We need more theistic activity

[vulcanlogician]

That would require the admission that theism could in some sense possibly be reasonable. I would refer you to the thread about beliefs it is reasonable for a Christian to hold. Not very encouraging.

I know quite a few rational theists in RL, and I consider you, CL, RR, and Steve (among others) to be rational theists. We could even tack on names like William James and Søren Kierkegaard. I have no problem admitting that a theist can be rational, and that (though it leads me to the contrary position) reason can lead one to conclude theism.

The thing that I'm divided about is the rampant anti-intellectualism found commonly in evangelical and fundamentalists strains of Christianity. I think it would even irk Aquinas if he were alive to witness it today. You make it sound like atheists have some kind of prejudice concerning theists being opposed to rational thought, when the fact is, many theists will readily admit to being anti-science and anti-reason. Some of them occasionally show their faces on these forums. Here's an exact quote from another website that encapsulates the view of many theists:

God's Word trumps all evidence presented by man.

Very good way to sum it up.

As someone interested in the pursuit of higher knowledge, I'd think that such sentiments should be equally bothersome to you, Neo. At the very least, you should sympathize with those of us who opposed to cultural movements which are imbued with anti-intellectual fervor. Such anti-intellectualism isn't peculiar to Christianity--but you must admit, in American culture, in contemporary times, those who would oppose critical thinking, science, and rational discourse are chiefly gathered under one flag: evangelical Christianity.

As a fellow intellectual, you ought to see why I forcefully speak my mind when confronted with ignorance that justifies itself by pointing at the Bible.

You are right to criticize the view that theism cannot be rationional. I agree with you on this. But you are mistaken if you assume that atheistic prejudice is what associates theism with anti-reason. Evangelical Christianity has taken great pains to associate itself with anti-reason. And fundamentalism is this association in distilled form.

I admit I might have participated in running a rational theist or two off with forceful arguments (and I regret doing so). And I admit that I have, on occasion, conflated theism with anti-reason. But if I'm going to admit this, I think you need to admit that the contemporary Christian cultural landscape has an ignorance problem, and anyone who believes in the capability of science and reason to lead us to a greater understanding is justified in opposing it.

[GrandizerII]

That would require the admission that theism could in some sense possibly be reasonable. I would refer you to the thread about beliefs it is reasonable for a Christian to hold. Not very encouraging.

I know quite a few rational theists in RL, and I consider you, CL, RR, and Steve (among others) to be rational theists. We could even tack on names like William James and Søren Kierkegaard. I have no problem admitting that a theist can be rational, and that (though it leads me to the contrary position) reason can lead one to conclude theism.

The thing that I'm divided about is the rampant anti-intellectualism found commonly in evangelical and fundamentalists strains of Christianity. I think it would even irk Aquinas if he were alive to witness it today. You make it sound like atheists have some kind of prejudice concerning theists being opposed to rational thought, when the fact is, many theists will readily admit to being anti-science and anti-reason. Some of them occasionally show their faces on these forums. Here's an exact quote from another website that encapsulates the view of many theists:

Very good way to sum it up.

As someone interested in the pursuit of higher knowledge, I'd think that such sentiments should be equally bothersome to you, Neo. At the very least, you should sympathize with those of us who opposed to cultural movements which are imbued with anti-intellectual fervor. Such anti-intellectualism isn't peculiar to Christianity--but you must admit, in American culture, in contemporary times, those who would oppose critical thinking, science, and rational discourse are chiefly gathered under one flag: evangelical Christianity.

As a fellow intellectual, you ought to see why I forcefully speak my mind when confronted with ignorance that justifies itself by pointing at the Bible.

You are right to criticize the view that theism cannot be rationional. I agree with you on this. But you are mistaken if you assume that atheistic prejudice is what associates theism with anti-reason. Evangelical Christianity has taken great pains to associate itself with anti-reason. And fundamentalism is this association in distilled form.

