"First, atheism is a negative philosophy, in the sense that its only purpose is to negate and attack theism."

Boy, that's sad, especially since it is true. Or as a Latin professor (actually he had been a respected prof. of classical philosophy in Italy*, but emigrated to the US to be near his grandchildren after retirement) once confided to me in the hallway, "There is nothing to modern philosophy. It is an emptiness, a nothing."

*Not that it matters, but he was an agnostic, functionally.
Franklin Jennings | 04.30.06 - 6:56 pm | #

On every Good Friday the Catholic Church prays

"For those who do not believe in god, that they might find him by sincerely following all that is right"

and

"Grant that, in spite of the hurtful things that stand in their way, they may all recognize in the lives of Christians the tokens of your love and mercy,..."

So there are two ways in which the Church hopes that you will find God.

First by following all that is right. Not what we say is right, but what you, through honest search, have found.

Secondly, the Church hopes that you will see God's love and mercy at work in the lives of the Christians that you meet.

I rejoice that you are willing to risk your atheism by your commitment to what you know is right, and your willingness to associate with the likes of Dawn who does radiate God's love and mercy.

The censorship you describe is done by those who lack your courage.
Trudy | Homepage | 04.30.06 - 7:31 pm | #

RA,

I should warn you, with a grin in my heart, that there is a whole branch of Christian theology that talks about God in the negative sense. It is called apophatic.
Anna | 04.30.06 - 8:21 pm | #

The atheist pages engage in crude mutual reinforcement but their biggest crime is that they have little interesting to say. The vulgarity is just a stupid affectation that unsuccessfully camouflages what is really just trivial vacuity.

The Washington Post published an article about leftist blogger Maryscott O’Conner a couple of weeks ago. Evidently she holes up in her house in LA, smokes cigarettes and issues pronouncements on how f’d up pretty much everything is. She also oversees the blog myleftwing.com. I visited the page and read screed after screed of mindless bile from the contributors. I signed on and made these observations related to Maryscott’s “courage” ascribed to her by the blog members:

Not what it seems - But why does that not surprise me? Is it just me or what? I don’t see courage. I only see pointless bile. It’s easy to be passionate when someone else invests the energy or compassionate when it’s delivered with other people’s money.
When the dear host of this blog plays the Howard Beal tape for her son, “I’m mad as hell and I’m not gonna take it any more!” - she is doing just that. Teaching him that passive enragement demonstrated by listening to a staged reading of an actor’s contrived rant or through the furious scribbling of high minded but low brow insult on a computer screen is a substitute for real compassion. If she were really as mad as hell about the state of the human condition, she would not be playing tapes to her kid. She would instead use the time to take him to a soup kitchen or a homeless shelter or a mental health hospice (or even heaven forbid – a shelter for women with crisis pregnancies who have chosen not to abort) and then work. Contribute in a real way. Do more than move electrons around in order reinforce the smug self-satisfaction of moral superiority.

Beyond the log-rolling rants of mutual admiration on pages like this, how many of you Angry Left actually invest real sweat equity to help the less fortunate? And donate real bucks to real causes that seek to ameliorate the suffering of real people?

Talk is cheap. This 15 minutes of fame is already so over…

From that entry I received feedback like this:

“f--k you and your sanctimonious indignation”

I thanked the author for his unintended irony. Continued the thread a bit and closed with this to another member who thought my assessment of the site was premature:

Thanks for the invitation, but the excesses make this site a caustic treadmill, a conversational road to nowhere so to speak. I can't see anybody being persuaded of anything outside of the immediate orbit by this. But if it works for you...

Jacques Maritain, a great religous philosopher of the first half the 20th century had this to say:

"It is my conviction that, if a new age of civilization, not of barbarization, is to come, the deepest requirement of such an age will be the sanctification of secular life, a fecundation of social, temporal existence by spiritual experience, contemplative energies and brotherly love."

Something to be wished for.

I'm out.

