BookTalk’s Purpose: Religion, Atheism and Freethought

irishrosem

I’ve taken this from the European Witch-Craze thread in Additional Book Discussions so as not to distract from that thread, but I think it an issue worth discussion.

Mad: We've devoted no less than four quarters in the last two years to distinctly anti-religious books…

Yes I did see that. I also saw that most of the discussions that were not specifically about religion seemed to fade quickly or never got off the ground in the first place (most recently that would be The Third Chimpanzee, Omnivore’s Dilemma and Evolution vs. Creationism). In fact, that was the reason I chose the First Amendment’s free expression and establishment clauses to promote as the freethought discussion. I figured if we were going to spend such an inordinate amount of time discussing religion, we might as well do so in reference to a useful topic. And I think one of the most useful discussions of religion is its intentional and unforgiving encroachment on secular institutions. But, looking at the lack of involvement in the topic, no one is interested in discussing religion unless it is about applauding or denigrating it. And that goes for both theists and atheists on this site. So George and I have engaged in interesting, informative discussion with little participation from others on this forum.

Mad: It's a pretty fine line between saying that one isn't interested in converting someone to atheism, and consistently and vehemently arguing that all religion is false (if not pernicuous) and should be abandoned. So fine a line that I think it's practically splitting hairs.

To a certain extent, I would agree here. Though I rarely talk about religion in my real-world life, it seems to invade most of this website. And it seems that conversation is slow going to non-existent on most other subjects. But I also think what’s good for the goose is good for the gander. If Frank and Mr. P.’s efforts at denigrating religion is, at least in part, an attempt to persuade their audience to atheism, wouldn’t your defense of religion have the same subtextual proselytizing goal?

Mad: …but it's stated so strongly and so frequently (and by enough members) that it probably is the most visible point of view on the site. I think that there are a lot of very reasonable people on this site, but unless you're looking specifically for those voices, I think they tend to get drowned out by all the shouting.

If there are reasonable voices on this site, then perhaps the theists who wish to participate in useful conversation would engage those “reasonable people” rather than continually confronting and defending the screeds directed at theism. It seems to take two people with opposing viewpoints to perpetuate the philosophical anti/pro religion debates. I think we have to be the change in the direction of conversation topics we would like to see on this site. Perhaps that is easier for me to say because I have only been contributing here for a few months. If, as you say, I had been trying to persuade discussion to more useful topics for three years, I probably would have given up long ago.

Frank: …as atheists we are slandered regularly so when we see someone who is acting like a complete ass and are doing so because of a belief in their one and only true god, we say so with no apologies.

Mr. P.: Atheists are slandered in this country every day. I mean, when you have the President of the USA saying that "Atheists should not even be considered Citizens"...well...then fuck you all that do not give us the benefit of the doubt.

But this isn’t really at all a focal point of this site. Outside of the random Asana troll, we don’t have regularly contributing theists who normally espouse such generic religious vitriol.

The above references from Mad and your responses have led me to finally ask the question, what is the point of this forum? I know this has been discussed at least twice in the short time I have been lurking and contributing, but has it ever been answered? Is the purpose of this website to denigrate religion because atheists are bombarded with religion all day and need a place to vent? Is it essentially a forum for atheists to hash and rehash the Dawkins/Harris perspective? Or is the purpose of this website to discuss all kinds of topics from a freethought perspective? I know the obvious answer is the purpose of this site is whatever the community dictates. If all we talk about is the former, that then becomes the focus of this site, whether it is the intended purpose or not. But if the purpose of this forum is the latter I think we are seriously failing any intent to produce useful and varied freethought discussion. And I must say that it is exhausting to try to maintain discussions when people seem disinterested in participating unless it is about hating on religion. There are certainly greater minds here than the day-to-day religion is the root of all evil, religion is the root of all good arguments that seem to prosper.

