A&A Feedback

ShooterSF · 10-10-2012 2:17am

I don't think religious people are dim and actually the one's that frequent their respective forums on boards at least tend to be people who have made a personal effort to research their faith and I respect that. It's amazing to think you listed two posters form the "other side" but Jank is actually one of our own I believe, a non-believer with just opposite views on practically everything else. Now on the issue of one sidedness, this forum is more open to alternative views than any other under the religious section. The christian forum expects most topics bar 1 or 2 megathreads to be answered in a christian light and the islam forum is even more closed off to opposing opinion. That's not running them down, it's simply the style of forum they choose to be. Here for obvious reasons opposing points of view are not only welcome but needed as we don't exactly have interpretations of religious passages to debate amongst ourselves.

marienbad · 10-10-2012 3:13am

The Bishop! wrote: »

As said, i really like most everyone on here. Robin included!

It's just a bit ferocious sometimes. I'm not making any judgement or climbing on a high horse. It just seems to me there is a bit of condescending anti-religion apparent. It's silly to deny it.

So sue me for observing that. I'm not saying it should be stamped out or changed or anything. Just saying that from the outside looking in, it comes across as biased sometimes. That's all. Sorry. No sweat like. I'm not interested in painting anyone into a corner about this.

Actually.. you're all evil monsters! The lot of you!:pac:

Yeah- I will accept that you have a point , but only up to a point. When the majority of posters here have similar views on religion it is only to be expected that there appears to be an occassional smug air about us. But that it being unfair to the forum for a number of reasons.

Firstly the number of religious people willing to post on here is very limited and that is their choice . I would love to have a free for all discussion on religion but as I said before most of them will only do so with home court advantage. Therefore in their absence the homogeneity of views is to be expected.

But I would say as a group this is about the only thing we agree on , we would have divergent views on every other subject , but that rarely shows here . For example I enjoy Nodin's pithy interventions , but when I disagree with her/him I find them simply infuriating . That just dos'nt happen on this forum but I would say we would disagree very much on economics politics israel and less so on civil liberties. But you won't see that here.

So if you want more of the cut and trust of debate get more of the religious folk to take a chance and take that ferry across the Styx and they will find it is really not that hot in here .

We are quite willing to take our chances in the other direction.

P.S the forum is great the moderation is great - don't change a thing. Just get more Christians for the Lions .

robindch · 10-10-2012 6:31am

The Bishop! wrote: »

If you're too wrapped up in backing each other up to not see the blatantly obvious theme on here by some posters that religious people are constantly denigrated by some as being substandard critical thinkers, then that's for you to think about.

So am I right in thinking that either you reckon that religious people are not substandard critical thinkers, or if they substandard critical thinkers, then nobody should ever point it out?

coffee_cake · 10-10-2012 8:37am

I suddenly feel unsafe and demand everyone be banned except me

Delirium · 10-10-2012 8:39am

to try and make bluewolf feel safe I'm willing to be called a Potential Troll :P:pac:

The Bishop! · 10-10-2012 9:42am

robindch wrote: »

So am I right in thinking that either you reckon that religious people are not substandard critical thinkers, or if they substandard critical thinkers, then nobody should ever point it out?

I don't think that they are particularly bad critical thinkers in general just because they're religious no. It's up to them what they believe as regards faith; each to his own and all that.
Am sure they're perfectly capable of day to day critical thinking just as much as any given atheist, and for that matter performing other complex cognitive tasks like debating etc.

And you should be free to point out anything you want when you want.

robindch · 10-10-2012 10:25am

The Bishop! wrote: »

I don't think that they are particularly bad critical thinkers in general just because they're religious [...]

And I don't think so either. I do, however, think that people who are poor critical thinkers have a tendency to be religious and that people who are good critical thinkers, tend not to be religious. This is widely supported by formal sociological research, as well as anecdotally from this forum and elsewhere.

The Bishop! wrote: »

It's up to them what they believe as regards faith; each to his own and all that.

People can believe what they want, but they shouldn't claim to be good critical thinkers, if they aren't, since that's dishonest; nor should they believe themselves good critical thinkers, if they're not, since that's delusional.

Dades · 10-10-2012 11:50am

Just to try and calm things down a bit, I want to go back to The Bishop!'s suggestion that there aren't enough religious people coming to the forum to offer contrary views.

Firstly, all types of (non) believers are welcome, and frankly the place would be boring without them. Secondly, the nature of the discussions, once you really get into it, demands that people stick to some manner of discipline in what they posit. Otherwise we might as well be a yard full of yapping dogs for all the substance the conversation would have.

The problem, however, with putting certain rules on a discussion about religion, is that it doesn't suit religion.

I have a theory (born of experience) that any properly structured discussion about God will inevitably end with the religious person invoking some form of the *mysterious ways* argument. I think a lot of religious folks know this, and tend to not try their luck.

When it happens, it results in (a) an argument where people are sidestepping and avoiding points, or (b) someone invoking the mysterious ways argument. Fireworks and mirth ensue.

But hey, it's the journey and not the destination!

Nodin · 10-10-2012 1:52pm

The Bishop! wrote: »

.....

Believe me the evidence is there. ..

Why?

The Bishop! wrote: »

.....
Let's leave it at that instead of demanding apologies for character slurs and the like..

