What Makes a Good Post?

[J_B_]

This is not entirely a bad thing since it often forces posters to try and explain things in accessible language.

I agree, yet enjoy more extensive conversation as well.

 

[Occams Barber]

That is a common objection raised in this forum, but I would make several conjectures:
1. We all have positions we will not surrender
2. People (both Christians and unbelievers) are much more likely to admit their uncertainties, be persuaded to change their mind, etc. when they are among friends they trust and who understand them than among opponents who do not know them well
3. Given #2, there is a lot more discussion of gray areas within Christian circles than unbelievers seem to realize, and it seems odd they would expect Christians to lay themselves open to unbelievers. The converse could also be said.

Christian monochrome opinions are largely a direct consequence of a faith based belief. There's little room for the 'ifs' or 'buts' when your belief is based on unevidenced emotionality rather than arguable facts. This is most evident when Christians argue Christian ideology/theology with each other on CF. I don't expect to necessarily see compromise but I would hope that there was some acceptance of the legitimacy to holding an alternative opinion.

Part of the reason for this one-eyed viewpoint lies in the function of religion which is, in part, to provide certainty in an uncertain world. Being less than 100% certain about your beliefs works counter to the certainty religion should provide.

This certainty is why religions tend to harbour fanatics.

NB: I f I were discussing my views with a stranger I would be less inclined to be adamant since I would have no idea what I'm up against.

OB

 

[J_B_]

Christian monochrome opinions are largely a direct consequence of a faith based belief. There's little room for the 'ifs' or 'buts' when your belief is based on unevidenced emotionality rather than arguable facts. This is most evident when Christians argue Christian ideology/theology with each other on CF. I don't expect to necessarily see compromise but I would hope that there was some acceptance of the legitimacy to holding an alternative opinion.

Part of the reason for this one-eyed viewpoint lies in the function of religion which is, in part, to provide certainty in an uncertain world. Being less than 100% certain about your beliefs works counter to the certainty religion should provide.

This certainty is why religions tend to harbour fanatics.

NB: I f I were discussing my views with a stranger I would be less inclined to be adamant since I would have no idea what I'm up against.

You replied to my conjecture #2, but not the others as far as I can tell. Addressing that further would be a digression from your OP. If you instead prefer we circle back to what makes a good post, I'm more than happy to comply. One thing I might add in that regard is that I look for posts that invite discussion rather than attempting to bend others to the OP's norm ... or to mock them for not bending.

 

[Occams Barber]

You replied to my conjecture #2, but not the others as far as I can tell. Addressing that further would be a digression from your OP. If you instead prefer we circle back to what makes a good post, I'm more than happy to comply. One thing I might add in that regard is that I look for posts that invite discussion rather than attempting to bend others to the OP's norm ... or to mock them for not bending.

Sorry I thought I'd more or less covered your conjectures. I think I was juggling two or three threads at the time.

1. We all have positions we will not surrender

I frequently put aside my atheistic opinions to discuss things 'as if' there were a God. Unfortunately the CF rules and access limits (I can't post in most CF forums) make it almost impossible for a non-believer to discuss things semi-theological like "What do you mean by salvation?" without posing as a seeker. I've had several threads removed or shut down for crossing the line. Discussions about the existence of God are usually fairly pointless around here and often end up as a 'Yes"/"No"/"Yes"/"No"/"Yes" standoff. In the context of CF my only 'no surrender' position is the existence of Gods which I can put aside for broader discussion.

One problem I see often on CF is the emotionally invested arguer who will simply call his interlocutor (or any group he disagrees with) a 'liar(s)' thereby denying that his opponent is being honest. Posters who react like this usually come across as fairly anxious personality types.

3. Given #2, there is a lot more discussion of gray areas within Christian circles than unbelievers seem to realize, and it seems odd they would expect Christians to lay themselves open to unbelievers. The converse could also be said.

As I said above I rarely touch on 'unbeliever' type topics. I'm more your ethics and morals wonk. Over 10 years on CF I've seen many discussions between Christians where civility and good grace went out the window. There's a reason we have a rule against one Christian accusing another of not being a Christian.

