A courteous, intelligent and informed discussion about religion

[french frank]

It's the moderating dilemma, eighth If you leave a sequence of off topic posts which look as if they could go on and on, you annoy people who feel the thread and discussion are being hijacked; if you move them, people are cross because their posts have been moved. I'm feeling tired and I couldn't be bothered to open a new thread for the new posts. I'll certainly open the thread (which I didn't notice was already closed) and people are welcome to go on with their conversations down there.

[eighthobstruction]

I've got no beef....I'm my usual[cough ahem] self....I was just puzzled....xx

[cavatina]

I'm an atheist, but does anyone feel like discussing the works of Aquinas, Husserl, or Gabriel Marcel on their own merits? How about William James' The Varieties of Religious Experience? G.K. Chesterton, anyone? How about Rosicrucianism in 19th-century French Symbolist/Decadent literature? Krishnamurti, Alan Watts? Maimonides and Jewish ethics? Because I think that would be really, really interesting. I'd jump at the chance to discuss any of those topics with other reasonable people so fast your head would spin.

Religious fundamentalists and militant nonbelievers bashing each other bores me to tears.

[Don Basilio]

Thanks cavatina.

[scottycelt]

Religious fundamentalists and militant nonbelievers bashing each other bores me to tears.

The trouble with your tearful boredom is that both 'religious fundamentalist' and 'militant nonbelievers' can mean different things to different people and the terms are therefore rendered largely meaningless.

Practising Moslems, Jews and 'traditional' Catholics are probably pretty 'fundamental' but nowadays it tends to mean anybody who states a simple belief in God to people with extreme right-wing political views like Sarah Palin and even mass murderers in Norway. At the same time. 'militant nonbeliever' could mean anything from Richard Dawkins to Josef Stalin.

Maybe you could easily start a new thread to discuss those topics you mention with 'other reasonable people' and then you might well become somewhat more intellectually satisfied and rather less moist-eyed?

[Don Basilio]

I've not come across cavatina before, so I'm just reacting to what I saw.

What I took her to mean that there are many aspects of religion that raise important aspects of the human condition, irrespective of the content in which those concerns are expressed.

I take it the two sides she is bored with, as I am, are those who reduce it all to "all religion is wrong" and "all, or at any rate my version of, religion is right" and allow no integrity or insight from those with an opposite point of view.

[cavatina]

The trouble with your tearful boredom is that both 'religious fundamentalist' and 'militant nonbelievers' can mean different things to different people and the terms are therefore rendered largely meaningless.

I just meant people who don't put much thought into their arguments. I was going to say "religious nuts and wackjob anti-Christians" but decided against it: though more to the point, it's not very nice. No need to be unnecessarily offensive; Lord knows I somehow manage to do enough of that as it is without meaning to.

And for what it's worth, I don't think fundamentalists always have to be tiresome: when I come across it in passing, I enjoy reading traditionalist Catholic theologians debating the impact of Vatican II and changes in church doctrine, and find quite a bit of value in the "Great Books" approach taken at Gregorian universities. Just last week, I had a detailed conversation with a wonderfully eccentric Promenader about the intrigues and factions which led to the election of Pope Benedict and what that means for the conservative wing of the church...he's actually writing a thriller novel about it, (!) and I told him I'd be delighted to give him my input "in progress". Definitely weird, but an interesting, creative guy all the same.

You might find it funny to hear my interest is entirely non-partisan. I've never been a Catholic at all (raised United Methodist!) but find the thoughtful, intellectual approach their scholars take very worthwhile indeed.

Maybe you could easily start a new thread to discuss those topics you mention with 'other reasonable people' and then you might well become somewhat more intellectually satisfied and rather less moist-eyed?

I don't start threads around here anymore. For obvious reasons, it's for the best, really.

[scottycelt]

I take it the two sides she is bored with, as I am, are those who reduce it all to "all religion is wrong" and "all, or at any rate my version of, religion is right" and allow no integrity or insight from those with an opposite point of view.

Well, I agree everyone should approach any subject with an open mind, but if they come to a conclusion that 'all religion is wrong' or 'all, or at any rate my version of, religion is right' why shouldn't they simply say so?

I suspect there are some agnostics here who are apparently bored with religious/anti-religious 'certainty', but have, in turn, strong political views, and are possibly even active members of parties, and so, predictably, tend to express very little regard or sympathy for the views of opponents!

Genuine conviction, whether religious or atheistic, is not necessarily non-conducive to 'courteous, intelligent and informed discussion' and is surely quite different from bigotry and blind intolerance, which hopefully most of us here would certainly deplore.

We are all 'bored' by different things ... the aforementioned and much more widespread party politicking certainly does it for me! ... so, if we are, surely the answer is simply to move onto something else and leave the debate/thread to those who find it rather more interesting and challenging?

[french frank]

Taking this to be a sort of kicking about of general ideas, one of the ironies is that, although the view is expressed that internet forums are simply not the place for such discussions, theoretically they should be ideal .

Plenty of time for profound thought before starting threads, time to read and thoroughly consider the points made, plenty of time to construct a thoughtful and/or complicated reply, (virtually) no physical limit to the length of posts... But, it's a hostage to fortune, because it also attracts superficial and irrelevant replies and knee-jerk reactions. Probably no solution to that.

