The Culture within AN

[spectroscopy]

if we cant play nice then shut down all those threads for like 2 weeks or a month or so and when theyre back tell people to be nice and shit LOL just an idea

[pi]

I remember there being more than one person (but I won't name names).

Yeah, they're all the same person (IP)

[Starlight]

I'm just going to name names... aren't newton and ashjbsdhbs(whatever it was I forget) different people?

[Truck]

The biggest thing that worries me about this whole situation is the affect it has on AN as a website. Enwiabe has made an incredibly useful resource, which I think most of us greatly appreciate, and he himself is an intelligent person who's views, although in some things (such as religion) are on the extreme side, are at least, generally speaking, substantiated by evidence. I think most of us do not want to necessarily speak out against the admins, not because we're "scared" of retaliation from admins, but because these people have put in countless hours of effort into producing a resource which is predominantly for our benefit and which is clearly not being done for pure profit motives. It is for this reason that Admins are automatically given respect, and their opinions have more authority when they post them. I personally feel like if such views were delivered in a less antagonistic matter, not only would they be exponentially more persuasive but then threads such as these would not be necessary. I am in no way insinuating that Enwiabe shouldn't have opinions on things - on the contrary, I think with his position of power he can do a lot more to change people's perceptions then any regular member. I just want religious threads to stop disintegrating into a "your god is dumb, you are dumb for believing in god" type scenario, as the potential for good discussions leading to a change of opinion is there.

[Eriny]

I find it interesting that every religion thread pretty much just re-hashes every other religion thread. What compels people to keep posting when what they think on the matter is already well-documented in the archives? Or, perhaps more constructively, how can we have discussions about religion that move on from what has been previously argued about? Is there a better way to frame it than "[news story], what do you think?"

[enwiabe]

I just want religious threads to stop disintegrating into a "your god is dumb, you are dumb for believing in god" type scenario, as the potential for good discussions leading to a change of opinion is there.

This is a strawman because I do actually not say the latter.

Oh wise Truck, please tell me a polite way to tell someone you think they are deluded. No matter how you slice it, they're always going to take offense. It's been ingrained in their identity.

Any attack on the idea is a personal attack on their identity.

Any insinuation that they are deluded is construed as a personal insult about their general intelligence.

The day I actually say somebody is stupid for believing in god, and not that their belief in god is stupid, you'll have a valid point.

[MonsieurHulot]

I just want religious threads to stop disintegrating into a "your god is dumb, you are dumb for believing in god" type scenario, as the potential for good discussions leading to a change of opinion is there.

Oh wise Truck, please tell me a polite way to tell someone you think they are deluded. No matter how you slice it, they're always going to take offense. It's been ingrained in their identity.

Any attack on the idea is a personal attack on their identity.

Any insinuation that they are deluded is construed as a personal insult about their general intelligence.

The day I actually say somebody is stupid for believing in god, and not that their belief in god is stupid, you'll have a point.

What gives you the right to tell people that they are deluded? Why are your views so obviously correct, that you feel the need to tell others that they are deluded and without any attempt at politeness?

[enwiabe]

I just want religious threads to stop disintegrating into a "your god is dumb, you are dumb for believing in god" type scenario, as the potential for good discussions leading to a change of opinion is there.

Oh wise Truck, please tell me a polite way to tell someone you think they are deluded. No matter how you slice it, they're always going to take offense. It's been ingrained in their identity.

Any attack on the idea is a personal attack on their identity.

Any insinuation that they are deluded is construed as a personal insult about their general intelligence.

The day I actually say somebody is stupid for believing in god, and not that their belief in god is stupid, you'll have a point.

What gives you the right to tell people that they are deluded? Why are your views so obviously correct, that you feel the need to tell others that they are deluded and without any attempt at politeness?

Because the truth is important, and the lies told by religion manipulate people to do evil things.

[pi]

Because the truth is important, and the lies told by religion manipulate people to do evil things.