OB

 

[ozso]

The longer the post, the less read it will be in most cases. This should be treated like
Twitter or a live chat room as much as possible.

 

[ozso]

I agree, yet enjoy more extensive conversation as well.

If people get into an extensive conversation, that's another story. But I often skip over those unless I'm really interested.

There's some members I never read because their posts are always too long.

 

[J_B_]

I frequently put aside my atheistic opinions to discuss things 'as if' there were a God.

Yes, but that's not what I was referring to. There are Christians who will do the same, and I am one of those. But that's merely an academic thing. I doubt either you or I ever seriously consider we might be wrong in that regard - at least not within a CF conversation.

I refer more to things that seem absurd or offensive. For example, if someone were to post a thread of the nature, "Let's assume rape is good. Therefore, ..." I, for one, would never entertain such a possibility. I'd take it as trolling and either ignore or report such a thread. Has it never occurred to you that some of the things Christians are asked to put aside in terms of belief about God are, from their perspective, absurd or offensive in that way? We are dealing in some very deeply felt issues here, and they must be handled delicately - not a feature of CF.

In your case, and again just conjecture on my part, I would assume something you don't put aside is some kind of scientific, evidence-based criterion. I've had unbelievers say they'll do that for the conversation, but the appearance is that they haven't. Or, I've had them say they'll proceed per my understanding of God, and then argue with me about it ... or fall back on tropes that have nothing to do with what I said. It's easy to say one will put aside one's long-held views of a topic, but much harder to do.

Unfortunately the CF rules and access limits (I can't post in most CF forums) make it almost impossible for a non-believer to discuss things semi-theological like "What do you mean by salvation?" without posing as a seeker. I've had several threads removed or shut down for crossing the line.

I agree. Ever since the philosophy forum was shut down, there isn't much discussion here of that sort. I don't understand why. Conversation in the evolution forum is just as toxic, if not more so than the philosophy forum.

But that's what conversation of sensitive subjects is like, regardless of the field of discourse. I've seen atheists argue over the proper definition of atheism. I've seen highly emotional debates among historians and engineers that had nothing to do with religion. We've all seen the toxicity of recent American political debate. It's been entertaining to watch Bill Maher brawl with the left ... and I've never found Maher to be entertaining before.

Some in this forum will put the best spin on a post and overlook any potential insults for the sake of continuing the discussion, but it's a temperament that requires practice and maturity.

As I said above I rarely touch on 'unbeliever' type topics. I'm more your ethics and morals wonk.

OK. Again, in that regard I had in mind conversations among Christians that occur outside CF. Those in someone's home, in a church Bible study, or within theological journals.

 

[Bob Crowley]

I'll read posts if they're concise, with well spaced paragraphs. Sometimes there are exceptions, but that's my preferred style.

If a post is three pages long with endless cut and paste Scriptural references, I don't even bother trying to read it.

 

[Occams Barber]

I'll read posts if they're concise, with well spaced paragraphs. Sometimes there are exceptions, but that's my preferred style.

If a post is three pages long with endless cut and paste Scriptural references, I don't even bother trying to read it.

I agree.

There was a time , many years back, when I would honestly try to read the long and tedious sermon type posts we often get on CF. I assumed they would help me to better understand Christianity.

I've seen sentences that ramble on for 100+ words, paragraphs stretching to (almost) infinity and acres of vague Biblical quotes. I've since given up trying and I seriously wonder whether other Christians are actually getting anything from this type of post.

OB

 

[Occams Barber]

Yes, but that's not what I was referring to. There are Christians who will do the same, and I am one of those. But that's merely an academic thing. I doubt either you or I ever seriously consider we might be wrong in that regard - at least not within a CF conversation.

