DV Discussion - Poll

[O'nus]

A'hoy hoy, The recent discussion on logical fallacies was a pretty good turn out and rendered good discussion. However, the unarguable parts of logical fallacies slightly restricted discussion so I was wondering if others would be interested in a discussion on some other topics that are not so regimented. Please consider the poll as it will be used to gauge the next discussion. Note; there are some who feel that these discussions are being utilized to inflate my ego. I have no intention in priding myself over others simply because I am trying to arrange a discussion. However, if there is reason for concern, please voice it and I will sincerely conisder it thoroughly as I desire to strive the utmost respect for everyone. What do you think...? Edit; Please consider the below posts for further elaboration on the topics. I really do not want to mislead anyone into thinking that these discussions are meant to "convert" or "hack away" at topics but to mutually strengthen all beliefs by discussing ways and reasoning to the related topics. ~

[Kromoh]

voted for a challenging topic Been dealing with christian family and friends for 16 years now. I know the problems with it. Question is: do you? wolf hugs

[pj]

How about Lucid Dreaming, or something lucid dreaming-related? I'm not being facetious - every one of your topics could be discussed from a lucid dreaming perspective. We seem to take a lot for granted without real proof, for one thing. Anyway, it is REALLY encouraging seeing Chat being used for something other than a lot of squealing, foul-mouthed little boys running rampant because they're parents aren't around. Thank you for trying to do something positive with it!

[O'nus]

How about Lucid Dreaming, or something lucid dreaming-related? I'm not being facetious - every one of your topics could be discussed from a lucid dreaming perspective. We seem to take a lot for granted without real proof, for one thing. Anyway, it is REALLY encouraging seeing Chat being used for something other than a lot of squealing, foul-mouthed little boys running rampant because they're parents aren't around. Thank you for trying to do something positive with it! Good point; I don't know why I did not consider lucid dreaming. Perhaps specific techniques, or I'll share my harbored lucid secret..? ~

[Kromoh]

Good point; I don't know why I did not consider lucid dreaming. Perhaps specific techniques, or I'll share my harbored lucid secret..? ~ OMG I love secrets I loke PJ's idea as well may I change my vote?

[pj]

Tell you what... you come up with a good lucid-related topic and a time, and I'll discuss stickying it with the management team to try getting it a bit more attention. I'd also like to move this thread to the MetaForum, if that's ok with you.

[O'nus]

Tell you what... you come up with a good lucid-related topic and a time, and I'll discuss stickying it with the management team to try getting it a bit more attention. I'd also like to move this thread to the MetaForum, if that's ok with you. Topics to consider for DV Disussion: - The Psychology of Lucidity (and the importance of controlling waking life) - The O'nus technique: In synopsis; being able to recognize the times to be able to become lucid and when to not become lucid. This might be misleading, but I intend it as a discussion for further explanation. - Dream Interpretation I am not sure what topics would be in demand. What do you think...? ~

[Kromoh]

A quick question. Dream Interpretation would be the "foreseeing the future" one or the "analysing your subconscious thoughts" one? Both are great, but I'd really like to know

[arby]

Dream interpretation would be a good one. I can see some good stuff rising from that one.

[O'nus]

A quick question. Dream Interpretation would be the "foreseeing the future" one or the "analysing your subconscious thoughts" one? Both are great, but I'd really like to know I apply dream interpretation that adheres to the psychological principles of humanistic existentlism. Even spiritual interpretation of dreams is subject to the question, "Why does X represent Y?" and this is the form of interpretation I take. Edit: Looks like there might be need for a new poll... lol ~

[GestaltAlteration]

The problem is that any one of these topics would have a diverse, split opinion. You choose benefits of a theist, we have non-theists. Problems with Christianity? We have Christians (myself included). I guess that's what makes it a discussion, but the poll phrases it as a very one-sided thing. If "problems of Christianity" wins I can picture a circle of men with axes hacking and tearing away. Perhaps dissecting and tearing something apart without looking at the other side is what you're looking for though? Christianity certainly has its problems, but to name these problems and attribute them to all believers would be folly. Likewise with “fundamental psychology”. It makes me think a bunch of men in white coats cutting into the “ignorant apes” to see how they tick. Not trying to spark a debate here on the forums, I'm just pointing out how it looked to me.

