Debate to end all debates

[Scarabin]

Like the Religious Matrix, this topic is a product of the hi-jacked topic, School in Connecticut. But it is not a religious debate. It is a debate about debates.

 

I would dearly like to see a debate, particularly a religious one, in which all posters observed standards of behaviour that reflected pursuit of truth and normal good manners.

 

Surely there must be other BBOérs who feel as I do?

[Fluffy]

You mean a debate where people stop to read what you wirte because you have strong arguments? that's not ever going to happen. Nobody reads other's comments about religion except to find spots for an attack.

[Fluffy]

There is a reason for that, there are dozens of people here that feel they have the ultimate truth, and ultimate truths have the problem that are very extense when written down. Reading a crowded religion thread can take many hours, even days.

 

It is howevr possible to make educated debates in private, where not everybody is throwing his ***** here and there. BBO forums has good tools for private converations in groups. If you make a debate group I will be willing to join, but keep it small, 2, 3, 4, 5 members at most, if there are more people split them.

[Scarabin]

Thanks for the info. I did not know BBO catered for private discussions.

 

I would not presume however to exclude anyone, just because I thought it appropriate and I fear a debate among people with similar views could be boring. I would like to keep opposing views but agree on norms of behaviour.

 

Surely most people, especially bridge players, would agree that certainty is for children, probability for adults. Even if I believe God exists, even if I believe God does not exist, the reality is that there is some underlying probability which we cannot determine.

 

I think we should be able to agree also that an exact proof that God exists or does not exist is impossible.

 

I am not seeking a forum I can monopolise to express my views but I'd hope to proceed step by small step seeking some sort of consensus.

 

I am sure many will feel I am attempting the impossible: this seems to be the story of my life on BBO!

[kenberg]

I enjoy the forum discussions, bridge and wc. Part of the enjoyment is that, at least sometimes, I actually learn something. I long ago came to, at least, a settled view on relgion so those discussions are not apt to change my thinking. Still, they aren't dull. . On economic policy, however, my views are anything but settled and the opinions and references are useful. I find the global warming thread exhausting and i only occasionally read it. I understand that the University of Maryland, from which I retired some years back, has moved to the Big Ten. That is the beginning and the end of my knowledge of college sports, so you won't find me on that thread either. The shootings in Connecticut were hideous, and I apprecited Elaine's views that sometimes even the discussion seems disrespectful ( I paraphrase, maybe that's just more my view.)

 

Many years ago I was in a bar discussing some perhaps less than great qualities of one of our colleagues. I ventured that actually I liked him, which brought the retort "What the hell does that prove, Berg, you like everyone". Well, actually I like the Forum. As the man said, what does that prove.

 

Bah. Humbug. Merry Christmas.

[blackshoe]

The Ultimate Truth was expressed by Pogo Possum many years ago: "We have met the enemy, and they is us!" B-)

 

Happy Holidays, all! :)

[mikeh]

You mean a debate where people stop to read what you wirte because you have strong arguments? that's not ever going to happen. Nobody reads other's comments about religion except to find spots for an attack.

Irony of ironies.

 

As I read your posts, the sum total of your 'argument' for the existence of god is that a few years ago, as a young man who did no reading on the subject, you decided that the absence of a god would make you want to kill yourself and others.

 

Since you commendably didn't want to do that, you decided that you should believe in god. Others might possibly have considered that since most atheists don't commit suicide or mass murder, there might be something wrong with the logic of no god = time to become a homicidal/suicidal maniac. No, you went for the ultimate in selfish cop-outs: you adopted a belief not because it had intrinsic logic or merit but because it made you feel better about yourself.

 

I suspect that you adopted the Xian god merely because you were born into a predominantly Xian culture. Had you been born in Pakistan or Iran, for example, you'd be a similarly unanalytical muslim, and so on.

 

Maybe I missed a real argument, in your posts, other than wish fulfilment, in which case I apologize and recognize that the irony lies on me, not you.

[mikeh]

Like the Religious Matrix, this topic is a product of the hi-jacked topic, School in Connecticut. But it is not a religious debate. It is a debate about debates.

 

I would dearly like to see a debate, particularly a religious one, in which all posters observed standards of behaviour that reflected pursuit of truth and normal good manners.

 

Surely there must be other BBOérs who feel as I do?

I appreciated your courtesy on the other thread, but am not the least bit sure of what you mean.

 

A debate about something seen as important will engender strong feelings. A debate about religion, if amongst only people of faith, is problem enough unless you exclude fundies of various stripes: I mean, both historically and currently, religious schism leads to mass slaughter!

 

If you mean debate between believers and non-believers, the problem, as I see it, is that to the non-believer the very notion of preferring to believe something to be true contrary to every observable datum about the real universe makes one's head (metaphorically) explode. It is true, as I think almost all non-believers admit, that we cannot disprove the existence of some form of god-entity, but why that admitted reality becomes an argument in favour of a positive belief in a particular god (or of any generic god entity) is utterly baffling to anyone who has not made a conscious decision to live in a fantasy world.

