[Closed] The difficulty in discussing religion on the forum

This post is not meant in any way to shut down, or limit, discussion around religion (not that I expect I could ever wield such power!). It is only meant to serve as a reminder of the difficulties inherent in maintaining accurate perspective when tackling a complex subject no matter what angle we are approaching it from.

First of all, though, I have to say that I think we have come a long way from some of the nastiness that we used to see on here a number of years back, and I am glad that we can now get stuck in such a discussion without it becoming a thread of insults and smears against people and their deeply-held beliefs. Of course there continue to be misunderstandings and mild insults, but nothing a good ride couldn't clear up.

That said, while I entirely and unequivocally accept and support the fact that some people believe and some people don't, and I don't think for one moment that religion should be imposed on anyone, the one thing I find hard to overlook is when a person's position (either way, and in whole or in part) is based on inaccuracies. Yet dealing with some of those inaccuracies is difficult in this cyber-environment due to its inherent limitations (such as multiple lines of discussion opening up at once), and the fact that we all have our personal difficulties (such as not being very fast at typing, or not being able to respond right away to an objection).

Unfortunately, however, I think that some of the points made both for and against the idea of God and the practice of religion are either derived from, or modelled on the basis of, the way we were forced to study it at GCSE in the UK. In Canada, where there is no religion in schools, people tend to discuss it (if, indeed, they discuss it at all!) in a very different way. Mind you, I haven't been to Canada for almost 15 years, so things might have evolved in the wake of Dawkins' work, but I would have characterised the conversation around God and religion in Canada as more inquisitive as opposed to probative. Here, by contrast. it very often seems a matter of having to [i]prove[/i] things, with things needing proving being pretty elementary.

By way of illustration, an ideal discussion might look something like this:

-So, I hear you like to ride bikes.
-Yes.
-How come? What do you like about it?
-Well, [explanation follows].
-Interesting. I'm not sure I'll ever try it, as I tend to prefer things like chess, but thanks for sharing.
-Cool. Tell me something about chess.

Whereas, the sort of probative discussion I find frustrating tends to be more like this:

-So I hear you like to ride bikes. Why?
-Well, I guess ever since I was young I just liked...
-Since you were young? So your parents made you ride them?
-No, not really. I guess my parents did buy me my first bike...
-So you're one of those people then, who just did what their parents made them do?
-What? I...
-So anyway, back to bikes. I suppose you're going to try to tell me that they're more environmentally-friendly than cars?
-Well, no, it wasn't the first thing on my mind. I was just going to tell you about how my friends and I used to...
-Because everyone knows that between the tyre rubber, and frame material, and chain oil, and bearing grease, and the fact that all cyclists either have more than one bike or would like to, all environmental benefits are mitigated.
-What? I just wanted to tell you...
-Get your head out of your ass, man. Bikes suck.

😀

I jest, but I am sure you can see what I mean.

In any case, I am happy to continue participating in most of the discussions that take place on here, including the religion ones; I just thought it could be helpful to pause and point out how and why, at least in my opinion, religion threads in general can be quite difficult.

But this, on the whole, being a decent place, do carry on. 8)