A statement and a question?

[jajrussel]

I don't believe believe in God or Gods, but I do believe that there must be reasons why humanity invented them. It becomes difficult to figure out all the possile reasons when conversations have to follow strict though sometimes ambiguous guidelines. How do you try to discuss why someone would invent a story about why a supposed God became a man without getting smacked with down votes and the thread almost immediately getting closed afterwards.

One guideline is the conversation has to be rational. The sense is that preaching is not rational, I agree.  It isn't, and never contributes to a conversation. It becomes a sense of the same old same old. A place where you go when you are losing or are unqualified to continue the conversation due to ignorance of the subject. Preaching does nothing to contribute, and should not be tolerated.

It happens a lot even in what is accepted as the science parts of this forum. When the conversation becomes irrational or turns to preaching it gets closed or more often sent to speculation where the conversation can at the minimum be continued until a proper line is crossed that is in the accepted sciences. Not this Religious section.

Here there are so many closed conversations that might have become or continued to be decent conversations that it would be difficult for even a non Religious person to believe that prejudice doesn't exist.

So why does this section exist?

It is apparently difficult to have rational scientific conversations. I would think it would have to be known that it would be nearly impossible to have a complete rational conversations of this subject. It seems odd that a better way of moderation couldn't be applied if the actual intent is conversation. Yes, baiting will occur, so that preaching can occur. As if no one would notice. But there might be inside where the bait might lead to a legitimate conversation. Yet no response is capable because the thread has been closed.

I would rather ignore a preacher and continue to read what others think, and or participate in what was a perfectly good study of human thought and behaviour then have the book slammed shut simply because someone appealed to a higher authority. I would assume that those who make such an appeal do realize that they could simply turn the channel, so to speak.

This is not the kind of subject that one can discuss in Religious forums. Partially because atheist are also known to preach, and the guidelines are governed by the religion, and very rarely are the guidelines rational. So, I am actually glad this section exists.

However, it seems all too easy to rationalize the closing of a thread in this section rather then stunt the preachers.

So, why keep this section open? Is it a token given to earlier objectors? An okay you can have your voice but.... Type of thing?

It's just my opinion, but the rational thing would be for rational people to ask and discuss why human beings invented religions and the subjects of the religions in the first place. I mean if, that is what you believe, and I do. Then it would seem rational to have the conversation. A complete one.

I'm I the only one who thinks this?

Edited October 5, 2018 by jajrussel

[iNow]

1 hour ago, jajrussel said:

So, why keep this section open?

Much like the politics section, it serves as a bug zapper light or lightning rod.

It helps to draw all of these nonscience but still interesting topics that humans naturally wish to explore into one place instead of letting them infuse themselves in other harder science sections. 

These subjects do and will come up, and probably pretty often. Having a natural home for them allows them not to poison other areas of more focused discussion.

[beecee]

8 hours ago, jajrussel said:

It's just my opinion, but the rational thing would be for rational people to ask and discuss why human beings invented religions and the subjects of the religions in the first place. I mean if, that is what you believe, and I do. Then it would seem rational to have the conversation. A complete one.

I'm I the only one who thinks this?

Ditto to what iNOW said...

 

6 hours ago, iNow said:

Much like the politics section, it serves as a bug zapper light or lightning rod.

It helps to draw all of these nonscience but still interesting topics that humans naturally wish to explore into one place instead of letting them infuse themselves in other harder science sections. 

These subjects do and will come up, and probably pretty often. Having a natural home for them allows them not to poison other areas of more focused discussion.

adding that if there was not closures and eventual shutdowns of some of these threads, then we would have an ad infinitum of continued baseless and endless assertions, and the rational scientific parts of the discussions are exhausted so to speak. And of course even purely scientific discussions are sometimes closed. I believe the sections in question exist to give the non scientific people a fair go...simple as that.