Probably leaving

[Evangelicalhumanist]

The answer is that you can't see it, because you think it's 'normal'.

People that are prejudiced never see themselves as being prejudiced because they believe their prejudice is just "the truth of things". And unless they are willing to honestly doubt their own "truth", they never will.

I have to chuckle at all the comments I see from atheists here about how skeptical and open-minded they think they are. How they all think they are "critical thinkers" when in fact they are only critical of OTHER PEOPLE'S thinking. But never their own. And how automatically defensive they become should someone dare to suggest that they aren't nearly as critical or thoughtful as they presume themselves to be.

And once again, you, too, provide precisely zero examples that we can look at.

 

[PureX]

And once again, you, too, provide precisely zero examples that we can look at.

You just provided your own.

 

[ChristineM]

the free reign atheists get to troll, harass, and abuse theists on forums like this

Your evidence for this abusive accusation is?

 

[RestlessSoul]

I can certainly identify with the OPs perception that there is a coterie of hard-core atheists here,, who are on a mission to "educate" believers. The relentless belligerence of these people can be a little disconcerting. The trick, I think, is not to engage with those people who will quickly drag you into toxic exchanges; not always easy though, to remain aloof when the mere expression of religious belief is enough to provoke a volley of sneering from the usual suspects.

 

[Eddi]

I have a very tentative belief in a Supreme Being but none of the atheists here threaten or upset me

Sorry to see you go

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

You just provided your own.

Ah, so pointing out an accusation of "toxicity" that comes without an example of said "toxicity" is toxic?

Oh, please!

 

[mangalavara]

on a mission to "educate" believers.

This reminds me about a reply that I had made somewhere in which I shared something about the physical nature of the universe from a Classical Indian perspective. My intention wasn’t to assert that perspective but share it because it had to do with something in the discussion. Later, another user replied to me to ‘educate’ me about matter from a Western, materialist perspective and tell me that what I had shared was not consistent with science. Rather than reply back to that user, I simply ignored his post and moved on. It was as if he had talked to the wind.

 

[RestlessSoul]

This reminds me about a reply that I had made somewhere in which I shared something about the physical nature of the universe from a Classical Indian perspective. My intention wasn’t to assert that perspective but share it because it had to do with something in the discussion. Later, another user replied to me to ‘educate’ me about matter from a Western, materialist perspective and tell me that what I had shared was not consistent with science. Rather than reply back to that user, I simply ignored his post and moved on. It was as if he had talked to the wind.

Particularly ironic, given that some of the most original minds in theoretical physics have turned on occasion to dharmic philosophy to try to make sense of certain paradoxes thrown up in quantum mechanics.

Then there are the physicists like Einstein, Paul Dirac and Stephen Hawking, who frequently referenced God as a metaphor for that agency in the universe which is not accounted for by natural laws.

Devotees of "scientism" are offended by such references, while simultaneously denying that any such philosophy as scientism exists.

 

[rocala]

I can certainly identify with the OPs perception that there is a coterie of hard-core atheists here, who are on a mission to "educate" believers.

With respect @RestlessSoul I cannot identify with it. What I do see, is quite understandable reactions. When a flat earther or a creationist or a flood fan, starts announcing "proof" to support their beliefs, it is entirely understandable that somebody with a scientific background will have something to say. If as I have seen many times here, the poster carries on as if the other is not there, I can understand tempers rising.

If you don't like your opinions being challenged, do not join forums.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

I typed this out yesterday shortly after you posted the OP, but while I was typing, I saw you had deleted your avatar and changed your custom text field to GONE, so I figured you wouldn't be back, so I deleted it, but I see you did come back to see what others had said. So if you do come back, this is what I said, FWIW...

Sorry to hear this. I've enjoyed your contributions here.​

​

I disagree that atheists have free reign[sic] to troll, harass, and abuse theists here. In fact, we are likely one of the best moderated forums I've belonged to. With an exception or two, we have some of most productive atheist contributions I've seen on a religious forum.​

​

Theists here have just as much rein as atheists here, and I've seen theists attempt to run roughshod over atheism as much as I've seen atheist try attempt to run roughshod over theists. But at the end of the day, it's ideas that are under attack here, not people. Those that attack people are swiftly dealt with.​

​

I hope you decide to stick around, but if you feel the need to step away, I wish you the best.​

​

As an added bonus, it would appear after deleting your avatar that you've been promoted to #1! Congratulations!

