The description for “The Great Debates” is that “This is also the place for religious debates and (if you feel you must) witnessing.” I have two comments.
Witnessing is not debating. In a courtroom, witnessing means to tell the truth about what happened during a crime scene or one’s account about the defendant’s criminal status. In a religious sense, witnessing means to tell the truth about what happened during one’s meeting with one’s god. That said, I see nothing to debate about, since one is merely spreading one’s own spiritual experiences. For example, let’s say Mary is a devout Catholic girl. As a Catholic, she claims that she meets with her god, and one day, her god speaks to her, “Now, Mary. I want you to start a humanitarian group for the __________ community in honor of me.” And so, Mary does as she is told, and shares her spiritually uplifting story to others. Correct me if I am mistaken, but I think that’s what witnessing is about. It’s about sharing the truth of one’s spiritual experiences. Whether it has any relationship with converting non-believers to one’s own faith, I am not sure.
When “religious debates” is mentioned, I presume the webmaster(s) is/are thinking about theological debates – debates arguable on theological grounds. I think biblical hermeneutics would be considered an example of a theological debate, though I don’t think one can get very far, since different interpretations of the Bible may be the result of different religious denominations of Christianity. At that point, the debate becomes a matter of opinion, and it would be impossible to consider which interpretation is “correct”. At worst, a religious war may result, if the moderators don’t check on a religious debate. Religious history, I think, would also be considered a religious debate. A dispute of different facts supported with different historical documents would be open to a religious/theological debate. A critical examination of religion or religious document would be helpful in such discussions, I should think.
There’s no such thing as “The Great Debates” on this forum. For most people I wouldn’t even bring it up, but you have SDMB in your name - you outta know these things!
Witnessing per se probably belongs in IMHO or MPSIMS but the mods in their infinite wisdom have recognized that all of these threads inevitably end up as a debate and so they save themselves the work of the mid thread forum change.
Long before I became a Moderator, the staff noticed that no one could post anything resembling a spiritual testimony without immediately attracting the attention of a large number of posters challenging the first poster’s statements, thus those threads were moved to Great Debates.
Note that the rules state that GD is the place for “debates” and “witnessing,” thus recognizing that they can be two separate activities, both of which that forum accomodates.
Has there been a survey or census done on the Straight Dope members’ religious beliefs? Such an antagonistic reaction raises suspicion of atheism or agnosticism.
On the other hand, I wonder how the members would react to Joan of Arc’s spiritual testimony about God’s request. If the members are so antagonistic to spiritual testimonies, then would they react the same way to Joan of Arc’s spiritual testimony as well? I do recall that Joan of Arc is the girl who is led by God to fight for the French army.
I question the labeling of skeptical reactions to religious witnessing as “antagonistic”, unless you want to apply that tag equally to the reactions of unsubstantiated claims of flying saucers, Bigfoot, ghosts, NDEs, YEC and other notions that seem to defy logic and/or science.
Members of this board are about 60 to 70% atheist or agnostic, i.e., they are not typical of American people generally. (Partly because many aren’t American.)
If people come in and say that they believe in God, Bigfoot, ghosts, NDEs, YEC, and other notions that seem to defy logic and/or science, then it is best to give them some respect for those beliefs (no matter how counter-intuitive and disagreeable they might be). People believe in strange things for apparently no reason; just give them some respect as long as the belief is harmless. Such a belief in imaginary things is harmless, so why would you even consider criticism? If you really believe that they are false, then ignore them; don’t question them and say in their face, “OMG! You are lying!” or “OMG! Where did you get your info? I need a cite!” Also, note that not everything can be proved to science and those that cannot be proved by science and is harmless should be respected.
If someone makes a thread specifically made to be read and reacted to, created to witness to others about religion (etc.), I don’t think they want to be ignored.
The stated purpose of this board is “fighting ignorance.” Many people on this board believe that belief in God, Bigfoot, etc. stems from ignorance, so they fight it. If you think those things should be “respected,” this board might not be the place for you.
Yes. This is not a board sponsored by the government to appease everyone. It is a place for those who wish to fight ignorance congregate.
SDMBKL, I could go into how religion is bad because of all the harm it’s done (to counter your suggestion) or how there is no proof for God (to counter your suggestion) but those comments would not be appropriate for this forum. Hmmm, I wonder which forum those comments would be appropriate in?
SDMBKL, you haven’t been here very long and you don’t know much about the history of how the various forums were split off. It went something like this:
It was assumed that the posts to the SDMB would basically be discussions of the questions that Cecil had answered.
When people started asking and answering other questions, a new forum was established for other questions.
Many people wanted to just talk about what was going on in their life, so a forum was established for such discussion which wasn’t the answer to specific questions.
Many of the questions seemed to lead to endless discussion which didn’t seem to ever get resolved. These questions tended to be about subjects which were philosophical, political, and religious and which outside the SDMB also tended to produce endless discussions. A separate forum was established for these questions.
Many questions were just asking posters for their opinions on issues which had no single answer and were usually considered a matter of personal taste, so a forum was established for this.
Many questions ended up with posters insulting each other, so a forum was established which was the only place on the SDMB where such insults were allowed.
There were many questions about how the SDMB worked, so a separate forum was established for questions about that.
Besides Cecil’s weekly column in print and online, there were periodic online-only columns by designated members of the SDMB to answer similar questions that Cecil couldn’t fit into his schedule. A forum was established for this.
It was decided that there were sufficient questions about artistic matters that they should have their own forum.
It was decided that there were sufficient questions about games and sports that they should have their own forum.
It was decided that there were sufficient questjons about current elections that they should have their own forum.
There were occasional posts in which people tried to sell things, so a forum was established for that.
Forums were created for discussions specific to certain cities where Cecil’s columns appeared in print.
A forum was created for discussions about Cecil’s book The Barn House.
(O.K., I’m going on memory here, so I can’t be sure if this is the exact order.)
That’s why we now have the following forums (matching them to the numbers above):
Comments on Cecil’s Columns (now combined with number 8)
General Questions
Mundane Pointless Stuff I Must Share
Great Debates
In My Humble Opinion
The BBQ Pit
About This Message Board
Staff Reports (now combined with number 1)
Cafe Society
The Game Room
Elections
Marketplace
Straight Dope Chicago (some forums about the other cities have dropped out)
The Barn House
The gradual growth of the forums was largely accidental. Any claims that there was some deep overall plan are wrong. These are the forums that we happen to have, and you shouldn’t try to read any overarching design into which forums exist.
::Looks furtively round corner:: Psst. Buddy. You wanna get some executive non-belief? ::Sees the fuzz approaching:: Er, I mean ban the heretics! Ban them alive!
I’ve said this a few times before to people that have tried the same argument: The last time I checked, the words under THE STRAIGHT DOPE banner at the top of the page didn’t read “Whatever dude-it’s all cool”.
If I ask someone about their beliefs, and they tell me their crazy beliefs, then sure, it’s obnoxious for me to criticize them.
But if I don’t ask them about their beliefs, they just decide to open up on me, what am I supposed to assume their purpose is? Either they’re trying to persuade me, in which case it’s fine for me to explain why I find their case unpersuasive; or they’re asking me what I think, in which case it’s fine for me to explain what I think.
But, in many circles, “witnessing” (at least in the religious sense) has the connotation of evangelizing, preaching, or proselytizing: you’re trying to convince your audience that what you say is true.
That may be true, but there’s no way to know for sure if its true of all board members just from a self-selected sample.
Haven’t you ever heard of “cross-examining the witness”?