Well now that I have totally overstepped my place and have probably alienated all the friendliness I’ve enjoyed from this forum, I’ll conclude. I am not arguing that you should change the focus of this forum if the intended goal is to attack religion to the distraction of all other topics. But I do think the advertised focus of this forum and the actual focus of this forum are not in sync. If I am wrong in thinking that we, as members of this community, are striving to create a discussion forum that thrives on freethought discussion of all topics, please let me know. I see such potential on this site, potential that I have not been able to find anywhere else online. But I think that we fall extremely short of that potential. And I think the most devastating and ironic thing about this shortcoming is that it seems due to a total and invasive preoccupation with religion. And I have to ask the atheists here, doesn’t that mean the theists win?

Edited by: irishrosem at: 5/22/07 6:41 pm

Frank 013

Quote:
Irishrosem
But, looking at the lack of involvement in the topic, no one is interested in discussing religion unless it is about applauding or denigrating it. And that goes for both theists and atheists on this site. So George and I have engaged in interesting, informative discussion with little participation from others on this forum.

I am not participating in that particular thread for three reasons,

First, I have not read the book and have very little knowledge of the history of the first amendment

Second, I know nothing about prior case law regarding that subject,

Third, I agree with nearly everything you and George are saying, there really is not much to add… unless you want me to call out DH on his arguments? ::04

Quote:
Irishrosem
To a certain extent, I would agree here. Though I rarely talk about religion in my real-world life, it seems to invade most of this website. And it seems that conversation is slow going to non-existent on most other subjects.

That is not always the case around here, right now we seem to experiencing a slow spell. Chris has told me that it is common this time of year, hopefully it will pick up soon.

Quote:
Irishrosem
But this isn’t really at all a focal point of this site.

No, but it should help explain some of our lack of sympathy towards the religious and their beliefs.

Quote:
Irishrosem
Outside of the random Asana troll, we don’t have regularly contributing theists who normally espouse such generic religious vitriol.

And I think that may be partly because we do tend to chase away such wacko’s.

Quote:
Irishrosem
Is the purpose of this website to denigrate religion because atheists are bombarded with religion all day and need a place to vent?

No, but I have been told that regarding the subject of religion I should not hold my punches. You will notice that Chris doesn’t either.

Quote:
Irishrosem
Is it essentially a forum for atheists to hash and rehash the Dawkins/Harris perspective?

Again no, but those arguments are becoming the standard answers in the debating field so we will be seeing them a lot when the subject of religion is debated. Those guys have reminded some of us that it’s ok to call a spade a spade and to fight for our rights as equals under the US laws.

Quote:
Irishrosem
Or is the purpose of this website to discuss all kinds of topics from a freethought perspective?

This is the primary goal, but like I said we have a very low visitor rate right now.

Quote:
Irishrosem
But if the purpose of this forum is the latter I think we are seriously failing any intent to produce useful and varied freethought discussion.

You are correct, I haven’t really been looking at the whole picture regarding that, I have just been participating in the threads that I find most interesting or amusing.

Quote:
Irishrosem
Well now that I have totally overstepped my place and have probably alienated all the friendliness I’ve enjoyed from this forum, I’ll conclude.

You haven’t made any enemies here... in fact as a member of this little community your insight is most welcome.

Quote:
Irishrosem
If I am wrong in thinking that we, as members of this community, are striving to create a discussion forum that thrives on freethought discussion of all topics, please let me know.

You are not wrong, but with such few people visiting regularly right now there will be fewer posts and I suspect that the topics that spark the most passion will be the ones posted on most often.

Later

Life's journey is not to arrive at the grave safely in a well
preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, totally worn out,
shouting..."Holy Crap...what a ride!"

irishrosem

Frank: I am not participating in that particular thread for three reasons...

I’m not talking solely to you, nor am I talking solely about the Religious Expression book topic. This seems to be pervasive throughout the forum, at least for the close to a year that I have been reading here. Unless the topic is about the philosophical debate on religion, it fades quickly.

