Regarding Evangelization
Quoting Baden
This recent thread by Mikie is the most unabashed evangelism I have ever seen on a philosophy forum:
Quoting Mikie
One of the reasons that I am spending time on a philosophy forum is because I want to avoid the inane evangelism that occursalmost always between Christians and atheistsso often on the internet. Most philosophy forums have a rule against evangelism, as does this one. If this isn't evangelism, I'm really not sure what is.
Evangelists: Those who must convince everyone that their religion, ideology, political persuasion, or philosophical theory is the only one worth having.
This recent thread by Mikie is the most unabashed evangelism I have ever seen on a philosophy forum:
Quoting Mikie
Heres my unsolicited advice concerning all these questions and threads about God and Christianity.
My advice: let it go. . . fairytales. . . Santa Klaus. . . Move on.
One of the reasons that I am spending time on a philosophy forum is because I want to avoid the inane evangelism that occursalmost always between Christians and atheistsso often on the internet. Most philosophy forums have a rule against evangelism, as does this one. If this isn't evangelism, I'm really not sure what is.
Comments (50)
Its an argument against evangelism by being against giving special attention and privilege to the beliefs and stories one happened to be brought up in.
Youre welcome to discuss Gods existence or anything else. For theology, its fine. For philosophy, its a bore. In my opinion. But no ones stopping you from doing so.
As an aside the fact that youre so offended by this opinion kind of points to your own dogmatism. But so be it.
The thread is nothing more than evangelistic propaganda. No arguments; just assertions which tell people what they should or should not believe. This is the definition of evangelism understood as a pejorative. Again, if this isn't evangelism, then what is?
Yeah, this just proves you really dont have a clue about what I was saying. Ive explained the argument a few times your defensiveness and outrage is both embarrassing and is preventing you from seeing it. Thats your problem, not mine.
Also, I never once told anyone what to believe.
Thank goodness most Christians arent as thin-skinned and dogmatic as you.
Cool. So perhaps move this to the Feedback section.
This is already in the feedback section.
Should we be discussing whether perception is direct.
Should we be discussing metaethics when it has no practical import.
Should we be discussing formal semantics.
If you were to argue "No, we shouldn't" for any of those, making a case means arguing for an imperative. There's nothing wrong with any of that.
You can see that @Mikie 's engaged with @unenlightened charitably in the same thread. I don't think Mikie's comments being acerbic removes their charitable engagement with others in that thread. Despite that it may be distasteful.
tl;dr - the evangelism guideline is generally used to catch people who broadcast the same message, all the time, in multiple threads, and do not engage in reciprocal discussion.
Okay, thanks for the clarification. May I ask a related question? I usually see the word "evangelism" used to mean something like, "an overly simplistic attempt at persuasion," such as simplistic unsolicited advice about what others ought to believeexactly what Mikie's thread is. Keeping this in mind, I see older moderation trends along the lines of, "Not enough research went into your OP, so we deleted it." Is 'well-researched' still a criterion for OP's? Or has this criterion shifted with time?
I don't think we set the bar that high with it. If someone doesn't research their post, but writes a persuasive argument, I think we still tend to treat that as worthy of discussion. The only times in recent memory that we banned someone for low quality engagement are when their comments consistently are:
1) so poorly formatted or written they could not be understood.
2) irrelevant to the threads they're in.
Of course we appreciate people putting in a lot of legwork for OPs. It makes the discussion a lot better. I think we tend to follow these criteria for reviewing OPs, roughly:
A) OPs which are well researched and well constructed are exemplary.
B) Well constructed OPs are good ones.
C) An OP that states its issue or problem, or raises its question, in an understandable fashion is permissible.
D) If an otherwise deletion worthy OP attracts an interesting comment from another member, we often leave the thread up so that the discussion the OP provoked can continue.
If something isn't understandable, and hasn't attracted an interesting comment regardless, that's the situation it tends to be deleted in. Consistently producing threads, or posts, like that tends to get someone banned for low quality.
I can't be particularly precise about what "an understandable manner" is in point ( c ). All I can say there is that I believe the bar is pretty low. We've deleted OPs like (this is an exaggeration):
Or Time Cube style walls of text.
