New Mod for Religion Subforum

Discussion in 'SF Open Government' started by Balerion, Nov 27, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Stryder Keeper of "good" ideas. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,101
    When you say "Training" do you actually mean the Scientific approach being applied where no single religion is adhered to but all are observed impartially (a la PhD), or do you mean the whole "Live a life of a piety, go to Mosque/Synagogue/temple/church/outhouse on a given religious day and be brainwashed the same repetitive strain of fundamental hogwash" (I think it gets termed "Life schooling")?

    For instance I don't have a PhD in Theology, I am aware of "Cultural differences" and how religions have come to be known, however I'd never see religion the same way as a fundamentalist because I can't have that undying conviction and devotion towards the "sum of their whole". (It would be a bit like someone telling me to believe everything in Star Trek/Star Wars is real.)

    You'll find that some hard-line critics of religion are in fact those that been subjected to their attempted form of brainwashing and don't take kindly to it.
     
  2. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    theology has a historical basis on this planet and the effects on society are real.
    it is these 2 areas that should be the major focus of the forum in question.
     
  4. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Stryder Keeper of "good" ideas. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,101
    Therefore it falls under Anthropology and Sociology (as well as Philosophy and Psychology)
     
  6. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    about as much as the government does.
    theology deserves its own forum.
    yes, the effects on society are very real.
     
  8. Yazata Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,887
    Tiassa introduced several ideas.

    First, there was 'atheists suck'. I simply ignored that one since it didn't seem to merit a response.

    Second, there was the idea that religion discussion on Sciforums should be conducted in a more scholarly manner. I agree with that and would really like to see it happen. But realistically, it isn't likely to happen when the bulk of Sciforums participants and moderators alike have little academic training in the study of religions.

    (It would be nice if the Physics forum was conducted at the level of a graduate seminar at Cal Tech, but if few of its participants have the necessary background, it isn't going to happen.)

    Third, there was the idea that renaming the 'religion' forum the 'theology' forum would somehow make a substantive change in the quality of discussion there. I expressed my opinion that changing the forum's name wouldn't change anything except the forum's name.

    I also made some remarks where I sought to distinguish between 'theology' as an academic discipline and what I termed 'religious studies'.

    'Theology' has traditionally been conducted from within the theistic religious traditions, by believers in those traditions. It's a scholarly pursuit that seeks to rationally understand and systematize a tradition that's already accepted a-priori. Human reason is put to work understanding God's revelation, but mustn't be placed above God's word in judgement of it. We often see theology conducted in specialized 'theological seminaries', operated by religious denominations for the preparation of their own clergy and scholars.

    What I'm calling 'religious studies' is something superficially similar but actually quite different. It's a product of the enlightenment, the so-called 'age of reason'. Religious studies has no qualms about reason being its highest principle, even if reason creates intellectual doubts about tradition, revelation and orthodoxy. This newer variety of religious scholarship brings the resources of history, philosophy, philology, psychology, archaeology, anthropology and any other academic discipline that's relevant to the study of religion. Other names have been applied to this kind of study, including 'phenomenology of religion', 'history of religions' and 'comparative religion', but I personally prefer 'religious studies' because the other names typically seem to prescribe particular methodological approaches. The phrase 'religious studies' seems to me to be more inclusive in terms of method.

    My reason for highlighting a 'theology'/'religious studies' distinction was to further problematize the suggestion that renaming the 'religion' forum the 'theology' forum would somehow improve it.
     
  9. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,125
    The problem is that the believers who post here have little if any knowledge about their own religions to begin with, and we actually find it is the non-believers who exhibit far more knowledge with not only the religion in question, but other religions as well, especially when pointing out the very many obvious flaws in the believers positions.
     
  10. Mazulu Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,090
    No. The problem is that you atheists are so quick to attack religious ideas (because you think it's fun or sport), that we don't share those ideas with you.
     
  11. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,125
    No, religious ideas hurt people and societies in many ways, YOU are a perfect example of that.
     
  12. Mazulu Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,090
    I have defended religious liberty from people like you. You actually have the unmitigated audacity to say that people don't discuss the details of their religions with you, when you have called religion stupid, idiotic, silly, evil, false, and every name in the book. Your opinion about religion is that you are hostile to it and only wish to destroy it. I don't even want to tell you how I express my religious convictions because you will simply disparage it.

    You are an anti-religious bigot and should be banned for your anti-religious rhetoric.
     
  13. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,125
    But, you have shown yourself to be a bold faced liar, amongst a host of other negative traits. That's some defense.

    You make up bullshit and lie through your teeth to defend your faith, often being stupid, idiotic, silly, evil ,false and every other name in the book, that is the crux of your faith.

    Destroying the ideology that obviously destroys peoples minds is a good thing.

    Is that a promise?

    :roflmao:
     
  14. Mazulu Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,090
    Q,
    You can hide behind emoticons and ad-homimen attacks because the moderators agree with you. But that doesn't change the reality that you have a soul. And you have an afterlife. Welcome to eternity.
     
  15. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,125
    More lies. Do you ever stop lying? Are you completely incapable of ever telling the truth?
     
  16. Mazulu Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,090
    Are you still incapable of accepting the truth?
     
  17. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,125
    I accept truth, I don't accept your lies.
     
  18. Mazulu Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,090
    So you're saying that 8 million Americans are lying about their near death experiences? That sounds unreasonable.
     
  19. Mazulu Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,090
    [video=youtube;nTuMYaEB35U]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nTuMYaEB35U[/video]
     
  20. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,125
    Whether they are lying or not is not the case, it is YOU who is lying.
     
  21. Mazulu Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,090
    I am reporting what their saying. In what way am I lying? Clearly I am not. Is that how you protect your worldview?
     
  22. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,125
    Reality requires no protection, especially from idiots living delusions.

    I think the question is, why do you so much want to be an idiot?
     
  23. Mazulu Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,090
    So you protect your worldview by calling people idiots. If your worldview is reality, then why do you defend it with namecalling? Why can't you defend it with facts?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page