Frank: No, but it should help explain some of our lack of sympathy towards the religious and their beliefs.

Which would explain extreme responses to religious perspectives introduced by theists. I am sure I have participated in such responses. But it seems that religion is not only introduced by theists; in fact, it seems to be the focus of many atheists on this site too.

Frank: No, but I have been told that regarding the subject of religion I should not hold my punches. You will notice that Chris doesn’t either.

Nor do I. I think perhaps you have misread my questions. I am not suggesting that we mollycoddle theists on this site. I’m suggesting that we quit steering, or allowing discussions to be steered, towards unvaried debates on the good/evil of religion and work at discussing other topics.

Frank: This is the primary goal, but like I said we have a very low visitor rate right now.

So is the low visitor rate because there’s a low visitor rate? Or is the low visitor rate because we’re not really discussing anything of much value to these visitors?

Frank: …I have just been participating in the threads that I find most interesting or amusing.

And this is what I was saying below. I don’t mean to overstep my place here. If the purpose of this forum, and the intentions of the longstanding members, is to discuss religion predominantly from a philosophical perspective then that is certainly your prerogative. But if the forum’s intention, as I hope it is, is to discuss all kinds of topics, then I think we need to work harder at that.

Frank: You haven’t made any enemies here... in fact as a member of this little community your insight is most welcome.

Well thank you, sir. I hate having enemies, it makes for a long, unproductive day.

Frank: …with such few people visiting regularly right now there will be fewer posts and I suspect that the topics that spark the most passion will be the ones posted on most often.

And I wonder if we can entice more people to participating if we vary the conversation a bit. (I am not saying that this is necessarily so, you and I have had quite an interesting conversation on the Second Amendment with very little participation.) But if, as you say, the topics that stir the most passion are and will continue to be religious debates, then I will have to adjust accordingly, which is why I am trying to work out more concretely the overall intention of this community.

Frank 013

Quote:
Irishrosem
Which would explain extreme responses to religious perspectives introduced by theists. I am sure I have participated in such responses. But it seems that religion is not only introduced by theists; in fact, it seems to be the focus of many atheists on this site too.

It is, it seems to be a subject of much significance for both sides.

Quote:
Irishrosem
Nor do I. I think perhaps you have misread my questions. I am not suggesting that we mollycoddle theists on this site. I’m suggesting that we quit steering, or allowing discussions to be steered, towards unvaried debates on the good/evil of religion and work at discussing other topics.

And I agree.

Quote:
Irishrosem
So is the low visitor rate because there’s a low visitor rate? Or is the low visitor rate because we’re not really discussing anything of much value to these visitors?

To be honest I really do not know, Chris said it is often slow this time of year but I don’t pay much attention to that stuff.

Attempting some other tactics seems like a good idea, at this point it couldn’t hurt.

Quote:
Irishrosem
And this is what I was saying below. I don’t mean to overstep my place here. If the purpose of this forum, and the intentions of the longstanding members, is to discuss religion predominantly from a philosophical perspective then that is certainly your prerogative. But if the forum’s intention, as I hope it is, is to discuss all kinds of topics, then I think we need to work harder at that.

Again I agree, but the religion thing is so much fun. ::04

Quote:
Irishrosem
Well thank you, sir. I hate having enemies, it makes for a long, unproductive day.

True, but far more interesting. ::144

Seriously though, don’t worry about voicing your insights, sometimes we get caught up in the threads and forget that things can be stagnating elsewhere. And a little constructive push can be helpful.

Quote:
Irishrosem
And I wonder if we can entice more people to participating if we vary the conversation a bit. (I am not saying that this is necessarily so, you and I have had quite an interesting conversation on the Second Amendment with very little participation.) But if, as you say, the topics that stir the most passion are and will continue to be religious debates, then I will have to adjust accordingly, which is why I am trying to work out more concretely the overall intention of this community.

We could try other moral quandaries; we had a very active thread regarding the effectiveness of and moral use of torture a while back; there were some real heated and intelligent points from both sides of the argument. And it was something most people had at least some passing knowledge of.