Jaysus forbid we do that....

The Bishop! · 10-10-2012 1:55pm

Nodin wrote: »

Why?

Jaysus forbid we do that....

Not interested.

Genghiz Cohen · 10-10-2012 2:04pm

The Bishop! wrote: »

Not interested.

Keeps posting.

Obliq · 10-10-2012 4:37pm

Any thoughts on correct usage of smilies?

What is :pac: for (it has been suggested "Taking the mickey") and to my mind

looks more tragically miserable than frowning. And I would like the option of two

, but only if one indicates "flipping the bird" and the other is more "yah, boo, sucks". Am I in the wrong place with this burning question ?:eek: If so,

coffee_cake · 10-10-2012 8:57pm

bluewolf wrote: »

I suddenly feel unsafe and demand everyone be banned except me

Obliq wrote: »

Any thoughts on correct usage of smilies? What is :pac: for (it has been suggested "Taking the mickey") and to my mind looks more tragically miserable than frowning. And I would like the option of two , but only if one indicates "flipping the bird" and the other is more "yah, boo, sucks". Am I in the wrong place with this burning question ?:eek: If so,

smilies are also banned due to JC flashbacks

Sarky · 10-10-2012 9:01pm

Surely J C made everyone feel safe? I mean, safe that they weren't the most clueless person on the planet..?

Nodin · 10-10-2012 9:19pm

Obliq wrote: »

Any thoughts on correct usage of smilies? What is :pac: for (it has been suggested "Taking the mickey") and to my mind looks more tragically miserable than frowning. And I would like the option of two , but only if one indicates "flipping the bird" and the other is more "yah, boo, sucks". Am I in the wrong place with this burning question ?:eek: If so,

We actually need the pop-corn eating smiley.

Bannasidhe · 10-10-2012 9:47pm

Nodin wrote: »

We actually need the pop-corn eating smiley.

Here here!

I demand a popcorn smiley.

Sulla Felix · 10-10-2012 9:50pm

I want

for dealing with trolls,

for tiptoeing around things. Don't expect to use that one much here, but it could come in handy for other forums

. This one

just because.

Anyway, on original topic. Not much to needs to be changed really. The whole point of having multiple forii is that each one cannot be all things to all men (and women <<).
Some people are going to find posting here intimidating, others frustrating. That's just the way it is.

Bannasidhe · 10-10-2012 9:53pm

Sulla Felix wrote: »

Some people are going to find posting here intimidating, others frustrating. That's just the way it is.

Only some - dammit. We simply must up our game.

Liking the smilies btw.

coffee_cake · 11-10-2012 3:16am

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Here here!

I demand a popcorn smiley.

There there?

fitz0 · 11-10-2012 11:56am

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Here here!

I demand a popcorn smiley.

We'll have to make do with gifs for now.

Penn · 11-10-2012 12:21pm

Ickle Magoo · 11-10-2012 12:22pm

I'd like this guy

, this guy

and this guy

please.

Obliq · 11-10-2012 12:25pm

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I'd like this guy , this guy and this guy please.

You found one! I want one too.

There. I hope.

The Mad Hatter · 11-10-2012 1:14pm

I'm having Hotmail flashbacks.

Sarky · 11-10-2012 1:58pm

.gifs >>>>>> smilies.

Aenaes · 11-10-2012 2:34pm

But gifs make me feel so stupid

I watch them like 3 times in a row, just to make sure I know which bit is the start.

[-0-] · 15-10-2012 1:05pm

gvn wrote: »

Feedback. Hmmm ...

Don't change anything. A&A is probably one of the best (if not the best) run forums on the site. It has the perfect mix: extremely light-hearted at times, with great use of wit, sarcasm and humour by its members; great debate and argument at other times, matching any forum on the site for its quality of discussion. It's not too dry, nor too light-hearted; discussion standards aren't rigid to the point of suffocating discussion, nor is discussion allowed to descend to drivel. A great mix, and one which I'm sure most (if not all) of the regulars appreciate.

Agreed.

So much so that I would actually prefer to post something here when looking for intellectual feedback as opposed to posting somewhere else. Perhaps we should change the forum name to Atheism, Agnosticism & Intellectualism. :P

To give an example, I was contemplating creating a thread on here regarding Matthew Woods' imprisonment. I'm aware there is a thread on After Hours (that place is just vile), and Humanities, however I feel the real intellects on boards.ie hang out here.

The Bishop! · 16-10-2012 7:33am

Ooh la-de-da.:D

Wish i hadn't read that with a mouthful of coffee.

legspin · 16-10-2012 10:27am

[-0-] wrote: »

Agreed.

So much so that I would actually prefer to post something here when looking for intellectual feedback as opposed to posting somewhere else. Perhaps we should change the forum name to Atheism, Agnosticism & Intellectualism. :P

To give an example, I was contemplating creating a thread on here regarding Matthew Woods' imprisonment. I'm aware there is a thread on After Hours (that place is just vile), and Humanities, however I feel the real intellects on boards.ie hang out here.

Well like, duh.

robindch · 16-10-2012 10:51am

The Bishop! wrote: »

Wish i hadn't read that with a mouthful of coffee.

Bish -- no need to feel inadequate -- A+A welcomes people of all levels of smartipantness.

A&A Feedback

Comments