In my long life, I've had many long conversations with

[MineralMan]

Christian pastors, ministers and priests. I've even had conversations with church leaders with high positions, including one Catholic Bishop. Why? Because I encountered them in some casual setting and they asked about my religious beliefs. When I explained to them that I was an atheist, that often led to a conversation that sometimes was fairly long. In those conversations, I often asked questions of the religious leader, and answered questions posed to me.

In every case, I got answers that were thoughtful, interesting, and worth listening to from those people. Every time. None of them tried to convert me or change my mind. I sought out none of them, but simply engaged with them after being asked my beliefs. I'm always up for a discussion. My answers to their questions were received with thoughtful consideration and the discussions continued.

In many cases, the conversations were very interesting. Each of them was willing to answer questions and to pose questions to me, which I answered as well. Never were those conversations argumentative. They were simply discussions of religious belief and non-belief. I've enjoyed those times. We discussed things from different perspectives, but with respect.

How different those conversations seem when compared to most discussions here in this open forum about Religion. That's unfortunate. Polite, reasonable interactions often lead to better understanding. Ready answers to questions, rather than diversions, attempts to change the subject, or outright snide comments, always seem productive, instead of disruptive.

I wish we could have some such conversations here in the Religion Group. Sadly, they seem quite rare. More's the pity.

[trotsky]

1. Nope, here you ask a question or express your disagreement,

and you're blamed for Democrats losing elections or having an agenda to destroy religion or some such nonsense.

No answers. No discussions. Just an attempt to silence dissent.

[MineralMan]

4. In a discussion group like this one, it's very likely

that the participants hold firm views regarding religious belief. Conversions would seem highly unlikely here. So, conversations needn't be aimed in that direction. When someone takes umbrage from everything, conversation is really impossible. When someone looks for ulterior motives in every comment, discussion can't take place.

It's too bad, really. There could be a good dialog here, but that would require mutual respect, regardless of religious belief or disbelief.

[Mariana]

2. I have posted this before, but I think it is still relevant.

This is the kind of "dialog" I think some participants in this group want, based on an actual OP in this group from awhile back.

OP: "The human mind is a pale reflection of the Creator..."
Good: "You're absolutely right!"
Good: "That's so profound!"
Good: "Praise the Lord!"

This kind of exchange is unacceptable:

OP: "The human mind is a pale reflection of the Creator..."
Bad: "Please describe this creator."
Bad: "Which human mind?"
Bad: "How do you know this?"

There are groups on DU that were set up specifically so religious people can have the first kind of conversation, and avoid the second type altogether. This one lone group permits the second kind, and they don't like it one little bit.

[MineralMan]

3. Yes. Discussions where all parties are in agreement are boring.

It is discussions where there is disagreement or requests for more information that are interesting and beneficial.

This discussion group about Religion could be a place where questions are simply questions to be answered in a polite way, despite disagreements. It could be, but it is not. Sometimes, it's downright unfriendly, which is regrettable in a forum which is made up, primarily of those who hold similar political viewpoints.

[trotsky]

5. This is a perfect summary. n/t

[MineralMan]

6. Those who ask questions but who will not answer questions

are not participating in discussion.

Neither are those who accuse people of intolerance but who do not understand their own intolerance.

Nor are those who blindly treat all religious activities as praiseworthy and immune from criticism.

No meaningful discussion can take place with such people.

I remember a time when any criticism of child sexual abuse and official cover-ups by priests and leaders brought only diversion to praise some good thing the RCC had done, as if that compensated for a horrible criminal act. Any attempt to point out the problem with that was answered with abuse and bullying. Thankfully, that time has passed, but similar things continue to go on.

[MineralMan]

7. Here the beginning of a typical conversation as I described above:

Me: In which church are you the pastor (priest)?

Pastor: St. Mary's. I've been there for 15 years.

Me: There's a very nice pipe organ in that church. I've enjoyed hearing it.

Pastor: Are you a member?

Me: No. I've just visited to hear the organ.

Pastor: Which church do you attend?

Me: None. I'm an atheist.

Pastor: Ah. That's interesting. What led to your atheism?

Me: {short summary of my path}

Pastor: I see. A fellow pastor I worked with had a similar loss of faith.

Me: I suppose that happens for some.

Pastor: Yes. It's not uncommon for people to question their faith at some point.

Me: Have you had that experience?

Pastor: Yes, once. That was many years ago. {short summary of story}

...and so on....

[Bretton Garcia]

8. I favor a more trenchant anti-religiosity myself

Last edited Wed May 23, 2018, 09:23 PM - Edit history (2)

For these reasons.

First 1) churches for more than 1,000 years, have suppressed, censored, complaints. And 2) even killed complaintants. This 3) resulted in widespread ignorance of the countless, huge problems in religion. Resulting in 4) a massive, gigantic backlog of critical information. A backlog that needs to released without delay. Before any window of opportunity closes. If censorship somehow sets in again.

And note, 5) as part of that suppression, believers often insisted on at least, at most, politely respectful disagreement; respect. Which still slows, partly suppresses, the really, really big, really really ugly truths about religion.

These are some of the reasons that I am often disinclined to try the polite approach. Though I'll do it now and then.

If you'd like to try the respectful approach with a believer though? I suppose, with some practice, we might learn to step aside and let you do that. Often, if it's obvious that two parties are deeply engaged in their own kind of conversation, others might not interfere.

I'll admit that I'm impatient with it though. I feel that today atheists have a unique opportunity to open the floodgates, and get it all out quickly. This should be done quickly and adamantly, in my opinion. In case the opportunity closes. And religious censorship steps in again. Squashing all criticism of religion once again. Like it always did in the past.

[Mariana]

9. That urge to silence critics of religion is still very common.

Here on DU, there is one group in which such criticism is permitted, and some consider that to be one too many.

[ollie10]

10. Are you an atheist who simply doesn't believe in a deity....

.....or is it your goal to make sure everyone thinks like you do, and squash out religion if you can because it is bad?

Sounds like you have issues with being polite

[Mariana]

11. I highly doubt the poster would set such a stupid goal

as to "make sure everyone thinks like he or she does". How would that be possible?

[ollie10]

12. I was hoping the poster could speak for himself instead of you speaking for him

[Mariana]

13. How would it be possible

to "make sure everyone thinks like he or she does"? How exactly would someone go about doing that?