I’ve been analysing my own emotional reactions since this thread: How did so many atheists end up here? - Great Debates - Straight Dope Message Board started, and I’ve come to the conclusion that apart from the mildly unpleasant feeling that I get when a group that includes me is characterised as stupid, my only issue with the generally atheist nature of the board is the difficulty of having an intelligent (I know, I know, impossible, right?) conversation with other religious people about religious topics.
The Bible Code, for example, is bad science but it is also bad theology. But if I want to talk about why it’s bad theology, I know the thread will break out in a rash of sky pixie and invisible unicorn one-liners, and then turn into an atheists-versus-theists debate, or more likely a jerk-atheists-versus-nice-atheists debate. There has to be an answer to this. I wonder if you could accord us the same respect as you do, say, Star Wars fans arguing about whether Han or Greedo shot first? I realise that this will upset some of you because you may feel that it is tantamount to condoning irrational beliefs. Surely you can acknowledge, though, that a lot more interesting and scholarly material has been written about the Bible, say, than cattle mutes.
Perhaps we could come to a compromise. What if people wanting to have serious religious threads were to post them in Cafe Society? That way you could tell youselves that we are merely very serious fans of a fictional universe with an intricate canon dating back thousands of years, and lay off the noodly appendages. I don’t know if anyone else even wants to discuss religious stuff beyond “there is a God / no there isn’t”, but it could be interesting. Does anyone feel that this might be an option?
as I undersatand it you are allowed to aim your thread at a specific group. You’ll see it in thread titles fairly often. There are questions and discussions aimed at believers, athiests, star wars fans, whatever. If you want to discuss dwith believers then make that lcaer in the title and the OP. THAt won’t stop snide remarks or others from posting but you don’t have to respond and can specifically ask them to not hijack the subject. Give it a shot.
Fans of sci fi (even the most hardened ones) aren’t asking us to believe it’s all true. So it’s not possible to view religious people as harmless fans.
Hmm, I’ve seen threads with “believers:” and so on in the titles; I seem to remember no real difference in hijack rates. (Both ways - I’m certain some of the “atheists:” threads were invaded by people witnessing). I figured my way might be less offensive to atheists as well as inviting fewer snide remarks. I do see a number of offended atheists in the thread referenced in the OP, so it is a factor.
I believe Liberal did that in GD-carefully outlined the limits of discussion, and lo and behold people obeyed him (mas o menos). Here ya go (actually I of a IV part series).
Mutantmoose, I personally am not asking you to believe anything, simply to allow us, under certain circumstances, to discuss our own beliefs without popping up to say that we shouldn’t even be having the discussion.
The Hamster King, I realise that some believers will be offended at my suggestion. I feel slightly offended by it myself. I don’t believe that religion is fiction. However I am willing to categorise it as such on this board in return for being allowed to debate intra-religious topics without the thread being hijacked by people making assertions that I am an idiot. I feel that I should, as cosmosdan said, be able to preface a thread with “believers:” and have discussion take place from this point of view. However, this does not happen. So I am willing to go to the “fiction” forum in return for being allowed to discuss my beliefs in peace. This feels like a compromise to me; your use of inverted commas around the word in your post suggests that you feel that it is not really one. Why not?
Sorry, poster names not in bold - I think there’s a problem with my browser.
Science is often the same kind of fanwank. Don’t believe me? Then get someone from the “Clovis Cult” and someone who interned at Meadowcroft together and watch the fur fly.
For some reason science and religion sharing many traits tends to piss off everyone!
I don’t think the compromise would work either and I’m not sure its needed. If I want to debate theology, especially the pop culture aspects of it like the Bible Code and such, there are plenty of places I can go. So far I’ve only found one SDMB.
John DiFool, I’m not sure if I follow what’s going on in that thread. It does say Part 1 and Page 1, but I don’t see any carefully-outlined limits of discussion, only (sorry) a rather incoherent OP that leaves me thinking that you can’t be blamed for thinking us rather odd, a second post involving goat shit, and the word “delusion” popping up in the next few posts. Not what I was envisaging, but I don’t blame goat shit poster or delusion poster at all, as I didn’t see anything in the OP asking them to stay out of it.
Fanwank is the retroactive amendment or extension of a canon in order to eliminate contradictions, incongruities, or gaps. It’s not a mere disagreement over interpretation, it’s the ad hoc construction of a new narrative intended to hide the flaws of the existing text rather than admitting that the text is flawed.
