Is religion guilty of moving the goalposts?

[aiddon]

mickthinks:

This is right on point.

There's no such thing as a collective entity called "religion." The word, at best, is an uninformative catch-all for any world view other than crass Materialism. It is usually employed only dismissively in debate, and primarily but secular critics bent on foolishly dismissing *all* of these diverse world views at once by mashing them together and not really understanding any of them.

It is very hard to see how such a phoney construct can be legitimately indicted (or, on the other hand, praised) for anything in particular, so perhaps the original question should simply be regarded as unintelligible.

I would say it is.

That's not what you stated at the beginning, IC:

A fair question, Aiddon, but not perhaps precisely framed:

[Immanuel Can]

That's not what you stated at the beginning, IC:

Quite true. I confess I was a little to willing to "play ball," so to speak, and therefore did not reflect sufficiently on the implications of joining the game.

Mickthinks has pointed out to me my oversight. I should, perhaps, have been more reluctant to accept the category in the first place -- which conclusively narrows down who I am to "Not the Pope," as apparently I can make no pretension of infallibility.

[aiddon]

That's not what you stated at the beginning, IC:

Quite true. I confess I was a little to willing to "play ball," so to speak, and therefore did not reflect sufficiently on the implications of joining the game.

Mickthinks has pointed out to me my oversight. I should, perhaps, have been more reluctant to accept the category in the first place -- which conclusively narrows down who I am to "Not the Pope," as apparently I can make no pretension of infallibility.

It never ceases to astonish me how oversights can be pointed out by people who already agree with your viewpoint; and can never seem to be pointed out by those who disagree. More and more in this forum I see contributors unwilling to budge from established positions, absolutely unwilling to concede even the tiniest amount of ground. Why, then, do such people wish to engage in debate at all? Is it just to transmit their views? Why bother? If you already know your position, then why come here? People are only going to challenge it. Surely one should come here to hear other opinions, take on board what others say about a particular subject, weigh up the argument and then offer a challenge or...dare I say it...some form of acquiescence. I have only witnessed positions which are highly polarised, prejudiced, with both sides just wanting simply to transmit their side of things, while ears are closed to anything else that may upset or challenge their preconceptions. If this attitude was extrapolated to an actual functioing arena, say politics, then sweet damn all would ever be done. How someone can come on here and claim, there is a God, or there is no God, or we are made solely of atoms, or we are not solely made of atoms, or there is free will, or there isn't - and swear that this simply is the truth? Amazing what such insightful people we have on this forum. Why waste your time here when you could be out winning Nobel Prizes? The essence of true discussion is absent from this forum - as perhaps I should have expected when I first arrived on the scene. Philosophy is all about questioning, trying to find the truth - procaliming you know the truth already makes you something else, but it's surely not a philosopher.

It has been my experience that if a viewpoint differs from an established preconception, then it is warded off with labels of "crass" or "idiotic" or "misinformed" or "wrongheaded" - especially when the golden chalice of religion is being debated. Not once have I ever received a retort worded like, "that's an interesting stance, but one I disagree with because of x, y and z." It has been more of a case of, "fuck off you loser, you are a moron, what do you know, you are in the wrong forum, you are intellectually challenged, your view is shit..." etc etc etc, ad nauseum. Funny, none of the above would ever be told to me face. This is the definition of cowardice. Ordinarily I wouldn't debate with cowards, so I'm not sure why I've been sucked in here.

If this is the way it is, then good luck to you all. In your mire of hostility I hope you stumble across the truth some day. Meanwhile, I'll sign off. The three months has, hopefully, been worthwhile for me. Enough to teach me to go back to what held me in good stead before - reading and writing about ideas, and discussing them with people who actually like to give me the time of day.

All the best folks,
Aidan O'Donoghue.

[mickthinks]

If you already know your position, then why come here? People are only going to challenge it. Surely one should come here to hear other opinions, take on board what others say about a particular subject, weigh up the argument and then offer a challenge or...dare I say it...some form of acquiescence.

lol You seem to have come here knowing your position, aiddon, and I haven't noticed you acquiescing much!

There's a big difference between listening to and weighing up an argument on the one hand, and agreeing with it on the other. If you stop posting here because you cannot handle disagreement, isn't it you yourself who is "unwilling to budge" and "unwilling to concede"?

[Immanuel Can]

Now, now, Mickthinks...

