[QUOTE=Mangetout]
I was going to argue with this, and I caught myself (but what I caught myself doing is interesting and possibly relevant, so I’m going to confess it here[…]
EXCEPT… that I’m not even sure, without searching, if DT is even a frequent, or anytime offender in this regard - yet I was about to just blurt out an assertion that he is.
[/QUOTE]
Well-played, Mangetout, well-played. You’re a good egg. (Oh, and the paneer recipe? excellent! Thanks muchly)
[QUOTE=Mangetout]
I was going to argue with this, and I caught myself (but what I caught myself doing is interesting and possibly relevant, so I’m going to confess it here).
There exists a category of debate where some detail of religious doctrine is being discussed - a good example of this would be a religious debate on the nature of the Trinity, as defined in mainstream Christian doctrine.
It is not at all uncommon, in such a debate, for an atheist to contribute a brief post to the effect “I don’t know why you’re even discussing it - it’s fiction, guys!”
I think what I was almost about to do was indulge in a fallacy of composition:
-acts of threadshitting are committed by vociferous atheists
-DT is a vociferous atheist
-Therefore…
EXCEPT… that I’m not even sure, without searching, if DT is even a frequent, or anytime offender in this regard - yet I was about to just blurt out an assertion that he is.
[/QUOTE]
I’ll go on record to state that yes, **Der Trihs ** has done this a time or two. hotflungwok has hit me a couple of times as well.
This doesn’t really bother me anymore. I have to say that lekatt’s contributions (hijacks) were kind of creepy when I first saw them but, especially now that he’s contained, I think I am seeing from whence he comes. This was impossible before, everything was so cryptic and obviously unrelated to any OP.
I would also like to see debates and discussions about articles of faith, religious history, religious diversity, introspect into various alternatives and so on that include not only the wide variety of thiests on this board but also the point of view of the athiests on this board. The real world has enough persecution of both thiests and athiests and I believe we are better than that. I know I am not going to convert anybody and I know I am not going to be converted. Once we move beyond not only those agendas but the supposition of those agendas then I believe we can have some enlightening debate.
However, moving beyond the agendas and assumptions of agendas is no small task.
If anything were to be added to the rules in GD I think it would be to minimize or eliminate hidden agendas*. Lay it out on the table boys and let’s see who wins.
*Note - This does not necessesarily disclude wittnessing or prosetylizing. Both of these within the context of a discussion that can benifit from personal experience are valid and do not connotate hidden agendas of conversion. Personal experiences and anecdotes are valid within context, not all points of arguement require factual answers, opinion also matters. Just remember opinions are like assholes, everybody has 'em and they all stink.
I think that Sentient Meat’s recent experience trying to hold an actual, reasoned debate on religion is pretty much what I would have expected to happen. The end result was a few non-sensical and unsupported observations by mswas, and pages of Sentient Meat being strung along by ITR champion, only to have a bait and switch type conclusion from him (ITR, that is), and the complete, baseless and mindless rejection of all of science.
I’m just not confident that a reasonable debate can be held regarding most aspects of religion. Certainly I wouldn’t have been capable of maintaining my cool as long as Sentient Meat and the few calm attempts I did make to engage mswas on lesser points of the debate were simply abandoned by mswas.
This morning, I heard a portion of a story on the radio that made me think about people on this board. A woman concluded that god wanted her to win at the slots in Las Vegas because she and her husband were just married, they avoided 5 accidents on the way to Vegas, and they only played $50 before winning the big jackpot. Is she wrong? Who can say? To me, the answer is obvious, but from what I understand from religious people here, there’s just no telling whether she’s wrong or not.
It’s not a subject for rational discussion.
[QUOTE=Hentor the Barbarian]
I think that Sentient Meat’s recent experience trying to hold an actual, reasoned debate on religion is pretty much what I would have expected to happen. The end result was a few non-sensical and unsupported observations by mswas, and pages of Sentient Meat being strung along by ITR champion, only to have a bait and switch type conclusion from him (ITR, that is), and the complete, baseless and mindless rejection of all of science.
I’m just not confident that a reasonable debate can be held regarding most aspects of religion. Certainly I wouldn’t have been capable of maintaining my cool as long as Sentient Meat and the few calm attempts I did make to engage mswas on lesser points of the debate were simply abandoned by mswas.
This morning, I heard a portion of a story on the radio that made me think about people on this board. A woman concluded that god wanted her to win at the slots in Las Vegas because she and her husband were just married, they avoided 5 accidents on the way to Vegas, and they only played $50 before winning the big jackpot. Is she wrong? Who can say? To me, the answer is obvious, but from what I understand from religious people here, there’s just no telling whether she’s wrong or not.
