|
|
|
|
|
| why is this topic called religion
Posted: 1/6/2008 10:30:31 AM |
why is this topic called religion .... when in every thread it becomes an attack on religion ...or peoples beliefs ...
I can't really comment on your remarks about [u]every[/u] thread becoming an attack on religion or people's beliefs, but I can comment on my contributions to the thread on miracles.
I do understand that there are "rules" regarding participation in these fora, and they are a useful guide to posters. The moderators are fairly liberal about the enforcement of rule provisions...keeping some kind of balance between being so strict and inflexible, that the fora become on one hand, dull, uninteresting mutual agreement societies....and being so laissez faire on the other hand, that civility, and decency go completely out the window. At either extreme, the site would not be as interesting a place as many evidently presently find it to be.
What some may interpret as vilification, others may see just as robust debate....it is a matter of examining the context of the thread and its posts to see whether it is one or another or some combination of the two.
OP's can, with some restrictions start a thread however they like. Once started, a thread will take on a life of its own....morphing along the way and dying, when there is no more to be said by anyone with an interest in saying it; though some people have developed...perhaps unconciously the fine art of contributing a thread killing post. Sometimes an OP will respond to the posts....moderating their own thread by actively participating in the discussion / debate.....rather than lighting the blue touch paper and withdrawing to safe distance to watch the fireworks.  Some...having started a thread in high dudgeon....with a particular ideological agenda to peddle, sometimes flee their thread, when their arguments are riddled with the buck shot of logic.....All I can say, if one wants to make an outrageously silly statement, then have pretty convincing evidence to support it....or wear a rhetorical flak jacket!
It is interesting that it seems to me, (though I confess not to have made an empirical statistical analysis of the phenomenon) that there as many theists, deists and spiritualists (new age and otherwise) starting religious threads in the Science/Philosophy forum as there are disbelievers starting threads and contributing to threads on the Religion/Supernatural forum.....I can't recall that any of the science and philosophy proponents have been overly concerned by it...and quite probably relish the opportunity to debate meaty metaphysical issues with the theists, deists and others of a spiritual / supernatural pusuasion. On the other hand, the theists, deists and so forth, seem to be a much more sensitive lot in the main, when it comes to a forensic dissection of their beliefs.
As to the Miracles thread, I recognised after hitting the submit button for post #6, that I had strayed strictly to the letter of the "On Topic" rule.....however, I felt that I had a legitimate point to raise concerning what constitutes a miracle.....if merely abnormal events, are labelled miraculous ,which are, if one looks a little more carefully, explicable, then posters are not justified in stating that their story was a miracle story.
Posters can believe pretty much what they like...and far be it for me to change their beliefs, as fanciful as they sometimes are. I do think however that there is value in challenging the basis upon which beliefs are held: be they religious, secular, scientific or otherwise. I prefer to use logic...and the reasoning tools of philosophy to get to some kind of truth through entering into a dialectical debate on issues that interest me.
The process if done well, can be of benefit to both sides of a debate, in honing the skills of framing a thesis, antithesis....and arriving (sometimes) at a synthesis of ideas. It enables protagonists to better understand where their opponents are coming from and to come up with some better, more pursuasive argument: hopefully supported by convincing evidence.
I quite enjoy reading and contributing the Science/Philosophy and Religion / Supernatural fora, I am impressed by the intellectual rigour of some of the debate that happens there at times.
Human progress, if it can be called that, usually happens by challenging orthodoxies....be they religious, or secular. If heliocentricism and other religious astronomical orthodoxies had remained static, due to their inerrancy and unchallengability...it is arguable whether we would have gotten mankind on to the moon. Academic acolades and kudos can be gained by scientists overturning scientific "shibboleths".....whereas in the religious domain....preferment and promotion usually goes to those that defend religious "shibboleths" That is not to say that science hasn't its faults and and weaknesses, it's frauds and hoaxes.....but Science, if it is done honestly is subject to review and challenge.....that is one of the core values of science....however, with regard to religion, such challenges are considered heresy.....until such times as the heretics outnumber the orthodox, then the heresy becomes the new orthodoxy!
Getting back to your post.....I say...Vive Le difference.....so long as the language of debate is civil and reasonably decorous. Be kind and curteous to others as people....but let's not be precious with ideas themselves....I say test them with the blow torch of reason...and see if they stand solid....or melt in the heat! | |
|
| why is this topic called religion
Posted: 1/6/2008 11:03:18 AM | Very true, chelloveck. Intelligent debate opens the door to truth. My ideas have been expanded by debate, very much so. But then, as you pointed out, human progress happens by challenging the orthodoxy, and as we live in states that say that the state must be secular, divorced from all forms of religion, the orthodoxy is secular.
It might be true to say that if the heretics outnumber the orthodoxy, then the heresy becomes the new orthodoxy, but consider the following things:
1) If the established government is the orthodoxy, and the heretics outnumber the orthodoxy, does the heresy automatically become the new orthodoxy overnight, or does that require a revolution of some sort, even if only in the adoption of the heretical idea and nothing else?
2) How does such a revolution happen?
3) How long does it take for than revolution to happen?
