Should disbelief be discussed in Open forum? At all?

[LG]

Quite a hubbub has arisen from Refiner’s “Why I reject Christ” topic, which was originally in the “Open” forum, but has since been moved to “Doctrinal” and renamed “Why I reject belief in the Bible.” Some objections have been that it didn’t belong in “Open,” that the title was offensive, that it advocated rejection of Christ, etc. To some, it was “the straw that broke the camel’s back.” Some think it’s a sign of the decline of GreaseSpot. Zixar posted a poll about whether GS has finally “jumped the shark,” which he later changed to “gone downhill.” I reminded him of a similar poll he posted almost two years ago. I’ll now remind him, and everyone else, of a thread in the “Open” forum that preceded that poll by a few weeks.

Before anyone complains, I think this belongs in the “Open” forum. Everything quoted or discussed in it was originally posted in “Open” and to my knowledge never appeared in “Doctrinal.”

This will be long. The main point is that nobody objected when Zixar challenged atheists, in the “Open” forum, to publicly proclaim their rejection of Christ. Yet, when someone actually did that, all hell broke loose. It seems to me that the main difference in the acceptable thread and the one that signals the decline of GreaseSpot is the point of view of the thread’s originator. A believer challenging disbelief in the “Open” forum was fine. An unbeliever expressing disbelief, without having first been invited to, was just horrible.

On August 19, 2002, Zixar started a topic, “What would make you believe?”, in the Open forum.

quote:

---

Having read through the latest "Left Behind" book today (slow day here), it got me wondering...

For those of you who feel that Christianity isn't the true faith, or those who think Jesus isn't the one and only way to God, let me ask you this:

If the Gathering Together happened tomorrow, and you were left behind, would that be enough to convince you to believe?

If not, what would it take?

If you've gone completely atheist, will you publicly deny that Jesus Christ is the Messiah? If not, why not?

[emphasis mine]

---

Nobody complained about that thread being in the Open forum. The only person who even suggested (in her unique style) that it might be better placed in “Doctrinal” was excathedra, eight days after the discussion started. All she said was, “is there a doctrinal forum here ? i lost my way” I don’t think the thread was moved at the time. It’s now in the archives. (Click here to read it.)

Rather than jumping through Zixar’s hoops, most of the non-believers in that thread tried to explain to Zixar that his questions were based on misperceptions of the nature of disbelief. George Aar finally played along.

quote:

---

Originally posted by George Aar:

Are you now, or have you ever been...

... a member of the Jesus renouncing party?

Sort of forgot about your thread Zix, sorry.

I guess I have trouble with the "renouncing" part of the question. Is it possible to renounce something (or someone) that you seriously doubt ever existed? If so, yeah, I renounce Jesus. (is that bad?)

While we're at it, I also renounce:

Bigfoot

Santa Claus

The Loch Ness Monster

The Easter Bunny (disregard previous post)

and Cold Fusion

Oh, and re: what if all the Christians disappeared? Wouldn't you have to be some kind of farking neanderthal to ignore that? I mean, I may be a godless a**hole, but I'm not entirely vacant.

Does that answer your question?

geo.

---

Zixar later wrote:

quote:

---

For all this witty banter, only George Aar came right out and renounced Jesus, which I expected. Way to go, George. Good to know someone among the opposition has more backbone than mouth...

---

and

quote:

---

Why is it so difficult to stand up for what one believes? I'm not trying to stash a ticket to Olympus, or Valhalla, or Elysium, or Nirvana in my luggage, so why do these so-called atheists find it so difficult to burn the Christ bridge? So much talk for so little guts...

---

So, if you don’t publicly renounce Christ, you’re gutless. If you do, you’re “breaking the camel’s back,” bringing down GreaseSpot, and should be censored by moderators? Somehow, that just doesn’t seem right to me.

The above thread degenerated, for a while, into a quibble over definitions, after which I offered Zixar the best explanation I could, which I will quote in a following post.

[LG]

The following is from the thread I discuss above. I made one edit, which I note in square brackets. This is not, IMO, doctrinal in nature.

quote:

---

Rather than going on about definitions, I’ll tell you about me. Then I’ll go ahead and address your questions, although possibly not in a way that you will find satisfying.