As I said in another thread on a similar topic to the OP, I haven't had a major problem with atheists on the forum insulting me. There was one who insulted me once, but it hasn't happened again, and it was a long time ago. There are a few Abrahamic theists, on the other hand, who have been a major source of contention for me on the forum. I'd like to add that there are times when I feel compelled to confront them, either in my own defense or in the defense of others, or I will entirely ignore them and not reply to them at all. Most of them, in my opinion, repeatedly preach and proselytize their own beliefs in the biblical God and then react as if they weren't preaching or proselytizing when called out on it. For instance, they accuse atheists and other unbelievers of being sinners, saying that their disbelief is a result of them rebelling against the biblical God, and they post threats of unbelievers going to hell. And, much to my dismay, one of them referred to two other members (one homosexual and the other bisexual) as perverse and disgusting, as well as calling them other disparaging names and making false accusations against them. Some of these theists appear to be unabashed about behaving in this manner, while others act as if they are simply expressing their beliefs and meant no harm. I try not to get upset when this happens, but it sometimes strikes a nerve.

 

[rocala]

Some of these theists appear to be unabashed about behaving in this manner, while others act as if they are simply expressing their beliefs and meant no harm. I try not to get upset when this happens, but it sometimes strikes a nerve.

Yes, it does strike a nerve. There is a problem with "just expressing their beliefs". I believe in various things that I cannot even begin to prove. I do not however, suspend my belief in science, or my appreciation of facts to make reality fit my viewpoint. Along with the creationists and flat earthers I place various conspiracy theorists in this category. Life is so much easier when you don't have to apply common sense or look for evidence, ask the Nazis or the witch burners.
Discussion and debate is the basis of our civilisation. Sometimes it gets a little rough, but it is worth it.

 

[F1fan]

The answer is that you can't see it, because you think it's 'normal'.

People that are prejudiced never see themselves as being prejudiced because they believe their prejudice is just "the truth of things". And unless they are willing to honestly doubt their own "truth", they never will.

Of course you are aware of this except whre it comes to believers, like yourself, who hav enjoyed a status quo of religion bing a social norm for many millennia, and reason and non-belief becoming more common and openly discussed. Look t your next set of statements that reveal actual prejudice against reason, critical thought, and debate.

I have to chuckle at all the comments I see from atheists here about how skeptical and open-minded they think they are. How they all think they are "critical thinkers" when in fact they are only critical of OTHER PEOPLE'S thinking. But never their own. And how automatically defensive they become should someone dare to suggest that they aren't nearly as critical or thoughtful as they presume themselves to be.

This is a common attitude of yours, and others like the opening post, who have religious beliefs that are tied to identity, and not defendable in debate. As much as I like religious debate I don't understand why believers are so willing to put their necks on the block and dare critical thinkers to swing the axe. Believers should learn what challenges critical thought and debate brings to them, and manage their emotions instead of getting upset and insulting other members, usually in passive aggressive statements like the one quoted above. The advantage we critical thinkers have is being able to assess the ideas without being tied to them personally. We aren't atheists as an identity, just a catgory we fall into. So the insults and contempt doesn't really hurt. It does illustrate how poorly religious belief serves the believer, and that is their flaw, not a problem with critical thinkers using reason in debate.

 

[F1fan]

As I said in another thread on a similar topic to the OP, I haven't had a major problem with atheists on the forum insulting me. There was one who insulted me once, but it hasn't happened again, and it was a long time ago.

Was that the time I said the Beatles were a ridiculous band with silly members, and disco was the high water mark for music?

There are a few Abrahamic theists, on the other hand, who have been a major source of contention for me on the forum. I'd like to add that there are times when I feel compelled to confront them, either in my own defense or in the defense of others, or I will entirely ignore them and not reply to them at all. Most of them, in my opinion, repeatedly preach and proselytize their own beliefs in the biblical God and then react as if they weren't preaching or proselytizing when called out on it. For instance, they accuse atheists and other unbelievers of being sinners, saying that their disbelief is a result of them rebelling against the biblical God, and they post threats of unbelievers going to hell. And, much to my dismay, one of them referred to two other members (one homosexual and the other bisexual) as perverse and disgusting, as well as calling them other disparaging names and making false accusations against them. Some of these theists appear to be unabashed about behaving in this manner, while others act as if they are simply expressing their beliefs and meant no harm. I try not to get upset when this happens, but it sometimes strikes a nerve.

