Equanimity

[Spirit of Light]

I will never forget this

Hey you found my coconut

i had forgotten about that one

 

[Brickjectivity]

In perusing the religious debates forum, it appears that some members wear their emotions on their sleeves, so to speak. Religious debates on RF range from passionate to downright hostile.

Do you feel you can approach a religious debate with equanimity?

Is there value in doing so?

Why or why not?

Sometimes. I'm not very good at it, but I know what it is.

There is an excellent form of debate that we rarely get to participate in. It requires trust and being trusty, and you both have to be skillful enough not to offend each other and both have some common knowledge, the broader the better. Its when you each proceed with respect, skillfully recognize what the other is trying to say (takes effort), then manage to each say something which elevates the conversation, opens new observations for all. They can't wait to discuss with you again, and you them. It is the kind of debate that gives you energy instead of taking it.

 

[Clara Tea]

In perusing the religious debates forum, it appears that some members wear their emotions on their sleeves, so to speak. Religious debates on RF range from passionate to downright hostile.

Do you feel you can approach a religious debate with equanimity?

Is there value in doing so?

Why or why not?

In the movie Roots, by Alex Haley, Kunta Kinte was tied to a post while being whipped into saying that his name was Toby. He refused. In the mean time, Kunta had asked to talk to the plantation owner, a man of stellar qualities (devout Christian, always studying the bible), but he was unable to have an audience with Kunta, because he was busy becoming still more pious by studying the bible.

Of course, the plantation owner had the same complaint that you have. He complained that the violent and ignorant savages objected to their treatment (whipping, forced to work in the fields, chains, being kidnapped from their native Africa). Why, the plantation owner wondered, would slaves wish to talk with such anger in their voices? Shouldn't they behave as normal men of standing, and dispassionately whip others while being a perfect gentleman about it?

Perhaps the mild mannered gentlemen have actions that are not so very mild mannered?

We live in a world of war and torture camps. That world was crafted by the Religious Right, that showed up in great numbers (seeking an end to abortion, which never ended), but resulted in tax breaks for the rich, outsourcing of factories abroad (unemployment domestically), a rejection of environmental standards (Global Warming, forest fire prevention, etc.), rejection of universal health care (you pretty much know that Jesus was for universal health care since he healed the sick).

In the Religious forum, we argue the minutia of each passage of the bible, while not living our lives as Jesus asked us to do.

Can't we just be passive about torture camps? The Christian faith teaches us to be passionate or not, but to not be half-passionate (Revelation 3:16: about to spit out of my mouth if not hot or cold). We either believe that we are on the wrong path, or we don't.

Psalm 69:9. Jesus had a passion for the Temple that led Him to clear out the corruption. Was Jesus filled with equanimity? Should we be any less passionate that our leader, Jesus?

Jesus even beat up a fig tree. Doesn't that seem hostile to you?

 

[WalterTrull]

Personally, I think religious debates are for the audience. The participants will likely never change their views, but I thank those gamers for expressing them. I watch debates now mostly for entertainment, although occasionally I find an interesting novel view. Political debates are similar; however, they do helpfully identify lesser known combatants.

 

[firedragon]

In perusing the religious debates forum, it appears that some members wear their emotions on their sleeves, so to speak. Religious debates on RF range from passionate to downright hostile.

Do you feel you can approach a religious debate with equanimity?

Is there value in doing so?

Why or why not?

My anecdotal experience in the forum through the years is that the atheists and agnostics are the most hostile and emotional. I dont know how other religious people perceive that, but again, this is my anecdotal perception.

 

[Pete in Panama]

My anecdotal experience in the forum through the years is that the atheists and agnostics are the most hostile and emotional. I dont know how other religious people perceive that, but again, this is my anecdotal perception.

Maybe what we're experiencing is not "most" of the atheists but rather the "loud" atheists and it only seems like most.

 

[SalixIncendium]

My anecdotal experience in the forum through the years is that the atheists and agnostics are the most hostile and emotional. I dont know how other religious people perceive that, but again, this is my anecdotal perception.

This hasn't been my experience. Yes, atheists and agnostics often plant the seeds, but the religious, often the fundamentalists, are typically the ones that become emotional when they are asked to defend their religious claims and become hostile when backed into a corner.

But the "it's their fault" explanation was useful.

 

[Pete in Panama]

...The participants will likely never change their views...

The idea of 'changing someone else's views' is where we may be going off track. There's a lot to be said for sharing joint observations of the world around us & building a common fellowship together.

 

[firedragon]

Maybe what we're experiencing is not "most" of the atheists but rather the "loud" atheists and it only seems like most.

I didnt mean to say most atheists. Sorry if that is what it seems like.

 

[firedragon]

But the "it's their fault" explanation was useful.

Who's fault?

 

[Revoltingest]

You mean sanely, without rancor? It is very difficult with the adherents of Christianirty and Islam and the younger sibling, the Bahais. RF is basically dominated by Christians and the Abrahmic religions have atheists as adversaries when they are not fighting among each other. The positions are intractable, and I think that is perhaps what we come here for, fight till the last breath.

With intractable positions, tis best to not expect
changing their mind....except perhaps to improve
understanding. Then one won't be disappointed.

 

[BilliardsBall]

In perusing the religious debates forum, it appears that some members wear their emotions on their sleeves, so to speak. Religious debates on RF range from passionate to downright hostile.

Do you feel you can approach a religious debate with equanimity?