Peace

The thread was immediately deleted because I was deemed a “troll” by the group. OK by me. I’ve got more important things to do apart from spewing vitriol. There are few people I dislike. Some I do not understand. I suppose I should include the tribal angry left among those. The intellectual isolation they practice is pretty remarkable given their claim of open-mindedness and diversity. You sort of explain their sensibilities but not quite.
SteveM | 04.30.06 - 8:27 pm | #

Heck, Dawn's deleted some of my posts! (Sure I'm a little immature and I sometimes go off topic and make absurd arguments for what I see as irony, but others don't get the sarcasm because I suck as writer.)

You'll get comment harpies and ban queens on both sides of the spectrum. If anything religous folk can be more censor happy because some of us have got this 'holier/smarter/more blessed than thou' attitude. The funny part is if they have that attitude are they listening to what Jesus said? How many diatribes did Jesus direct towards hypocrits? How many times did he give the Jewish patriarchs a tongue lashing? He was the only one who knew what was going to happen only a few decades later, the fall of the temple. He was going to make a new priesthood! What did the old one that he knew would end matter?

Were those admonishons agaisnt the clerics meant for the Jewish priests and scribes, or were they meant as instruction for the church, of the seriousness of hypocriscy and how easy it is to fall into?
IA_ | 04.30.06 - 9:05 pm | #

I got deleted twice at Bushvchoice. It was funny, too. I read on the blog about the policy regarding comments, and followed them to the letter, not simply announcing an anti-choice position, but rather engaging in open dialog on a specific point. My comment was deleted and I was banned, without explanation. I wrote twice to ask what rule I had broken and how I could better respond in the future, and no one answered. I'm not sure what they mean by open dialogue, but whatever they've decided it means, it means something other than open.
Dennis | Homepage | 04.30.06 - 10:20 pm | #

Some people are difficult to argue with. Even when they are presented with overwhelming evidence that contradicts their point, they stick to their guns and deny your arguments make any sense. The real question is why are they like that? Obviously it makes sense to them, so why can't we argue, present facts, debate, discuss, etc. until the topic runs out of steam and part company amicably with everyone better off?

I suspect it has something to do with an intellectual mistrust. Also, some people like to hide the true reasons for holding their particular beliefs, either because they don't want to risk abandoning a sacred tennant of their personal philosophy or they are afraid of someone else glorying in crushing their arguments.

Blog moderators (I think the word "censor" imparts an undeserved negative stereotype) can be a good force here by applying a fair set of rules that result in the protection of the fairer minded comments. The hope is that a less-pushy blogging experience will result in cooler heads and a better overall experience. After all, does a mean blogger have more say because he can shut out what all of the nice people say? Not if he's banned by a moderator.

The uncensored state of some blogs (as TRA has said) creates an area moderated by people who tend to have no care about the quality of the site, the rationality of the argumentation, the feelings and sensibilities of the readers because they have no stake in any of those things. The real question seems to be "What kind of censorship do you want?" rather than "Do we want censorship?".

As far as blogger themselves go, I think they should put a reasonably well-placed identification to distinguish worship/cheerleading blogs from debate blogs, moderated blogs from unmoderated ones, and what the rules are so that newcommers know them. It should not be acceptable for a blog to pretend to be a debate blog when it is really a cheerleading bench on a particular topic, and visa versa, I suppose, but I've never heard of any like that. A blog author/operator/owner has the right to decide what is and is not appropriate on his blog, but he also needs to be honest about the purpose or moderation level of his blog.

Blogging, as a massively de-centralized phenomenon, is going to eventually choose its own rules to live and die by. As readers, we have the right to choose the blogs we like by voting with our mouses. I like to punish unfair, misinforming, and unmoderated blogs, by not going to them. If we all did that, those blogs would shrink and die. Of course, if you like those sort, go there. I disagree with you, but I hope you have fun. :)
Bookstopper | Homepage | 05.01.06 - 1:05 am | #

SteveM -

James Bowman had the perfect summation of Maryscott O'Connor here:

What is supposed to interest us about the inarticulate cri de coeur is not what is said but the emotion behind it. "I’m insane with rage and grief," Ms. O’Connor told the Post, as if this were a reason to take her seriously instead of a reason not to take her seriously.