[Roehre]

Taking this to be a sort of kicking about of general ideas, one of the ironies is that, although the view is expressed that internet forums are simply not the place for such discussions, theoretically they should be ideal .

Plenty of time for profound thought before starting threads, time to read and thoroughly consider the points made, plenty of time to construct a thoughtful and/or complicated reply, (virtually) no physical limit to the length of posts... But, it's a hostage to fortune, because it also attracts superficial and irrelevant replies and knee-jerk reactions. Probably no solution to that.

Unfortunately body language and facial expressions are missing, and emoticons are a very poor replacement, if at all.
Immediately clarifying possible misunderstandings isn't possible.
Even with a very balanced view, it is hardly -if at all- possible to avoid multi-interpretable choices of words, and hence the possibillity of creating a misunderstanding throwing the discussion off-track.

[french frank]

Unfortunately body language and facial expressions are missing, and emoticons are a very poor replacement, if at all.
Immediately clarifying possible misunderstandings isn't possible.
Even with a very balanced view, it is hardly -if at all- possible to avoid multi-interpretable choices of words, and hence the possibillity of creating a misunderstanding throwing the discussion off-track.

Yes, I think that's absolutely true.

A lot depends on why people join in any debates or discussions in the first place. I long ago gave up any thought of persuading anyone to my point of view (why should I even think it desirable?). I like debating because the exchange of views is instructive. I like dissecting what people have said in order to understand what they mean, and if it's not clear, to ask. I welcome people asking me to clarify what I mean - and it serves me right if I'm stuck. I get a bit frustrated when I give what I think is a point-by-point reply to someone, and they disregard what I've said altogether but reply to someone else who has just called them a pompous half-wit. Well, that's the reality of internet forums, I suppose ...

[doversoul1]

…ahem…the topc?

[eighthobstruction]

My own particular existential point of view, finds just about everything superficial and irrelevant, please may we have sub-board for this. Other sub-boards could be....a Pseuds sub-board, and a 'stating the bloomin' Obvious board....one for those who are utterly lacking in a sense of humour, and a bit up themselves might too gain polite responses on a sub-forum with a special shades of grey facia.........

....Yes, quite right ....typical....<some sort of emoticon>

[cavatina]

I like debating because the exchange of views is instructive.

Absolutely. Whatever anyone thought of my posts in the "Enthusiastic Presenters" thread, I don't know why they didn't see that at the very least, they gave you and Aeolium a springboard to write some of the most thoughtful, well-considered, concise posts I've ever seen anyone write on those subjects yet. I didn't have to agree with you to find them very enjoyable to read AND worth reading, and definitely a debate worth having.

Yes, I think that's absolutely true.
I get a bit frustrated when I give what I think is a point-by-point reply to someone, and they disregard what I've said altogether but reply to someone else who has just called them a pompous half-wit. Well, that's the reality of internet forums, I suppose ...

I'm sorry--and believe me, I know it's frustrating. It's so hard not to get bogged down with ad-hominems and irrelevancies. When I re-read that thread from the top and see how it ended, it all seems quite incomprehensible and surreal.

Perhaps I need to learn a lesson from all the time I've spent secretly watching Roger Wright talk to slobs in the queue. No matter how rude, presumptuous, overfamiliar, and downright nasty they are, he always keeps his cool: pleasantly smiles, nods, and keeps on trucking. Like water off an otter's back. What a stone-cold pro! We should all be more like that...hats off.

You know, I've been reading a book of essays by Charles Lamb---maybe it's just because I've got a touch of insomnia and am tired, but I swear to God this passage reads exactly like he's talking STRAIGHT to me about why I shouldn't write silly posts on the internet:

Reader, if you are gifted with nerves like mine, aspire to any character but that of a wit. When you find a tickling relish upon your tongue disposing you to that sort of conversation, especially if you find a preternatural flow of ideas setting in upon you at the sight of a bottle and glasses, avoid giving way to it as you would fly your greatest destruction. If you cannot crush the power of fancy, or that with you which you mistake for such, divert it, give it some other play. Write a essay, pen a character or description but not as I do now, with tears trickling down your cheeks.

To be an object of compassion to friends, of derision to foes, to be suspected by strangers, stared at by fools, to be esteemed dull when you cannot be witty, to be applauded for witty when you know that you have been dull; to be called upon for the extemporaneous exercise of this faculty which no premeditation can give; to be spurred on to efforts which end in contempt; to be set on to provoke mirth which procures the procurer hatred; to give pleasure and be paid with squinting malice; to swallow droughts of life-destroying wine which are to be distilled into airy breath to tickle vain auditors; to mortgage miserable morrows for nights of madness; to waste whole seas of time upon those who pay it back in little inconsiderable drops of grudging applause-- are the wages of buffonery and death.

Amazing. So I guess it's going to be a renewed emphasis on serious, thoughtful posts from me from now on...onward and upward!

[french frank]

…ahem…the topc?

The title of the thread seems to be different from the OP. I take the 'topic' of the OP to be about the discussion of religion (especially on internet forums) rather than a discussion about religion .

eighth - or we could just have one messageboard to concentrate the good and evil ...

One Board to rule them all, One Board to find them, One Board to bring them all and in the darkness bind them ...