0
   

A note on religion...

 
 
Reply Sun 16 Mar, 2008 12:38 pm
Religion is a very touchy subject.
It is impossible I would daresay, to begin a religious topic with point "A" and end with point "A" being the topic still.
That being said:

Please.
Please try to avoid tangent discussions when posting in the religious forum. It is incredibly easy to get distracted by a misquote, or something not on topic...but for the sake of good debate, and good discussions...please stay on topic at all times in this matter, so as not to confuse readers.


If you find that a tangent discussion is absolutely needed to make your point: Start a new thread, quote the post you are creating a tangent to. Provide a link to it, and go off on a tangent.


Not only will this provide a better chance to go more in depth with your ideas as they balloon outwards, but it will give new readers a cleaner page to read, without being confused by missing a post or two.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 3,849 • Replies: 20
No top replies

 
boagie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Apr, 2008 06:04 pm
@Aristoddler,
Aristoddler wrote:
Religion is a very touchy subject.
It is impossible I would daresay, to begin a religious topic with point "A" and end with point "A" being the topic still.
That being said:

Please.
Please try to avoid tangent discussions when posting in the religious forum. It is incredibly easy to get distracted by a misquote, or something not on topic...but for the sake of good debate, and good discussions...please stay on topic at all times in this matter, so as not to confuse readers.

If you find that a tangent discussion is absolutely needed to make your point: Start a new thread, quote the post you are creating a tangent to. Provide a link to it, and go off on a tangent.

Not only will this provide a better chance to go more in depth with your ideas as they balloon outwards, but it will give new readers a cleaner page to read, without being confused by missing a post or two.


Aristodler,

My experience tells me that it is politically incorrect to challenge the proclamations that religious members love to voice. It would seem it is upsetting for them, to have to back up their statements with reason. Perhaps you would entertain taking similar action, when an associate makes absurd claims and refuses to back them up, this is not an honest approach to conversations and debates in a philosophy forum. No offense Aristodler, it is a creative diversion most people will buy, for their own reasons.
Aristoddler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Apr, 2008 06:13 pm
@Aristoddler,
There's nothing politically incorrect with staying on topic.

Aside from that, I'm not sure what you're getting at.
GoshisDead
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Apr, 2008 06:31 pm
@Aristoddler,
Boagie: It is true that may people get upset for feeling the need to back up their (religious) statements with "reason".

The crux of this phenomenon, as I see it, is people don't acknowledge that mystical knowledge and non mystical knowledge are arrived at through different methods. Lets take the scientific method. The scientific method in its essense requires (X) amount of (Y) evidence to create knoweldge. Mystic knowledge creation does the same, The Guru on top of the mountain says follow this method to get (X) of (y) evidence and you will know the "truth". Between the two, the end truth is different, the method to get there is different, the (x) is different and the (y) is different. It is comparing apples and oranges in a world where both camps are claiming that there can only be apples or oranges.

Aside: Yes I know that the scientific method does not claim an ultimate truth, however, if people act upon the scientific evidence as if it were true, there is no real difference.

So, the reasoning behind an absurd claim may not be arrived at through the same reasoning method that another is using to interpret the claim. It is a simple fact of life that the dominant knowledge creation method in any generation/culture has the upper hand in any argument, because 1) both parties are required to know the dominant method 2) education systems and government policies are created through the dominant method, and 3) the burden of proof is on the non-dominant method to prove validity using a system that may not be suited for that type of knowledge creation.
GoshisDead
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Apr, 2008 06:34 pm
@GoshisDead,
After posting that long ol' post, I did exactly what the first post was asking me not to do.
0 Replies
 
boagie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Apr, 2008 06:46 pm
@Aristoddler,
Aristoddler wrote:
There's nothing politically incorrect with staying on topic.

Aside from that, I'm not sure what you're getting at.


Aristoddler,Smile

Why does this topic in general evoke such a statement of action. It matters not the topic, staying on topic is a good idea across the board. This topic is special though, as has been my experience in the past. Moderators have intervened in the past in not an entirely unbiased way. So, no need to point it out that one should stay on topic, it is, if not a general rule, it certainly is a good idea across the board. Perhaps the notice was then unnecessary about staying on topic. Sometimes it takes a little time to make one's point, is this to be timed, for this one topic?
0 Replies
 
Pythagorean
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Apr, 2008 06:54 pm
@boagie,
boagie wrote:
Aristodler,

My experience tells me that it is politically incorrect to challenge the proclamations that religious members love to voice. It would seem it is upsetting for them, to have to back up their statements with reason. Perhaps you would entertain taking similar action, when an associate makes absurd claims and refuses to back them up, this is not an honest approach to conversations and debates in a philosophy forum. No offense Aristodler, it is a creative diversion most people will buy, for their own reasons.


Boagie, your experience tells you that only because you are always arguing from the opposite perspective from the religious one. There is, in my opinion, no inherent political bias that exists here. I have seen those who are arguing from a deeply held religious side behave improperly just as I have seen the atheistic offender. It works both ways.

