Religious conversations: IRL vs. Intertubes

[Andiferous]

Really? That's silly. Hack'n'slash called you much worse. And you liked that.

I'll leave you alone, I am being unfair, but... bah nevermind.

Hah! I hope you don't think I'm worried... that would contradict my whole point.

I'll tell you though, keeping my distance online is for my own peace of mind. I'm such an idealist that if I get too emotionally involved in online debates that go nowhere, I start getting upset and even depressed about it.

It'd have been nice in a way if you were... and a bit scary too. But I'd feel awfully guilty about it too. That said, I'll grant you honesty. I do believe you are an arse on occasion and a little arse leaks from me on seeing it. But I tend to think you're secretly not, so that's nice equilibrium.

 

[FaithlessThinker]

I prefer religious discussions online on a forum or a chat (but not in an email*) and I avoid them in real life for rather obvious reasons:

• In real life, I am more prone to losing my temper (sadly) when talking about religiosity. It's mainly because I find it hard to tolerate how stupid the religious person is that regardless of me repeatedly trying to knock some sense into his brain, he continues to spew nonsense.
• Likewise, the religious person is also more prone to throw tantrums and possibly even engage in violence if he loses temper because of the fact that he/she is unable to brainwash me with his/her religious ideas.
• A local conversation is severely limited by the number of people within immediate vicinity but an online conversation (in forums) is open to the world and anyone can join in the conversation.
• This also plays a part in whether or not the audience takes the initiative to make comments on the conversation. In real life, they are more likely to just stand aside and watch what's happening, but online they feel more free to make comments.
• There is always a stored record of the conversation online. In real life, it's easy for the other person to refer to something he supposes that I said earlier, but which I didn't. And sometimes I could get things wrong too. With a written record, it's easy to go back and check on what was said. It also shows how many times I had to repeat something I was trying to say.

*Not in an email because it becomes very tedious to keep throwing long emails to and from a particular person. Long discussions are better done on a forum where other people can read the discussion and make their comments. Chat is suitable for a quick conversation-style discussion.

 

[Memeticemetic]

In real life, I am more prone to losing my temper (sadly) when talking about religiosity. It's mainly because I find it hard to tolerate how stupid the religious person is that regardless of me repeatedly trying to knock some sense into his brain, he continues to spew nonsense.

I'm of the opposite persuasion personally. I find it much easier to lose my temper when there is no actual human being present. Stupidity in and of itself doesn't bother me and I find it much easier to lead a person into rational means of thought face to face.

Likewise, the religious person is also more prone to throw tantrums and possibly even engage in violence if he loses temper because of the fact that he/she is unable to brainwash me with his/her religious ideas.

If that's the case then you should choose your conversational partners more carefully. A tantrum or rant is one thing, but violent behavior is another, and you should be able to see the signs long before it reaches that point.

A local conversation is severely limited by the number of people within immediate vicinity but an online conversation (in forums) is open to the world and anyone can join in the conversation.

Very true. The advantages you point out are tempered by the intimacy and immediacy of spoken conversation with one or few people. If there are references, usually a bible or some kind of tract, we can examine it together and be sure we are using the same resources as references.

This also plays a part in whether or not the audience takes the initiative to make comments on the conversation. In real life, they are more likely to just stand aside and watch what's happening, but online they feel more free to make comments.

I prefer to not have a peanut gallery piping in when I'm engaged in a discussion. It muddies the waters and allows a conversation to become derailed or so divergent that no clear path can be found. If an audience is present in real life and they are quiet and attentive they can listen and possibly be informed by my words or my antagonist's. Ideally, they may want to have their own conversation with me at a later time.

There is always a stored record of the conversation online. In real life, it's easy for the other person to refer to something he supposes that I said earlier, but which I didn't. And sometimes I could get things wrong too. With a written record, it's easy to go back and check on what was said. It also shows how many times I had to repeat something I was trying to say.