Amen to that.
Saint Kansas | Homepage | 05.01.06 - 4:59 am | #

"There is nothing to modern philosophy. It is an emptiness, a nothing."

Glad to know I'm not the only one with that opinion.
Kate B. | 05.01.06 - 9:04 am | #

Franklin -

It would be sad were it the whole story. As it is, however, atheism is rarely the lone philosophy of a non-believer. As to it existing to attack theism, one might say that it is necessary to destroy a condemned building before one can build something worthy. To the atheist, god-belief is at best delusional and at worst evil (in certain circumstances); it is an obstacle to be done away with so that humanity can realize its true potential.
Oz | 05.01.06 - 9:07 am | #

Many religious people would not read, much less post comments on, an atheist blog. And those who do sometimes find them driven off by the nastiness of the atheist regulars, who forgo civil debate to exploit known sensitivities to blasphemy and obscenity….So my failure to moderate has resulted in a less open forum in some ways.

Talk about understatements!

SteveM:
The atheist pages engage in crude mutual reinforcement but their biggest crime is that they have little interesting to say. The vulgarity is just a stupid affectation that unsuccessfully camouflages what is really just trivial vacuity.

Well said!

I spent almost 5 months trying to engage the folks over at The Raving Atheist’s own site. While there were a couple of posters there who can be engaged in rational discussion, they are few and far between.

What constantly jumped out at me was the sheer irony of the situation. One of the drumbeats of most posters is the childish irrationality of believers. Yet, the level of irrational discourse, the lack of incredulity in accepting almost any claim as long as it is anti religion, and the flat out immaturity of many posters, was absolutely overwhelming.

It was also the rare exception to find folks who’d actually engaged in any kind of honest search on issues by weighing both sides of an issue.

More commonly, they simply read a book by Sam Harris, or watched a movie by Brian Flemming, and uncritically accepted the claims made therein.

It’s somewhat amusing that the ‘club’ there isn’t even aware that in some instances they are actually driving people from their movement.

I can name several people I ‘met’ via the site ,who were struggling with faith, who came away shaking their heads basically saying ‘If that is atheism, thanks, but no thanks!’

I can name several others who I had conversations with via email who while not converting (yet) have likewise come away saying, ‘I am an atheist, but even I can’t take the low level of discourse, the sophomoric arguments, et al.’ and are looking into belief more openly specifically because of their experience with the other atheists at the site.

I am not suggesting that there aren’t people who come there and then become atheists, but I found it more often the case that they had already made the real decision to do so before they showed up and were looking for reinforcement in that decision.

Like SteveM, I find it nearly impossible to believe that anyone truly undecided and open minded would be persuaded by the types and quality of the arguments presented.

Thanks for the invitation, but the excesses make this site a caustic treadmill, a conversational road to nowhere so to speak. I can't see anybody being persuaded of anything outside of the immediate orbit by this. But if it works for you...

Again, well said! These were pretty much my final thoughts as I disengaged from participation at RA’s site. I still check in there to see what’s going on, but I have to admit that it’s as much for comic relief as anything else (and of course to check out the pro-life posts by RA).

The intellectual isolation they practice is pretty remarkable given their claim of open-mindedness and diversity.

Here, here!
SteveG | 05.01.06 - 9:50 am | #

The club atmosphere, however, is more prevalent at religious blogs, and more likely to be enforced by the site proprietor.

Horsefeathers. The club atmosphere is RAMPANT at leftie blogs. Go check out Kos or pharyngula for examples. Echo chambers and mutual admiration societies where opposing viewpoints are shouted down more vocifersouly than any renegade member of the Hasidim at a Hitler Youth rally would have received.

NOt having visited TRA's site, I can't comment on that, but the Net is LOADED with the club atmosphere, regardless of political/religious orientation.