I admit I might have participated in running a rational theist or two off with forceful arguments (and I regret doing so). And I admit that I have, on occasion, conflated theism with anti-reason. But if I'm going to admit this, I think you need to admit that the contemporary Christian cultural landscape has an ignorance problem, and anyone who believes in the capability of science and reason to lead us to a greater understanding is justified in opposing it.

Rational theism is a thing yes. But you listed the wrong examples as rational theists. All the ones you listed rely on dogma for their truths.

[vulcanlogician]

Rational theism is a thing yes. But you listed the wrong examples as rational theists. All the ones you listed rely on dogma for their truths.

Not William James! But you have a point. Perhaps a distinction needs to be made because the term "rational theist" can mean two things: EITHER a theist who is capable of reason OR a theist who has come to be a theist because of logical reasoning. The two are, in fact, distinct, and my post may have equivocated there.

[GrandizerII]

Rational theism is a thing yes. But you listed the wrong examples as rational theists. All the ones you listed rely on dogma for their truths.

Not William James! But you have a point. Perhaps a distinction needs to be made because the term "rational theist" can mean two things: EITHER a theist who is capable of reason OR a theist who has come to be a theist because of logical reasoning. The two are, in fact, distinct, and my post may have equivocated there.

Ok, but then, most theists are capable of reason, including fundamentalists.

[vulcanlogician]

Not William James! But you have a point. Perhaps a distinction needs to be made because the term "rational theist" can mean two things: EITHER a theist who is capable of reason OR a theist who has come to be a theist because of logical reasoning. The two are, in fact, distinct, and my post may have equivocated there.

Ok, but then, most theists are capable of reason, including fundamentalists.

Doh! Very true. What I meant to say (instead of capable of reason) was one who respects reason as a faculty which can lead one to truth and is willing to subject propositions about reality to critical thinking. Lol. I don't know where "capable of reason" came from. Maybe it's because sometimes I wonder.

[Edwardo Piet]

Also, consider the suggestion neo made about vulgarity in thread titles. I would think there are people who come here interested in serious discussion, then see Republicunt or Christard or Fucking Theists in thread titles and leave without posting. I believe (I didn't read the whole thread) his suggestion was roundly shot down.This indicates that there are more people here who are interested in insulting theists than in having thoughtful discussion with them. And that's fine...but don't expect a lot of serious debate in such an atmosphere. 

One possible solution would be a single forum with its own set of rules, such as:
- no insults or swearing
- no clearly off-topic posts
- no repeats of what others have already said (i.e. shouting down)

You might get a few more theists to hang around with a section like that.

I considered Neo's own transphobic thread title when he referred to the transwoman named Tiffany as "Man named Tiffany" in the thread title to be vulgar. So as far as I am concerned if vulgar thread titles were removed... some of Neo's would be removed too.

This is the problem. Vulgarity is subjective. I personally consider transphobia, homophobia, sexism, racism and other bigotry to be vulgar. But Neo thinks that's perfectly okay, apparently.

It also seemed to me that his thread clearly violated the prime directive. I'm referring to this part of the prime directive "Posts which are comprised of outrageous misrepresentations of events within the public record will be considered as trolling."

As far as I'm concerned describing an event involving someone who is clearly a transwoman as a "man" is indeed an outrageous misrepresentation of an event within the public record. So I reported the post on principle despite expecting to be disappointed (I know what most people are like) but the staff didn't agree with me, unsurprisingly. If the thread title had instead been "Black person clearly wants to be white" and I reported that for violating the prime directive I'm sure the Staff would have agreed with me. Despite that it would both be cases of an outrageous misrepresentation of a person within the public record and both involving bigoted slurs.

It's like I said... even among the most progressive people who are against all forms of bigotry... including transphobia... many of them are still quite blind to actual transphobic slurs. And this is exactly why consciousness raising about transgender issues is so important.