Heck, at this point I am open to suggestions.

Later

Life's journey is not to arrive at the grave safely in a well
preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, totally worn out,
shouting..."Holy Crap...what a ride!"

Dissident Heart

"I am a human being. Nothing human is alien to me." Terence, Roman Dramatist 185 BCE - 159 BCE

I think if we pursue why we support and encourage freethinking, we discover an underlying desire to protect something...a passion to nurture and defend something precious and good...something deserving of great care and, well, let's just say it- love. I think that something is human flourishment: a thriving, creative, inventive and intelligent humanity.

Booktalk has traditionally identified the Scientific Method as the premiere avenue for human flourishment. Booktalk has also traditionally posited Religion as the premiere impediment to the scientific method, thus a primary obstacle to human flourishing.

This doesn't mean Booktalk rejects the virtues of art, music, literature, drama, history...the Humanities; but it has certainly followed a hierarchy of approaches to understanding the human condition with Science on top. And it has overwhelmingly demanded that Religion be kept almost entirely out of the loop...except as constant threat and enemy to understanding the human condition and the flourishment of humanity.

Booktalk has managed to make space for a few voices of dissent who struggle against the grain to remind ourselves of those ways that Religion has been an important, even essential ingredient in the health and vitality of humanity. These voices haven't forced any substantial changes in the dominant anti-religion paradigm...but Booktalk has become more open to a more scholastic and academic neutrality regarding religious studies and the history of religions.

Booktalk has yet to engage any entire book that would be seen as sympathetic towards or that highlights those elements of Religion that have been essential to the health and vitality of humanity. I think there are many wonderfully intelligent, thoughtful, well written and engaging books that avoid the "religion is the source of all good" while demanding a critical accountability of the limitations, errors, injustices and vices common to religion, as well as everything else that is human, all too human.

That is my point: religion is part and parcel of the human experience; if we are interested in understanding what it means to be human, then we need understand what it means to be religious. Like all things human, religion has its warts and vices...as well as its beauty and virtue. Reducing the whole of religion to ignorance and vice is to endorse, as I see it, a profoundly misanthropic view of human experience. Booktalk is not about misanthropy, nor should it be simply anti-religious.

Mr. Pessimistic

Quote:
First:

intentional and unforgiving encroachment on secular institutions.

Then:

But, looking at the lack of involvement in the topic, no one is interested in discussing religion unless it is about applauding or denigrating it.

But this is exactly what some would call denigrating religion. I find that the skin is soft on those who complain about attacks on religion. But there is much about religion that can be attacked and with good cause. My angst comes from those that wish to promote religion, yet downplay it's negative effects as secondary to a main cause for those negative effects, which I feel all the theists here do.

Also, when you have people that feel and think that gods, spirits and other myth are just that, myths, it is very difficult to take most arguments in favor of religion seriously, since most if not all religions have this belief in the imaginary as paramount to their whole system. So anything we say sounds like a slight in thier eyes...but WE, as atheists and freethinkers, are talking about make believe. So frustration sets in.

I mean, the FSM is constantly brought up and we are told it is an unfair comparison, but I do not think so. Someone talking about Jesus' divinity to me is like someone seriously considering the impact of the FSM on our existence.

Quote:
So George and I have engaged in interesting, informative discussion with little participation from others on this forum.

Unfortunately, most of the book discussions only draw 3-4 people who are active in the discussion. This one has less for now, but I will try to get in there soon. Also, attendance has been low since the beginning of the year. Loricat is not as active, Niall has been gone for a bit and some others only check in lately. We do need to attract new members...we have been saying this for years now.

I am not too sure if the atheist bent on this forum is hindering gaining new memebers...I mean, Reggie from Infidel Guy has a very broad membership. Maybe it is just that most people have found their own forums to vent that particualr angst. Maybe we should try not to focus on the "Religión: Malo o No Malo?" for a while and see what happens.