For me, this is the most powerful objection. But even those kinds of misunderstandings or misquotes can be useful since it gives one a chance to reiterate a necessary point or clear up a misapprehension.

 

[FaithlessThinker]

Thanks for that "critical analysis" :lol: I forgot to mention one point in my original post though:

• Online discussions enable me to craft my replies more carefully and edit them for errors. They enable me to re-read and proof-read my replies and make sure they're complete, correct, clear and concise before I send them. Even in chat, you still have time to read and edit the message you just typed before you send it into the cyberspace. In the real world however, you are replying to your opposition on-the-fly and you only realize mistakes after your opponent has heard them. You can attempt to say "I mean" but you can never erase the fact that the opponent heard your mistake. As a consequence the opponent may pick on your mistake with or without a valid reason to do so. (A related advantage is that online discussions enable me to research the internet for relevant resources without the time pressure of giving an immediate reply in real world discussions.)

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Thanks for that "critical analysis" :lol: I forgot to mention one point in my original post though:

• Online discussions enable me to craft my replies more carefully and edit them for errors. They enable me to re-read and proof-read my replies and make sure they're complete, correct, clear and concise before I send them. Even in chat, you still have time to read and edit the message you just typed before you send it into the cyberspace. In the real world however, you are replying to your opposition on-the-fly and you only realize mistakes after your opponent has heard them. You can attempt to say "I mean" but you can never erase the fact that the opponent heard your mistake. As a consequence the opponent may pick on your mistake with or without a valid reason to do so. (A related advantage is that online discussions enable me to research the internet for relevant resources without the time pressure of giving an immediate reply in real world discussions.)

The downside is that you don't get to do funny voices.

 

[Memeticemetic]

Thanks for that "critical analysis" :lol: I forgot to mention one point in my original post though:

• Online discussions enable me to craft my replies more carefully and edit them for errors. They enable me to re-read and proof-read my replies and make sure they're complete, correct, clear and concise before I send them. Even in chat, you still have time to read and edit the message you just typed before you send it into the cyberspace. In the real world however, you are replying to your opposition on-the-fly and you only realize mistakes after your opponent has heard them. You can attempt to say "I mean" but you can never erase the fact that the opponent heard your mistake. As a consequence the opponent may pick on your mistake with or without a valid reason to do so. (A related advantage is that online discussions enable me to research the internet for relevant resources without the time pressure of giving an immediate reply in real world discussions.)

The downside is that you don't get to do funny voices.

Hee hee. Yeah, emoticons only get you so far.

I'm good enough at thinking on my feet and choosing my words carefully so the kinds of missteps you describe are fairly rare. But I get to be present when my opponent missteps. Instead of capitalizing on those, I generally help him see where he made an error which gains me credibility as a reasonable and polite person. When they realize I'm not trying to trick or trap them but actually earnestly trying to reach some mutual understanding, they are far more receptive to my words. Ultimately I think it boils down to a matter of taste. I prefer the fluidity of spoken discourse while still appreciating the more concise nature of the written word.

 

[Andiferous]

Ditto.

And for emoticons: I try to spread a little smiley wherever I go.

I don't think there were very many at all when I registered. Haha!

 

[borrofburi]

I dunno, I've found that I don't much care for IRL conversations of disagreement. Far too often I'm told "blatantly false thing is true"... Online I can point to a dozen great sources that point out the flaws in blatantly false thing, as well as demonstrate how any source they have for blatantly false thing is wrong.... Offline I can only say "err blatantly false thing is not true, all scientific evidence disagrees with blatantly false thing" to which they usually respond "no, blatantly false thing really is true, like definitely", and I either request sources (and move the conversation online) or roll my eyes and walk away.

