Oooh. Looky here. So much to talk about. Though right now the meta-discussion about the discussion interests me.

I am bugged by the low tolerance of heat in debates like this. In the big one we had in 2010 I was consistently amazed by the claims that it had gotten out of hand or had otherwise become rude and unpleasant. I could see nothing of the sort from anyone. There were points being pursued vigorously and passionately, but at no point did it become something I would not want to be party to, and that is the same for most discussions of the sort that I've seen.

Perhaps "civility" is a subjective term, and some people find even disagreement uncomfortable. For me it seems mostly unrelated to language and name-calling. Name-calling is for the most part unconstructive but I think that there are times when it is both justified and necessary, such as the demonstration by the insultee that they are in fact a fleshy incarnation of the insult. I've not known anyone on this particular forum to profess the degree of stupidity required to draw such terminology from my fingers, but elsewhere it has indeed happened. Which brings me to my other point: civility is not all about presentation. The argument itself can be in support of a motion that is itself uncivilised, at which point the discussion has ceased to be civil before any names have been called. Which happened to me recently on another forum. When you'd rather see a nine-year old rape victim die by slowly exploding than let her abort the twins she was made to conceive, you are not a civilised person, your argument is uncivil and so is the discussion.

Then there is "respect" and "offense". I've said it before, but it's worth repeating: I do not respect ideas and beliefs that I do not agree with. If they cannot convince me that they are true, then I don't think they are true. As far as I'm concerned, such a belief lacks the only important attribute an idea about reality can have: being true. What is there to respect about a belief fails this fundamental test? If I respected a belief, I would hold it myself! Offense is irrelevant. People are bound to be offended by something or other in a discussion like this. Whether it's because the beliefs being criticised are dear to your heart (which is your own fucking fault, mot mine) or in my case, because the beliefs themselves are stupid or degrading or disgusting (such offense is already agreed by all to be irrelevant as evidenced by the way no one anywhere ever takes any care or notice of it). It's rather common to hear people say "I'm offended by that" as if that gives them certain rights. It's nothing more than a whine, and it isn't interesting. You have the right to be offended, but no one has the right to not be offended. If you're lucky, you're only offended by the discussion, your participation in which is entirely at your own discretion. If you're unlucky, it's something in the world that is quite relevant and impossible to escape from, and possibly a constant danger. There's a certain degree of perspective lacking in those who whine "that's offensive".

By all means, say it. I want to know. I don't set out to offend anyone, but I won't stop if I do. I know I will. Daring to discuss this is offensive to some, the breath in my body to others. It can't be helped, and I would not if it could.

One thing I hate is when theist try to find evidence to justify their beliefs; I would have more respect for them if they claimed their beliefs were the result of blind faith rather than reasonable evidence. Considering they start with a conclusion and try to find supporting evidence - rather than the contrary- makes claims of plausibility laughable.

Isn't that a Stephen Fry interview? It's true though, Respect is not something to be automatically proffered. The church isn't owed my respect by stint of being old.

Then does this mean I get to stick two fingers up at all atheists because I don't respect all their choices? Or do I be a human being with an ounce of decency and keep whatever disrespect I might carry inside?

Just admit it BM, you wanna lay back and eat popcorn while you watch the dogs fight :P

Surely you recognise the difference between respecting a person and respecting ideas?

There's an important distinction between calling a person bullshit and calling their God bullshit.

For some people the insult is of exactly the same calibre.

For some people calibre is something to do with guns.

so there.

That is part of the confusion Scrab. Why is your religion so ingrained in your self that, when someone question it you feel insulted?

No no not when it's questioned, but when people mock me for my faith, that's a little aggressive.

This thread has made me think a lot about other countries that have this problem. Not being able to agree on things and never Civil about it. I used to think Religions made War and hate. But I was like eight at the time. I don't know if it is or is not now.

Religion does both, it should bring peace but as with all ideologies, it also brings conflict.

Just think, red cross, green crescent, crusades, child molestation.

There's good and bad.

Thing is that Crusades and the like are the kind of evil that religion necessarily brings upon itself. Child molestation is not. There is no reason child molestation should ever be connected to religion.

Damn Roman Catholic institution.

On a not wholly unrelated topic, the Pope wasted his Christmas platform to bitch and moan about the commercialization of Christmas. Dr Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury used his New Years address to warn society over the danger of stigmatizing and looking down on youth. So yeah.

Do there do background checks in the Roman Catholic? You would think that would never happen. ):

When you promise not to have sex with women and are told that even masturbation is a sin, eventually those urges must emerge somewhere. It seemed to become accepted within the church.

Wait, can't have sex with women? Why? I'm not aware of this one.

Exactly what my classed discussed in English Literature. When people like those guilty of child molestation can't express their sexual urges, it could be suggested that they become rotten and corrupt, therefore compelling them to go for children.

Desperate and opportunistic.

Don't start talking about guns. You might trigger something horrible again.

*Groan*

I wish you'd stop talking about guns. If guns were removed from this world, that would get a load of my mind, and I could finally, my mind being at rest, enjoy reading my magazine.

Must be a pain in the ass if there have a wet dream.

@OddjobAbe If only it came true. But sadly not. ):

Why do we always have to shoot our mouths off and take petty snipes at each other? Honestly, this forum is just riddled with cheap shots; some get so bad I recoil on reading them. Why can’t we all just bite the bullet, kickback and relax; unload and unwind. Maybe if we all take that first step, we can turn back the glock and spend our time shooting the shit peacefully. I think it’s possible – we just gotta aim high.

I was thinking why was this thread in the whole forum? Not because it has nothing to do with gaming because it's out of the gaming bit so it's fine.

BUT did anyone think this was a good ideal? Sure we got some good out of this thread/topic and even I found some new things out and I like finding out what other people think but in the end it's just going to bring out Racism and hate to other people on this forum.

YOU CAN NEVER HAVE A CIVIL DISCUSSION ABOUT RELIGION. :D

@Phylum Not having a go and I thought it was a good ideal but it's going to get out of hand.


Sorry if this has been said before. I may have missed it.

i think we need to set our sights on something more specific, guns are just too vague. we need to broaden our scope.

Shoot.

I think it’s about time we all stopped banging on about this.

I'm sure we've done guns before. I recognise the "scope" pun. I would like to kick back against this trend for fear of repeating myself.

That was pretty blunt, maybe we should take a stab at weapons in general?

Maybe that's not everyone's slice of cake.