I do agree with Rose though that the religion discussions usually bring alot of activity. Maybe we should try switching roles...the atheists will defend religion and the theists will defend atheism! lol

Quote:
If Frank and Mr. P.’s efforts at denigrating religion is, at least in part, an attempt to persuade their audience to atheism, wouldn’t your defense of religion have the same subtextual proselytizing goal?

Good point Rose! I never took Mad, Dissident or Niall's posts as trying to convert me...so to have Mad think that about us is kinda odd. I am simply stating my positions and I continue to do that whenever the topic comes up. As I said, I do not believe most 'believers' CAN be converted. They are just not able to see things differently from what their fear and emotion tell them. Most atheists HAVE been involved in both sides and HAVE seen both possibilities. There is a reason you hear more about leaving faith than joining faith (Of course, Kirk Cameron was an ahtiest once...lol).

Quote:
But this isn’t really at all a focal point of this site. Outside of the random Asana troll, we don’t have regularly contributing theists who normally espouse such generic religious vitriol.

No, but I am just offering a reason why atheists are so up in arms all over lately...it is because of the treatment we get from religious people. As I said, even if it is not a directly agressive stance, even the 'tsk tsk' crap pisses me off lately. Do not feel sorry for me, you simple little sheep. Ya know what I am saying?

Quote:
what is the point of this forum?

When I arrived at Booktalk...I saw "Freethinker Book Discussions" and was like "I have not seen this anywhere else!". As I looked further...the atheist focus was obvious to me. So this is an atheist-leaning freethinkers site, but not the main thrust. At least that is how I see it.

Quote:
But it seems that religion is not only introduced by theists; in fact, it seems to be the focus of many atheists on this site too.

Why would we, as atheists, NOT want to discuss something that is so pervasive in our society and directly impacts how WE are going to be able to live? Especially when we see religion as something arbitrary, fake and prone to predjudice? Remember, as I posted somewhere else...some of our Presidents do not even think we should be 'considered citizens'.

Quote:
I’m suggesting that we quit steering, or allowing discussions to be steered, towards unvaried debates on the good/evil of religion and work at discussing other topics.

Let's try that. We can just focus on the history of religions if we continue to focus on them at all. My bottom line is that religion and religious people seem to want to excuse rather than explain the negative aspects of their faith, until that changes for the majority, I will be a pit bull rather than a lap dog.

Mr. P.

But atheism is no more a religion than not playing chess is a hobby. - Robert Sawyer - Sci Fi Author

I'm not saying it's usual for people to do those things but I(with the permission of God) have raised a dog from the dead and healed many people from all sorts of ailments. - Asana Boditharta (former booktalk troll)

The one thing of which I am positive is that there is much of which to be negative - Mr. P.

What is all this shit about Angels? Have you heard this? 3 out of 4 people believe in Angels. Are you F****** STUPID? Has everybody lost their mind? - George Carlin

I came to kick ass and chew Bubble Gum...and I am all out of Bubble Gum - They Live, Roddy Piper

irishrosem

Mr. P.: But this is exactly what some would call denigrating religion.

What I meant by the above quote is it seems that participants on this forum only want to discuss religion if it is for the express purpose of either applauding or denigrating religion. Speaking about the negative effect of religion’s encroachment on secular institutions draws no audience; speaking about religion’s involvement in school curriculum draws very little audience (Evolution vs. Creationism). But speaking about how weak, stupid, illogical, unreasonable etc. people are for their religious beliefs (The God Delusion, etc.) seems to draw a ton of participation on both sides of the argument.

Mr. P.: My angst comes from those that wish to promote religion, yet downplay it's negative effects as secondary to a main cause for those negative effects, which I feel all the theists here do.

My angst comes from those who wish to promote religion and do so to the distraction and detriment of discussions with much more value to us as freethinkers, and the secular community.

Mr. P.: Unfortunately, most of the book discussions only draw 3-4 people who are active in the discussion.