There are defininately religious members that use reason quite well, and I often Like their posts, with @metis being one such member. I think @Dan From Smithville is as well. It illustrates that religious belief does not have to compete with reason and knowledge in the mind, and the two can find a solid balance. It reminds my of the old Beliefnet boards where over time the line was divided between liberal and moderate theists of many stripes (including Christians and Wiccans) and atheists against conservative theists like Evangelicals and Muslims. The conservatives went after the liberals and moderates, as well as pagans and atheists, and it created an interesting alliance. So that seems to be happening here, with the more extreme and biased theists have strong positions and they poke the bear and face more criticism as a result. I don't get why they are mad at science and with critical thinkers. If anything they should be angry with their gods for not providing them with evidence and the cognitive tools to retort.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

Was that the time I said the Beatles were a ridiculous band with silly members, and disco was the high water mark for music?

Wait... what?

Consider that two atheists who have insulted me. Just kidding.

There are defininately religious members that use reason quite well, and I often Like their posts, with @metis being one such member. I think @Dan From Smithville is as well. It illustrates that religious belief does not have to compete with reason and knowledge in the mind, and the two can find a solid balance. It reminds my of the old Beliefnet boards where over time the line was divided between liberal and moderate theists of amny stripes, including Christians and Wiccans, against conservative theists like Evangelicals and Muslims. So that seems to be happening here, with the more extreme and biased theists have strong positions and they poke the bear and face more criticism as a result. I don't get why they are mad at science and with critical thinkers. If anything they should be angry with their gods for not providing them with evidence and the cognitive tools to retort.

I agree with you about @metis and @Dan From Smithville. However, in my experience, they and a few other theists on RF are the exception and not the rule. There are some theists, including a couple of Abrahamic theists, that I think are decent people. I consider one of the Abrahamic theists to be a friend.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I personally enjoy the fire of disagreement. I love to try to see as many different sides of life as I can.

I can join the choir and move smoothly along without any confrontation or conflict but that just wouldn't be reality to me. As long as people are humane, with a sense of civility, and care for life and don't denigrate or demean others.

I love how I don't fit neatly into other people's categories, sides and boxes of realities. Heck there's even disagreement on the same sides.

Besides there is a big difference between criticizing views and people's truths, and attacking people's character, or existence.

The polarities in society are just brutal, and apart of the times we live in. I don't think any forum is immune from that.

This ^^^

 

[Alien826]

I've never once denied theists can be hostile etc, not one time. This forum has a terrible trait of thinking everything is one sided when there's problems on both sides, whether talking religion or politics. It's pointless.

I don't know if you are still around, but I'll reply anyway.

It's interesting that though you say both theists and atheists can be "hostile" you didn't quit because of the hostile theists. So why do we, me included, get offended by some things and not by others? I've thought about it and come to the conclusion that it's related to how much we are emotionally invested in a particular point of view. In my case, I don't get upset when atheism or science is attacked, but politics is another matter. I quit the last religious debate forum I was in, not because right wing Christianity dominated the posts, but because of the hatred of "leftists/liberals" that went with it. Hardly a post went by without someone taking a dig at President Biden, whom I admire, or some liberal view, even when the subject was far removed from that. I left because I was tired of getting angry all the time.

So, what to take away from this? First, I think you are right to take a break, even a permanent one, if you are getting this upset about it. What's the point anyway? This kind of discussion is essentially entertainment, nothing practical is going to come from it, and that's OK. I now watch MSNBC where they all agree with me, and I feel better. If you find a religious forum where your views are not challenged, or not in an offensive way, go for it.

Another point might be for us all, which is that if you can't understand why someone is getting all bent out of shape about something that you consider to be trivial, maybe it's not trivial to them.

 

[PureX]

Of course you are aware of this except whre it comes to believers, like yourself, who have enjoyed ...

I am not a 'believer'. One of the biggest lessons I've learned since participating on this site for a long time is that 'belief' is both unnecessary, and self-deceiving. Especially when we 'truly believe', without doubt or question. And I've witnessed the validity of this many, many times on both sides of the God issue. Those who truly believe in their idea of objective reality can't or won't even entertain the possibility that what they so fervently believe to be so my not, in truth, be so. That it's an unprovable assumption. And likewise for those who truly believe that the nature and existence of their God is absolute and undeniable. So for both, their belief becomes a universal truth that then defines all other possibilities as invalid. Even though they are, and remain, valid possibilities. But the mind becomes closed an the eyes become shut to any alternative possibility. Because true belief has rendred them impossible.

The scientism crowd can't see scientsm as a thing because for them it's just 'the way it is'. It's absolute and unquestionable. There is no other perspective from which to look back at it and question it. And the same is so for the true God believer. God is absolute. The truth of God is absolute. There is no valid alternative to that.