Is there value in doing so?

Why or why not?

It depends, for example, Christianity regards a vigorous debate on the issues, while Islam may regard a jihad on the issues.

 

[WalterTrull]

The idea of 'changing someone else's views' is where we may be going off track. There's a lot to be said for sharing joint observations of the world around us & building a common fellowship together.

I totally agree. I just don't think of that as 'debate'. I think of it as conversation.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

In perusing the religious debates forum, it appears that some members wear their emotions on their sleeves, so to speak. Religious debates on RF range from passionate to downright hostile.

Do you feel you can approach a religious debate with equanimity?

Is there value in doing so?

Why or why not?

In my opinion, debates without some feeling, raillery or cunning wit can very often be extremely boring. It's one of the reasons I believe someone like Christopher Hitchens was so intriguing and popular - he had wit pouring out of his very being, and wasn't afraid to lay down the hard truths in extremely unflattering ways.

The other thing to keep in mind is that as "heated" as I may appear to get at any time, it's all just to exude the idea that I have a distinct distaste for the other side's arguments - or perhaps to relay the idea that I find the ideas shameful and that I believe the position should be thought over more because the conclusion having been drawn isn't a good one in my opinion.

In reality, I am as calm as one could imagine. Equanimous to almost no end. Some may balk at this - but it is entirely true. In my "real life" dealings I am known by many as the most patient person they know - and I all but do not even have a temper. You can't even imagine how slow I am to actual anger. I would lose all races to the finish line of getting to the point of "being angry." I would say I have gotten to the point of an angry outburst maybe 3 times in my entire life. And even then - I have never broken anything in anger, have never sworn at someone in anger - even my version of "angry" is tempered. I am much a utilitarian sort of person, and as of this time, anger has not presented itself to me as having much in the way of utility.

 

[wellwisher]

In perusing the religious debates forum, it appears that some members wear their emotions on their sleeves, so to speak. Religious debates on RF range from passionate to downright hostile.

Do you feel you can approach a religious debate with equanimity?

Is there value in doing so?

Why or why not?

The biggest problem is that the majority of atheists on religious forum sites, are on the attack. One would not be a card carrying atheist, if you were always agreeable to anything said by the various religions. They have to become the cynical intellectual, for each other, that hide lack of understanding, by being on the offense. The religious are required to be polite, act like adults, and turn the other cheek. If they don't, they are blamed.

The tactic is similar to the relative morality approach of others leftist, where dual standards are defined, to exempt themselves. For example, according to liberal education, only whites can be racist and only males can be sexist. In a rational world, a racist is anyone who defines the world by race. But to the left, dual standard allow their racist voting blocks to be exempt from common sense. Black Live Matter is a racist organization that gets mad if you say all lives matter. That is how a racist reacts to treating all the same. But they get a pass, by defining their racism as not racism. It works with the morons and criminals.

When dealing with irrational people, with dual relative morality standards, you soon realize that you cannot depend on logic and common sense to reach them. Rather you need to appeal to their emotions, trying to help those who are rationally impaired by culture, fake news and education.

Another example, is the atheists define themselves by science, even though most atheists are not scientists. An illusion is being created. One is required to accept this irrationality, as bring rational. In the end, you need to deal with irrational people with a tough love approach, since they are not yet fully mature for reason or faith.

 

[Quiddity]

I agree with A Vestigial Mote. Christopher Hitchens was an excellent debater with shallow in vogue type of retorts. He was doing what any good skeptic would do, ask questions in areas he was mildly versed in. He was good at what he did and was a joy to watch despite his dispositions toward theistic claims.

...but as to the OP

Psychopaths are rather controlled. People that don't care or have little invested can be rather controlled...... and so forth.

But...

Given that, equanimity demands psychological stability, that would, of course, rule out many of the extremes that are able to look like they possess such a virtue, but are actually not stable at all.

Equanimity (like temperance) for the catholic is a virtue. Not because you have no emotion, but because you abstain from showing it outright and because you exude other qualities alongside it (humility, kindness, decorum, etc.).

Something I have often failed in, but have improved, I think.

 

[Aupmanyav]

With intractable positions, tis best to not expect changing their mind .. Then one won't be disappointed.

Oh, Hindus do not try that except the Hare-Krishnas Hindus. Some come for the philosophy, they are welcome. I am not disappointed, it is fun sparring with people.

 

[Revoltingest]

....tough love approach, since they are not yet fully mature for reason or faith.

I begin to think you might not respect us much.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Another example, is the atheists define themselves by science, even though most atheists are not scientists.
In the end, you need to deal with irrational people with a tough love approach, since they are not yet fully mature for reason or faith.

Not being a scientist does not mean that one cannot understand some of what scientists are saying. Yes, I have a bachelors degree in science and have followed the progress of science for all my life.
Don't be so patronizing. I am 78, and faith with no evidence has no place in my view. Science has never been hesitant to say what it knows and what it does not.

 

[Twilight Hue]

In perusing the religious debates forum, it appears that some members wear their emotions on their sleeves, so to speak. Religious debates on RF range from passionate to downright hostile.

Do you feel you can approach a religious debate with equanimity?

Is there value in doing so?

Why or why not?

You can but it would be sooooo boring. Gotta be spicy for a good debate. *grin*

I get what you are trying to say though.

Sometimes it makes more sense and straightforward when emotions are set aside and the topic is debated on its own merits and information. A formal no frills exchange.