And as for the bit about atheism being a negative philosophy: that can lead to the logical conclusion that GOd DOES exist. Because without the existence of His believers, you too then lose your reason for existence.
hoody | Homepage | 05.01.06 - 10:39 am | #

Interesting that you say "atheism is a negative philosophy, in the sense that its only purpose is to negate and attack theism". I was surprised by that, as most atheists defend or promote their atheism as a positive thing, a liberation of human thought and will from delusion, a casting-off of the shackles of imaginary guilts and sins, a freeing of the reason to seek out truth unencumbered by the blinkers of doctrine and as a way for humankind to agree on what we hold in common and to build a society based on rationality, liberty and 'here and now' not 'pie in the sky when you die'.

Do you see atheism in that sense as a preliminary negative, clearing away the undergrowth for a positive philosophy to be constructed? Or do you see atheism as necessarily negative in that the universe is a meaningless item - one cannot even say 'construct' because that would indicate purpose - and it is all the interplay of random elements and blind chance?

And you know, if you and Dawn keep up this cosy arrangement, there's great fear you two could end up like an old married couple or something ;-)
Fuinseoig | 05.01.06 - 11:12 am | #

Ah, but, RA, if I bring up the USSR as an atheist regime, I get rationalizations that Communists aren't REAL atheists, or it otherwise Doesn't Count.
And, , it can hardly be stranger than beating people up for the cause of "Peace".
Will | Homepage | 05.01.06 - 11:15 am | #

And I forgot the one about how Communism is "really" a religion.
Will | Homepage | 05.01.06 - 11:16 am | #

Part of why people go wrong isn't always from malice, it's because, not being friends per se (or the cyber equivalent), they aren't always on the same page with what kind of jesting is tolerable, and what changes of topic are unwelcome - they've no sense of timing, of the feel of the conversation. Here I don't see that being an issue all the time (the Patrol is much more issue-driven), but I've seen it elsewhere - even ran afoul of it a couple of times by accident and had to iron it out with the proprietor separately. And of course, people who aren't friendly on some level with everyone will be much less careful with how they say things - they won't care enough to ever learn the local blog customs, and naturally, everyone else will drive them off. Why shouldn't they? Even online there's no rule that requires people to endure unpleasant company.

The problem is that moderation is like any other form of government - least is best, but a little is almost always necessary, and the larger the blog gets, the more it's needed. My average 3-5 comments a post require nothing more than my reply and regular updating so people keep coming back. But when the blog gets large enough to attract 200 comments to a single post, like this one regularly does?

I've been in busy posting communities where, in the absence of any moderation, the discussion devolves rapidly. You get six people trying to carry on a reasonable conversation in the midst of a din, much like a dinner party trying to carry over the cacophany of a sports bar. But without that crowd, the restaurant closes entirely - nobody goes there because "it's always dead."

I admire the Harris Protocol a good deal, as it helps to keep people from feeling unfairly singled out. But like any law, it ties the hands of the ruler (Dawn) as much as the commenters. And sometimes that isn't always helpful - such as when a thread takes a turn into a side topic and everyone enjoys it, and it carries for a couple dozen comments. Good conversations among friends do that all the time. And, ultimately, it's her forum and she ought to be able to schwack anyone she chooses for her own reasons. If she does that too much she'll lose readers and commenters, so the problem has a built-in correction - it shouldn't require too many rules.
Nightfly | Homepage | 05.01.06 - 12:34 pm | #

Etienne Gilson, in "God and Philosophy", makes the observation that there are very few true agnostics in the world, only a lot of mistaken theologians. We tend to make gods out of ideas: Democracy, Equality, Affordable Health Care, etc.
Fallen Sparrow | Homepage | 05.01.06 - 12:36 pm | #

And you know, if you and Dawn keep up this cosy arrangement, there's great fear you two could end up like an old married couple or something ;-)

Like Carville and Matlin? :)
Tony | Homepage | 05.01.06 - 2:13 pm | #

The problem is that moderation is like any other form of government - least is best, but a little is almost always necessary, and the larger the blog gets, the more it's needed.

Nightfly, please remember that "moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."

(and I hope I don't have to explain that reference!)
Robert N.G. | Homepage | 05.01.06 - 3:25 pm | #

RA, I had a thought. It may be that atheists are more likely to delete comments and ban dissenters because of a fundamental difference between atheism and belief in God (of any sort.)

