A note on religion...

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.

There's nothing politically incorrect with staying on topic.

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

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: 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.

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.

I was simply making a statement about different forms of reasoning.
To each his own
Live and let live
and other applicable maxims

Relax, Boagie. No need to heat things up.


~Ari

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:

God, this thread is gonna keep me smiling for ages.

^Notice the subtle use of blasphamy.

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.