I am not a theist or an agnostic. I don’t believe in gods of any sort. I don’t think that they might exist. I think that they don’t exist. That is not a matter of faith but of reason. It is not a belief but an opinion. I don’t anticipate new information that would change that opinion but, as with other opinions, I would reconsider it if new information presented itself.

I am convinced that the God of the Bible does not exist. I think that the evidence is overwhelming that the Bible is a collection of myths, that it is self-contradictory, and that it is contradictory to reality. [Moved “is overwhelming” to make sentence more clear.] The evidence is strong enough, in my opinion, to constitute proof.

I don’t care much about labels, except for two reasons. One is the extra baggage that people tend to throw into packages they label. “You are a ___, therefore you think ___ or do ___.” That one often imposes ideas or traits on people that they don’t have. The other reason is almost the opposite. “You don’t ___, therefore you are not a ___.” Sometimes that one gets to the point of becoming the “no true Scotsman” fallacy. It’s a way of dismissing people or otherwise valid points.

I still say that you don’t understand atheism but it’s not because you don’t understand a definition but because you don’t understand a way of thinking that is not theistically based. You seem to think that my way of thinking, for example, is anti-theistic, as if I go around thinking, “there is no God” or “I doubt the existence of God.” I don’t. Except when the concept of God comes up through exposure to theists, I don’t think about it at all. I did when I still entertained it as a possibility. I haven’t for years.

Now, to your questions...

Your questions all convey the presumption that the Jesus of the Bible really exists and is the Christ. That presumption is why you haven’t gotten straightforward answers to your questions. The way you framed them, merely answering them is an acknowledgement that Jesus exists and is the Christ. Heck, anyone who believes that would be a damned (literally) fool to deny that he is the Messiah, to reject him as lord, or to renounce him.

It stands to reason that I don’t think that anyone, including the Jesus of the Bible, was or is the anointed one (Christ) of a God I don’t think exists. I have my doubts about the Biblical Jesus ever having existed as a real person. If he did, I don’t think he exists now. I don’t consider a non-existent character to be my lord.

To go a little further...

I imagine that lumping Jesus in with Santa or other fictional characters or creatures probably angers you, or at least irritates you to some extent. It is not my intent to do that but you really should understand that Jesus is no more real to me than is Santa. I don’t think about the possibility of Jesus being real any more than I think about the possibility of Santa being real. I care no more and no less about other people believing in Jesus than I do about them believing in Santa. I honestly think that both are (usually) harmless fantasies. If a person derives comfort, joy, or some other benefit from a harmless fantasy, why should I care? I don’t. Actually, I have been known to encourage such fantasies, when that seemed appropriate. On the other hand, I am not at all shy about telling people that I don’t believe the fantasies.

My reason for not publicly denying, rejecting, or renouncing Jesus is the same as my reason for not publicly denying, rejecting, or renouncing Santa Claus. I care more about people than I do about whether or not their harmless beliefs are true.

I’ll put this another way. I gather that you have enjoyed “Dungeons and Dragons” and that you may still enjoy it. It is a harmless fantasy, a role-playing game. As I understand it, participants pretend that elves, goblins, dragons, and all sorts of imaginary creatures exist and act out their roles accordingly. That is how I see Christianity and other religions, as fantasy role-playing games. I’m not sure that I ever saw it any differently, except that I tried to convince myself that it was real because that was what I was told I should do. I stopped trying to believe it was real long before I stopped playing the game. In some ways, I would have preferred to continue to play the game because I enjoyed the company. One problem was that the other players expected me to actually believe the fantasy. Another problem was that I was getting somewhat bored with the game. The main problem, though, was that I would have been expected to teach my daughter the game, including the expectation that she actually believe the fantasy. My unwillingness to do that was the main reason I finally decided to leave the game.

I come in contact with people who are playing fantasy games all the time. I normally just quietly observe and go on about my business. If I am asked to participate, I sometimes play along for a short while, if I think that will add something positive to the game. Usually I simply decline. Either way, there is normally no problem. The only problems arise when people zealously try to get me to actually join the game [to accept their beliefs as my own] and, especially, when they treat me like an enemy player if I decline to join.

Please understand that none of the above was written to offend. It was written to try to help you understand how I see things and how I think. Whether or not you consider my way of thinking to be atheistic, it is a-theistic. There are no gods in it.