... a status quo of religion being a social norm for many millennia, and reason and non-belief becoming more common and openly discussed. Look at your next set of statements that reveal actual prejudice against reason, critical thought, and debate.

Look at yourself running to religion, yet again, and as always, in your loathing for what you imagine to be theism. Proving @1137 's point about emotionalism and irrationality.

This is a common attitude of yours, and others like the opening post, who have religious beliefs that are tied to identity, and not defendable in debate.

I am not religious, nor do I propose any particular religious ideology to anyone else. Yet here you are imagining that I am some sort of religious proselytizer because that's the boogeyman that you see whenever anyone dares to criticize your "critical thinking".

As much as I like religious debate I don't understand why believers are so willing to put their necks on the block and dare critical thinkers to swing the axe.

Actually, most of them are just sharing their way of understanding their experience of the world. While you're the one that feels this incessant need to destroy any point of view that contradicts your own as though you're under attack.

 

[F1fan]

I am not a 'believer'.

But it is clear from your posts that you are a believer. I'm not sure what you mean by 'believer' as if it isn't actually a believer.

One of the biggest lessons I've learned since participating on this site for a long time is that 'belief' is both unnecessary, and self-deceiving.

Again. I'm not sure why you put belief into quotes. It is clear that you have many religious beliefs and attitudes. Your prejudicial attitude against science is one example.

Especially when we 'truly believe', without doubt or question. And I've witnessed the validity of this many, many times on both sides of the God issue. Those who truly believe in their idea of objective reality can't or won't even entertain the possibility that what they so fervently believe to be so my not, in truth, be so.

Notice it is always somone else, and it's never you even though you do so of the same behaviors. You like your murkiness, but look how definitive this statement is. You want it both ways.

That it's an unprovable assumption. And likewise for those who truly believe that the nature and existence of their God is absolute and undeniable. So for both, their belief becomes a universal truth that then defines all other possibilities as invalid. Even though they are, and remain, valid possibilities. But the mind becomes closed an the eyes become shut to any alternative possibility. Because true belief has rendred them impossible.

That religious alternatives are "valid possibilities" is dubious. You are playing both sides here, going against creationist types, but then also critical thinkers who point out the improbable nature of religious alternatives to what science reveals about nature.

The scientism crowd can't see scientsm as a thing because for them it's just 'the way it is'. It's absolute and unquestionable. There is no other perspective from which to look back at it and question it. And the same is so for the true God believer. God is absolute. The truth of God is absolute. There is no valid alternative to that.

And here is your full assault on critical thnkers and the educated in science. Your referrence to God believers isn't genuine because you still advocate for the root supernatural essence of the universe, and in human experience.

Look at yourself running to religion, yet again, and as always, in your loathing for what you imagine to be theism. Proving @1137 's point about emotionalism and irrationality.

Running to religion? It's the topic of a thread. Am I to ignore it just because you, among others, dislike criticism of religion? If what you stated two bits above was genuine why would you be critical of me debating the issue of religion?

I am not religious, nor do I propose any particular religious ideology to anyone else. Yet here you are imagining that I am some sort of religious proselytizer because that's the boogeyman that you see whenever anyone dares to criticize your "critical thinking".

Unless you have changed in recent weeks your posts reveal quite a bit of religious beliefs and assumptions. Your ongoing prejudice against science and reason is still there, and that is likely due to exposure to religion.

Actually, most of them are just sharing their way of understanding their experience of the world. While you're the one that feels this incessant need to destroy any point of view that contradicts your own as though you're under attack.

Some do share and are stunned that they get rebuttals to their claims and beliefs. They need to learn the nature of open debate forums, and find the areas that are closed to skeptics.

Life is hard, we face challenges daily and we need thicker skin. Some just don't have it for debate forums, and they need to adapt or move on.

 

[Trailblazer]

I personally enjoy the fire of disagreement. I love to try to see as many different sides of life as I can.

I also like disagreements as long as the disagreement does not engender bad feelings between those who disagree....
I cannot tolerate that anymore so I have been bowing out. Although sometimes I wait too long before I bow out, better late than never.

 

[Little Dragon]

I could legit metaphysically prove something and some people would be like "lul wut evidence hehe."

Metaphysical questions can only have metaphysical answers, no proofs, since the scientific method by definition cannot be applied to answer metaphysical questions.

For example the metaphysical question as to what preceded the universe, the big bang, cannot be answered scientifically, because the laws of physics break down beyond the point of singularity which was the earliest known state of the universe, before inflation occurred.
[Unless some as yet unproven indirect method is designed]
There can only be an UNTESTABLE metaphysical answer.