When a person believes in God, and that person is then confronted with a new and unfamiliar thing or an unfamiliar choice, that person immediately matches the choice or the situation against his understanding of God, or what God wants.

When an atheist is faced with a new and unfamiliar thing or an unfamiliar choice, he matches the choice or the situation against his own code of ethics. That is, not against an outside voice, but against his own inner voice. It might be a very well-defined system of thought, but it's still entirely interior.

Because of that, anyone who exists within the framework of a religion is very used to admitting others' "voices" into his head and engaging in dialogue with them. Whereas if you do not submit to the authority of a deity or a religious institution, hearing dissenting "voices" is not as much of a given.

If I as a Catholic believed it was fine to wear my baseball cap backward, and then I heard someone tell me that God hates baseball caps worn the wrong way around, I would feel obligated to look into the matter. I might well decide the prohibition was nonsense, but I would have listened and studied it.

If an atheist believed it was fine to wear her baseball cap backward, and I told her it was wrong to do so, she'd probably tell me that was nonsense without looking into the ontological significance of a hat brim. :-)

And that difference may be why you notice religious weblogs being more "liberal" in leaving up dissenting comments as opposed to blogs with an atheistic tendency.

My two cents, not adjusted for inflation. :-)
Jane Lebak | Homepage | 05.01.06 - 3:27 pm | #

Regarding moderation/censorship of comments (sorry for the tl;dr nature of this comment):

I think the thing to remember is that moderation/censorship is only one way to silence people. There's also things like denial of service/spam, harassment, changing the subject, etc.

When a forum is insufficiently moderated (and sufficiently polarized), what happens is that some (not all) people on one side or both start using these tactics to silence others, and this drives people away - meaning that the forum ends up dominated by those with the thickest skins, or those with the most free time, or those with the least personal stake in the issue. or those most willing to be antisocial in their behavior.

In contrast, I don't believe the danger of moderators abusing their power is all that large, because it's self-correcting; if moderation lowers the quality of the discussion, people will abandon the forum for another with a more favorable moderation policy. If I post an interesting but controversial topic and then summarily delete the comments of anyone who disagrees with me, what will happen is that someone will link to the topic in another forum, and the discussion will take place there instead.

There's often a criticism that overzealous moderation creates an echo chamber, but I think this is overstated. A true echo chamber is boring, and people don't bother commenting. Most of the "echo chamber" accusations are pointed at forums where "high-level" discussion of an issue is happening, levelled by people who want to debate the more fundamental, "low-level" issues (and who can't see the variations in opinion among those who disagree with them).

Going back to the "insufficiently moderated" forums, I'd say that on any sufficiently controversial forum, any level of moderation is insufficient, in that there will be people who try to be as disruptive as possible without explicitly violating any any stated rules or norms (either to keep themselves from being banned or to make the moderators seem unreasonable), or who will try to derail discussions in favor of what they'd like to talk about.
Jeff | 05.01.06 - 4:02 pm | #

"It would be sad were it the whole story."

Oh please, don't impose your beliefs about what is or isn't sad on me!
Franklin Jennings | 05.01.06 - 9:38 pm | #

Let me first say that I tried to scroll through the long "commenting guidelines" but got to step 1, and laughed out loud:
No, not everyone reaches their conclusion via reason and evidence and logic. Some people "just believe" things, things which are not primary, or axiomatic, assumptions, and thus should not serve as a foundation for a philosophical outlook (unjustified, overly-complex presuppositions).

Sorry, but I've spent years arguing with people on the www and if I've learned anything, it's that SOME people are indeed interested in arriving at the best conclusion, while others are only interested in shoring up what they already *believe* to be true [unjustified] and convincing you that you're wrong, no matter the power of you logic and evidence to the contrary...

Jane Lebak,

RA, I had a thought. It may be that atheists are more likely to delete comments and ban dissenters because of a fundamental difference between atheism and belief in God (of any sort.)
Eh...you have it backwards, hun.