 

It's as I have said about 'discussions' with lukewarm: you believers appear to use the same language, but the meanings of the words seem different. When one side of a debate puts forward illogical propositions with no supporting evidence, let alone coherent argument beyond wish fulfilment, it becomes very difficult for the other side to avoid sounding contemptuous, even tho the writers may have significant respect for the believers in all other realms.

 

Imagine a debate where one side argued with all sincerity that the moon was indeed made out of cheese and the other pointed out that the observable evidence suggested otherwise to which the rebuttal was that we couldn't rule out, beyond all dounbt, that there wasn't a chunk of cheddar buried deep in the centre of the moon. That would be a true statement, but I'm not going to decide to have 'faith' that it is so.

[blackshoe]

The moon is canvas draped over a wooden scaffold. I know this is true, I saw it on TV, in I think a Twilight Zone episode.

[Fluffy]

Mike: it makes me so sad to hear what you are saying wich sounds like you perceive me as... well whatever but not good. You are mixing serious and non serious statements made by me, I wish lack of tone on my posts made you missinterpret some of them.

 

It makes me sad because it is you, and I remember that you, Gerben and some others helped me evolve my views of the world years ago thanks to some debates similar to this, and I've always tried to learn from you since. I have the impression that you don't remember those debates as well as I do.

 

I could make a lengthy post about why most that you said is wrong or out of context but it would be so uninteresting to everyone. I would however love to have a private debate with you more than anyone else on this subject. I would love to receive a message with your perception of my religion thoughts for example.

[Vampyr]

I would dearly like to see a debate, particularly a religious one, in which all posters observed standards of behaviour that reflected pursuit of truth and normal good manners.

 

I think mikeh put it very well. In the thread on religion, some people have explained why they do not believe, some people have mentioned that they do believe (by the way I did not see any attacks), and there is not a lot more to say on the topic.

 

After all, when it comes down to it, believers believe because they want to; there is really no other reason, is there? A discussion about whether there is a god seems pointless and likely to peter out very quickly. Nor is a discussion by religious people about eg how many angels can dance on the head of a pin likely to be particularly interesting.

 

EDIT: Now I see that it was in the other thread where athiests were accused of: contributing somehow to mass murders; having no basis for morality; and potentially being rapists. These claims would be laugable if they weren't so sad.

[Scarabin]

Okay, I've kept my post brief and confused almost everyone.

 

What I am trying to do is initiate a debate about possible constraints we could agree to impose on ourselves in order to make our posts/debates more productive and less offensive.

 

Now, being me, I have a slew of suggestions but instead of hogging the discussion, I would ask other posters to suggest possible limitations they would agree to observe and preferably back them up with reasons why they seem desirable.

 

Ken has said, with his usual folksy charm, that he is happy with the current state but I do not think Ken has ever given offence to anyone (wives always excepted!). I on the other hand would describe the current state as utter chaos, or in the Australian vernacular, open slather.

 

Obviously, I have available to me the option of ceasing to post in the water cooler, but I feel I should first appeal to you as mature, civilized, intelligent people.

 

Now my friends are far from being a bunch of devout Christians but we are traditional and have no hang-ups about separating church and state, so, at the risk of exploding various minds, I will just wish you a merry Christmas and a happy New Year.

 

Slainte,

 

Ian

[gwnn]

Mike: it makes me so sad to hear what you are saying wich sounds like you perceive me as... well whatever but not good. You are mixing serious and non serious statements made by me, I wish lack of tone on my posts made you missinterpret some of them.

I don't think it is in good taste to make a post in a thread stating that there is a larger tendency of mass murder in Atheist circles than in Christian circles (in a forum where Atheists form a majority - ok this one is more or less irrelevant), and when some people clearly get upset and take their time to reply and disprove your ideas, coming back with some humourous posts. At least if you are going to do that, make it very clear that you are making jokes, it is just such a strange thing to do that you should be prepared that people will not expect it. Smileys are a good start. Posting a disclaimer that you are going to ignore the reams of replies to your provocative initial post and and that you are from that point on just joking around would make it even clearer that you know what's going on.

[Codo]

But it is okay to make such claims about mass murder etc opposite Christians and other religions?

I mean, shall I search for Mikes post where he made statements about the crusades, inquisitation etc?

 

May I have some just from this posting in this thread:

religious schism leads to mass slaughter!

 

made a conscious decision to live in a fantasy world.

 

And the whole sound of his posting is: I know they are wrong.

 

How is this in any form better as anything Beebob Kid or others wrote?

 

You cannot discuss with people who seem to know everything, even about things we -by definition- cannot know, but just belive or not?

 

But still you and Stephanie took Gonzalo as an example, not Mike, despite the fact that he posted his offences here right in front of your eyes...

 

Anyway, happy holidays to anybody and a merry merry christmas to all who care about it...