Hope this helps.
tl;dr - so long as someone can understand what you write, your post will be fine.
Okay, that makes sense. Thank you for the thorough explanation!
No bother pal. Hope you have a fun time here.
Religious voices don't stand much of a chance here on the forum. Anything that shows even mild respect for religious ideas is attacked and ridiculed. Proselytization is much more likely to come from the atheist side than from believers.
Quoting Leontiskos
Sad to say, @Mikie is a moderator.
I think you're exaggerating.
Like tossing bits of bloodied meat into the Piranha River, I've sometimes said. ;-) (Although I think you're exagerrating a bit, despite the efforts of the various evangatheists there are some interesting philosophy of religion discussions here from time to time.)
Academic philosophers skew heavily towards atheism and the West has become more and more secular since the Enlightenment, so it is to be expected that a philosophy forum will resist religious approaches. Still, I expected the anti-religion to be a bit more robust given the context of a philosophy forum. The Reddit/Twitter level "Santa Claus and Fairy Tales" trope caught me off guard. Oh well, there are plenty of other interesting topics to engage.
Also, I respect the principle that an OP which has received substantial replies is usually not deleted, even if the OP is sub-par.
:rofl: Amen.
Sad to say, youre as petty a member as they come.
You can hear yourself, right?
Yes. I stand by that. Vindictive people going around bad-mouthing others simply because theyre called out on their sanctimony is something Ill gladly point out for the pettiness it is. Being a moderator has nothing to do with it Im not modding him in any way.
If even responding to such childishness makes me petty too, as youre implying, so be it. But I dont initiate these things.
"He started it!" Yeah, that's not childish.
What kind of person you are is none of my business. I do think you might consider whether your behavior here is good for the forum -- that's the extent of my interest here, so that's all I'll say. You can put me on the "sanctimonious" list if you like, I won't mind.
I tend to favor a less expansive definition of evangelism so as to keep conversation as open as possible on the topic. On the religious side of things, evangelism is clear because it tends towards a dogmatic support of a particular theology, which does not offer much to discuss by those outside that particular tradition. But as long as the person is willing to consider the problems in their position (like, for example something like the logical problems with the triunity), I think it's fair game.
On the atheist side of things, what constitutes evangelism is less clear because that term is typically assigned to theists, particularly Christians, and particularly fundamentalist ones. I know that's not necessarily the case, but I do think it's why atheists bristle at being called evangelicals, especially when that term is most often used to describe a way of thinking entirely contrary to their way of thinking.
I suppose at some point we moderators might need to hyper-define "evangelism" so we can conduct a more legalistic analysis to be sure we're applying the standard properly across the board, but what I can say (and speaking here of someone who is very much a theist) is that the comments of the sort that say "it's all bullshit" aren't very helpful. Whether those sorts of comments are a form of evangelism or not, as a theist, I can only ignore them. They don't add to the discussion, cause me to rethink anything I previously believed, or explore the reasons I might have for the belief. I'd say the same in the non-religious context, like if someone said my interpretation of Kant was "stupid as shit" (or the like) without offering any more explanation.
So, more than focusing on what "evangelical" means, maybe not enter a conversation if your objective is just to throw rotten tomatoes at the other side. This isn't to suggest that you must allow theists to get away with making unsubstantiated comments, but if those responses are not substantive, the response will likely be in kind and the conversation will quickly become derailed.
My old friend @Wayfarer would have agreed with me... maybe not.
Quoting Janus
Hmmm... I'm trying to decide if you and Quixodian are right... I don't think so. I admit I do feel the need to speak strongly on these issues.
:100:
@Leontiskos
I strongly disagree with @Mikie's generalization as per the quote, but his is an opinion that's perfectly acceptable to express here, just as it's perfectly acceptable to express the opposite view. What is not ok is to use the forum predominantly as a tool for whatever ideology, religious or otherwise.
Yes, that's one of my main complaints about anti-religious discussions here on the forum. They rarely have substance. People pull out the flying spaghetti monster and think that's all they have to say.