When an atheist is faced with a new and unfamiliar thing or an unfamiliar choice, he matches the choice or the situation against his own code of ethics.
So, not against reason? [logic = subject/object relationships]

That is, not against an outside voice, but against his own inner voice. It might be a very well-defined system of thought, but it's still entirely interior.
Oh and that's hilarious. You say that God "speaks to you" on the inside, of course, and yet WE'RE the ones who have an "interior" system of thought?

I don't compare things to "inner voices" or "outer voices", but to the framework of reality I have adopted -- materialism. If I find a contradiction, I have to use logic to find the best resolution of the contradiction: does it stem from my own assumptions [my problem], or from what the believer [or whoever] has said [their problem]?

Because of that, anyone who exists within the framework of a religion is very used to admitting others' "voices" into his head and engaging in dialogue with them.
Hardly. This is a ridiculous notion. Although believers are certainly more likely to acquiesce to "voices" than unbelievers (who recognize such symptoms are the result of delusions and possibly mental defects), they wholeheartedly reject those "voices" which tell them things they don't want to hear--often attributing them to the "devil". Thus they use a sort of objective standard [say, the Scriptures] against which they juxtapose the "voices" to determine if they are "of God or not of God", and they find, as St Paul said, that they must "take every thought captive"...ie not engage every "voice".

Whereas if you do not submit to the authority of a deity or a religious institution, hearing dissenting "voices" is not as much of a given.
So what you're saying is that deities exist, but only talk to you if you "submit" to them? Ridiculous again, as it is contradicted by your own book. How many times in the Bible was someone just walking along and God up and decided to tell them something?

If I as a Catholic believed it was fine to wear my baseball cap backward, and then I heard someone tell me that God hates baseball caps worn the wrong way around, I would feel obligated to look into the matter.
I would too. I would do so, rather than by praying, or by checking out books that others insisted would answer the question for me, by asking this person how it is that they arrived at this conclusion.

I might well decide the prohibition was nonsense, but I would have listened and studied it.
So you conclude that we atheists are close-minded? What about those of us [me] who were Christians for years, and even ministers, and know the Bible and Christianity very well?

If an atheist believed it was fine to wear her baseball cap backward, and I told her it was wrong to do so, she'd probably tell me that was nonsense without looking into the ontological significance of a hat brim. :-)
What she should say is "why?"
If all you can say back is "cause GOd says so", she should say, "where does God say this", and when you point to the Bible [or whatever], she should ask, "is that God's handwriting?"...etc. At some point, you'll use the word "faith", at which time, she should just smile and walk away.

And that difference may be why you notice religious weblogs being more "liberal" in leaving up dissenting comments as opposed to blogs with an atheistic tendency.
Um, no. That wasn't what he said. He said, quote,
The club atmosphere, however, is more prevalent at religious blogs, and more likely to be enforced by the site proprietor. Many of them are akin to churches or prayer groups. Their point is to worship and glorify God, not to debate. Atheists who leave comments can expect to be expelled as surely as they would had they started ranting in a cathedral. Some religious sites do welcome theological dialogue, but commonly the discussion is limited to narrow doctrinal differences within the context of theism rather across the theism/atheism divide. This is not necessarily evidence of theocratic intolerance -- it’s just a function of having a narrowly-themed blog.
So...he then goes on to point out that in a different sense, his pro-life stance [and that of others] angers pro-choice blowowners, such that,
quote, It's surprising to me that people who complain so frequently about religious oppression and advocate abortion up to the line of infanticide can be so thin-skinned sometimes about mere words.
Note that this is relegated to a specific issue, and a specific few blogs which he himself has had experience with. Personally, I must wonder aloud if he wandered in there anonymously and left the same comments, if he would've had them deleted. I bet not. I think his reputation, as of late, has a lot to do with how those blogs handle him.

I disagree with all forms of censorship on one's own blog--either allow comments or don't, but don't moderate them. That's my policy. If you scroll down through my posts, you'll see a troll named Frank Walton has like 30 comments up flaming me, and they will remain there. I agree with the RA on that policy.

So, I hope this comment stays up. I have no idea if it will or not.
S. Daniel Morgan | Homepage | 06.27.06 - 7:36 am | #