Ah, so you’re defending me against yourself here. Why, thank you! (No snark intended)
I see what you mean, and it does make me feel slightly uncomfortable. But the SDMB is a really, really interesting message board, and I think leaving it for some sort of a virtual religious ghetto would be a worse capitulation. Besides, believe it or not, I really like science! Including evolution! And I like you guys! And I want to talk to SDMB’ish people, in a rational, sceptical, “show me the cite” kind of way, about the content of my belief system. Cecil’s columns and staff reports do it. The professors in my department do it. But I don’t teach there any more and I miss being around Christians who aren’t fundamentalist nutbags. kopek, do you know of a board where these sort of people reside? I’d like to look at it. But I’m not leaving here. You don’t get rid of me that easily
It takes a certain amount of assertiveness and participation to not allow the thread to be hijacked. Some threads are hijacked because the OP has stopped participating or they just don’t mind. If you make an effort to police your own thread and politely ask potential hijackers to cease and desist I think you’d have decent luck and you might get some help from the mods as well.
I’ll stand by my example - but that could partly be based on my belonging to the Church of European-Based Pre-Columbian Migrations.
Let’s face it, if we didn’t have the regular construction of new narratives to hide the flaws of existing text, a lack of will to admit the text we grew up with is flawed and simply throw it out, most of the science and history cable channels would have very little to air.
Sure you are. You are asking us to believe it because you believe it. People posting to a sci fi thread don’t really believe it so that is true fiction. Religion is not true fiction because all the people posting to your proposed thread would believe it’s true.
If someone started a Lord of the Rings thread and all of the people posting to it really believed it was history, would you expect the rest of board to sit idly by and watch?
Of course you should be allowed to discuss, say, the doctrine of papal infallibility from a religious viewpoint, I agree. But that doesn’t mean that atheists can’t occasionally join in with seeming inconsistencies in the logic or whatever.
Sorry - missed your question before I made the last post. Ecunet/Faithgroups is really quite good as long as you can avoid the sexuality and ordination questions. Those are very much “hot button” “Pit-like” debates for most denominations these days. It is mostly Protestant but not exclusively so. What we call threads here they call meetings and the topics can range from deep theological debates to NFL football. One warning though; right now they are having a lot of technical issues but expect it to be rebuilt on another platform during this coming year.
If you need/want direct links, contact me via the PM system here.
Mutantmoose, I think you are confusing “I would like you to believe what I do” and “I am asking you to believe what I do”. Of course, anyone with a religious belief would be happy if you were to agree with them. In fact, I think that anyone, with any belief whatsoever, whether philosophical or about a simple matter of fact, would like any other person to agree with them. I think you would probably feel a slight twinge of satisfaction if I were to post here and say I was now an atheist. I would feel happy if you decided to become a Christian. However, I would defend to the death (if I managed to have the courage to put my beliefs into practice) your right to remain an atheist, given that that is your choice.
I don’t mind at all if atheists pop in with inconsistencies in the logic of one or other side of the debate. What I object to is when they pop in with a statement that the entire debate is based on a false premise (which they have every right to believe), because that contributes nothing to the debate itself and basically says that the debate should not exist. It also adds nothing to my pool of knowledge, in general, because in all probability I will already know that that poster holds that point of view.
Nah. If you start a thread on any subject then you are asking the other board members to comment on it. We don’t care whether you are asking us to believe it or not. If you seem to believe it then that’s good enough for us.
You are asking us not to comment on another person’s beliefs. Why? If someone started a thread on out of body experiences or telekinesis then sceptical people would join in (and you might be one of them).
You’re trying to give religion a free pass - saying it should be immune from sceptical criticism. It should exist in its own little bubble free from outside inquiry. Sci fi gets a free pass precisely because we all know that no one really believes it. I’m afraid religion falls outside this exemption.
Do this. And make it clear again in the post that the question/debate is supposed to be between believers (and remind believers to ignore the inevitable intrusions). That should at least give you a clear reason to ask diversions to be taken elsewhere.
Or - maybe better - define the question/debate clearly enough that anyone can participate, and ignore the few assholes.
Then again, if you’re really willing to move theology to the CS board, I’m all for it. But have you seen the kind of bickering that goes on in there?!
I’ve seen it happen a lot. But then, confirmation bias! I notice it when it happens, because it bothers me. That doesn’t mean that it happens all the time. However, it does mean that it happens sometimes.
