What annoys you in the Religion forum?

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The biggest problem in any discussion of topics close to our heart (e.g., religion, politics, etc.) is the lack of objectivity. I believe in Religion X (and political party Z) but I can also discuss its tenets, history, inconsistencies and strengths without getting offended that you prefer Religion Z or no religion at all. So many on the religion forum take it personally when you disagree agree with them because they don't have the ability to look at their faith objectively, they resort to insults and obfuscation rather than a calm discussion of facts. If we could discuss religion as dispassionately as we discuss the bran muffin we ate for breakfast, there might not be so much piss and vinegar on the Religion forum (and I might post rather than merely peruse).

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

All the above points you bring annoy me. I engage in many counter responsive posts though, more than I ever should.

I like to classify the religion threads into two categories:
1- Objective
2- Subjective

let's weed the subjectivity and encourage more objectivity.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I don't think Subjectivity/Objectivity gets close enough to the root of the problem for me. Religion can be studied and religion can be practiced. That generates 4 broad categories of posters:
student/practitioner
student/non-practitioner
non-student/practitioner
non-student/non-practitioner

The student/practitioner can hardly be said to be objective, but the more mature and disciplined posters manage to state their case clearly without resorting to ad-hominem attacks, even when pointing out what they think are fundamental flaws in reasoning (or commiting what others find to be fundamental flaws in reasoning).

The student/non-practitioner can more likely be said to be 'objective', but only so far as they are able to withhold judgement about the truth or falsehood of what they are studying. As such, this goups breaks into two sub-groups, the academics and the axe-grinders. The axe-grinders judge that religion (either their former one, or all religion in general) is a pathology that must be understood in order to find an antidote. The academics on the other hand are more what I think Flores is talking about when he refers to objectivity. Objective or not, this category of poster, if acedemically grounded always raise interesting and worthwhile challenges whether I'm annoyed by what they post or not.

The last 2 categories generate for me the most annoying posts because, as non-students living the least examined life, they are most likely to dismiss out-of-hand as nonsense anything that doesn't agree with their particular dogmatic world-view. They are most likely to use personal attacks and usually in the least entertaining manner.

But to speak directly to Flores's and Princess's point, I don't think objectivity is attainable when discussing religion with anyone exepting perhaps the student/non-practitioner. But this is the group to which the experience of religion is by my definition inaccessible - because religion at it's very core is subjective and experiential. A music critic who doesn't play the organ will never know what it's like to play a Bach Fugue where each hand and each foot must weave it's own independant melodic line. Can he then be said to understand it?

So why have a Religion section on a science board? Rephrase - why discuss something that is for most people non-rational and subjective in a framework where the expectation is objectivity and rationalism? Personally, I think there is value, but only if people are willing not to be offended by the irrational, if it is offered in a dignified and respectful manner.

 

let's weed the subjectivity and encourage more objectivity.

That is entirely not possible. There is no observable phenomena in which to place judgment - religion is influenced by emotions and personal prejudices. It will remain subjective until there is something to observe.

 

They're all equally irritating.

 

b and c stand out more I think.

 

It all comes down to a lack of tolerance.
Ignorance sometimes plays a part, too.

 

Definately the 'my religion is better than your religion because it doesn't have as many profound flaws', mainly occuring between christianity and islam.

This kind of point scoring seems the most waste of time because all religions are flawed. Maybe if it wasn't so petty in nature but who cares, no one replies to my posts anyway.

 

Hello atheroy

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

And to all those who have never replied to atheroys posts - "Shame on you!".

 

Hey Vienna,

lol, thank you

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

the stupid cut and paste from different websites to prove a point whilst not having any personal opinion to argue from.. its just a pain to read stuff when ppl keep pastin stuff whilst not addressing certain arguments... i guess this is becuz some ppl don't have good debating skills.. it just makes discussion useless if certain posters are not willing to look at issues objectively... i dont think you can get rid of that problem, its just that it is really annoying...

 

Ignorance, ignorance ignorance is what annoys me. If you don't know what you're talking about.. ADMIT it!! Then, shut up and listen with an open mind. Those people who pretend to know everything because they read one article..

 

That was very eloquent and almost lining up with what I'm thinking....Yet I don't like the 4 broad categorization that you bring. While may be true, they carry in them a dangerous hidden generalization that often comes with labels and judgements. I believe that every person is capable of making objective constructive logical arguments that are not self serving but serving to an identifiable noble goal. Instead of the aimlessly wondering and parting our wisdom or sarcasm on unworthy topics or people, we could use some hints from the moderator or other measurable information that would identify the level of quality or lack of for the thread before we venue to burn ourselves in it. Unworthy low quality discussions should not be rewarded by being allowed to stay on the top of the chart for long times.....although I'm sure I do contribute a big share to some of those low quality discussions.

 

What annoys me most is people who post stupid messages. There is no process to become a member on this forum, so filtering out those who are idiots is going to be hard. Lets face it, anyone with a box, screen and modem can join this forum, and that's gonna result in many people, probably more than half, being, well, morons.

And i'm not saying any of this because I think i'm better than those people, lord knows i've posted many a dumb message in my time, the only defense I would have to that fact is that I was responding to dumb messages.

Perhaps that is another problem with the religion forum, it is, in a way, out of control. All of your suggestions of what not to post perfectly sum up every message of recent times. This forum is a war between, believers and believers and believers and non-believers,

Nobody wants to learn anything, they want to TEACH everything, herein lies your problem James

 

What is the point of this thread?

Dave

 

What annoys you in the Religion forum?

I get annoyed at stupid threads

 

What annoys me most is that the non-religious have no problem referring to our religions as "crap" "fairytales" "some geezer named Jesus" but if anyone religious takes offense we are told we cannot handle disagreement or criticism.

Debate is fine but I really wish people who are non-religious would remember that it is of the utmost importance to us.

 

What annoys me the most is the presence of ATHIESTS in the religion section, athiests should be BANNED from coming to the religion section, I suggest you make them their own place where they can sit and socialize with each others.