[Fluffy]

I don't think it is in good taste to make a post in a thread stating that there is a larger tendency of mass murder in Atheist circles than in Christian circles (in a forum where Atheists form a majority - ok this one is more or less irrelevant), and when some people clearly get upset and take their time to reply and disprove your ideas, coming back with some humourous posts. At least if you are going to do that, make it very clear that you are making jokes, it is just such a strange thing to do that you should be prepared that people will not expect it. Smileys are a good start. Posting a disclaimer that you are going to ignore the reams of replies to your provocative initial post and and that you are from that point on just joking around would make it even clearer that you know what's going on.

 

I can understand that atheist don't find most of them funny*, but I tried to use smileys!. Is all the hostility I am perceiving coming from that single coment? I mean wow, atheist are insulting all religions in many and worse ways and all I did was to express an opinion, one that I reckoned was wrongly expressed BTW, maybe atheists are not as tolerant as they claim on Phil's poll.

 

*: I think I did a great job regardless, I woul be very easy to get offended, but I just took it as a joke, how else could I take the fact that a single coment with big 'IMO' on it had been taken as a series of personal attacks (in plural!) against a comunity that is not a comunity, wich led to people of that no-comunity impersonating me as the devil of their no-comunity althou they don't believe in devil. And sorry but I couldn't stop laughing when someone tried to convert me to his religion errr no-religion.

 

Anyway I wish I had stopped all this nonsense, but tough luck I had no wifi for 38 hours after I made my silly coment and when I came back the thread had 4x size, I want to apologice to people who write things directed at me at that time, beause I have been unable to read them.

[gwnn]

Codo, maybe read my post again? I didn't say that posting that Atheists are more likely to kill people is not OK. I think it is even OK to say that Atheists are retarded, or whatever (nobody said that). As others have said, his statement is even plausible on the surface. My post was about his humorous remarks, I still don't know how much of the posts are to be taken seriously and how much were just 'silly' or what not.

[blackshoe]

"Can't we all just get along?" -- Rodney King

[kenberg]

"Can't we all just get along?" -- Rodney King

 

I think the answer to that is known beyond doubt.

 

But we must try.

 

A Merry Christmas to you and yours, have an eggnog.

[blackshoe]

I better not, I have to drive to the grocery store shortly. Maybe when I get back. :)

 

Same to you and yours, Ken, and to everyone else. :D

[gwnn]

Merry Christmas :)

[mgoetze]

But it is okay to make such claims about mass murder etc opposite Christians and other religions?

I mean, shall I search for Mikes post where he made statements about the crusades, inquisitation etc?

 

[...]

 

But still you and Stephanie took Gonzalo as an example, not Mike, despite the fact that he posted his offences here right in front of your eyes...

 

Mike is serious and prepared to back up his statements with facts. Gonzalo seemed serious and is now passing off his post as a joke instead. In my book, this is not the sort of thing to make jokes about.

[Scarabin]

I appreciated your courtesy on the other thread, but am not the least bit sure of what you mean.

 

I tried to clarify my original Topic in a post on Dec 23.

 

However your post deserves a specific acknowledgment. I won't say reply because although you have been patient in previous debate, I am sure you don't want anymore feedback from my addled brain :D

[kenberg]

Ken has said, with his usual folksy charm, that he is happy with the current state but I do not think Ken has ever given offence to anyone (wives always excepted!).

 

Hey, buddy, watch who you are calling folksy. I am very offended.

[Scarabin]

Hey, buddy, watch who you are calling folksy. I am very offended.

 

Heartfelt apology. :rolleyes: Mine was meant as a compliment, and yours,of course, as a joke. :D .LOL

[kenberg]

Early in the development of e-mail I had the following experience.

 

I was on the faculty Senate at a university, and the subject matter was the extension of medical benefits to live-in couples, includiong, gasp, same sex couples. This was quite a few years back and the the idea was very controversial. We met on a Thursday, the matter was not settled, there was a special meeting called for the following week. E-mails were flying during the week-end. It was a discussion to rival the Global Warming thread in intensity. A message was sent from a return address of Penguin and the author went on at length about the Campus Cod, a (repeated) typo for Campus Code. I sent a reply to all saying the discussion is getting out of hand, we now have penguins complaining about the cod. I got a very heated response that I was elitist, exclusionary, and God knows what else. He had a right to his opinion yesireee.

 

So you see, I can be as offensive as anyone.

 

Fwiw, I was initially cool to the proposal because of what I saw as legal difficulties in defining when it applied. It seemed like a lawsuit waiting to happen. The proponents were very well prepared and convinced me that this could work, so I supported it. It passed the Senate but the state legislature would have to approve it. Fat chance. That was then. Last November the voters approved same sex marriage. Times change.

 

One argument for the proposal that many then found quite convincing ran like this: Hey guys, you say we can't get married because the law says we can't. Then you say we cannot include our partners on health insurance because we aren't married. Something is wrong here.

Quite a few conventional unexciting people found this persuasive.