---

[Mark Sanguinetti]

Yes, I remember the agostic threads of Grease Spot Cafe. They went on and on and on. They made the thread that Refiner started look Very Tame in comparison. The fact that there was an uproar over this showed a real lack of patience and other spiritual fruit from a few of those who express their Christian faith here.

[Tom Strange]

so... many comments come to mind, but I'll refrain from posting them... but there is one thing...

IF this thread from almost two years ago is similar to the one that was recently posted then wouldn't that mean that GSC is a living thing, with an ebb and flow, a rise and fall, an inhale and an exhale... and that it just might be nearly the same place it was two years ago?

A place for those to gather...

[Oakspear]

Non-belief, disbelief, unbelief, whatever-belief, should be discussed here in Open Forum according to the same standards as theistic belief.

Sometimes the party should be moved to the Doctrinal Forum, sometimes not.

We all have gone in different directions post-TWI. Why segregate those who haven't remained Christians?

[imbus]

Long Gone.

I respect your beliefs and you have a great way of communicating. I too have a unorthodox view of Jesus Christ and that is o.k. I would hope that all peoples opinion would be respected here otherwise we become what we so detest. Narrow minded and prejudical. Sounds like a cult I once belong to. With warm regards. Imbus

[excathedra]

thank you for bringing this up long gone

and i'm sorry i missed your post the first time around

and i think you are right about this:

quote:

---

It seems to me that the main difference in the acceptable thread and the one that signals the decline of GreaseSpot is the point of view of the thread’s originator. A believer challenging disbelief in the “Open” forum was fine. An unbeliever expressing disbelief, without having first been invited to, was just horrible.

---

[excathedra]

let's see you worm your way out of this one, zix

sowwy but you did say something like my brain didn't work well

[Zixar]

Worm my way out of what? I think that was one of the best threads I ever started. What's odd is that Long Gone brings it up as some sort of hypocrisy impeachment on me, when he clearly makes the point that no one objected to that thread.

If anybody actually goes back and reads the whole thing, instead of only LG's Michael-Moore-like edit of it, that has got to be the tamest belief argument ever conducted here. Especially relative to what's gone on here the past six months or longer.

Anyway, LG's argument isn't exactly valid even if that thread were full of four-letter words and death threats. The reason is that, illogical as it might be, different groups respond differently in similar circumstances. Sure, the agnostics and atheists may have gotten irritated, but none of them was so flat-out offended by the question that they quit the whole site altogether over it, nor even uttered an objecting peep to Pawtucket. The closest parallel I can offer is this: There is no racial slur a black person can throw at me that is as offensive as if I were to call that person a "nigger". Honky, redneck, cracker...big deal. There's just nothing even close to being as offensive. Now is that fair? No. Shouldn't they just "get over it" by now? It's not really for white folks to say, is it? It's the same way with Christians and their reactions to aspersions cast upon Christ. You question atheists, and you get that old thread LG brought up. You attack Christianity, you get all this. It's not an atheist's or agnostic's place to decide what Christians should and should not take offense to.

[Tom Strange]

And it's not your place either. It's the decision of each individual person.

Long Gone's points are valid. It seems beyond you, at least on this subject, to allow others to have a differing opinion without getting attacked.

And your analogy is way, way out there... inciteful even... and proves nothing unless you want to apply the "because I said so" logic to it.

[Zixar]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tom Strange:

... and proves nothing unless you want to apply the "because I said so" logic to it.

---

Unless you can come up with something to back it up, you've done nothing but "because I said so" either. That's declaration by fiat, not a rebuttal.

[Bramble]

Hmmm, I wasn't a poster back in the days of the Agnostics at the back table thread, but I did read it. Can't remember what year that was,I hadn't been out of TWI too long. I was pretty sure I wasn't really a Christian,though, so that thread was of interest to me.

I found it pretty ugly, and the Christians sure didn't impress me with their arguments. How can you argue any one into belief or unbelief, anyway? Either the person does or doesn't believe. How does all that anger and insulting help ?

I really didn't feel like getting any more involved with GSC at that time, and left around then to pursue other interests. Only dropped in now and then until recently.

I wonder how many shy unbelieving ex twis never speak up due to no desire to go through something like that?