It’s not a subject for rational discussion.
[/QUOTE]
Strongly disagree.
I’ve had sensible and rational discussions on religion before, in other places, so I know it can be done.
The key, I believe, is for each person to attempt to give some respect to views they themselves do not believe in - which is key to discussing this particular topic, which is so near to some people’s self-identity. That is not easy on an anonymous internet board, where so many feel empowered to behave without such respect.
[QUOTE=Boyo Jim]
I oppose the OP.
OTOH, I favor eliminating the entire GD forum. I fail to see any substantial difference between it an IMHO, except that the arguements in GD are more shrill. GD seems to have become the place for prople who don’t actually realize that their positions are OPINIONS, and nothing more.
Ah, well, no one will listen this time either…
[/QUOTE]
I listened, and I certainly agree with the bolded part. I would take it a step further.
People become so married to those positions/opinions (heh…but, they’re logical, so they can’t possibly be emotional, right? Sorry…sorry..tangent), that the most important part of debate is forgotten. That being to better understand your opponent’s position. At least, I believe that’s the most important part of debate.
I’ve learned quite a bit during my time here, most of it from reading and trying to understand the positions of the posters. I’m not always perfect in that aim, certainly, but it would be nice to see more of it.
So what would happen if we locked lekatt and Der Trihs in a room together?
[QUOTE=Guinastasia]
So what would happen if we locked lekatt and Der Trihs in a room together?
[/QUOTE]
I don’t know but I bet we could put it on Pay-Per-View and make enough money to buy new servers and a hooker for Ed Zotti.
[QUOTE=TubaDiva]
To be accurate the statement is:
What that means is that if you absolutely feel that you must give testimony, Great Debates is the forum you would do it in and nowhere else on the board.
[/QUOTE]
Well I really don’t care to go into great detail but if that were the case it would just say witnessing. The added disclaimer certainly tells me that the staff considers it to be a bother in the very least. I salute your attempt to disuade me but lets at least be honest with each other, shall we?
[QUOTE=Omegaman]
Well I really don’t care to go into great detail but if that were the case it would just say witnessing. The added disclaimer certainly tells me that the staff considers it to be a bother in the very least. I salute your attempt to disuade me but lets at least be honest with each other, shall we?
[/QUOTE]
I understand your point, but…Taking into account the regularity with which such debates turn into emotional feces flinging contests, wouldn’t you consider it a bother to have to moderate them, too, regardless of which side of the issue you happened to fall?
[QUOTE=Guinastasia]
So what would happen if we locked lekatt and Der Trihs in a room together?
[/QUOTE]
Not a damn thing I would wager. Lekatt would chase him around the room trying to give him a hug and DT would be running for his life. That DT is scared of his own shadow. I can’t imagine the fear he lives in daily given some of his past statements.
[QUOTE=Really Not All That Bright]
To be perfectly honest, I think a few of us treat the SDMB, in its unquestioned liberal slantiness, a bit like the Pilgrim colonies - not a chance to exercise tolerance so much as a chance to exercise one’s own brand of repression.
[/QUOTE]
As they say, reality has a known liberal bias. Conservatives tend to fall afoul of that.
[QUOTE=Mangetout]
There exists a category of debate where some detail of religious doctrine is being discussed - a good example of this would be a religious debate on the nature of the Trinity, as defined in mainstream Christian doctrine.
It is not at all uncommon, in such a debate, for an atheist to contribute a brief post to the effect “I don’t know why you’re even discussing it - it’s fiction, guys!”
I think what I was almost about to do was indulge in a fallacy of composition:
-acts of threadshitting are committed by vociferous atheists
-DT is a vociferous atheist
-Therefore…
EXCEPT… that I’m not even sure, without searching, if DT is even a frequent, or anytime offender in this regard - yet I was about to just blurt out an assertion that he is.
[/QUOTE]
I avoid posting in such threads, unless they involve moral/practical issues that go beyond an internal theological debate. On occasion I will mention something like that when someone starts declaring by fiat that their particular brand is good/someone else’s is bad, like when mswas was Catholic bashing recently. Nor was I the only one. And really, what other argument is there against that sort of thing other that “There’s no facts, you can’t prove yours any more than theirs” ?
[QUOTE=Omegaman]
Not a damn thing I would wager. Lekatt would chase him around the room trying to give him a hug and DT would be running for his life. That DT is scared of his own shadow. I can’t imagine the fear he lives in daily given some of his past statements.
[/QUOTE]
Oooo, and now it’s the “The atheist is a coward, but the believers love you anyway !” argument ! Why not go for the “He must be a child molester because he doesn’t believe in God” one ?