[Neo-Scholastic]

I do not fear transgender people and as such I cannot be trans-“phobic”. That is slur plain and simple. I believe that all people, including Christians, should extend to to the transgendered the same love and compassion as any other human being. That does not include denying reality and the harmful personal and cultural consequences of doing so. No one needs to be a psychologist to know that anyone who was born objectively identifiable as the one sex but subjectively feels they are the opposite sex has a mental illness.

While it is true that some hateful people classify transgenders as metally ill for no other reason than to demonize them, I personally believe they are in the minority and I do not in any way endorse such callous misuse of medical diagnosis. The purpose of accurate diagnosis is to identify the most effective treatment. IMHO it is not loving or compassionate to deny people with medical conditions appropriate and effective treatments based on personal feelings. In that respect, transgenderism is no different from anorexia, wherein the personal self-image of the individual is drastically at odds with physical facts. I do not know or claim to know what the right treatment is for any particular individual…transitioning, talk therapy, etc. That is between them and their doctor or therapist. Or someone can be personally fine, accepting of their condition, and live productively with no treatment at all. Good for them. But don’t expect others to distort language to satisfy totalitarian urges to control how other people express themselves or shut them out of civil society. Having your feelings protected from uncomfortable opinions or even the unwarranted opinions of others is not a right.

I am certain that some people sincerely believe this is a civil rights issue and have nothing but the best intentions. I have common ground with such folks. The Americans with Disabilities Act is a civil rights bill designed for people with medical conditions well beyond paralysis and blindness. Allowing transitioned people to use the bathroom matching their transitioned state seems to me like a reasonable accommodation under ADA. Undermining Title IX or the readiness of our military is not.

At the same time, I do not believe that most of the people advocating for transgender rights have the best interest of the transgendered in mind; but rather, are either caught up in the insidious lies of post-modernism or are trying to promote a truly wicked social agenda intent on destroying the foundations of Western liberalism. I have nothing but contempt for the transparent virtue-signaling of vile revolutionaries like Divinity and find their false accusations of bigotry disgusting. As such I often over-react in ways that do not accurate reflect my sincerely held belief and said things that are mean. I have apologized for those times. That does not excuse the self-righteous hate of Hammy, Divinity, and similar would be thought-police who goad and misrepresent the positions of people with whom they disagree politically.

BTW here is the thread I started on "Tiffany" that Hammy considers hateful: https://atheistforums.org/thread-53618-p...pid1708089

[KevinM1]

Protip: "virtue-signaling" is a dog whistle term, one designed to stifle discussion by calling into question the opposition's motives rather than addressing the point at hand.  It's the kind of BS that idiots who swallow conservative talking points spew when they think they're making a salient point, not realizing that they're merely exposing themselves as morons.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Protip: "virtue-signaling" is a dog whistle term, one designed to stifle discussion by calling into question the opposition's motives rather than addressing the point at hand.  It's the kind of BS that idiots who swallow conservative talking points spew when they think they're making a salient point, not realizing that they're merely exposing themselves as morons.

From now on you will refer to me as "His Majesty". You are bigot if you do not to affirm my self-identification as royalty by addressing me in my preferred manner. Failure to do so will result in you being barred from earning a livelihood or practicing your chosen profession.

[KevinM1]

Protip: "virtue-signaling" is a dog whistle term, one designed to stifle discussion by calling into question the opposition's motives rather than addressing the point at hand.  It's the kind of BS that idiots who swallow conservative talking points spew when they think they're making a salient point, not realizing that they're merely exposing themselves as morons.

From now on you will refer to me as "His Majesty". You are bigot if you do not to affirm my self-identification as royalty by addressing me in my preferred manner. Failure to do so will result in you being barred from earning a livelihood or practicing your chosen profession.

None of which has anything to do with your use of the term "virtue-signalling."

And, a better analogy for you would be for me to call you by female pronouns. Which I will do from now on.