Thursday, 08 December 2011
-
Keeping on Topic: Discussing When We Disagree
I wrote a post a while ago about my views on Christmas, and what I think about the holiday as an atheist. I talked about commercialism, secularism and other issues surrounding the celebration of Christmas these days. Apparently someone liked my writing, because it was a featured post on Revelife as well as on the Xanga front page. Needless to say, I was thrilled to have my writing honored in this way. When I saw that my post received over 100 comments, I was even more excited. I thought that perhaps I had made a difference for some people or stimulated an actually discussion about the place of Christmas in modern society.
However, when I read the comments, I was very disappointed. A few of the comments were people sharing their views on the topics I discussed. A fair amount where Christians asserting their displeasure with my religious choices and praying for me. Most, however, were a back-and-forth discussion by Christians and atheists about who is right.
This disappointed for many reasons. First and foremost, I was embarrassed by the name calling and generally poor arguing employed by both sides. Beyond that, I simply think that the comments section of an unrelated article is not the appropriate place for that discussion. I've shared my views on religion in no unclear terms, yet that doesn't mean that I need to take every possible opportunity to tell religious people why I think they are wrong.
I thought my post touched on a lot of issues that both religious and non-religious people could relate to, but instead of talking about these issues together, we overshadowed them by focusing on our differences and making accusations. Personally, I would like to see religious people give up their beliefs and share my views, however I'm wise enough to realize that the comments section of a Xanga post probably isn't the appropriate time or place to try to convert them. I imagine that many Christians feel the same way about bringing atheists to their faith.
How are we supposed to live together in the same society if we can't discuss things without starting a fight? I completely agree that we should have discussions about the legitimacy of religion, and the arguments for and against it, and I know which side I believe has the stronger arguments. However, I also believe that there is a time and place for that discussion to occur.
We here at Revelife totally agree with the idea that we should stay on topic rather than making the conversation all about Christians vs. Atheists. What are some constructive ways we can communicate with one another and discuss subjects without making it a fight about who is right?
RecommendRelated Posts
Post a Comment
- Back to revelife's Revelife Site!
- Note: your comment will appear in revelife's local time zone: GMT -05:00 (Eastern Standard - US, Canada)
About the Author
-
- From: manUfan420@xanga
- Name: manUfan420
- About Me: They send you off to college, try to gain a little knowledge, but all you want to do is learn how to score
Stats: This Week All Time Posts: 0 2 Views: 0 22151 Comments: 0 150 View all posts by manUfan420@xanga
Comments (11)
i admit, i was totally guilty of this. debating is one of my favorite past times, especially when it's a subject i'm passionately connected to. that, and by the time i got to the post, it had already devolved into a little bit of back-and-forth. commenting on the actual post seemed almost irrelevant.
I don't remember exactly if I did comment negatively and added anything to your displeasure. If so I am sorry. I never actually meant to do that. But moving on to your question at the end. Um I think that if you disagree with someone's comment, it's fine to say so but in a respectful way. Such as something along the lines of "well I see why you think that way, I just disagree".
When it comes to beliefs no one is right nor wrong. Part of being human is having the ability to think for oneself. As far as being able to have a conversation without arguing, I honestly don't know if it can really happen. People need to stop assuming one is right. We should respect one's beliefs. It would be a start at least.
I dislike it when the comments section degenerates like that. Your comment should be relevant to the post, and if someone disagrees with that it should also be backed up by the post.
If commentators want lengthy discussions, write their own thought provoking posts.
Christians should be better at this than everyone else, if for no reason other than that they are taught by Christ to love in all circumstances. I agree with you. We need to be able to disagree respectfully. I think one way we can have healthy disagreements that lead to the building up of all people involved is to share our focus throughout the discussion. To name the topic and work around that helps. Also, agreeing to respect the other person is helpful (here is a standard I try to function by). We can also work on our communication skills (a few hints).
Why the compulsive need to control a discussion? Who cares?
The pursuit of truth can go in any direction.
Making people feel guilty for choosing their own path in a discussion shows an aversion to freedom of choice and intolerance of the way people choose to use their own minds.
What concern is it of Revelife or anyone, how or what people choose to discuss?
@TheGreatBout@xanga - This post isn't about people respecting each other. This post is objecting to people choosing their own way to pursue the truth in a discussion.
"we should stay on topic rather than making the conversation all about Christians vs. Atheists."
It is natural for discussions to range far and wide. This post objects to freedom of thought and is demanding that people only think the the way they are supposed to, how Revelife wants us to think:
"We here at Revelife..."
That's scary.
It's antithetical to Christian thought. And it's being offered up by an atheist with the support of Revelife.
@hectoramemnon@xanga - I think discussions are partnerships in which two people are seeking to move in a forward and progressive direction as a unit, giving and taking, encoding and decoding, so that whether or not they agree with each other by the end of the discussion both parties feel understood. I think that only happens when respect is present. It's hard for two people to have this kind of discussion when one of the two goes all over the place and doesn't consider the the partnership as equally or more important than their own agenda and thus forsakes the goal of the discussion for their own goals.I disagree with you about the point of this article and a few other things you've communicated but I'm honestly not very interested in having this discussion right now. I wanted to respond since you took the time to say something to me but after this comment I'm going to jump out of the discussion. Be blessed.
It's pretty frustrating when people seem to ignore the intended point of a post or comment and take the conversation down an unforeseen rabbit trail, especially when it all turns into a needless argument. The easiest way to avoid that is to disallow comments. No comments, no rabbit trails, no arguments. Problem solved. That's a bit sterile, though, so we usually allow comments. When we do that, we open up ourselves to certain dangers. People will think differently than us. They will think they are right and we are wrong. They will point out weakness in our arguments. And they will find some parts of our posts more interesting than others. That's OK. Sure, we could moderate comments, but that often results in a lifeless exchange of cookie-cutter responses. Ultimately, I think a lot of it comes down to our attitude toward others and our expectations about discussions. Do we value proving ourselves right more than we value winning over the hearts and minds of our 'opponents'? Do we respect others who disagree with us? Have we really taken the time to get to know someone's beliefs? Do we insist that others change their minds on the spot because we have 'proved everything'? Can we find nothing in common with those who disagree with us? Must we write off someone entirely because we disagree on certain issues? There are good reasons to moderate discussions, of course. There's no need for name-calling, no need for threats, etc. Perhaps Revelife could require each commentator to read a limited list of actions to avoid in the comment section and agree to stick those requirements every time they comment. That would get tedious, of course, but the constant reminder of community standards might have some positive effect. Frustrating as arguments and off-topic comments are, I don't think it's worth worrying too much about it.
@TheGreatBout@xanga - You bring up some excellent points about how discussion can be productive.
But what if one of the partners declares an important area of discussion off limits? Or what if one of the partners demands that the other person speak only of topics approved by the partner?
That's what's going on here.
We are obliged to be civil and we are obliged to comply with a rigged discussion.
That isn't fair.
@TheGreatBout@xanga - I noticed from my footprints that you jumped out of the discussion to spread hateful rumors about me.
"New lobo?: http://hectoramemnon.xanga.com/"
How can you come to Revelife and preach civility but then go out and spread hateful rumors?
What have I ever done to you?