posted
First: This isn't an invitation to start fights. In fact, it's the opposite, if that's possible.
As I've said before, I think of Interfaith or Ecumenical groups as being a great move forward, but I think the great divide between belief and non-belief needs to be addressed. The way to do that is to try to look at the shared characteristics, rather than the differences.
The "Golden Rule" is an example of this (although admittedly, the Golden Rule has some serious loopholes), in that while the rule is intrinsic to religion, it doesn't include God in the equation. Instead, human experience is the basis for decision making. It assumes that our experiences are similar enough that our wants and needs will also be similar.
I know that it's virtually impossible to discuss both sides without feelings getting hurt, so I'm certainly not suggesting that we should avoid topics just to be "politically correct." I'm not so naive as to expect that a thread with this title won't be the home to some battles.
Perhaps the first thing to do is discuss "Rules of Order." Maybe that might be "Rules of Engagement," but I'd like to be more optimistic than that.
In the past I've suggested that arguments that assume the existence of God should be coupled with arguments that assume the non-existence of God. It's something that makes sense to me, but I haven't had much success voicing it. It's a tautology (a statement that is logically true, no matter how you assign truth to the components of the statement) to say that: "There is a God, or there is No God." If you keep that in mind, I think it tends to keep you honest in your arguments.
So that's where I leave it. To start, I'd ask that people offer suggestions as to how to proceed.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ok. Let me first say that I'll try not to offend anyone. I don't promise to succeed, but I'll give it a try.
Second, what is the purpose of this thread? Are we discussing the existence of god, the benevolence of god, whether religion is a good thing, or reasons for believing what we do about any of the above? It's a bit difficult to suggest rules of engagement if you don't know what the battle is about.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:First: This isn't an invitation to start fights. In fact, it's the opposite, if that's possible.
Don't attack people and tell them to take their opinions elswhere, and maybe you won't start one this time.
Posts: 1814 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Or, in fact, create a thread where those opinions are more appropriate.
In essense I'm inviting people to post here if they have been told that their posts in the atheist and theist threads were inappropriate.
There ought to be a middle ground, so here it is.
I take King of Men's offer as a good starting point. I know this is a difficult issue.
And I'll quote his comment from the atheists thread, for Verily's sake: "I actually intended that as a humorous dig at myself, not Verily, though I see where it was easy to misinterpret. Sorry."
Maybe that needs to be one of the rules of order: "If you find that you've insulted someone, apologize. And if an apology is offered, accept it, and move on."
Seriously Verily, my comments were not intended to be insulting. I apologize.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
I'd say what we're discussing is how to work through difficulties that arise from diametrically opposed viewpoints. That's why I suggest trying to find things we have in common rather than trying to disprove someone's belief. We're trying to figure out how to get along better.
But also, I recognize that it's hard (probably impossible) to limit a thread to innocuous statements or viewpoints. In order to clear something up, you need to voice it first.
In psychology they talk about "I" messages. Don't make it about the other person, make it about yourself. So:
"I don't like it when Christians try to convert me," is considered less offensive than: "Christians are always trying to convert people." Both operate under the same assumption, but one is about how "I" react to it, and the other is simply an accusation.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
OK, well, I'm not sure I quite understand what you intended, but let me try something. I strongly object to people trying to teach Creationism in schools, and "Intelligent Design" likewise. These theories are demonstrably false; they rely on religious faith to paper over their gaping chasms of logic and evidence; and they have zero predictive power.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
KoM, Really, I do like you and I guess your forthright honesty is to be admired. Personally I agree with you but I doubt that your stating of the case will start this thread off with a measure of cooperation. Expecting you to use care in expressing your opinions is like supplying a framing hammer to construct a ship in a bottle.
Posts: 2022 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
So what am I as an agnostic, chopped liver? I usually try to be repectful of others opinions, unless they are rude to me. Or I think of a joke. Or, uhh, unless I'm thoughtless. Or, ...well, I try anyway, but sometimes I have to bite my tongue (or here, my fingers) to keep from hooting at people.
For example, flat-earthers were brought up recently. If a flat-earther (they're rare but do exist) joined the forum and started posting about that belief, I know I couldn't restrain myself. To a lesser extent, I feel the same way with Scientologists and their "billion-year contracts". So what is the limit for suspension of respect for belief? How kooky does the belief have to be to still merit any respect? If 99.9% of the population disagree with you, can you still expect and demand civil discourse about such a strange or unpopular belief??
LJ, your mentioning West Side Story reminded me of a good bit I saw a comic do a while ago. He said the most unbelievable thing in the movie was not the parts where all the gangs were fighting to show tunes, but when the hero goes into the tenements of Spanish Harlem, cries out his sweetie's name "Maria!", and one girl comes to the window.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Morbo expresses my feelings on the subject of respect very well, though I'm sure he draws the line differently from me.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
KoM, Really, I do like you and I guess your forthright honesty is to be admired. Personally I agree with you but I doubt that your stating of the case will start this thread off with a measure of cooperation. Expecting you to use care in expressing your opinions is like supplying a framing hammer to construct a ship in a bottle.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
anyway, but sometimes I have to bite my tongue (or here, my fingers) to keep from hooting at people.