So, people who are arguing from a religious perspective can be utterly irrational and even offensive. But also people who are arguing from an atheistic or opposite position can likewise be irrational and offensive. It's a two way street. O.K.?

I think we will always have trouble on the site as far as religious discussion is concerned. However, it is the fault of the participant within the discussion when he or she loses control, strays off topic and begins to hurl offensive language and to hurl ad hominems.

Aristoddler is right, it is only when you stray off topic or hurl curse words within an already heated discussion that you get into trouble. You need to learn to be able to discuss even intense differences with more aplomb.

There's nothing really wrong with making absurd claims and not backing them up provided that it is reasonbly demonstrated that the claims are in fact absurd. It's called losing an argument in public. However, there is something wrong with losing your temper and hurling language just because the other participant refuses to back up his or her claims.


--
0 Replies
 
Aristoddler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Apr, 2008 07:01 pm
@Aristoddler,
It's different from the rest for the simple fact that religion is a very easily misdirected, misunderstood, and emotional topic to discuss, no matter what end of the spectrum you are on.
I've been on countless forums, and this is the one common denominator amongst them all...Religious debates = chaos and flame wars.

My intent here is not to challenge anyone's topics, or their ideas.
My intent is to help people focus their ideas, by maintaining a level of direction without asserting despotic control as I have seen on other sites.
By the method I have asked of the members as stated above in the OP, I think that we will find that more debates and discussions will come to more direct ends, than those with so many tangents in them that we cannot track the debate with a map and a Gurpa Guide.

Forgive me if I have ever appeared to act in a biased way, it is not the idea nor the image that we wish to project here. We are trying to act as neutral as possible while maintaining some semblance of order while the site grows larger every day.

You are right though in a way, it is a good idea to have this across the board to an extent.
However, the other areas of the board are full of brainstorms. To disallow tangents there, would be to hinder intellectual growth, which would be the antithesis of the goal of the site.

I hope you agree with me on this, and if not, at least understand me.
boagie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Apr, 2008 07:06 pm
@GoshisDead,
GoshisDead wrote:
Boagie: It is true that may people get upset for feeling the need to back up their (religious) statements with "reason".

The crux of this phenomenon, as I see it, is people don't acknowledge that mystical knowledge and non mystical knowledge are arrived at through different methods. Lets take the scientific method. The scientific method in its essense requires (X) amount of (Y) evidence to create knoweldge. Mystic knowledge creation does the same, The Guru on top of the mountain says follow this method to get (X) of (y) evidence and you will know the "truth". Between the two, the end truth is different, the method to get there is different, the (x) is different and the (y) is different. It is comparing apples and oranges in a world where both camps are claiming that there can only be apples or oranges.

Aside: Yes I know that the scientific method does not claim an ultimate truth, however, if people act upon the scientific evidence as if it were true, there is no real difference.

So, the reasoning behind an absurd claim may not be arrived at through the same reasoning method that another is using to interpret the claim. It is a simple fact of life that the dominant knowledge creation method in any generation/culture has the upper hand in any argument, because 1) both parties are required to know the dominant method 2) education systems and government policies are created through the dominant method, and 3) the burden of proof is on the non-dominant method to prove validity using a system that may not be suited for that type of knowledge creation.


Goshisdead,

This is a philosophy site, not a church basement get together. If you know that what you believe, you cannot support/ will not support, then it does not belong at a philosophy site. When someone presents to me a retarded story of the earth being six thousand years old, Adam and Eve riding on those terriable giant lizards Beliefs in and of themselves do not warrant respect, they deserve no special treatment to protect their frailty. It is time for the bravehearts in this society to challenge, the sacred ignorance.

Relax, Boagie. No need to heat things up.
~Ari.

GoshisDead
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Apr, 2008 07:17 pm
@boagie,
I was simply making a statement about different forms of reasoning.
To each his own
Live and let live
and other applicable maxims
boagie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Apr, 2008 07:24 pm
@Aristoddler,
Aristoddler wrote:
It's different from the rest for the simple fact that religion is a very easily misdirected, misunderstood, and emotional topic to discuss, no matter what end of the spectrum you are on.
I've been on countless forums, and this is the one common denominator amongst them all...Religious debates = chaos and flame wars.

My intent here is not to challenge anyone's topics, or their ideas.
My intent is to help people focus their ideas, by maintaining a level of direction without asserting despotic control as I have seen on other sites.
By the method I have asked of the members as stated above in the OP, I think that we will find that more debates and discussions will come to more direct ends, than those with so many tangents in them that we cannot track the debate with a map and a Gurpa Guide.

Forgive me if I have ever appeared to act in a biased way, it is not the idea nor the image that we wish to project here. We are trying to act as neutral as possible while maintaining some semblance of order while the site grows larger every day.

You are right though in a way, it is a good idea to have this across the board to an extent.
However, the other areas of the board are full of brainstorms. To disallow tangents there, would be to hinder intellectual growth, which would be the antithesis of the goal of the site.

I hope you agree with me on this, and if not, at least understand me.


