The goal of the Discussion Club is reasonable and polite conversation and debate. Reasonableness and politeness becomes more difficult as topics become more controversial. And there is probably nothing more controversial than religion, because it is something both that people don't agree on and that they feel strongly about.
I would urge everyone here to make a special effort in threads about religion to be courteous. Every religion thread rests upon a metaphorical tinder box; it takes only a spark to set off the fire, and once started, it's nearly impossible to put out short of dousing the whole thing in water (i.e. closing the thread.)
There's a larger issue, as well, which is how to handle different types of threads about religion. As I see it, there are likely to be two main kinds: ones between religious and non-religious people, and ones between people of different religions.
The first type of discussion is likely to involve issues such as evidence and proof, analysis of facts and figures, and debates over the meanings of various historical events. I don't believe there is any way to have a discussion of this sort without people becoming offended. Because religious people generally don't want to hear non-religious people say that their religion is not based on evidence; and non-religious people don't want claims of evidence to be made that they consider subjective and thus not real evidence (for example, proofs based on interpretations of bible passages.)
There are only two options for us here: either allow these discussions with the understanding that they will probably contain comments some will take issue with, or ban them altogether. I'd rather not do the second, which means the alternative is to allow them. But folks should, again, make every effort to tread as lightly as possible.
The second type of discussion will be doctrinal disputes within religions, such as between various sects of Christianity. The potential for offense should be less here, because both sides should know what it feels like when the basis for their own faith is challenged. So, if people want to argue about various aspects of religious doctrine, using bible quotes or historical analyses, that's fine. Just remember that the other guy probably sees it differently and feels just as strongly about his view as you do yours.
Finally, I'd like to see us try to keep these two types of discussions separate. If theists and atheists are arguing about the validity of the bible (or whatever) that's not really the place for an argument over bible interpretation, unless it's directly relevant. Similarly, debates over doctrine among religious people are not invitations for non-religious people to jump in and say "well, this is all a crock anyway" or whatnot. Why not? Because doing that will always derail the thread, and so if people do that, it means that deep discussions on religion among the religious become impossible.
These are my opinions on the matter, based on many years of experience in discussion forums. I welcome yours.
I would urge everyone here to make a special effort in threads about religion to be courteous. Every religion thread rests upon a metaphorical tinder box; it takes only a spark to set off the fire, and once started, it's nearly impossible to put out short of dousing the whole thing in water (i.e. closing the thread.)
There's a larger issue, as well, which is how to handle different types of threads about religion. As I see it, there are likely to be two main kinds: ones between religious and non-religious people, and ones between people of different religions.
The first type of discussion is likely to involve issues such as evidence and proof, analysis of facts and figures, and debates over the meanings of various historical events. I don't believe there is any way to have a discussion of this sort without people becoming offended. Because religious people generally don't want to hear non-religious people say that their religion is not based on evidence; and non-religious people don't want claims of evidence to be made that they consider subjective and thus not real evidence (for example, proofs based on interpretations of bible passages.)
There are only two options for us here: either allow these discussions with the understanding that they will probably contain comments some will take issue with, or ban them altogether. I'd rather not do the second, which means the alternative is to allow them. But folks should, again, make every effort to tread as lightly as possible.
The second type of discussion will be doctrinal disputes within religions, such as between various sects of Christianity. The potential for offense should be less here, because both sides should know what it feels like when the basis for their own faith is challenged. So, if people want to argue about various aspects of religious doctrine, using bible quotes or historical analyses, that's fine. Just remember that the other guy probably sees it differently and feels just as strongly about his view as you do yours.
Finally, I'd like to see us try to keep these two types of discussions separate. If theists and atheists are arguing about the validity of the bible (or whatever) that's not really the place for an argument over bible interpretation, unless it's directly relevant. Similarly, debates over doctrine among religious people are not invitations for non-religious people to jump in and say "well, this is all a crock anyway" or whatnot. Why not? Because doing that will always derail the thread, and so if people do that, it means that deep discussions on religion among the religious become impossible.
These are my opinions on the matter, based on many years of experience in discussion forums. I welcome yours.
Facebook
Twitter