Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
From time to time things can get a bit heated on this part of the forum, and that's often when some poster gets frustrated because his religion (or his atheism) is being "attacked". But I expect religions to be critiqued by atheists on a chat/discussion board, just as I expect religionists to critique atheistic positions. What is the difference between a post that 'critiques' a religion (or atheism) and a post that 'attacks' a religion (or atheism).
I don't think we should ever let things get nasty here, and our mods do an a very good job of heading that off in most cases. But another part of me thinks, "If you can't stand the heat..."
From time to time things can get a bit heated on this part of the forum, and that's often when some poster gets frustrated because his religion (or his atheism) is being "attacked". But I expect religions to be critiqued by atheists on a chat/discussion board, just as I expect religionists to critique atheistic positions. What is the difference between a post that 'critiques' a religion (or atheism) and a post that 'attacks' a religion (or atheism).
I don't think we should ever let things get nasty here, and our mods do an a very good job of heading that off in most cases. But another part of me thinks, "If you can't stand the heat..."
Thoughts?
Thoughts? You should know.
Quote:
Originally Posted by phetaroi
I did not say that literacy is a condition for spirituality. In fact, I said just the opposite. That spirituality doesn't need to be complicated.
All you do is argue. What an odd religion you must be a student of.
Religion had no place in that dialog. Yet you brought it in
1) to attack the poster, and
2) by labeling the poster as a representative of her religion, you thusattack the religion.
And you dont even see it!
Now we will watch while you wiggle yourself out of your own mental cave.
Actually, that exchange is why I started this thread.
But for starters, why would you say that "Religion had no place in that dialog" when we are in a subforum entitled "Religion & Spirituality"?
Does not a member of a religion act -- to some degree -- as a (not THE) representative of that religion?
I would also remind you that you said you would not longer have any dialog with me. ?
Wiggle, wiggle.
This is not a dialog, that is not possible with you, although you would love one.
This is to demonstrate how the OP becomes the very object of the topic. Your "critiques" are ALL attacks, so you no longer need to wonder where the line is for you.
If you want to critique a religion, pick your own religion to critique - Buddhism. Demonstrate how little you do know by critiquing it. Not the poor monks and the Thai people you love to berate, but the religion as you understand it and pracice.
Wiggle, wiggle.
This is not a dialog, that is not possible with you, although you would love one.
This is to demonstrate how the OP becomes the very object of the topic. Your "critiques" are ALL attacks, so you no longer need to wonder where the line is for you.
If you want to critique a religion, pick your own religion to critique - Buddhism. Demonstrate how little you do know by critiquing it. Not the poor monks and the Thai people you love to berate, but the religion as you understand it and pracice.
That line is in the eye of the beholder. If you are questioning someone's deeply held beliefs it will be seen as an attack no matter how nice you are saying it. No one is actually being attacked here by any stretch of the imagination. If someone wants to be nasty they can be ignored or return fire upon. The personal comments made just make the yapper of those comments look weak so it hardly seems worth worrying about them.
People become ingrained and naturally part of their belief system, thus making it difficult to separate out the elements/teachings/history/etc. of the belief and treat it as a third party entity for purposes of argument and discussion. Beliefs, in addition, become "camps" or "tribes" of collective like minded believers either in a formal organized group or something more loosely structured.
So argument can quickly become heated and divisive either among individuals or warring collectives.
Critiquing is when you can not only consider a belief you do not hold personally with respect and consideration regarding elements that trouble you or that you may take issue with, but also have an "out of body experience" with your own belief and apply it without prejudice or malice when taking issue with another belief.
Attacking is when you take issue with a belief with personal prejudice and malice and do not afford said belief respect and consideration.
That line is in the eye of the beholder. If you are questioning someone's deeply held beliefs it will be seen as an attack no matter how nice you are saying it. No one is actually being attacked here by any stretch of the imagination. If someone wants to be nasty they can be ignored or return fire upon. The personal comments made just make the yapper of those comments look weak so it hardly seems worth worrying about them.
In general I agree with your post, particularly the bolded part. I think sometimes a few of us do go a step too far, but it's easy to get to that point with -- as you put it -- "deeply held beliefs". It can also be a bit challenging to let the other person have the last word, although...
People become ingrained and naturally part of their belief system, thus making it difficult to separate out the elements/teachings/history/etc. of the belief and treat it as a third party entity for purposes of argument and discussion. Beliefs, in addition, become "camps" or "tribes" of collective like minded believers either in a formal organized group or something more loosely structured.
So argument can quickly become heated and divisive either among individuals or warring collectives.
Critiquing is when you can not only consider a belief you do not hold personally with respect and consideration regarding elements that trouble you or that you may take issue with, but also have an "out of body experience" with your own belief and apply it without prejudice or malice when taking issue with another belief.
Attacking is when you take issue with a belief with personal prejudice and malice and do not afford said belief respect and consideration.
Should we respect something we feel strongly against? That's a difficult question, in my view.
Thanks for your thoughtful post!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