Examples of blatantly false things I've encountered in real life:

• cooking food is bad for you, and will lead to malnutrition (only reason it doesn't is because people will occasionally eat salads and stuff, which allows them to limp along)
• Noah's flood did happen, and it's how the grand canyon was formed (I didn't challenge this one, the lady was giving me a haircut)
• gluten is bad for all people, not just people who are allergic to it or have celiac's (heard it twice now)
• Chiropractic care can cure X (where X is usually something like knee pain, asthma, or other things not actually related to the spine)
• vaccines are "hard on the body" and are linked to developmental problems
• rape is cultural and males doing most of the raping is because of sexism (not quite as blatantly false here)
• organic food cures cancer (actually not sure I've heard this one IRL)
• organic food will cure world hunger

 

[FaithlessThinker]

Noah's flood did happen, and it's how the grand canyon was formed (I didn't challenge this one, the lady was giving me a haircut)

:lol: I laughed out loud IRL on this one!

 

[Leçi]

I prefer discussing any subject online purely because I have access to the internet then and I just base my oppinion on what I read online from reliable sources. I try to not have any oppinion based on feelings or emotions (like "I'm against drugs because it's wrong!") so when confronted with a discussion irl I'm mostly like "I don't have an oppinion about this, I need to know enough facts." and the discussion is over.
Also when discussing online I'm able to proof read, google if what I'm going to say is true, plan ahead, etc. Also everything the other party says I will look up and agree or disagree according to the facts I'm given.

 

[Memeticemetic]

I prefer discussing any subject online purely because I have access to the internet then and I just base my oppinion on what I read online from reliable sources. I try to not have any oppinion based on feelings or emotions (like "I'm against drugs because it's wrong!") so when confronted with a discussion irl I'm mostly like "I don't have an oppinion about this, I need to know enough facts." and the discussion is over.
Also when discussing online I'm able to proof read, google if what I'm going to say is true, plan ahead, etc. Also everything the other party says I will look up and agree or disagree according to the facts I'm given.

To a certain extent, that's admirable. It's good to reserve judgment on any given topic until you have sufficient information make make informed decisions. But there does come a point when it's necessary to defend the conclusions you've reached. Not just necessary, but desirable even. You miss out on an invaluable opportunity to learn about your position and your opponent's by taking a leap without a net. You also learn vital skills like how to parse your statements succinctly and parsimoniously, thinking before you speak, and dealing with harsh responses which may or may not be warranted. You just can't walk away every time you are challenged. And, like it or not, your inability to respond with a decent defense will be taken, especially by the feeble minded, as an inherent weakness of your position rather than a conscious choice on your part.

 

[Anachronous Rex]

In my experience, religious conversation IRL tends to be much more focused on the subjective experience of religiosity.

The Mormons that come and knock on my door seemingly almost always talk about how their faith has helped them in intangible emotional ways.

 

[Trons]

There's no reason to get pissed off or passionate about issues when you're talking to NPCs in World of Warcraft.

I used to get pissed off at NPCs in WoW constantly. Especially when they wanted me to do a damn follow quest. Or whatever it's called. I stopped playing that cursed game after we beat Wrath in a month. I could finally honestly claim, "I beat World of Warcraft" so I could be done with the life-sucking monstrosity.

Well, was your disillusionment with WoW based on the fact that you beat it or that it was beatable? That's a conversation for another day I believe.

Back on topic: After reading this thread, I did a quick self evaluation of my internet usage that is not based on gaming. I found that I generally am either looking for like minded people with which to discuss mundane things or I'm looking for information. Very rarely do I look to challenge my thoughts, ideas or beliefs. For this particular topic, I'll leave my faith out of the equation because I also believe that's a conversation for another thread and day.

Asking myself why I don't go to the internet for those type of challenging conversations, I came to the conclusion that it is specifically because of that animosity you mentioned above. I am lucky enough to have a source IRL to go to if I want to challenge a view. I have found that on the interwebs, people can be unusually harsh in their criticism and while I would like to believe that I should have the tools to weed through the harshness to get the gist of what is being said, I also don't feel like I should have to. I think this boils down more to respect then any inherent desire for people to be douches.