[O'nus]

The problem is that any one of these topics would have a diverse, split opinion. You choose benefits of a theist, we have non-theists. Problems with Christianity? We have Christians (myself included). I guess that's what makes it a discussion, but the poll phrases it as a very one-sided thing. If "problems of Christianity" wins I can picture a circle of men with axes hacking and tearing away. Perhaps dissecting and tearing something apart without looking at the other side is what you're looking for though? Christianity certainly has its problems, but to name these problems and attribute them to all believers would be folly. Likewise with “fundamental psychology”. It makes me think a bunch of men in white coats cutting into the “ignorant apes” to see how they tick. Not trying to spark a debate here on the forums, I'm just pointing out how it looked to me. Fair enough concerns, I understand that these topics are often so emotionally charged that it is difficult to consider them without the idea of a hostile overtone. Let me elaborate a bit; - Problems with Christianity; I would like to discuss matters that would both enforce Christians beliefs and atheists belief. Such as problems with atonement (how did Christ die for our sins?), full acceptance of the bible (if you accept one part of the bible, you must accept all of it), possible political reasons to invent the bible (why someone might invent the bible; not saying that someone did, but why someone would or why people decided to write the bible over 100 years after Jesus died. For example; they likely did not write down at first because they believed that the end of the world was imminent. If a prophet was at your feet and you believed him to be descended from God, would you write anything about? Likely not. This point is to show how this argument can support both theism and atheism. I hope you can see how that is...?) - Benefits of a theist; such a point that can be applicable to all believers is, "who is happier alone in a desert? A theist or an atheist?". This is not used to prove one or the other, but to discuss the benefits of the belief. - Fundamental psychology; I wanted to discuss things like, "why would we feel X (such a way)? Or, why do you think we believe this?" etc. The idea would then to discuss the psychology of a such an idea or behaviour. For example; the psychology of conflict and argument. Does this help...? What do you think...? ~

[GestaltAlteration]

Well-- good enough for me. Like you say it is difficult imagining these without a hostile overtone because metanarratives (the belief one thing is right and, as a result, all else is wrong) do not mix well. Christians and Atheists both fall under this; so supporting both claims at the same time without sparking something would be difficult. I'm not against argument as long as it's (somewhat of) a level playing field. In any case those topics are interesting and I'm not here to protest. Just wanted clarity.

[O'nus]

Well-- good enough for me. Like you say it is difficult imagining these without a hostile overtone because metanarratives (the belief one thing is right and, as a result, all else is wrong) do not mix well. Christians and Atheists both fall under this; so supporting both claims at the same time without sparking something would be difficult. I'm not against argument as long as it's (somewhat of) a level playing field. In any case those topics are interesting and I'm not here to protest. Just wanted clarity. I am really glad you asked it though because I am saddened that discussions topics as such instill such defensive responses. I think it is sad that, when I approach a theist with such a topic idea, they respond with their fists up. I really do no intend any such thing and I want to pursue discussion that could strengthen both beliefs. In other words, your reponse to a topic idea would strengthen your belief, and my response likewise. Perfect example is the atonement of Christ. Both theists and atheists can construct examples to show how their belief is applicable to this. The ideal is to be able to argue from both sides (ie. theists discussing the problems with such and atheists discussing reasoning that would strengthen reason to believe it). So, I hope these posts here at the bottom are considered before worrying about being hacked. ~

[grasshoppa]

voted for a challenging topic Been dealing with christian family and friends for 16 years now. I know the problems with it. Question is: do you? wolf hugs Well, he is willing to make a discussion about it. So through very careful and analytic deduction I have come to the conclusion that he does. Existentialism would be a good one I think. Especially with the rising popularity of "the secret". Damn that Oprah!

[ClouD]

I wouldn't mind talking about anything... Though i guess existentialism is an area of "expertise"(?) That and certain aspects of lucidity.

[Oneironaught]

Fair enough concerns, I understand that these topics are often so emotionally charged that it is difficult to consider them without the idea of a hostile overtone. And that's probably a huge understatement.

[O'nus]

And that's probably a huge understatement. Pretty much the largest anyone could make, I would say. But I do not feel I can properly express the emotional response to such topics and still keep things civil as a means to encourage a discussion later on, lol. ~

[GestaltAlteration]

I am really glad you asked it though because I am saddened that discussions topics as such instill such defensive responses. I think it is sad that, when I approach a theist with such a topic idea, they respond with their fists up. Sorry I had to read this over a couple times. Still not grasping it. Are you referring to me? Ironic this be a defensive post in itself, but look at your response from my perspective. Leaves one wondering.. Edit: You can be honest because, seriously, I'm not here to make this uncivil, as I thought I pointed out when simply pointing something out.