I refer more to things that seem absurd or offensive. For example, if someone were to post a thread of the nature, "Let's assume rape is good. Therefore, ..." I, for one, would never entertain such a possibility. I'd take it as trolling and either ignore or report such a thread. Has it never occurred to you that some of the things Christians are asked to put aside in terms of belief about God are, from their perspective, absurd or offensive in that way? We are dealing in some very deeply felt issues here, and they must be handled delicately - not a feature of CF.

In your case, and again just conjecture on my part, I would assume something you don't put aside is some kind of scientific, evidence-based criterion. I've had unbelievers say they'll do that for the conversation, but the appearance is that they haven't. Or, I've had them say they'll proceed per my understanding of God, and then argue with me about it ... or fall back on tropes that have nothing to do with what I said. It's easy to say one will put aside one's long-held views of a topic, but much harder to do.

There are obviously certain ideas we (or most of us) won't give any air time to to avoid appearing to legitimise them. That doesn't mean there aren't some situations where the conversation and the participants are sufficiently sophisticated that topics like "the (im)morality of rape" can be discussed without appearing to justify the act.

Similarly I expect that Christians who are prepared to enter into a discussion about their religion recognise that their ideas will be challenged. The fact that unbelievers may come up with non-legitimate arguments says that they are people. Christians, particularly of the fundamentalist variety, are notorious for their quote mining, outright lies and arguments from ignorance. They are also people.

It's odd that you should suggest that I would not put aside something which is scientific and evidence based when scientific principles are anathema to dogmatic belief. I will tentatively accept anything backed by evidence - until new and better evidence comes along.

I agree. Ever since the philosophy forum was shut down, there isn't much discussion here of that sort. I don't understand why. Conversation in the evolution forum is just as toxic, if not more so than the philosophy forum.

But that's what conversation of sensitive subjects is like, regardless of the field of discourse. I've seen atheists argue over the proper definition of atheism. I've seen highly emotional debates among historians and engineers that had nothing to do with religion. We've all seen the toxicity of recent American political debate. It's been entertaining to watch Bill Maher brawl with the left ... and I've never found Maher to be entertaining before.

Some in this forum will put the best spin on a post and overlook any potential insults for the sake of continuing the discussion, but it's a temperament that requires practice and maturity.

You might be surprised to hear that many Christians really don't understand what atheism is. Many see it in terms of Christianity, i.e., set of beliefs intrinsic to an overall view of life, when it is actually a single disbelief which is incidental to life in general. There is no common atheist view on anything apart from the absence of gods. An atheist may not accept evolution and still be an atheist.

Insults will happen, but I'd suggest that Christians are far more emotionally invested in their argument and therefore more prone to confuse disagreement with insult.

OB

 

[J_B_]

Insults will happen, but I'd suggest that Christians are far more emotionally invested in their argument and therefore more prone to confuse disagreement with insult.

I disagree. What you see here at CF - and specifically in the forums where unbelievers are allowed - is a small sample consisting largely of chip-upon-shoulder Christians ... many of whom wouldn't be so bold in public. I don't know what exposure you've had to Christians apart from this forum, but in my experience most politely smile and change the topic when something contentious crops up.

It often saddens me that people take the extreme behavior here as typical.

It's odd that you should suggest that I would not put aside something which is scientific and evidence based when scientific principles are anathema to dogmatic belief. I will tentatively accept anything backed by evidence - until new and better evidence comes along.

I don't think we understand each other. Or, at least, I don't understand the above comment. We'll need to dissect this for me to understand.

I am assuming you hold scientific method in high regard and apply it whenever possible. Is that correct? If so, I don't see you setting aside scientific method to use other means to answer questions. Yes?

So, my statement was that one of the things I expect you would refuse to put aside is scientific method.

If that's what you meant to say above, it doesn't come across to me.

 

[Occams Barber]

I disagree. What you see here at CF - and specifically in the forums where unbelievers are allowed - is a small sample consisting largely of chip-upon-shoulder Christians ... many of whom wouldn't be so bold in public. I don't know what exposure you've had to Christians apart from this forum, but in my experience most politely smile and change the topic when something contentious crops up.

