I certainly don’t bother reading long tracts. If you can’t state your ideas succinctly in a few short paragraphs, I’m not interested in wasting my time trying to sort out what you are trying to put across.
Aristopus, please forgive us for being touchy about this. It’s not you. I believe your intentions are good and a qucik scan of your posts seems to reveal some good thought went into them.
But we get people in here from time to time who go on these long-winded diatribes, either attacking or defending religion and it gets tiring to sort through them and then try to make an intelligent reply, only to result in either 1) never hearing from the OP again, or 2) beginning a series of debates that eventually degenerates into name calling and then we never hear from the OP again, or 3) there isn’t much to discuss because we all pretty much agree.
Stick around a while. Try posting shorter messages, maybe focusing on just one thing at a time. We love a good discussion.
FreeInky, I appreciate your attempt to intervene and mediate this fracas. As you know, I’m new to the site and unfamiliar with the standards as to length and content. My essay has some interesting, and I think important, material in history (the Zealots) and psychology (the Dr. Ruiz excerpt on the Conquistadors.) I’m sure some people would find it worthwhile, because I have it on another site and it’s been well received.
I only posted it for a frank and reasonable discussion as you claim to be the raison d’etre of the forum. So when Occam, claiming to be some sort of moderator or authority figure, posts “I’m not interested in wasting my time trying to sort out what you are trying to put across,” I think anyone would respond negatively to such an arrogant and unfriendly demeanor. I’ll bet he never even read what I have to say (or should I say, “put across’?).
So I have to ask, how the heck did Occam get to be a moderator?
To tell the truth, I’d enjoy someone posting a comment regarding the content, either pro or con. But to argue over length, calling it “a long-winded diatribe”. That’s pettifogging, in the worst sense of the word.
We put ideas out into new threads. The threads then “belong” to the forum. Everyone in the forum offers their thoughts on the OP (original post). Some will be negative and some will be positive. You can’t be too sensitive.
And look at what you have posted here. Your title is Why Religion is bad, but you are really just discussing (mostly) Christianity. Furthermore, you quote heavily from the Bible. Many here find the Bible to be a mere collection of fairy tales. So to claim that the fairy tales are bad is not really very novel. I gave my honest opinion about the OP. That’s what we do. Sorry if you are offended.
Edited to add (mostly) since a bit of Allah is thrown in at the end…
As you know, I’m new to the site and unfamiliar with the standards as to length and content.
Pretend we are at a dinner party (if you engage in a half-hour monolog, I am going to start playing Angry Birds on my iPhone under the table). Try to be succinct and clear, and for extra bonus, original and interesting. I hope this helps. ;-)