[O'nus]

Sorry I had to read this over a couple times. Still not grasping it. Are you referring to me? Ironic this be a defensive post in itself, but look at your response from my perspective. Leaves one wondering.. I just wasn't sure what to put in place of fists up. I mean that it is sad that when one suggest to discuss something like religion, it immediately has a bad internal reflex. Kind of like when you see that guy who is always starting shit start coming your way being religion. Except, this guy doesn't want to fight... I really do just want to talk. It may not mean much over the internet, but I have had many discussions with people of all faith and it did not lead to any heated arguments. Evangel on this site used to be one of my favorite people to talk with. I think you were around then, so I think you can remember that we discussed things on a pretty civil and fair level - right? Anyways, I did not mean you were raising your fists or something, just that I understand the reaction to the idea of the topic suggestion. I simply didn't know what words to choose to demonstrate that feeling. I think that just shows how difficult it is to talk about it sometimes. Kind of like how it is really hard to talk about people of another race without being accused of racism (ie. Russel Peters says it best. "Russel, your friend came by earlier" "Oh yeah? Was he black?" "Oh I don't know man.. whatever you say he is.." "Right, but was he black?" "Oh maybe, maybe not man, I don't know...") ~

[GestaltAlteration]

Well for the future I don't think roundabout and indirect comments on the person your responding to is the most rational choice. I thought my inquiry was rational enough. Anyhow, no harm done. Truthfully I'm not offended by much. I spend more time with atheists than any other group; and honestly fellow Christians are the ones who make me angry. I just want the comments or thoughts on me to be direct, since it seemed you were happy with my post and in the same paragraph psychoanalyzing me (which was confusing). I'll cast my vote and be going now.

[Adam]

Do you have the chat log saved?.

[O'nus]

Well for the future I don't think roundabout and indirect comments on the person your responding to is the most rational choice. I thought my inquiry was rational enough. Anyhow, no harm done. Truthfully I'm not offended by much. I spend more time with atheists than any other group; and honestly fellow Christians are the ones who make me angry. I just want the comments or thoughts on me to be direct, since it seemed you were happy with my post and in the same paragraph psychoanalyzing me (which was confusing). I'll cast my vote and be going now. I'm confused. I really did not intend anything to be indirectly applied you. I was just saying that the mention of certain topics that are so important to humans tends to have a defensive response when I think it shouldn't. I imagine everyone thinks it shouldn't.. right? We would like to live in a world where we can civily discuss things without being at each other throats? That was all I was saying. Adam; I would log it, yes. However, I was booted out near the end of the last discussion so I could not post the log. Further, no one else seemed to have been able or offered to post the log. ~

[Kromoh]

Alright, we just had a fair example of what dicussions like this can develop into. When I first picked the problems with Christianity, I meant exactly what O'nus described. At least in Brazil, where like 90% of the population is Christian, we deal with many problems, either concerning christian morals and the law, marriage, abortion and so on. When you talk to someone here, he/she immediatelly assumes you are a christian aswell, thus leading to many problems concerning morals etc. For you to have an idea, there was this interview with a somehow famous doctor to talk about him being atheist while dealing with so many terminal cases. I am willing to discuss such matters because I know how to behave in such a discussion. But some people don't. So, let's all go for dodging topics like these. O'nus, I like the psychological interpretation of dreams, I find it really constructive. But sometimes I just think to myself if it isn't overrated. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. Asking oneself why a pink dog appeared in his dreams and invent a ful lexplanation sometimes isn't right (although that's exactly what Freud did - I ocmpletely disagree with his collocations) One thing O'nus said really triggered my interest: the partial interpretation of the bible. Some people condemn homosexuality "because it's in the bible" but they forget the bible also says so much about raping, stoning people to death etc. Out of all those, I'm still into dream interpretation, and maybe a correlation with the psychology of dreams.

[GestaltAlteration]

I'm confused. I really did not intend anything to be indirectly applied you. I was just saying that the mention of certain topics that are so important to humans tends to have a defensive response when I think it shouldn't. I imagine everyone thinks it shouldn't.. right? We would like to live in a world where we can civily discuss things without being at each other throats? That was all I was saying. ~ Ah; I was the one confused. My apologies.