Posted by Ir (Helen) on: 05.22.2006 /
We’re delighted that this blog has encouraged friendly dialog between Christians and atheists.
We especially appreciate the time you’ve taken to post comments here, on the discussion board, or as a guest blogger.
Because you’ve helped to make this blog into what it is we want to let you know what we’re up to and how you can play.
We’re opening a new blog June 1 called Conversation at the Edge.
We hope all of you who have been participating here will check it out. We intend to carry over the best of what happened here on the eBay atheist blog.
Here are some of the features you’ll find at Conversation at the Edge:
If you’re interested in being interviewed and want to be first in line, please e-mail me at my first name (Helen), at off-the-map.org. Or just wait and read more about online interviews at Conversation at the Edge once it is open. I’ll remind you then that I’m looking for interviewees.
I’ll also be overseeing Off The Map’s discussion board which will stay open. The DB allows debate (as you know, Off The Map only does dialog on our blogs) . The DB also gives you a place to start discussions which aren’t related to blog topics. We’ll have a direct link to the DB from the new blog.
Last but by no means least - TXatheist brings us home:
I’m very happy that TXatheist is able to be our final guest blogger on the eBay atheist blog. His language and methods are somewhat different from mine which I appreciate. I see that as a good thing, because by being different we can accomplish more than by being the same. I’m really impressed by his active involvement in MTWABP. His example and his words have already challenged me to think about whether I am too passive and should take more of a stand sometimes against what I believe is wrong.
What do you guys think about our plans?
Leave a Reply
Comment by: Julie Marie
1 05/22/06 1:35 PM | Comment Link |Love the new name! I like the “guest submission” idea - periodically I have ideas I think would make a good blog topic, but can’t committ to a series of 6-7 blog entries. And then, there are the times I have DB worthy ideas - and I’ll remember to keep them in the DB!
I am pleased the blog will continue. Mike C had posted in the DB about how hard it is to find discussion groups with people who are willing to think really hard. I’ve been hungry for that for quite awhile, and am happy to have found it here. I hope all the “regulars” will keep on talking, and the “lurkers” will jump into the conversation!
Will you archive the posts from ebay atheist blog to the new blog?
Comment by: isaone
2 05/22/06 2:41 PM | Comment Link |I was looking forward to the re-org because I have been a little confused about the distinctions. Now I find I am still confused (perhaps it is because I came so late to the party?). You state;
I do not see the disctinction between Dialog and debate. Can you please clarify so that I have at least one less reason to offend anyone through their misuse.
Comment by: Jim Henderson
3 05/22/06 6:31 PM | Comment Link |isaone, I wold like to hear Irs response to your question but let me first do what we call CBT at OTM
C= Catch people doing the right thing
B= Blame them for being successful
T= Tell on them
Your question is what we call a clarifying question and is very important to dialog - Rather than attack you inquired That is a function of dialog but not necessary with debate
Dialog also leads from weakness or a one down position rather than trying to exhibit power thru tricky questions or sharper intellect.
Dialog also accepts difference and celebrates it.
Dialog seesk to understand rather than win or dominate
Dialog admits (without being tricked into it) ” Here’s what I don’t know” rather than saying ” how could ANYONE believe that?
Dialog “gives ground” and owns our humanity and limitation.
Dialog seeks to learn rather than teach .
There are lots of places to debate and hardly any places to dialog
Comment by: Ir
4 05/22/06 6:58 PM | Comment Link |Funny - when I read the question about dialog vs debate I was thinking “I’d like to hear Jim’s response to that” ;)
I think of debate as two people talking at each other who both think they have the right answer. They only listen enough to hear what they need to provide a rebuttal to to keep making their own points. Debate is all about ‘the right answer’.
Dialog on the other hand, is not just about ‘the right answer’. Dialog is something that can help us understand people better who are committed to their own right answers, which are different from ours. Dialog can help us find that we do have some things in common even though we are well aware of significant differences in our points of view. Dialog can enable people who are different to become friends anyway.
Ok, that’s my answer and I don’t know whether it’s right or not. But since this isn’t a debate, perhaps that’s ok :)
Comment by: Ir
5 05/22/06 7:20 PM | Comment Link |Thanks!
Yes, I’m hoping it will enable more people to contribute blog entries, since they won’t have to commit to a 2-3 day stretch of guest blogging. We will still have guest bloggers too, to the extent people have time to do that.
Me too!
Yes, I hope so. And new people are always welcome too, of course.
That’s an interesting question. We haven’t discussed what will happen with those yet. I hope we can continue to make the best of what has been posted here available one way or another.
Comment by: Jim Henderson
6 05/22/06 8:54 PM | Comment Link |Hey Marty - you are mr dialog - can you respond to isaone question per the difference between dialog and debate- I just make stuff up off the top of my head but I’ll bet there is some thoughtful writing on this topic out there - maybe from you!
Comment by: Eliza
7 05/22/06 10:08 PM | Comment Link |Hey, Helen - sounds great! Thanks for taking this (and all of us) on! And, is it too silly to call Conversations at the Edge “CatE” for short? ;) (That’s “Kate” to my mind’s ears - others might mentally call it “Catty” or “C at E”…)
Comment by: Ir
8 05/23/06 3:30 AM | Comment Link |Thanks Eliza!