It's easy to lack respect for somebody who has differing idea's then your own on the interwebs and for that lack of respect to degrade to the harshness previously mentioned. When you're talking to somebody face to face, it's easier to see your "opponent" as a human, even if you don't respect their views or their intelligence, you can feel a mutual connection with them that leads to a level of respect. There may be a lack of that harshness when in real life because you can, as you mentioned, see the effects that your conversation is having on the other party.

Of course, the fact that face to face conversations are probably more civil may result from the fact that if most people spoke to others IRL like they do on the interwebs, they'd get the ever living shit kicked out of them regularly.

 

[Squawk]

Given my own personal experience, and also that of Tylzen who I talked with about it for a while, I'm inclined to suggest that while you consider it to have been a productive exchange of views they will have been entirely closed minded and are considering you as a candidate for indoctrination.

For a while I mistakenly thought I had a chance of making the JW's who visited me see reason. I had them for 3 visits and then a prolongued email exchange. They don't give a fuck what you think, they don't care about your ideas, they want to hear them so they can think of a counter for them. When they can't, they leave you alone.

 

[Tylzen]

There is a time and place for everything.

To back up Squawk, I read his emails and the responses, I also dealt with a JW myself for a year. After awhile, they just give up on you, and just ignore you.
They pretend as Squawk says, to listen to you, and you might be lucky and find someone who is actually genuinely interesting in knowledge and finding the truth.

My own experiences with IRL versus Internet religion convos.
I also once was at a hairdresser, and the woman cutting my hair suddenly began talking to me about how she wanted to bring up her child as a conservative Christian, and how she considered moving out of Denmark, due to the immorality of the Danish culture because of this.
I simply ignored this, because my opinions were too strong as a parent, a liberal, and a skeptic.

On the other hand, I have met some Christians IRL who began commenting on my videos on YT, and they happened to be from the same area and city as me, so I met up with them, been to one of their youth meetings, played board games.
We have had all the discussions, about healings, glossolalia, etc.
They have their views, and I do my part to debunk it.
I am not sure if they actually listen, but I am honest and being myself in front of them.

 

[Memeticemetic]

Well, was your disillusionment with WoW based on the fact that you beat it or that it was beatable? That's a conversation for another day I believe.

My disillusionment was primarily due to the fact that I wanted to have a life (well, sex-life, to be more precise)

I am lucky enough to have a source IRL to go to if I want to challenge a view.

A source. Just one source? What if your one source is full of shit? I must say, I strongly suspect that your one source is full of shit*, which makes it that much more important that you come here regularly.

*I am the one source to which he's referring.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Aye, Squawk and Tylzen. I suspect ya'll are right in general and in the specific instance that inspired this thread as well. There's really no upside for him to speak to me in the long run once he figures out that he will be incapable of converting me. All I can really hope for is that I lead him towards an understanding and appreciation of the real world. Which, I think, is a worthy enough undertaking to pursue if I'm allowed to do it. I think the real win, from my perspective, is that it becomes much more difficult for them to demonize atheists when they have a real person in front of them who shows them genuine respect and kindness. They shall know me by my fruits. Hmmm... sounds somewhat salacious when I say that.

 

[Trons]

My disillusionment was primarily due to the fact that I wanted to have a life (well, sex-life, to be more precise)

Well, let me know if that works out for you.

A source. Just one source? What if your one source is full of shit? I must say, I strongly suspect that your one source is full of shit*, which makes it that much more important that you come here regularly.

I've always suspected that the source was full of shit too, however it's still good that even a bullshit artist gets me to defend my views. The level of shit that's being presented shouldn't matter as long as it forces me to limit the level of shit i present.

The animosity you've previously mentions that is prevalent on the interwebs is the reason I'm hesitant to spend more time surfing this website.