Since I've been here, and in chat now and then, people have been very friendly, though there have been a few snipes.

But I do get the impression that some here would be much happier if this was a Christian only forum.

[LG]

A couple of clarifications:

The quoted thread is not the “Agnostics Table in the Back.”

This was intended more as an example of tolerance than an indictment for hypocrisy. I think we all would do well to be tolerant of disagreement, even when it irritates us. I also think we would do well to avoid irritating others, as much as is reasonably possible without stifling discussion.

[Zixar]

Long Gone: I stand corrected. Sorry if I mistook your intent.

[herbiejuan]

I vote for the soapbox forums

[Zixar]

herbie: For this? Or for disbelief-based topics in general?

[herbiejuan]

This and the related threads and the various belief/unbelief stuff too (not necessarily in the soap thread, just somewhere more appropriate). I think leaving them in the open forum for awhile is fine but sooner or later stuff needs to get put in it's place. Being in the open forums gives hot topics greater exposure and postings but after a week or two they ought to be moved and since it is only a screen scroll further away I don't really see the problem.

This is not meant to diminish the importance of what is being said mind you, both sides of any position usually have valid points.

[LG]

A further clarification: “This was intended more as an example of tolerance than as an indictment for hypocrisy” does not exclude intent to point out hypocrisy.

Some thoughts:

If it is acceptable to profess belief in the Bible in any GS forum, then it should be just as acceptable to profess disbelief in the Bible in the same forum.

If it is acceptable to discuss perceived benefits of Christianity, then it should be just as acceptable to discuss perceived detriments of Christianity.

If it is acceptable to claim that the Bible is true, then it should be just as acceptable to claim that it is false.

If it is acceptable for a theist to say that non-theists reject “God” or any other religious concept because of arrogance or because of a childish “I didn’t get my pony, so I’m going to claim you don’t exist!” then it should be just as acceptable for non-theists to discuss the real reasons they reject a particular deity, deities in general, or other religious concepts.

If it is acceptable to cite “Penn & Teller: Bullsh-t!” regarding some topics, then it should be just as acceptable to cite the same source regarding the Bible. (How one expresses oneself in citing it is a different matter.)

If one promotes Penn & Teller and says, in the open forum, that “P&T take on PETA and their bulls--t”, then one should not be overly offended when another says essentially the same thing about another topic Penn & Teller took on, the Bible. According to the show’s website, they “show that the Bible is about as factual as the National Enquirer.”

If, in the open forum, one ridicules ouija boards and witches, poking fun at them for their failure to pass a simple test designed by a couple of skeptics on a television show, then one should not be overly offended by others’ disbelief in or even ridicule of the Bible or Bible believers, especially when those same skeptics, in a different episode of the same television show, debunk some “truths” of the Bible.

If one seeks to ban “trolls” who promote religious, theistic, Christian beliefs he finds distasteful… If one attacks an ex-twi Presbyterian minister for “promoting atheistic ideas” because he posited that speaking in tongues might a mental process, rather than a spiritual one… If one ridicules young earth creationists because their literal Biblical interpretation contradicts the science he accepts but is offended if others ridicule a literal Biblical interpretation he accepts, even if it contradicts science he also claims to accept... If he says that if God had created the earth to look young, that would be dishonest, but is angered by people who say that if a god committed or ordered genocide, that would make him unworthy of worship… Some might call that intolerant and hypocritical.

[Zixar]

Long Gone: Point taken. However, just because I happen to agree with Penn & Teller on a lot of things, I don't consider them infallible, not by a long shot. The difference between espousing a negative opinion on one hand and being intentionally inflammatory on the other isn't all that difficult to discern.

Now, I'm sure in your exhaustive research of every single post I've ever written, you have come across a bucketful of times where I've failed to qualify something I've said with an "I think XYZ...", or "In my opinion, ABC..." so I won't claim to be innocent on that account. But everyone has lines they won't cross, and lines they won't allow to be crossed. In the cases where I've caused unintentional offense, I've generally tried to apologize quickly. The times I've intentionally caused offense were usually in response to others' doing so first.

Each situation has to be handled on its own qualifications, and that requires an increased level of moderation. Since Paw has taken steps to put that into place (and no, I'm FAR from immune to it) we'll just have to wait and see if it addresses the problem of offensive posts adequately enough.