[QUOTE=Maureen]
I understand your point, but…Taking into account the regularity with which such debates turn into emotional feces flinging contests, wouldn’t you consider it a bother to have to moderate them, too, regardless of which side of the issue you happened to fall?
[/QUOTE]
Well if you’ll notice in my OP I mention that very concern. It seems like a tedious thing to endure. I don’t know why anyone would wan’t to be a moderator given the lack of monetary compensation.
[QUOTE=Guinastasia]
Whoa, for once I agree with Der Trihs. Colored socks-especially warm, fuzzy, chenille socks, rule. Or rather, should I say, they “rock my socks off?”
(Ducks rotten tomatoes)
[/QUOTE]
Doesn’t everyone of a certain age own The Joy of Sox. Written by someone named Comfort. Coincidence? I think not.
[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
As they say, reality has a known liberal bias. Conservatives tend to fall afoul of that.
[/QUOTE]
So, who exactly are “They”? And what is known about this “Liberal Bias”? Any cites?
[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
I avoid posting in such threads, unless they involve moral/practical issues that go beyond an internal theological debate. On occasion I will mention something like that when someone starts declaring by fiat that their particular brand is good/someone else’s is bad, like when mswas was Catholic bashing recently. Nor was I the only one. And really, what other argument is there against that sort of thing other that “There’s no facts, you can’t prove yours any more than theirs” ?
[/QUOTE]
:rolleyes: bolded
I’m guessing there is no arguement against that. Even the arguement from antiquity fails - “You believe what? You do realize this belief has only been around for a couple of decades right? Do you have any idea how old Judeo-Christian scripture is? Who are you to question what has always been?”
[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
Oooo, and now it’s the “The atheist is a coward, but the believers love you anyway !” argument !
[/QUOTE]
Hmm… now did he say you were a coward because you are an atheist or because you are a coward? Interesting that you would jump right in there to defend your beliefs from persecution. As I mentioned above, is there an athiestic conversion agenda hiding behind that backward Red Shirt you wear?
[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
Why not go for the “He must be a child molester because he doesn’t believe in God” one
[/QUOTE]
Again with the automatic persecution leaps, and a broad one at that. Is there anything you would like to share with the group :dubious: ?
[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
As they say, reality has a known liberal bias. Conservatives tend to fall afoul of that.
[/QUOTE]
I was referring to the SDMB’s liberal slant as opposed to the prevailing view among the majority of the (US, anyway) population, rather than as opposed to reality.
[QUOTE=Omegaman]
Well I really don’t care to go into great detail but if that were the case it would just say witnessing. The added disclaimer certainly tells me that the staff considers it to be a bother in the very least. I salute your attempt to disuade me but lets at least be honest with each other, shall we?
[/QUOTE]
Word. Pretending that “if you must” is in some way neutral is entirely disingenuous in its conception.
[QUOTE=Omegaman]
Well I really don’t care to go into great detail but if that were the case it would just say witnessing. The added disclaimer certainly tells me that the staff considers it to be a bother in the very least. I salute your attempt to disuade me but lets at least be honest with each other, shall we?
[/QUOTE]
I think the members consider it to be a bother. The witnesser assumes that his audience has never heard of that obscure religion of Christianity. Some of his audience is made up of atheists, who around here understand the arguments for, and some are made up of people who are already religious. Witnessing is condescending to both the religious and non-religious.
But the real problem is that when you ask them to defend their beliefs they either just repeat them or disappear. I can only conclude that they come from an environment where everyone just accepts their particular brand of Christianity. In our society, outside of places like here, it is considered impolite to question claims about God. I’d love for a witnesser to stay and rationally defend his or her position - a creationist also. That would be challenging.
I wonder if any of these people go back and start to read more broadly, and begin to consider their beliefs. I’m such an optimist.
[QUOTE=Liberal]
Word. Pretending that “if you must” is in some way neutral is entirely disingenuous in its conception.
[/QUOTE]
I guess so, if it is your contention that “witnessing” only occurs on one side of the debate. I’m pretty sure the comment is meant for those who witness for any cause, though.
[QUOTE=Czarcasm]
I guess so, if it is your contention that “witnessing” only occurs on one side of the debate. I’m pretty sure the comment is meant for those who witness for any cause, though.
[/QUOTE]
I have only ever heard of “witnessing” as meaning “testifying or publicly affirming religious belief”, outside of its obviously inapplicable courtroom meaning.
Not that I would disagree that it’s usually just an annoyance, but it is I think disingenuous to pretend the “if you must” isn’t aimed at the religious. In this particular case, perhaps justly so.
Maybe you should just give us our own ghetto forum, where we’ll be out of sight and mind. 
(ETA: add smiley to indicate good natured humor)