That's not really a mod bias but the prevailing mode of discussion, which is not necessarily indicative of what we want to see. There's superficial atheism and superficial religiosity. In a consumer society they dominate and hardly differ, imo. Does it even matter what most people say on the subject when the basic way of life, notion of success etc. is so similar?
Yes, I was talking about the forums modus operandi, not any action by the moderators.
And to be clear, I don't think there is anything wrong with having discussions like @Mikie's here on the forum. I just wanted to point out the irony of his position.
Quoting Baden
To some extent, I think the hostility toward religion here leads to the low quality of many religion-related discussions. Even nuanced and expansive discussions of religious issues tend to be steered toward typical simplistic, repetitive arguments.
OK, fair enough.
Have you watched any of the online debates/exchanges between theists and atheists that you consider high quality. If so, can you provide an example link? I would enjoy watching what you and some others on TPF consider a high quality exchange between atheists and theists.
FWIW, I personally thought @Mikie's thread was a good one.
I said religion-related discussions, not discussions between theists and atheists. That was my point - all religious discussions are not about whether or not God exists, although the atheists on the forum try to turn all religious discussions in that direction.
Quoting universeness
I'm not surprised. You think anything that shows disrespect for religion is good, no matter how badly thought out or weakly argued.
Interesting. I'm an atheist and it seems clear to me that there are atheists - usually secular humanists - who are essentially apologists; preaching, evangelizing, proselytizing on behalf of godlessness and the superiority of secularism. Some of this seems an understandable reaction to fundamentalism. Even more understandable when you hear how many secular humanists were former evangelicals themselves.
I try to avoid 'throwing grenades' nowadays although it's something I've often done in the past. I attempt (not always successfully) to differ tactfully.
(BTW I devised a new user name because I had to pick an ID after joining reddit, and of course Wayfarer was taken so decided to adopt it here also. And besides I will own up to tilting at windmills.)
I came into forums not as 'pro religion' but as 'anti-materialist', specifically in the aftermath of the new atheist books in the 2000's. Richard Dawkins said in his intro to TGD that he hoped Christians who picked up his book would put it down atheist - it had rather the opposite effect on me (not that I read all of it, and not that I identify as Christian in any but the cultural sense.) But due to my overall stance, I often find myself on the same side of the argument as Christian philosophers, even though I don't share all of their articles of faith.
For balance, I very much agree with:
Quoting Mikie
Yes, well he's become...quixotic...
This is a great forum. There are all kinds of different people here and there. Don't judge the site by that thread. I've been here for a while, and I share your repulsion... moreso because it's coming from a position of power, and such people should set the best example/standard.
Recent history shows what happens when leaders and people in power act in otherwise immoral and unacceptable ways.
Yup.
Interesting... as much as we differ in our philosophical positions, we're in complete agreement regarding whether or not the behavior of this individual is acceptable or not.
:wink:
I agree with this. I think the reason a secular humanist bristles at the charge that they are evangelical is that it asserts a moral equivalency to them and the Christian fundamentalist, the very group they condemn. They of course deny that accusation, which was the subject of a thread on the dogmatic atheist.
There is also a subset of atheists whose atheism seems to be forged by trauma or at least disenchantment, but it seems to go beyond just an evolved disagreement with a prior held theistic belief based upon the vitriol of the posts, sounding like someone after a bad breakup who insists they're over it.
This is a subset of course. Others' vitriol might just come from theists representing to them a form of regressive thinking or a status quo that is antithetical to the progressive mindset. The objections do seem disproportionate to the significance of the theistic opinions unless one attaches a malice to the theist, that he must want to oppress women, homosexuals, and whatever else, and that no theist could hold otherwise.
Of course there are theists who do exactly as these atheists claim, but their views aren't interesting or representative of those expressed here, and the smugness of hearing people state the obvious, which is that the literal events of the Bible didn't really occur and the like, as if their power to discern the obvious is superior to anyone else's, adds to the clutter of the religion based threads.
But to the extent a theist emerges who insists a polar bear walked from the North Pole to Mesopotamia to board an ark to save himself from a pending deluge, have at it with the ridicule
And then there are theists whose atheism was abandoned for theism, who get little attention because it doesn't fit the narrative that atheism is the natural progression of the philosophical mind. I think the assumption is that something must have gotten broken for an atheist to revert to theism, like addiction, or loss, or at least something scared them in the dark of night.
