A courteous, intelligent and informed discussion about religion

[eighthobstruction]

It has a ring of truth, yet what of middle England....

[cavatina]

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?

Because there's so much more to talk about when you're discussing religion and theology than whether or not one personally believes in God. To my mind, "does God exist?" is about the last thing I'd feel like trying to have a conversation about. But that doesn't keep me from being interested in reading discussions about Vatican II and the impact on church doctrine, or what have you. See what I mean?

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?

Oh, absolutely. When was the last time I participated in a religion thread around here? Can't remember it; probably never.
Still holding out for a thread about Gabriel Marcel, though.

[doversoul1]

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 .

Roehre says

Unfortunately body language and facial expressions are missing,

...and intonation / stress. More to learn.

[Pianorak]

FF - Please feel free to remove if considered not quite appropriate.

http://flowingdata.com/2011/08/05/flowchart-should-you-argue-on-the-internet/

[Serial_Apologist]

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.

For once, my friend, I find myself in disagreement

Body language, easily intimidating or provocative in face-to-face situations, is removed from the equation, allowing one to sit back, go off and pour oneself a drink, come back and consider ones response. Whether in the "live" situation or on-line, words are in any case always subject to misinterpretation - either by dint of word-choice or emotional baggage carried by respondants.

Unless confronted with blatant rudeness or aggression, people who know me know me as incapable of hurting anyone or thing, physically or psychologically, other than by default; but it is surely that "default position" we all sacrifice to others' judgement that we try to convey with emoticons when gently mickey-taking... or misjudgement. .

S-A

[cavatina]

Oh no, S-A! In my opinion, body language is everything if you know how to read it properly. When I was a contract research analyst at a think tank, I started in arts policy, but among other subjects, soon found myself doing analytic research support in the field of deception analysis. (Since they're so multidisciplinary, you have a lot of leeway to choose your projects, and this was right up my alley!) Here's a link to one of the best government contract researchers in the field of nonverbal communication: Paul Ekman. After you learn his method of analysing microexpressions, you'll never be able to look at anyone the same way again:

PAUL EKMAN
Paul Ekman is a well known authority on deception, lying, and the face's role in deceit.

Funny you mention it, because I used his facial analysis methods on the Prommers the other day. It recently came to my attention that not everyone in the queue who knew me last year was aware of my messageboard identity (hi Jane!!! ) So I thought of a test. Prommers are known for sharing candy before the concert, so I picked up a bag of these:

http://www.britstore.co.uk/Sweets-and-Candy-Tesco-Sweets/c382_1335/p18499/Tesco-Little-Miss-Chatterbox-And-Friends-150g/product_info.html

I went around offering people one and read their faces as they took one. If they laughed or startled, they were in on the joke. Everybody else just thought it was candy. Now I know exactly who's read me and who hasn't...not bad, huh?

God, I loved working at that think tank.

[scottycelt]

Because there's so much more to talk about when you're discussing religion and theology than whether or not one personally believes in God. To my mind, "does God exist?" is about the last thing I'd feel like trying to have a conversation about. But that doesn't keep me from being interested in reading discussions about Vatican II and the impact on church doctrine, or what have you. See what I mean?

Well, not really ... maybe it's just me being my usual pernickety self, but if we have already decided there is no God, doesn't that kind of render Vatican II's impact on doctrine (and any other aspect of mono or polytheism) slightly superfluous to requirements?

Mind you, who needs religion as a controversial debate when we now appear to be having a vigorous controversy about what we are supposed to be debating in the first place ?

Btw, I'd be delighted to learn more about Gabriel Marcel on this forum, cavatina ...

[amateur51]

Well, not really ... maybe it's just me being my usual pernickety self, but if we have already decided there is no God, doesn't that kind of render Vatican II's impact on doctrine (and any other aspect of mono or polytheism) slightly superfluous to requirements?

Mind you, who needs religion as a controversial debate when we now appear to be having a vigorous controversy about what we are supposed to be debating in the first place ?

Btw, I'd be delighted to learn more about Gabriel Marcel on this forum, cavatina ...

Cue disbelief microexpression

[scottycelt]

Cue disbelief microexpression

Oh Ye of Little Faith ... :cool2:

[french frank]

FF - Please feel free to remove if considered not quite appropriate.

http://flowingdata.com/2011/08/05/fl...-the-internet/

Oh, dear

Sorry, everyone .


Btw, now I've read S_A's reply to Roehre, I think perhaps I move over to that side on this point (which is back to my original point that internet debates should, theoretically, be better than real life, real time discussions). But I do wonder why anyone would want to intimidate anyone else in a debate. Or irritate. Or win - why does it matter who 'wins'? What is it that the debate becomes - some sort of primeval survival exercise? Does it actually take a psychologist to explain what's going on?