That’s not really so of the book discussions that focus on crticizing theism and theists.

Mr. P.: I am not too sure if the atheist bent on this forum is hindering gaining new memebers...I mean, Reggie from Infidel Guy has a very broad membership.

Does “Reggie from Infidel Guy” have a broad membership of freethinkers who rely on scholarship to inform arguments and opinions? I thought that was the focus of this forum. Perhaps if we focused on the scholarly intent of our booktalk forum and leave the atheist screeds for forums like Reggie’s, we would invite and maintain other freethinkers who like to use books to form opinions of all sorts.

Mr. P.: I never took Mad, Dissident or Niall's posts as trying to convert me...

I disagree as far as Dissident is concerned. I think his evangelism is obvious and his intentions to convert to his thinking are clear.

Mr. P.: No, but I am just offering a reason why atheists are so up in arms all over lately...it is because of the treatment we get from religious people.

But, as I said, that reaction is not in response to actual posts on this forum. Is this a forum where atheists respond to the theism that assaults them in their everyday life; or is this a forum to discuss all kinds of topics from a freethinker’s perspective, informed by relevant texts? If it’s the former, so be it; if it’s the latter, I don’t think we’re doing a very good job. My concern isn’t that when we discuss religion some of the arguments are aggressive; my concern is that we rarely discuss anything but religion. And I’m not sure if that is because the few theists on this website direct the conversation accordingly, or if the atheists on this website are more obsessed with religion than the theists.

Mr. P.: When I arrived at Booktalk...I saw "Freethinker Book Discussions" and was like "I have not seen this anywhere else!".

Same here! And I was so grateful to find it. I even lurked a bit because I was sure it couldn’t offer all that it was promising. I’ve found book forums before, but none that were actually worth the time of contributing. I was so pleasantly surprised by booktalk. The members here were actually using texts to discuss relevant topics.

Mr. P.: As I looked further...the atheist focus was obvious to me.

I too noticed the atheist focus and thought it was just topical at the moment, surely other discussions would be pertinent too. I had even looked through your archives and saw a wide array of discussion topics, but I don’t think that holds true today.

Mr.P.: My bottom line is that religion and religious people seem to want to excuse rather than explain the negative aspects of their faith, until that changes for the majority, I will be a pit bull rather than a lap dog.

Or maybe if we didn’t tailor the majority of the topics to theism we wouldn’t give theists a chance to utilize religion at all within their discussions. Then we wouldn’t have to be either pit bulls or lap dogs…we could be booktalkers and freethinkers. ::124

MadArchitect

irishrosem: And I think one of the most useful discussions of religion is its intentional and unforgiving encroachment on secular institutions.

I think that's looking at it from the wrong angle. The distinction between religious and secular institutions appears to be a relatively modern development. I think that it makes good sense to draw such a distinction, but I don't think we can take it as given that those two categories are originally (either historically or conceptually) independent of one another.

If Frank and Mr. P.’s efforts at denigrating religion is, at least in part, an attempt to persuade their audience to atheism, wouldn’t your defense of religion have the same subtextual proselytizing goal?

If I were arguing that religion was an unalloyed good and that the reasons for adopting religion were blatantly rational, then perhaps. But I've always argued that the best reasons for religious belief are personal and a-rational. What I'm arguing for is a kind of society-wide neutrality on the subject that allows for belief without demanding it. My stance is that genuine religious belief is only possible under conditions that also preserve the possibility of disbelief; and that, vice versa, a conscientious and volitional atheism is best preserved by allowing a space for religion within society. I see Dawkins, Dennett and Harris as a rhetorical threat to that kind of society. If that doesn't come across in what I post, it may be in part because most of my posts on religion are in response to extreme criticisms.

If there are reasonable voices on this site, then perhaps the theists who wish to participate in useful conversation would engage those “reasonable people” rather than continually confronting and defending the screeds directed at theism.

