Forum Friday

The last couple of weeks have seen a lot of action in openDemocracy's forums; enough, in fact, to encourage us to give a summary for those readers who don't participate in the forums; these are great discussions and deserve exposure.

Last week, henry_hart_1, started a thread on 'Israel Delivers Airmail to Iran by Way of Syria'; a discussion of Israel's recent incursion into Syrian air space, what (or whether) they had attacked: especially if there were nuclear materials involved. Henry's point is that this was a message intended for Tehran. the thread has continued actively, and many of our our most active forum members have contributed to the debate; especially regarding how Russia might react, and to just what extent this might be the action of a US/UK/Israel alliance...and of course, as is the often the way on this sort of matter, the debate has been somewhat heated, lively and at a high level. Great reading! There's more about whether Russia is getting up to steam in the thread 'Russia prepares for war', started by another old hand in the oD forums, eric_5, who wonders where the next Reagan is going to come from to thaw Russia's relations with the west. Go read it to see what our members think of Reagan's success the first time around.

Elsewhere in the forums, I've asked our members what they think of changes in e-voting around the world. Holland recently stopped using e-voting machines, America is still in the throes of questions about Diebold hardware and here in the UK we are beginning to see a strong local governmental backlash against the technology. Veteran forum members Courtney Hamilton, Richard Lawson and LW weighed in to remind us of openDemocracy's wonderful coverage of e-voting in the past and to reiterate the feeling that e-voting is a bad thing. I'll throw the Open Rights Group report on the UK e-voting trials in here as well: essential reading on the matter. Still I'd have liked to see more of a discussion about the potential of using other new media to facilitate deocratic discussion and participation. If you'd like to discuss e-democracy, head over to the thread and weigh in. There's a great ongoing discussion about whether wikipedia is a good or bad thing, too.

An older discussion on Richard Dawkins' God Delusion got a new lease of life recently; active forum member abdulksaida weighed in on Islam, a number of members took it upon themselves to question Dawkin's own atheism(!) and the debate ranges far and wide over what religion can be considered as, whether it is a delusion or natural phenomena and, as one would expect, which religion is best. 

Iron Mike's throwing down a gauntlet to the more liberal members of the site by asking whether the Democractic party is heading towards neo-communism; I hope he is flame-baiting, but it's certainly kicked off the discussion, with 59 posts since the 9th October. Elsewhere in the forums, Candace and abdulksaida take a long look at gender roles in the Middle East, and Courtney Hamilton questions what value the Nobel prize has once Al Gore can win it for a powerpoint presentation...

Those are the discussions that have stood out for me in the forums recently, but there's plenty more going on. Click on the forums button at the top or left of the screen to explore, and find out more about our forums here.

 

This article is published by , and openDemocracy.net under a Creative Commons licence. You may republish it without needing further permission, with attribution for non-commercial purposes following these guidelines. These rules apply to one-off or infrequent use. For all re-print, syndication and educational use please see read our republishing guidelines or contact us. Some articles on this site are published under different terms. No images on the site or in articles may be re-used without permission unless specifically licensed under Creative Commons.

Comments

srheywood
29 October 2007 - 6:21pm
As the person (probably!) who questioned Richard Dawkins' atheism, I feel compelled to point out that I was quoting the man himself. On his own scale of atheism, which runs from 1 - 7, he's a self-described level 6, or - ' Very low probability [of God existing], but short of zero. De facto atheist. “I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.” ' “I am an agnostic,” Dawkins says, “only to the extent that I am agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the garden.” I would paraphrase this as follows: "Since, as I freely confess, I have no grounds for an opinion either way, I'll just make weak jokes about one of the possibilities in the hope that it will just fade from consideration as a result. I shall also hint that this method displays superior intellectual rigour." Sorry to keep on about this, but having dutifully hauled my butt through the whole of The God Delusion, I'm determined to get my money's worth out of it ...
Iron Mike
31 October 2007 - 1:43am
Quote:
Iron Mike's throwing down a gauntlet to the more liberal members of the site by asking whether the Democractic party is heading towards neo-communism; I hope he is flame-baiting...
Having been tied up with support to CA wildfires recently, my visits to OD have been rare the last few weeks. However, I'm not quite sure what Felix means that he hopes I am "flame-baiting." As I understand the term, it suggests a post designed to provoke ire, not discussion. I'm not sure what value is to be gained by simply "flaming" liberals or why Felix "hopes" that is my motivation. Is it inconceivable that someone might actually question the path of liberalism...or the wisdom of travelling that path?
Courtney Hamilton
31 October 2007 - 10:01am
A monthly summary presented like this, in a lighthearted, but serious manner, would I'm sure, become a must read for oD forum members.
Felix Cohen
31 October 2007 - 11:17am
Iron Mike, by flame baiting I meant more of hoping you were making a straw man argument to draw out the discussion; comparisons to neo-communism are always going to provoke the ire of some liberals, and I think the thread stabilised out to a pretty healthy discussion, so kudos to you. srheywood; I'm with you on this one (though I tend to subscribe more to the Daniel Dennet school of reason, not the Dawkins scientific fundamentalism...). As I see it, Dawkins is mainly a proponent of positivism, so he cannot reasonably claim to be an atheist, only an agnostic. I guess these things fit on a scale, however; I know people who absolutely maintain that they are atheists (and I end up arguing for religion with them), as well as those who are happy to admit the element of doubt (which is where I fit). In the end, I guess Dawkin's is clever enough to couch his statements and take Pascal's wager.... Courtney; thanks! I'm hoping to continue these on a fairly regular basis (I had though fortnightly, but maybe monthly would be easier on my time) Felix
srheywood
4 November 2007 - 1:44am
Thanks. Haven't read Dennett yet unfortunately - guess I should. The issue with RD et al. is not (primarily) how certain in their beliefs people are, so much as how honest they're prepared to be about the basis for them. I admire RD for not, after all, rationally committing himself to atheism (in the final analysis I'd have to do the same for theism), but this means he has to choose between either (a) toning down the hardline atheism or (b) being honest about the intuitive/experiential basis for it - ie. essentially holding it as a faith position. Either would suit me - I don't think I believe in the god RD doesn't believe in either. Oh well, on to Dennett. I see he has a long white beard. Promising start I guess ...
Courtney Hamilton
31 October 2007 - 2:39pm
Your welcomed Felix - a brief review of the more interesting debates and posts in the forum, at the end of each month, will certainly make it required reading for me - well, I must admit, it did made me click on to all your links... Indeed, I'm going to post another contribution to the e-voting debate, which I had completely forgotten about. Now that can't be bad... It seems as if it takes forum debates a few weeks before they really get going (the good ones that is) - and to be honest, I don't think there'll be enough new material to do a fortnightly summary - and besides, a monthly review will make it far easier for me to know if I've read it or not. Best wishes. Courtney
Anthony Barnett
1 November 2007 - 11:21am
With Courtney, Very interesting overview, Anthony

Post new comment

  • Allowed HTML tags: <p> <h2> <h3> <div> <span> <blockquote> <!--break--> <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <hr> <table> <td> <tr> <img> <map>
  • You may quote other posts using [quote] tags.

More information about formatting options