinction between atheists and agnostic, but realize that many in the atheistic community, don't like those more specified understandings.

I would agree, that science is not a worldview (although I think that scientism could be considered one).  And I agree, that if something supernatural is to interact with the natural world (which would be necessary if one is claiming evidence for it) then it may be testable by science.  I agree that science is a tool (specifically a philosophical methodology), which has it's uses.  And if that tool is appropriate to the evidence, then it should be applied in that way.  

I’m perplexed as to why you would use an example of a well-evidenced, observable, scientifically demonstrated occurrence in a lab in support of an argument in favor of a biblical miracle. Are you saying that Mary’s immaculate conception had a natural cause describable via science?
If an alleged event is accessible to us via scientific inquiry, then it is subject to the same rigorous evidential standards as any other claim about reality, whether you’re calling it natural, or supernatural, or extra-natural, etc.

I don't offer that as evidence of the biblical claim.   It is however, evidence against the claim that it cannot happen, or an argument from ignorance to such.

RE: Extraordinary claims and an experiment that produces a rare anomaly.  

It’s not simply a rewording; it’s a different statement altogether from, “supernatural claims require extraordinary evidence.” It’s what I’ve been trying to explain to you this whole discussion. It’s why I’ve been trying to get out of you what you mean by natural versus supernatural.  I can’t tell if you really don’t understand, or if you’re pretending not to.

No. We would just need enough evidence to demonstrate that it happened the one time. If the claim, if true, would be a scientific anomaly that contradicts an enormous body of evidence indicating such a occurrence is highly unlikely, we should require equally strong, scientific evidence to demonstrate that it happened at all. Again, testimony from thousands of years ago doesn’t even come close

I'm confused here.  On one hand, you say that we only need to demonstrate that it happened once;  then you say that we need equally strong evidence that it happened at all.   These seem like two competing statements.   I would agree with the first...  not with the second.  What would equally strong evidence evidence look like for something that only happens 1 out of 1000 times, or 1 out of 1,000,000 times.  If it is rare or unusual, it seems that you could never overcome the evidence for the normal or mundane?  We don't discount things just because they are rare.   But back to testimony and the Crosby case.   I'm unsure if in a rape/assault if they are instructed to have evidence  beyond reasonable doubt, such as in a murder case.  If not, I think that it should be.   However murder cases are also tried, where there is only testimony as evidence.   Testimony is sufficient in rape cases, and murder cases.   It is sufficient to establish a fact beyond a reasonable doubt in these cases.  It is evidence to make an informed decision as to the truth of a matter.    If it can be sufficient, and can  make evident beyond a reasonable doubt.  Do you agree, or should we set Bill Crosby free?   I would also point out, that I don't think that science played a role in this case, and that people did have knowledge and evidence before modern scientific methodology was established.  If knowledge can provide sufficient evidence, which leads to decisions beyond a reasonable doubt;  I would ask,   what more are you asking for?

[Kernel Sohcahtoa]

I must admit that, IMO, Steve's "peanut gallery" comments do come off as negative and insulting.  Out of curiosity, when people refer to their opponents in this negative way, have they considered that their opponents may see them in a similar way? How can reasonable, meaningful dialog occur under such circumstances?

If you look at what is constantly said to Christians here, the attacking of the person, calling them stupid and delusional, assuming motives, rejecting anything that doesn’t come from the atheism echo chamber. Constantly disrespecting our beliefs (not just disagreeing with them).  When you look at the intolerance and hate.   I don’t think that “peanut gallery” is all that bad. I respect Steve’s patience, and wish I was that strong at times. Sometimes it’s tiring just to try and have a conversation and discuss ideas, to ignore those who are uncivil and not interested in truth or rational ideas.

---

And just to note K.S.   I’m not saying that you do these things, or that everyone does.  It’s just a little surprising that amongst everything else, you find the comment of “peanut gallery” so harsh and in need of correction.

@ Steve and Roadrunner

I apologize if my post came off as correcting and ignoring negative commentary/behavior by other posters here.  I'd agree that there are plenty of posters here (regardless of label, starting points, etc.) who could improve the manner in which they discuss topics that have the tendency to be  
divisive.  I should have omitted the part of my post about Steve and left the rest, which was really my main point of the post: how can there be reasonable/rational dialog between differing/conflicting sides of an issue if each side sees the other in a negative way, and as a result of that negative perception, engages the other in a negative manner?

Regarding negative behavior on these forums, IMO, it is not my place to police others: I'm responsible for policing my own actions and to ensure that I contribute to these boards in a constructive way.  If others want to follow that example, then that is wonderful; and should they choose not to follow this example and it is in violation of the forum rules, then IMO,  it is up to the forum leadership (not my personal opinion, thoughts, truths, etc.)   to handle the negative behavior accordingly.

[RoadRunner79]

If you look at what is constantly said to Christians here, the attacking of the person, calling them stupid and delusional, assuming motives, rejecting anything that doesn’t come from the atheism echo chamber. Constantly disrespecting our beliefs (not just disagreeing with them).  When you look at the intolerance and hate.   I don’t think that “peanut gallery” is all that bad. I respect Steve’s patience, and wish I was that strong at times. Sometimes it’s tiring just to try and have a conversation and discuss ideas, to ignore those who are uncivil and not interested in truth or rational ideas.

---

And just to note K.S.   I’m not saying that you do these things, or that everyone does.  It’s just a little surprising that amongst everything else, you find the comment of “peanut gallery” so harsh and in need of correction.

@ Steve and Roadrunner

I apologize if my post came off as correcting and ignoring negative commentary/behavior by other posters here.  I'd agree that there are plenty of posters here (regardless of label, starting points, etc.) who could improve the manner in which they discuss topics that have the tendency to be  
divisive.  I should have omitted the part of my post about Steve and left the rest, which was really my main point of the post: how can there be reasonable/rational dialog between differing/conflicting sides of an issue if each side sees the other in a negative way, and as a result of that negative perception, engages the other in a negative manner?

Regarding negative behavior on these forums, IMO, it is not my place to police others: I'm responsible for policing my own actions and to ensure that I contribute to these boards in a constructive way.  If others want to follow that example, then that is wonderful; and should they choose not to follow this example and it is in violation of the forum rules, then IMO,  it is up to the forum leadership (not my personal opinion, thoughts, truths, etc.)   to handle the negative behavior accordingly.

I think that it is OK, to point out poor behavior, to show that it is not acceptable and not rational.  I also think that it is respectable to show a certain amount of grace (which I think that Steve shows remarkable restraint; which I wish I could repeat at times).     And when things get heated, in discussion, as they sometimes do, occasionally emotions get the better of us. I don't put too much into a one off comment (unless it is particularly nasty)   I do agree that we shouldn't have a negative view of those who oppose our ideas.   And sometimes we make take more exception because we have a greater respect and expectation for someone.   But we are all human.   And sometimes it is difficult when you are trying to have a discussion, and others are spouting hate and intolerance, trying to derail that discussion.   Sometimes it's difficult to ignore.

[RoadRunner79]

Also KS. I’m not trying to say that you where necessarily wrong, I think I was surprised that “peanut gallery “ would even merit mention in comparison to some of the other stuff that is constantly being said