It often saddens me that people take the extreme behavior here as typical.

In my country committed Christians are rare birds and face to face discussion of religious beliefs is not a normal practice. We do however have Christian lobby groups and special interest groups who claim to represent Christian opinion. Prior to joining CF about 10 years ago I was involved in a couple of Australian Christian based forums. I've also read much about Christian views with an emphasis on fundamentalist thinking along with surveys identifying Christian opinion.

I'm aware that CF is a distillation of, mainly US based, Christianity with a 'noisy' element which leans towards the evangelical end of the spectrum and the political right. It also has a silent majority who should not be ignored when ostensibly talking to the 'noisy' end.

In normal conversation with Christians I would have no reason to bring up 'something contentious'. On a CF Discussion & Debate Forum 'something contentious' is par for the course.

I don't think we understand each other. Or, at least, I don't understand the above comment. We'll need to dissect this for me to understand.

I am assuming you hold scientific method in high regard and apply it whenever possible. Is that correct? If so, I don't see you setting aside scientific method to use other means to answer questions. Yes?

So, my statement was that one of the things I expect you would refuse to put aside is scientific method.

If that's what you meant to say above, it doesn't come across to me.

Since I'm not a scientist I have no reason to employ 'scientific method'. My views are generally (but not always) based on evidence or authoritative opinion. I could probably be described as a materialist.

Any opinion I hold is normally tentative and can change if the evidence warrants it. This includes opinions related to morality and social constructs. I tend to express my views in terms of probability, e.g., X is possibly/probably/ almost certainly true.

OB

 

[J_B_]

In normal conversation with Christians I would have no reason to bring up 'something contentious'. On a CF Discussion & Debate Forum 'something contentious' is par for the course.

It's the same for me. Agreed.

Since I'm not a scientist I have no reason to employ 'scientific method'. My views are generally (but not always) based on evidence or authoritative opinion. I could probably be described as a materialist.

Any opinion I hold is normally tentative and can change if the evidence warrants it. This includes opinions related to morality and social constructs. I tend to express my views in terms of probability, e.g., X is possibly/probably/ almost certainly true.

Then my assumption was wrong.

 

[Occams Barber]

The longer the post, the less read it will be in most cases. This should be treated like
Twitter or a live chat room as much as possible.

Discussion & Debate Forums require a little more that Twitter type responses.

OB

 

[ozso]

Discussion & Debate Forums require a little more that Twitter type responses.

OB

Can you imagine a live discussion/debate between 10 people, where each person gave speeches? Usually in a setting like that, people try to be as concise and comprehensive as possible. Sometimes people are even put on a timer. Now I could crank out 1000 more words in this response, but I already made my point.

 

[ozso]

Another thing that makes posts longer than they need to be is someone going on about themselves or the the person they're replying too, instead of limiting their words to the actual topic.

 

[Occams Barber]

Can you imagine a live discussion/debate between 10 people, where each person gave speeches? Usually in a setting like that, people try to be as concise and comprehensive as possible. Sometimes people are even put on a timer. Now I could crank out 1000 more words in this response, but I already made my point.

And yet it seems to work (most of the time )

There's a significant difference between written and spoken argument.

Spoken words are ephemeral - they vanish as soon as they arrive.

Written words remain for people to reread and ponder over.

OB

 

[Occams Barber]

Another thing that makes posts longer than they need to be is someone going on about themselves or the the person they're replying too, instead of limiting their words to the actual topic.

It's called a "conversation". Great for building relationships and mutual understanding..

OB

 

[ozso]

And yet it seems to work (most of the time )

There's a significant difference between written and spoken argument.

Spoken words are ephemeral - they vanish as soon as they arrive.

Written words remain for people to reread and ponder over.

OB

It's all about time. If everyone gave speeches, the discussion/debate would go on for 10 hours instead of 1.

And most posts get buried and forgotten shortly after they're written.

 

[ozso]

It's called a "conversation". Great for building relationships and mutual understanding..

OB

I'd rather spend more time doing that in real life.