That's a valid point. I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt more often than I should, and that's gotten me tangled up in more than my fair share of dead-end conversations.

The above references from Mad and your responses have led me to finally ask the question, what is the point of this forum? I know this has been discussed at least twice in the short time I have been lurking and contributing, but has it ever been answered?

My perception is probably unduly colored by my involvement here, but it seems to me that the point of the site has oscillated over time. It has been, at various points, safe haven for atheist discussion, a pro-rational discussion book site, and a platform for discussion of (and from) a naturalistic view of the world. Each of these has been connected to the "freethought" slant in various ways, and I don't know that I could safely say that one was temporally or logically more primary than the other.

Rose: Or is the purpose of this website to discuss all kinds of topics from a freethought perspective?
Frank: This is the primary goal, but like I said we have a very low visitor rate right now.

Part of Rose's point, it seems to me, is that apart from the number of posts made on any given day here, the ratio of religious to non-religious topics is heavily weighted towards religion. If we want to appeal to people who want to talk about politics, one way we can achieve that is to talk about politics. But even most of the threads in the politics forum are about religion, at least indirectly. In other words, the diversity of contributors is wider than the diversity of topics, and adding more people won't necessarily help -- particularly if those people are just coming here because they like arguing about religion.

Rose: Unless the topic is about the philosophical debate on religion, it fades quickly.

Or, if it's a matter of the quarterly reads, it never gets chosen. I've burned myself out trying to diversify the options in both the Freethought and General Non-Fiction forums. What gets chosen just about any time there is a pro-atheist or contra-religious text is never the alternative.

But it seems that religion is not only introduced by theists; in fact, it seems to be the focus of many atheists on this site too.

I'd go a step further and say that most of the religious threads are started by the site's atheists. DH starts a lot of religiously-themed threads, but it seems like the majority of those tend to stay fairly small, or play out like DH's personal blog. Even the religious threads that I've started tend to be continuations or tangents from threads started by atheists.

But if the forum’s intention, as I hope it is, is to discuss all kinds of topics, then I think we need to work harder at that.

And to some extent, I think the addition of the "Freethought" book discussion has been detrimental to variety on BookTalk. I don't object to the category on principle, but what's been defined as acceptable suggestions for Freethought books, and what suggestions are routinely favored, has created a situation in which the non-fiction books quickly get overshadowed. I don't know if there's a better way to handle the two book discussion forums, but if we want more variety, we have to find a way to keep the quarterly freethought book from being a) the only book most people read and discuss, and b) consistently about the same subject (ie. religion as the cause of x number of social ills).

And I wonder if we can entice more people to participating if we vary the conversation a bit.

I think it's likely. What I've noticed over the years is that, when we vary the topics of the quarterly book discussions, we'll routinely get 3 or 4 visitors who come in to participate. The trouble is keeping them, and I think part of the reason that our retention rate has been so low is that we don't maintain that level of variety. A person drops in because we're reading a book about history, but they quickly see that there aren't other history discussions going on otherwise, and they lose interest.

DH: Booktalk has yet to engage any entire book that would be seen as sympathetic towards or that highlights those elements of Religion that have been essential to the health and vitality of humanity.

I don't know why you persist along these lines. You've been arguing the same thing for years, and you know what they're going to say. If you're really so gung-ho on reading those books with a group, why don't you start another book discussion board? That takes some work, but it has to be better than repeatedly banging your head against BookTalk resistence to the idea. Chris might even consider providing a link to your site...

Mr. P: Also, when you have people that feel and think that gods, spirits and other myth are just that, myths, it is very difficult to take most arguments in favor of religion seriously, since most if not all religions have this belief in the imaginary as paramount to their whole system.

But very few theists on BookTalk are offering arguments in favor of religion -- or, at least, not until they're confronted with spontaneous attacks on religion. More often than not, you guys are creating your own frustration (except for Frank, who says it's fun).

Maybe we should try switching roles...the atheists will defend religion and the theists will defend atheism!