4) If that revolution does happen, how often is it that the heads of that revolution claim to make new standards, but just keep the status quo as it is, with the only significant change being that they are their friends are at the top?
5) Even if all this happens, if the heretics all have different beliefs, with the only unifying thing being that all their beliefs go against the orthodoxy, how can any one heresy become the new orthodoxy, since it represents only a minority?
Just my $0.02 | |
|
| why is this topic called religion
Posted: 1/6/2008 11:17:05 AM | so someone made a thread and met a little skepticism. Pretty well everyone who makes a thread meets skepticism. Its to be expected. If everybody agreed it'd be an awfully boring forum.
Before a person starts a thread that involves their beliefs perhaps they should ask themselves the following questions.
Are my convictions strong enough to withstand a little doubt?
Do I have enough character to accept that others don't believe as I do?
Can my beliefs withstand scrutiny?
Am I capable of objectively examining things that may or may not not agree with my beliefs?
Are my beliefs not sacrosanct and are they capable of growth or change in light of what I learn here?
Am I willing to admit that another person's religion, and another person's interpretation of scripture, is not inferior to my own?
If you can answer yes to those then you should have the tools for religious and/or spiritual growth. IMO.
But then again what do I know I'm just a big dumb atheist lol.
and btw everyone quit saying you believe in God because its an attack on atheism. LOL just kidding. | |
|
| why is this topic called religion
Posted: 1/6/2008 11:58:36 AM | .........how about giving people the benefit of the doubt? I am sure your standards are under constant scrutiny by you.....meaning that they evolve.
I am very giving when it comes to the benefit of the doubt. In fact, I often wonder at people who talk about being burned and finding it hard to trust again. I've been burned many, many times and still am always surprised when it happens again. Having said that, I am also vigilent when it comes to protecting myself and my family. Should I have reason to associate someone with a group I find loathsome, a KKK klansman for example, I will stand back, on my toes, knees bent, while we discuss issues other than his racist, elitist and bigoted lifestyle. Perhaps he is an otherwise fine person, but I do not offer him the benefit of the doubt.
Indeed my standards are a work in progress. Always have been, always will be. I was raised by devoutly religious presbyterians who took my brother and me to sunday school or church every week. Along with the religious indoctrination of us, my father also pushed his hateful, bigoted, racist idiocy on us. It worked. Until I graduated from high school I was every bit the bigoted, racist, intolerant jerk that he was. I think he was quite proud of me. Then I entered the army and I was exposed to other ethnicities. I actually developed freindships with blacks and hispanics. Good freindships, not just acquaintences. By the time I returned from Vietnam where I saw that my brothers in arms all bled the same color no matter their skin pigmentation, I was finally tolerent of others whether or not they resembled my physical appearance. I'm not perfect today but I do my very best today to navigate among society as color blind as possible.
So yes, my standards have been constantly evolving and hopefully for the better. And as in science, it is my continuing scrutiny that adds more each day to my understanding of how I should behave. Had this not been so, I'd still be the bigoted, racist, intollerant presbyterian "good christian" elitist that my father was so proud of me being. | |
|
| why is this topic called religion
Posted: 1/6/2008 12:42:54 PM |
I was raised by devoutly religious presbyterians who took my brother and me to sunday school or church every week. Along with the religious indoctrination of us, my father also pushed his hateful, bigoted, racist idiocy on us. It worked.
I thought the above was very fair of you -- to separate the "religious indoctrination" fro the bigotry and the racism (because "Presbyterianism" doesn't include "bigotry and racism" and it was a character flaw of your father's, not his denomination). But then you wrote this:
I'd still be the bigoted, racist, intollerant presbyterian "good christian" elitist that my father was so proud of me being. and I realized that the bigotry is still there. It's just changed from racial bigotry to religious bigotry. It's a pity, because that means the evil your father did still owns you. And that's just sad. | |
|
| why is this topic called religion
Posted: 1/6/2008 4:39:28 PM | By your definition, if you despise the KKK or the Nazis, then you too are a bigot. Notice that I used the word bigoted just before the word racist. Now that you mention it, had I omitted the comma from between the two words it would have more accurately reflected the bigotry I was speaking of. I'm quite certain that was obvious to you but your ethical conduct couldn't quite allow you to take the sentence in the context that you know it was entended. However, in the enterest of proper grammar and punctuation, best I can manage anyway along with spelling, I repost what you know I meant to say so it will be as clear for you as I am sure it was to many others here:
How I should have said it for those that make their point by personal attacks, name calling and reading out of context:
So yes, my standards have been constantly evolving and hopefully for the better. And as in science, it is my continuing scrutiny that adds more each day to my understanding of how I should behave. Had this not been so, I'd still be a racial bigot. I'd still be an intollerant presbyterian "good christian" elitist. These and other traits that I now despise but that my father was so proud of me being are hopefully, again, as best I can manage, erased from my being forever. And since I am speaking here not only to just, fair and cognitive debators, I'll point out that my sole bigotries now are aimed at such groups that have committed and continue to commit dastardly atrocities against humanity. | |
|
|
|
Home
login 