That's a particularly annoying accusation. As if theism is a coping mechanism for the psychologically suffering. If only the theist had the fortitude of the atheist, he could deal with the bright light of reality, or however the argument goes.
And then there is a final subset of atheists and theists who have something interesting to say and who add something to the conversation. That's were I'd think we'd all aim to fall.
Quoting Hanover
Amen to that. :up:
Where I'm at, is that I question a lot of what is taken for granted by modern industrial culture. That tends to put me more on the religious-or-spiritual side of the ledger, although I'm open to a kind of secular spirituality (like some of the emerging streams of scientifically-grounded idealism). But I don't think you can pretend that there's not really a substantive dispute about the nature of reality (or being) at stake, because there really is.
Then I assume your complaint does not include atheists here on TPF. I discuss religion and theism, as an atheist so any theist discussing religion with me, is a discussion between an atheist and a theist!
Quoting T Clark
I agree, they are also about some of the more pernicious affects on the day to day lives of human beings in their local communities and at a national, international and even global level. Do you accept that such pernicious affects exist?
Quoting T Clark
But that view is easily thrown right back at you. 'You think anything that shows respect for religion is good no matter how destructive religious doctrine is in the lives of many.'
I assume you have zero respect for TV evanhellicals, trying to part vulnerable people for the small amount of monies they have.
I assume you have no respect for a catholic hierarchy that tries to protect paedophile priests.
I assume you have no respect for religious doctrine that proposes that believers who just comply and don't question are gods 'chosen' and all atheists/apostates are damned.
I could write a big list here. But I am sure you are already aware of such.
Do you not think its folly to 'respect' all aspects of religion, regardless?
Your claim that atheists do not respect religion to the standards you would like, is not strengthened by the fact that you show constant disrespect towards the atheist position imo.
You've always been better at avoiding that than I have. I continue to work on it.
Quoting Quixodian
I like the icon a lot. Quoting Quixodian
You are the one I had in mind when I was talking about religious posts that don't address the existence of God. There's lots to say, but atheists don't seem to be able to see beyond the most simplistic ideas.
Quoting Quixodian
I gave The God Delusion to my daughter as a Christmas present as an example of bad philosophy.
Good post. Sometimes you're just so... reasonable.
Thanks, and I agree that this is a great forum. Even the fact that I missed a day and now this thread has so many thoughtful replies is indicative of a healthy forum. And you are right that the specific difficulty is the "position of power" associated with the post. If there is an elephant in the room, that's it. To be honest, I just grabbed SophistiCat's extension and put the user on ignore. I haven't had a low-level atheist-vs-theist argument in almost a decade now, and this is the last place I would want to.
---
Thanks, Baden. And I agree that low quality theistic arguments foster low quality atheistic arguments, and vice versa. It's like a strange limbo contest.
---
Quoting Hanover
Thanks, that was a great post and I very much agree. I may have been looking for the word "proselytism" rather than "evangelism," although they are sometimes used in the same sense. I feel like I could write a great deal in response to your post, but I will just give a nod to the idea that "tomatoes without arguments" is the key problem, and is harmful to a philosophical atmosphere. Particularly in an OP.
'She loves to limbo, that much is clear
She's got the right dynamic for the New Frontier' ~ Donald Fagen, the Nightfly.
I don't appreciate that and I don't think it was appropriate. The statements on both our parts were short and not particularly harsh. I was expressing a strong but civil - and true - reaction to his comments. I consider what I wrote a strong statement of disapproval. Not bickering at all.
I broadly agree, but as you do to, I accept the moderation. For me, its simple, respect the borders, or expect a deserved angry retort in kind. No one likes to accept the role of punchbag, physically or textually. So, don't expect me to. I will take part in a 'slagging match,' if that's what you need.
It's very easy, especially on such an anonymous site. If ya wanna light fires then you may also be burned!
According to google it was Marcus T. Cicero who said, As you have sown so shall you reap.
I have a response, but to prevent further accusations of bickering, I will forgo it.