*I am the one source to which he's referring.
*I'm sure they would have figured it out eventually
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Aye, Squawk and Tylzen. I suspect ya'll are right in general and in the specific instance that inspired this thread as well. There's really no upside for him to speak to me in the long run once he figures out that he will be incapable of converting me. All I can really hope for is that I lead him towards an understanding and appreciation of the real world. Which, I think, is a worthy enough undertaking to pursue if I'm allowed to do it. I think the real win, from my perspective, is that it becomes much more difficult for them to demonize atheists when they have a real person in front of them who shows them genuine respect and kindness. They shall know me by my fruits. Hmmm... sounds somewhat salacious when I say that.

I find it funny that you state that there's really no upside for him to speak to you, then go onto state that you hope to lead to him to an understanding and appreciation for the real world. (For the moment, I disregard your supposition that theists don't live in the real word.) That sounds like a pretty good upside. Even if you don't change his faith structure, I'm sure the conversation gave him a reason to think outside his indoctrination, if even for a brief period of time. I would say that it is a pretty large upside.

Even if, the only thing they took away from the conversation was a better understanding of an opposing view point, that is still an upside. Personally, I'm having difficulty seeing a downside. I'm sure their Church has a different perspective, but that's their opinion and well, one step at a time.

 

[Memeticemetic]

I find it funny that you state that there's really no upside for him to speak to you, then go onto state that you hope to lead to him to an understanding and appreciation for the real world. (For the moment, I disregard your supposition that theists don't live in the real word.) That sounds like a pretty good upside. Even if you don't change his faith structure, I'm sure the conversation gave him a reason to think outside his indoctrination, if even for a brief period of time. I would say that it is a pretty large upside.

Even if, the only thing they took away from the conversation was a better understanding of an opposing view point, that is still an upside. Personally, I'm having difficulty seeing a downside. I'm sure their Church has a different perspective, but that's their opinion and well, one step at a time.

I should have been more clear. I meant no upside from his perspective and according to his criteria once he determines he will not be able to change my mind. (You should disregard that supposition entirely because it's false. Of course theists live in this world, where else would they live?) I'm not sure I'm quite so optimistic that I was successful in helping him see outside of his indoctrination but, hey, there's always a chance, however small.

 

[Trons]

I should have been more clear. I meant no upside from his perspective and according to his criteria once he determines he will not be able to change my mind. (You should disregard that supposition entirely because it's false. Of course theists live in this world, where else would they live?) I'm not sure I'm quite so optimistic that I was successful in helping him see outside of his indoctrination but, hey, there's always a chance, however small.

I'm surprised you would project a criteria of success, as you see it, to your visitor. Whether the interaction has an upside or not should only be judged from your perspective, mainly because we can't question your visitor to see how he perceived the exchange.

As for your comments on Theists living in the real world, please see this: http://www.leagueofreason.org.uk//viewtopic.php?f=7&t=7063

The common strategy in poker is "never draw to an inside straight" because the chance is small that you'll hit it. having said that, if you did it every time the opportunity was presented, you'd hit your draw a specific number of times, therefore even with a small chance of success, occasionally you'll be successful.

 

[Memeticemetic]

I should have been more clear. I meant no upside from his perspective and according to his criteria once he determines he will not be able to change my mind. (You should disregard that supposition entirely because it's false. Of course theists live in this world, where else would they live?) I'm not sure I'm quite so optimistic that I was successful in helping him see outside of his indoctrination but, hey, there's always a chance, however small.

I'm surprised you would project a criteria of success, as you see it, to your visitor. Whether the interaction has an upside or not should only be judged from your perspective, mainly because we can't question your visitor to see how he perceived the exchange.

That's not projecting. That's educated guessing. I would be projecting if I was to say he wants to reach mutual understanding and consensus because I think that's what he should want. But I'm not doing that. I've observed him and people like him doing what they do. I know his only plausible reason for coming to my door was to sell me his religion, not learn about my lack of it. Am I absolutely sure I've got him pegged? No, of course not, there's always a chance I'm wrong. But, come on, no one comes a-knockin' with a bible in their hand who doesn't want you reading it too.