Fiske actually tried that.

I never took Mad, Dissident or Niall's posts as trying to convert me...so to have Mad think that about us is kinda odd. I am simply stating my positions and I continue to do that whenever the topic comes up.

I have no problem with that. It's when the arguments turn general -- and indirectly personal -- that I really start to get frustrated. For example, it's not uncommon for BookTalk contributors to compare religious belief to insanity -- without, of course, directly calling BookTalk theists lunatics. The effect is something like saying: "Critics of the war are all hypocrites, no offense." If you're argument is that you've looked into religion and it offers nothing you want or can't get somewhere else, fine by me. But if the line you're towing is that religious belief is inherently dangerous, objectively irrational, misguided and undignified, then you're no longer talking about it in reference to yourself; you're drawing me into your criticisms.

For example:
As I said, I do not believe most 'believers' CAN be converted. They are just not able to see things differently from what their fear and emotion tell them.

Now, I could tell myself that you probably mean someone else. But if I said "Most atheists are just not able to see things apart from some childhood trauma involving religion", would you assume that I didn't include you in the category of "most atheists"? On the whole, I'd say that the BookTalk theists have been much more generous in accepting the personal reasons atheists have given for their belief (or lack thereof), than vice versa. If that isn't the way it is in the rest of the world, file a complaint with the rest of the world.

Rose: Is this a forum where atheists respond to the theism that assaults them in their everyday life; or is this a forum to discuss all kinds of topics from a freethinker’s perspective, informed by relevant texts?

Another good way to look at this question is to ask just who it is you're talking to when you post here. I sometimes feel as though I've been made the spokesperson for evangelical Protestantism against my will. Is it pragmattic to rail against intrusive evangelicals in a forum they're unlikely to visit?

George Ricker

I arrived here at around the same time the group was considering The God Delusion for discussion, and I enjoyed the give-and-take on that, although it did get a bit testy from time to time.

But maybe the group would be better served by simply attempting one non-fiction book at a time, instead of two. That wouldn't rule out any subject areas, but it might lead to more diversity in the choices from quarter to quarter and engage more people as a consequence.

I know that sounds counterintuitive, but selecting one book might lead us to try to find works that have wider appeal.

It's also worth noting that one of the reasons there have been more anti-religious books being discussed is that there are more of them to discusss. It's unusual to have this many specifically atheistic books attracting such a wide audience. Since the interest is there, it shouldn't be surprising that we would want to talk about them.

We do, after all, live in a culture (here in the states at least) that is awash with religion and religiosity of all sorts. It's hardly as though those who want to advocate for religion have no place to do it.

That said, I also have no interest in spending much time going from one anti-religious screed to another. I haven't thought that was the case here, but then I've only been hanging out here for about six months.

George

"Godlessness is not about denying the existence of nonsensical beings. It is the starting point for living life without them."

Godless in America by George A. Ricker

Mr. Pessimistic

George:

We recently switched TO doing two books. It was always one book. We went to two to try to maybe draw more people in. Splitting into General Non-Fiction and Freethinkers choices were meant to offer a wider range of topics and books that can possibly be nominated and selected.

This has not worked well in attracting new members...and honestly, it is too much for me to keep up with. I have so many books I WANT to read, but I also am dedicated to trying to make the discussions here work...so I am torn sometimes.

You make good points that there are indeed more and more 'atheist' POV books out there nowadays. The books we have discussed have indeed been the most visible of this segment.

So what do we say...should we try to steer away from the stronger 'atheist v theist' type books and instead focus on the history, maybe, of religion and other topics? Should we go back to ONE book per quarter or every 2 months? (It used to be that way as well).

I can still see some of these topics getting heated...but I like heated sometimes...it IS my style after all!

Mr. P.

But atheism is no more a religion than


	FORUMS	ABOUT	BOOKS	VIDEOS	ADVERTISE	LINKS	BLOGS	DONATE	CHAT	CONTACT