You’re welcome.
CatE is exactly what I’ve been calling it for short - how did you know? ;)
Oh, I know how - you’re the ‘queen’ of acronyms, O Great Provider of ‘MTWABP’! :)
(I think I’m right, aren’t I, that you were the person who came up with MTWABP?)
Comment by: Ir
9 05/23/06 3:58 AM | Comment Link |isaone,
A few more comments on dialog vs. debate…
I appreciate you asking about the difference between dialog and debate and wanting to stay within the type of conversation we’d like to have here.
In practice, if you or anyone else takes something in a direction which seems more debate-like than we want, we will ask you to please take it to the discussion board.
We recognize that each person posts a little differently. That’s what makes conversation here interesting and that’s why I’m reluctant to try to pin down what dialog and debate are. I might do it in a way that overly favors the posting styles of some people at the expense of others.
I think each participant, if he/she considers what he/she is trying to achieve with his/her comments, could figure out whether he/she is open to listening to and learning from others or is just trying to ’score points off those who believe differently’.
And, because this is dialog and not just about ‘right answers’ there are ways to learn from each other and get to understand each other better even if we don’t anticipate hearing something here which will change our basic beliefs or nonbeliefs about, say, God’s existence.
Comment by: NCxian
10 05/23/06 5:20 AM | Comment Link |Isaone, it occurs to me that what might be confusing is that over on the DB, where we say we take our debates, there is a lot of dialogue. That’s because some of us are constitutionally designed to play nice whereever we go (faulty child rearing or something). Over on the DB, the Debate and Discussion section is where people are invited to pull out their flame-throwers, if they must. The other sections are kept pretty civil.
Comment by: Ir
11 05/23/06 5:55 AM | Comment Link |As you say NCxian, there’s definitely overlap with the db in that there is dialog on there too. It’s not only a place to have debates - it’s also a place where people can start threads on whatever topics they like, without taking blog entries off topic here.
Basically it gives people more conversation/dialog/disussion options, including the debate option.
As for being ‘nice’ - we expect that people be civil to each other here and on the DB, even in debate. In other words, in the db debate subform you can use your flame-thrower to present why you are right (and/or the other person is wrong) as forcefully as possible. But not to personally attack the other person you’re debating.
Comment by: Eliza
12 05/23/06 6:57 AM | Comment Link |I think I was the first one to use MTWABP…it’s just too bad it isn’t a catchier acronym, or doesn’t spell something that’s easy to say!
Comment by: julie marie
13 05/23/06 12:59 PM | Comment Link |well, if we decided the ‘b’ was silent, we could verbalize m-twap. That does sound silly. But silliness is highly underrated, imo.
Comment by: Ir
14 05/23/06 1:17 PM | Comment Link |I almost wrote “making OUR world a better place” the other day but I didn’t want to mess with the acronym ;). MOWABP at least has one more vowel in!
Comment by: Tom in Sacramento
15 05/23/06 1:50 PM | Comment Link |I would say, debate is about winning, dialog is about understanding.
Debate is proving the superiority of my view over yours. Only problem is, you probably don’t really care if I think my point is superior, because you’ve found something that works for you. (And, of course, the opposite is true.)
Dialog is the vulnerability and transparency to say, This is who I am. Who are you? It is manifesting my interest in you and satisfying your interest in me.
Comment by: Marty
16 05/23/06 4:10 PM | Comment Link |I think that you and many others who have responded have dialogue versus debate figured out - and I have seen isaone be a good dialoguer and pointed it out to him when I saw it.
I think my Quaker F/friends have this figured out best. They truly believe that wisdom flows through others as much as it does directly to them. In their business meeting they get to practice this most. They truly listen to each other. They allow (require?) time between what people say to truly take in the other person. They never take a vote. They have no heirarcy. They continue to share (making sure everyone gets a chance and no one dominates) until such time as you can start to feel a consensus building. That builds (it can be a very slow process) until such time as you can just tell that a solution has been arrived at - and that that is now everyone’s solution. At that time the “Clerk” indicates what he feels the “sense of the meeting” is - everyone seems to nod or in some way agree - and the decision is recorded. Imagine what it would be like to leave a meeting where everyone feels they have really been heard - and no one was outvoted. It is really powerful.
Comment by: Julie Marie
17 05/23/06 4:39 PM | Comment Link |nicely put Tom, I like that.
Comment by: NCxian
18 05/24/06 5:12 AM | Comment Link |Marty said:
I’ve facilitated secular group decision-making processes. Building consensus is an incredibly time-consuming process and people (who aren’t trained as Quakers, I guess) get really antsy and start saying things like, “just do it”. Especially executive types. IMO, though, the process is worth every minute of time spent doing it–it just sometimes takes a long time for folks to see the benefits and they are often intangible (job satisfaction, etc).
By they way, I think the Quaker process is a good example of how we gain wisdom from the folks who go before us. One good thing about tradition in community is that you can share not just among the current members, but the ancestors aren’t denied a vote just because they are dead. (that’s a paraphrase from G.K Chesterton, not mine, although I wish I could claim it).