In fairness, the number of people who do "evil things" solely due to religion is very very very few. I'm not very religious myself (so I won't be able to quote scripture etc etc in this thread), but I don't buy the point that just because there are a few crazies out there from every religion that the whole idea needs to be torn apart and dismissed. Religion also has lots of positive aspects too.

[abeybaby]

I just want religious threads to stop disintegrating into a "your god is dumb, you are dumb for believing in god" type scenario, as the potential for good discussions leading to a change of opinion is there.

Oh wise Truck, please tell me a polite way to tell someone you think they are deluded. No matter how you slice it, they're always going to take offense. It's been ingrained in their identity.

Any attack on the idea is a personal attack on their identity.

Any insinuation that they are deluded is construed as a personal insult about their general intelligence.

The day I actually say somebody is stupid for believing in god, and not that their belief in god is stupid, you'll have a point.

What gives you the right to tell people that they are deluded? Why are your views so obviously correct, that you feel the need to tell others that they are deluded and without any attempt at politeness?

Because the truth is important, and the lies told by religion manipulate people to do evil things.

Important things don't warrant impoliteness.

[Russ]

In fairness, the number of people who do "evil things" solely due to religion is very very very few.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-09-19/same-sex-marriage-bill-voted-down/4270016#votestable

---

Honestly, I can count on one hand the number of times dan has been legit out of line. He would achieve much better results with more carrot and less stick and I wish the religion debates would be higher quality...but as distasteful as individuals might find calling people hypocrites, telling them that they are deluded or refusing to back down, I don't accept that there is anything inherently wrong with that that needs to be censored. I'm sure he now appreciates that people would prefer a more balanced approach but I don't agree that he's obliged to temper his argument and tone.

I also find it vaguely amusing that a thread about how we want more politeness culminated in people being called vindictive egomaniacs, but hey.

[pi]

In fairness, the number of people who do "evil things" solely due to religion is very very very few.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-09-19/same-sex-marriage-bill-voted-down/4270016#votestable

a) The whole Liberal Party was instructed not to vote "No", so it's unfair to blame all of them for that
b) Not everyone who vote "No" was religious (eg. Julia Gillard)
c) As much as I'm disgusted by it (the decision), it's not "evil"


As for the rest of your post, I've addressed that in my comments in the previous pages, but I'll add this:

but I don't agree that he's obliged to temper his argument and tone.

I think that for the sake of the AN brand (as this is now bigger than just a forum), I think he is obliged to (and read through the thread to see those who agree here). The truth is, that having one of he oldest people on the forum aggressively beating down the cultural beliefs of members looks very immature (as nacho said), looks very bully-like and looks very petty.

Just going to reaffirm here that I don't think Dan is the sole person of issue here, and that I do love the work he has put into making this place an excellent academic resource. But the fact remains that new members do feel somewhat intimidated and "scared" and that needs to be addressed, whether you agree with it or not.


edit: typo in a) oops

[JellyDonut]

Religious debates may not go anywhere, but it makes for fun mental masturbation. What else are we gonna do with our time?

[thushan]

Religious debates may not go anywhere, but it makes for fun mental masturbation. What else are we gonna do with our time?

Mental masturbation. LOL.

Reminds me of how one of my friends described my talk at The Age Expo - "mind sex"

[Truck]

I just want religious threads to stop disintegrating into a "your god is dumb, you are dumb for believing in god" type scenario, as the potential for good discussions leading to a change of opinion is there.

This is a strawman because I do actually not say the latter.

Oh wise Truck, please tell me a polite way to tell someone you think they are deluded. No matter how you slice it, they're always going to take offense. It's been ingrained in their identity.

Any attack on the idea is a personal attack on their identity.

Any insinuation that they are deluded is construed as a personal insult about their general intelligence.

The day I actually say somebody is stupid for believing in god, and not that their belief in god is stupid, you'll have a valid point.

Why do you have to tell people that their belief in God is a delusion? All it does is devalue your otherwise legitimate points. I also disagree with any attack on the idea is a "personal attack on their identity", many people are able to have arguments about religion with religious people, yet do so in such a way that it doesn't become an attack on the person.

Anyway... I feel like this is heading towards a debate about religion, so best stop now.