[Serial_Apologist]

Cue disbelief microexpression

Now, where did I drop it? Oh yes! (Picks self up off floor)

[Serial_Apologist]

Oh, dear

Sorry, everyone .


Btw, now I've read S_A's reply to Roehre, I think perhaps I move over to that side on this point (which is back to my original point that internet debates should, theoretically, be better than real life, real time discussions). But I do wonder why anyone would want to intimidate anyone else in a debate. Or irritate. Or win - why does it matter who 'wins'? What is it that the debate becomes - some sort of primeval survival exercise? Does it actually take a psychologist to explain what's going on?

But these are life and death questions, ff!

See the point I'm unsubtly making about misinterpretation? You could be within your rights to be offended by the answer I have just made. And in a face-to-face situation my analytical sincerity detecting capacities could be found wanting! I'd rather be here - as you say, internet debates *should* be better than [...] real time discussions; and I'd hazard an off-the-top-of-my-head hope that the discipline involved in thereby - potentially - better articulating one's own dispositions, might thereafter rub off on our "real life" interactions?

[Serial_Apologist]

Oh no, S-A! In my opinion, body language is everything if you know how to read it properly. When I was a contract research analyst at a think tank, I started in arts policy, but among other subjects, soon found myself doing analytic research support in the field of deception analysis. (Since they're so multidisciplinary, you have a lot of leeway to choose your projects, and this was right up my alley!) Here's a link to one of the best government contract researchers in the field of nonverbal communication: Paul Ekman. After you learn his method of analysing microexpressions, you'll never be able to look at anyone the same way again:

PAUL EKMAN
Paul Ekman is a well known authority on deception, lying, and the face's role in deceit.

Funny you mention it, because I used his facial analysis methods on the Prommers the other day. It recently came to my attention that not everyone in the queue who knew me last year was aware of my messageboard identity (hi Jane!!! ) So I thought of a test. Prommers are known for sharing candy before the concert, so I picked up a bag of these:

http://www.britstore.co.uk/Sweets-and-Candy-Tesco-Sweets/c382_1335/p18499/Tesco-Little-Miss-Chatterbox-And-Friends-150g/product_info.html

I went around offering people one and read their faces as they took one. If they laughed or startled, they were in on the joke. Everybody else just thought it was candy. Now I know exactly who's read me and who hasn't...not bad, huh?

God, I loved working at that think tank.

Apologies, cavatina, for somewhat rudely brushing past your reply - which I have sort-of response-incorporated into my reply to French Frank.

S-A

[Serial_Apologist]

PAUL EKMAN
Paul Ekman is a well known authority on deception, lying, and the face's role in deceit.

Thanks for the ref to Ekman. I discovered much of the little I know of evasive body language watching the Ch 5 daytime Trisha show. (Btw I wonder how she is...) Watching Nick Clegg fidgeting and frequently licking his lips was a useful pre-election guide, I thought. Insincerity is revealed in other body movements too, of course - finger-drumming, covering the mouth, crossing and uncrossing legs, keeping arms folded - though one has to see these in conjunction not to mistake them for simple or understandable nervousness. Otherwise NOBODY would believe me!!!

Funny you mention it, because I used his facial analysis methods on the Prommers the other day. It recently came to my attention that not everyone in the queue who knew me last year was aware of my messageboard identity (hi Jane!!! ) So I thought of a test. Prommers are known for sharing candy before the concert, so I picked up a bag of these:

http://www.britstore.co.uk/Sweets-and-Candy-Tesco-Sweets/c382_1335/p18499/Tesco-Little-Miss-Chatterbox-And-Friends-150g/product_info.html

I went around offering people one and read their faces as they took one. If they laughed or startled, they were in on the joke. Everybody else just thought it was candy. Now I know exactly who's read me and who hasn't...not bad, huh?

God, I loved working at that think tank.

Hmmm. You have to be in this country for quite some time before you can really suss traits in the British character, cavatina. We'll laugh at or be startled by anything you want to interpret. A Canadian lady friend once told me how much she loved the "vulnerability" she perceived in people's eyes over here, compared with the penetrating stares of her fellow countrymen (in particular) as described by her. You're mistaking vulnerability for shiftiness, I told her.

[charles t]

Body language, easily intimidating or provocative in face-to-face situations, is removed from the equation, allowing one to sit back, go off and pour oneself a drink, come back and consider ones response. Whether in the "live" situation or on-line, words are in any case always subject to misinterpretation - either by dint of word-choice or emotional baggage carried by respondants.

Serlialist: A passing thought I had originally posted in French Frank's forum, re: Religion...


" A dichotomy seemingly exists within these virtual spaces - not evident unless one could simply rise up and walk away from this 'culture machine', (cf Peter Lunenfeld) and open the door and behold the wonder and splendor of an English cathedral...St. Paul, Westminster, Winchester, Canterbury, Salisbury...geography permitting. "