I've talked to Aidan offline a bit, and though he does not share my views he is a decent chap. I'm not sure he's actually wrong in a great deal of what he says here.

I quite understand his disgruntlement with the conversational style that (alas) is typical of this discussion forum sometimes. If he wants to go, then I think that's our loss...but I say "Let him go in peace." He has comported himself as a gentleman.

[mickthinks]

I disagree. Aiddon's trying to make out that we aren't worthy of him, and that makes him a deluded ass in my opinion.

[Immanuel Can]

Well, then you and I just don't agree about that.

I don't fault a man for stating his position. To me at least, Aidan's been a straight-shooter. I can respect that. And in any case, I don't always have to agree with the position a man takes to respect the man. Positions change. Character less so.

Some of the people I respect most on the forum are those who have disagreed with me intelligently and thoughtfully. Aidan thinks deeply about things, and processes carefully; and he often comes back with legitimate questions. He's not prone to "flaming out." Personally, I've found him extremely gracious when you talk with him one on one. But online, we all get misread online as to our tone from time to time. There's no actual tone in a message, so it's all too easy for people to read everything as sarcastically intended. I don't read Aidan as being unkind, just vexed. And he's a solid citizen for having stuck with the thing as long as he has.

However, that's all water under the bridge, since Aidan is "no longer with us," so to speak (cue the recessional music).

[marjoramblues]

That's not what you stated at the beginning, IC:

Quite true. I confess I was a little to willing to "play ball," so to speak, and therefore did not reflect sufficiently on the implications of joining the game.

Mickthinks has pointed out to me my oversight. I should, perhaps, have been more reluctant to accept the category in the first place -- which conclusively narrows down who I am to "Not the Pope," as apparently I can make no pretension of infallibility.

It never ceases to astonish me how oversights can be pointed out by people who already agree with your viewpoint; and can never seem to be pointed out by those who disagree. More and more in this forum I see contributors unwilling to budge from established positions, absolutely unwilling to concede even the tiniest amount of ground. Why, then, do such people wish to engage in debate at all? Is it just to transmit their views? Why bother? If you already know your position, then why come here? People are only going to challenge it. Surely one should come here to hear other opinions, take on board what others say about a particular subject, weigh up the argument and then offer a challenge or...dare I say it...some form of acquiescence. I have only witnessed positions which are highly polarised, prejudiced, with both sides just wanting simply to transmit their side of things, while ears are closed to anything else that may upset or challenge their preconceptions. If this attitude was extrapolated to an actual functioing arena, say politics, then sweet damn all would ever be done. How someone can come on here and claim, there is a God, or there is no God, or we are made solely of atoms, or we are not solely made of atoms, or there is free will, or there isn't - and swear that this simply is the truth? Amazing what such insightful people we have on this forum. Why waste your time here when you could be out winning Nobel Prizes? The essence of true discussion is absent from this forum - as perhaps I should have expected when I first arrived on the scene. Philosophy is all about questioning, trying to find the truth - procaliming you know the truth already makes you something else, but it's surely not a philosopher.

It has been my experience that if a viewpoint differs from an established preconception, then it is warded off with labels of "crass" or "idiotic" or "misinformed" or "wrongheaded" - especially when the golden chalice of religion is being debated. Not once have I ever received a retort worded like, "that's an interesting stance, but one I disagree with because of x, y and z." It has been more of a case of, "fuck off you loser, you are a moron, what do you know, you are in the wrong forum, you are intellectually challenged, your view is shit..." etc etc etc, ad nauseum. Funny, none of the above would ever be told to me face. This is the definition of cowardice. Ordinarily I wouldn't debate with cowards, so I'm not sure why I've been sucked in here.

If this is the way it is, then good luck to you all. In your mire of hostility I hope you stumble across the truth some day. Meanwhile, I'll sign off. The three months has, hopefully, been worthwhile for me. Enough to teach me to go back to what held me in good stead before - reading and writing about ideas, and discussing them with people who actually like to give me the time of day.

All the best folks,
Aidan O'Donoghue.

Oh dear, Aidan - you sound mega pissed off.

All the best with your 'Philosophy in Secondary Schools' project.

viewtopic.php?f=5&t=11902&start=90

It was a joy to talk to you; exchange some ideas.
I'm sure many would be interested in a follow-up. Even if not here; perhaps you could write about the experience in a PN article?

Enjoy your break away from the PN forum...