Pathagorean,

To be sure we will differ here, in my own life I have friends whom claim to be believers, and they are extremly nervous about being questioned about their beliefs. They are up front about though, it is not up for debate. My friend only discusses his beliefs with other believers, its is a closed circle. To pick out this topic for special attention is most revealing, you can deny that it is given special treatment, special protection but boys and girls, ask yourself, why this action directed at this one topic. Pythogrean do you have an idea how many associates are believers---------a lot is my take
0 Replies
 
boagie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Apr, 2008 07:30 pm
@GoshisDead,
GoshisDead wrote:
I was simply making a statement about different forms of reasoning.
To each his own
Live and let live
and other applicable maxims


GoshisDead,Smile
Quote:
Relax, Boagie. No need to heat things up.


~Ari
[/COLOR][/SIZE]

I rest my case!
0 Replies
 
Aristoddler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Apr, 2008 07:31 pm
@Aristoddler,
[quote]...ask yourself why this action directed at this one topic.[/quote]
I already answered that question in full.
Please go back and read it again...it was a lot of work, typing all of that stuff.


And please stop quoting full posts, it's unnecessary.
0 Replies
 
Aristoddler
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Apr, 2008 03:00 pm
@Aristoddler,
Thread reopened...

Resume the chaos. Wink
0 Replies
 
de budding
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Apr, 2008 09:28 am
@Aristoddler,
No wonder I avoid all religiously central debate. A very neutral, unbiased and constructive post like the OP is still managing to trigger some upset and tangents.

What bothers me is that I too often see a special case being made on behalf of religious arguments, is this one? If so, why?!

I remember the Kent Hovind and Ted Haggard debates and how sick to my stomach they used to make me, and as a result I just figured that it was the nature of faith that needed to be kept away from any debate. How can it even be remotely fair that the religious parties are allowed to enter the arena of debate knowing full well that their minds wont be changed, moved, pushed; not even prodded.

To paraphrase my Granddads advice to me on the matter: Firstly let the other party know that you are here to debate with an open mind, but that you will leave if the feeling is not mutual.

Dan.


P.s "Thread reopened... Resume the chaos. Wink"
I'm sitting at home on my own and that still got me to laugh out loud (you know how hard that is? Very Happy,) chaos indeed *chortle*; you get thanked for the laugh alone.
boagie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Apr, 2008 09:45 am
@de budding,
de_budding wrote:
No wonder I avoid all religiously central debate. A very neutral, unbiased and constructive post like the OP is still managing to trigger some upset and tangents.

What bothers me is that I too often see a special case being made on behalf of religious arguments, is this one? If so, why?!

I remember the Kent Hovind and Ted Haggard debates and how sick to my stomach they used to make me, and as a result I just figured that it was the nature of faith that needed to be kept away from any debate. How can it even be remotely fair that the religious parties are allowed to enter the arena of debate knowing full well that their minds wont be changed, moved, pushed; not even prodded.

To paraphrase my Granddads advice to me on the matter: Firstly let the other party know that you are here to debate with an open mind, but that you will leave if the feeling is not mutual.

bedudding,

Definations: Open and honest debate = Christian baiting!!:eek:
0 Replies
 
de budding
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Apr, 2008 10:03 am
@Aristoddler,
God, this thread is gonna keep me smiling for ages.

^Notice the subtle use of blasphamy.
boagie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Apr, 2008 10:10 am
@de budding,
de_budding wrote:
God, this thread is gonna keep me smiling for ages.

^Notice the subtle use of blasphamy.


Excellent, beautiful!!!!Very Happy
0 Replies
 
Aristoddler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Apr, 2008 01:42 pm
@Aristoddler,
Now that this has turned into an actual debate with meaning, and not just an attack on the ruling I made here...Boagie, could you start a thread regarding the topic at hand, so I can move the conversation there, and clear the board so as not to cause confusion for the original purpose of this thread.

Make topic.
I will move everything there.
Continue debate about the world vs christianity or the conspiracy that follows it.

Thanks. Wink
boagie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Apr, 2008 03:36 pm
@Aristoddler,
Aristoddler wrote:
Now that this has turned into an actual debate with meaning, and not just an attack on the ruling I made here...Boagie, could you start a thread regarding the topic at hand, so I can move the conversation there, and clear the board so as not to cause confusion for the original purpose of this thread.

Make topic.
I will move everything there.
Continue debate about the world vs christianity or the conspiracy that follows it.

Thanks. Wink


Aristoddler,

Actually your posting did not seem like a topic for debate, it sounded more like a notice as to what would happen to someone like me if they insisted on asking difficult questions---its called feedback. I have no desire to go on any campaign. I would just like to see the religious rise to the occasion and debate honestly or go away. This is a philosophy forum is it not? People say all kinds of things but they are held accountable, hold the Christians accountable and I shall be most pleased. There is no need for a topic on this really is there, we know special treatment is afforded, will it stop? Will Christians be accountable for what they say? We will see won't we.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
Paradigm shifts - Question by Cyracuz
 
  1. Forums
  2. » A note on religion...
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 07/23/2024 at 05:29:47