Comparative religion is not a science. It should be under the philosophy area.

I believe this forum is for looking rationally (not emotionally) on the subject:
comparative religion ............

Comparative religion is not a science. It should be under the philosophy area.

comparative religion is a science.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_religion

That article does not support or deny your viewpoint, so I fail to see why you present such a link.

Comparative religion is a science. It belongs to this category.

I will later post some guidelines for posting in this forum with additional explanation.

Comparative religion is not a science. It should be under the philosophy area.

That's like saying Anthropolgy is not a science.
Comparative Religion is simply Anthropology by means of studying religion.

Well, I think this forum is turning out just fine, a welcome difference from the Religion forum. :)

Well, I think this forum is turning out just fine, a welcome difference from the Religion forum. :)

exactly.

This forum does not belong in the Science area; Prince_James is correct in saying that it belongs under the Philosophy aegis.


The problem surrounding the proper organization here is two-fold:

Firstly, the Religion forum itself is inappropriately placed within the Philosophy fold; the philosophy of religion would certainly fit there, but Religion per se would more properly be placed within the domain of Psychology or something akin to that.

Secondly:

I believe this forum is for looking rationally (not emotionally) on the subject:
comparative religion ............

Serious discussion of Religion can and indeed does happen, but only within the strictures of rational thought.

To that end, there are two solutions: either religious discussion is not bound to the strictures of rational thought, and is thereby required to either be moved to Free Thoughts or to remain where it is with the required aggressive Moderation or it is to be bound to the strictures of rational thought and thereby should be moved to a Psychology, or Behavioural Science section.

Regardless of what is done, all too often potentially serious discussion regarding religion falls prey to the inane baying of the believer who fails to make use of, or recognize rational thought.

And this is a shame.

To that end, there are two solutions: either religious discussion is not bound to the strictures of rational thought, and is thereby required to either be moved to Free Thoughts or to remain where it is with the required aggressive Moderation or it is to be bound to the strictures of rational thought and thereby should be moved to a Psychology, or Behavioural Science section.

Regardless of what is done, all too often potentially serious discussion regarding religion falls prey to the inane baying of the believer who fails to make use of, or recognize rational thought.

And this is a shame.

please do not preach here. this forum is for the objective study of religion.

lol


Nicely said.

lol


Nicely said.

thank you. :)

I fail to see why this is in the science section. Even business and economics are not in the science section. Economics is a science, many people get bachelaurate science degrees in business, I can understand that, but even that is not in the science section because its regarded as "soft science". Topics like these belong in the religion section. Since when did spirituality become something so quantifiable and analytical?

should be moved to a Psychology, or Behavioural Science section.

Take a look at the site and let me know what section you find these subjects.


Anthropology is most certainly a science, therefore Comparative Religion is a science.

Take a look at the site and let me know what section you find these subjects.

???

My objection is that it shouldn't be a unique forum of its own; it should be subsumed exactly where you're pointing me to look....




Anthropology is most certainly a science, therefore Comparative Religion is a science.

Not that this is the logic forum but,

non sequitor

???

My objection is that it shouldn't be a unique forum of its own; it should be subsumed exactly where you're pointing me to look....

my thought is that this is to be what the religion forum should be.....
a place to discuss religions and how they are related to eachother in a civilized, objective fashion.

atheism has no place here, for example.

my thought is that this is to be what the religion forum should be.....
a place to discuss religions and how they are related to eachother in a civilized, objective fashion.

Now with that, I am in complete agreement.
Nicely said.

However.....



atheism has no place here, for example.

With this, I disagree.
I think that it's essential to a discussion on religion to be able to discuss atheistic points of view. When we can compare and contrast the various approaches of theistic and atheistic positions, not only is bias minimized, but the two can also stimulate each other's position in potentially novel ways.

My objection is that it shouldn't be a unique forum of its own; it should be subsumed exactly where you're pointing me to look....
Are there any child subforums on thsi site?

Not that this is the logic forum but,

non sequitor
I disagree.

Are there any child subforums on thsi site?

???




I disagree.


Irrelevant.

Logic is clear, and not a matter of opinion.

???
Are there any forums on this site with nested subforums?


Irrelevant.
Wrong.

Logic is clear, and not a matter of opinion.
Unfortunately whether or not it is valid or appropriate to compare Comparative Religion as a field to Anthroplogy as a field isn't a simple matter of logic - it is absolutlely a matter open to discussion and debate. If you don't think it is open to debate, that proves nothing but your own arrogance.

Whether or not the fields are comparable is most certainly of direct relevance to what I was saying.
In fact, nothing could be more relevant to what I was saying than that.

I think that it's essential to a discussion on religion to be able to discuss atheistic points of view. When we can compare and contrast the various approaches of theistic and atheistic positions, not only is bias minimized, but the two can also stimulate each other's position in potentially novel ways.

i think you misunderstand my meaning (or more likely, i didnt come across correctly):
i was making a reference to the militant branch of atheism that has infested sciforums. i know plenty of atheists in my normal day to day life....and im sure they would find the behavior of the majority of self proclaimed atheists on this forum to be deplorable.

that said, ill be very direct: i dont mean to offend by stating the above. the reference to atheism could just have easily been toward muslims, christians, hindus, etc, etc. the point is that objectivity requires empathy of some kind, in order to understand the subject matter at hand, and that is in very short order here in sciforums.

i applaud the creation of this subforum, and am very happy that it wasnt placed under philosophy. :)

edit: i think we were saying the same exact things...i was just saying it badly :p

Are there any forums on this site with nested subforums?

Not that I know of, not that I was arguing for that.




Unfortunately whether or not it is valid or appropriate to compare Comparative Religion as a field to Anthroplogy as a field isn't a simple matter of logic - it is absolutlely a matter open to discussion and debate. If you don't think it is open to debate, that proves nothing but your own arrogance.


Whether or not the fields are comparable is most certainly of direct relevance to what I was saying.
In fact, nothing could be more relevant to what I was saying than that.


Again, incorrect.

Nothing was said concerning the validity of comparisons.

You made the argument that 'anthropology is a science, therefore comparative religion is a science'. This is not a valid argument, as the consequence does not follow from the premiss.

hey guys...could you take it to the "Site Feedback" subforum, please?
thanks in advance!
:)

i think you misunderstand my meaning (or more likely, i didnt come across correctly):
...

edit: i think we were saying the same exact things...i was just saying it badly :p


No, more likely I misunderstood you.
And I agree with all you've said.

How about moving all 'religion' fora and posts not named "hard science" to the cesspool?

:p

Seriously, there is little hope (outside of faith ;) ) for "civilized and objective discussion" of religion on an internet forum. This new forum will degenerate.

There was a time some years back when the religion forum wasn't half bad, come to think of it... That was back in my day

Not if it is not allowed to degenerate, just needs hardline moderation.

Not if it is not allowed to degenerate, just needs hardline moderation.

exactly.

I nominate The Devil Inside! (seriously)

well, thats nice of you...considering all the mean things ive said about your mom.:poke:

I think Plazma Inferno self-moderates it, because he's interested in the subject.

Nonsense.

Did the fuhrer make his hands dirty by operating the gas chambers? No!

He had lackeys to do his bidding!

Nonsense.

Did the fuhrer make his hands dirty by operating the gas chambers? No!

He had lackeys to do his bidding!

It's quite annoying to take off the gloves all the time, to be more precise.

It's quite annoying to take off the gloves all the time, to be more precise.

i, on the other hand, dont wear gloves.
i enjoy licking the blood off of my fingers after i am done.
*slurp*

I think they should both have the power.