The Religion Forum and You

Discussion in 'Religion' started by Kittamaru, Apr 16, 2014.

  1. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,938
    Actually... the thread was my idea alone

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    As far as I'm aware, nobody else has been elevated to moderate Religion - it's sorta being handed over as my own little simulacrum in the aether. That's why I'm so interested in the input - if I'm going to be adjusting the parameters by which the rules actually apply herein, I want to make sure I do so in a way that best promotes a healthy atmosphere for the kind of discussion going on
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Balerion Banned Banned

    Messages:
    8,596
    I have no idea what a silmacram is, or why Esther would want one, but I'll trust you to do the right thing.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,938
    hehe, it was an attempt at some WH40K humor

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,152
    That sounds fine, but below you add limitations to this which alter the picture.

    Does this mean you want to discuss science in a religious way?

    Sounds like you actually joined to change the site.

    Yet you decided to join.

    As I recall, in one of the first posts I engaged you, you represented other gods--Quetzalcoatl . . . perhaps Thor--as nonsense. You seem to having trouble saying exactly what you mean here. You seem to be saying active members jump on him and tell him that the true God is nonsense, or words to that effect.

    Since one of the scientific treatments of religion is that it's rooted in ancient superstition, I'm surprised you didn't expect this kind of remark from the beginning.

    That's your opinion. But the people who opened those threads are making statements about religiosity (the pretense of religion) leading to pathological behaviors (e.g. abridging the rights of vulnerable victims) which is an example of scientific treatment of religion you said you were seeking. In any case, if you look at the history of threads immediately preceding your join date, you will see even more threads like these that were being opened daily. So this statement does not comport with your earlier statement, that you picked the site as one conducive to talking about religion scientifically.

    Because they inquire into religious thoughts, behaviors and actions which are part of the scientific treatment of religion you said you were looking forward to.

    No I don't think anyone can see that. I think they see serious people adding facts and evidence to the discussion which is emblematic of that scientific treatment you wanted.

    That's your opinion. I can only speak for myself: when I see posts I disagree with, or which are controverted by evidence I have knowledge of, then no matter what thread I'm in, if I feel like it, I will post those facts. If a poster denies facts I know to be true, or offers bogus rebuttal, or acts dishonestly, etc. then I will narrow my scope to those points and follow up. So the answer for me is no, I'm not trying to get a rise out of believers. I'm trying to have a reasonably scientific discussion of issues controverted by facts. As far as I'm concerned, and as far as other posters seem to me to be concerned, the purpose of what you called serious conversation is to arrive at the truth. If a person states something contrary to the truth of a matter, then you should expect the other members to introduce the substantive facts which expose the false claim. That's just standard fare for discussion boards.
     
  8. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    i assume you mean the religion sub forum.
    the discussions here should be in relation to philosophy.
    the discussions in comparative religion should be in relation to history, or to take a literal context, comparing 2 or more religions.
    my god carries a hammer.
    your god died nailed to a tree.
    any questions?
    the original intent had to be in relation to philosophy.
     
  9. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,086
    I don't know that I CAN respect a lot of ideas of religion. Homophobia, the idea of original sin, the inferiority and subjugation women, the morality of eternally tormenting humans in hell, the welcome ending of the world in a fiery apocalypse, the idea of demons and the Devil, killing an innocent person or animal to atone for guilt, corporeal punishment, an eye for an eye, the elevation of blind faith as a virtue, the sinfulness of contraception, the infallibility of the pope/Bible/Koran, jihad, faithhealing, snakehandling, book burning, the immorality of idol worship, blue laws, school prayer, censorship, unclean meats, the immorality of out-of-marriage sexual desire/fantasies, mandatory sonograms, teaching of creationism, the idea of a promised land, mutilating a baby's penis as a sign of God's favor, witchburning, unquestioning submission to authority, the uncleanness of menstruating women, the immorality of disbelief, the immorality of masturbation, the immorality of pride, etc and etc. Religion, at least that of the monotheistic variety, is like the Super Walmart of really bad ideas. Now that doesn't mean I have to flame or insult a religious person for believing in and arguing for these ideas. But surely I don't have to pretend to like or respect these ideas as if they were true and virtuous. Can't we still critique religion here for what we see are its major fallacies and flaws? Or is the ability of speak out against religion to be censored here just as it has been in ages past?
     
  10. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,086
  11. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,938
    That's the beauty of it - you can critique all you want! Just have a modicum of respect for the other people in the debate... that's the wonderful thing about being of a species with a functional higher intellect - the ability to disagree with an idea and be able to argue its virtues, or to agree with an idea and argue against it.
     
  12. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,086
    Good! Tks! Although I don't think I'll be arguing much for ideas I don't agree with. That seems to me abit cognitively dissonant.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance
     
  13. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,938
    It is and it isn't - the idea is that learning to debate in favor of the side of an issue opposite the side you support helps you learn to look at things more rationally and logically without letting emotion cloud your judgement. It's something I learned about in my time on a few debate teams and its served me well

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  14. cluelusshusbund + Public Dilemma + Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,780
    Ther will always be general uncivilness if moderation allows it to occur... so how about a religion sub forum (safe area) whare everbody is welcome to discuss religious beleifs... wit a Zero tolerance for "uncivilness";;; it will be like a little piece of Heaven for the many religious belevers here.???
     
  15. Cris In search of Immortality Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,199
    There should be only a single rule in this forum - respect other posters and debate with civility towards each other at all times.

    Beyond that, any and all ideas and concepts for or against religion are fair game for support or contempt. This is not a solely PRO-religion forum, nor a solely ANTI-religion forum, and no one should expect a thread to remain in one style without opposing contributions. There should be no reason to respect the ideas of either camp if you feel they are in your view contemptuous. Feelings and emotions regarding religious concepts run very high and often extreme making it unreasonable to expect most people to respect opposing ideas.

    The only moderation required is to remind a poster when he/she has confused an attack on an idea with an attack on a person. It should be perfectly acceptable here to call a concept or idea stupid and explain why, but it is never acceptable to target any poster with abuse. The two attack styles can be easily confused and can easily lead to flame wars.

    And religion cannot be debated in a scientific manner, it isn't possible since each side uses different rules. Science is all about evidence while religion is all about faith (the absence of evidence). The typical frustration most feel about most threads and their inability to conclude meaningfully is that it is like playing a game where one side is using the rules for baseball and the other using the rules for soccer. There is no middle ground where agreement can occur, at least not on the fundamental aspects. And that is the determining characteristic of religious debates and we should not expect anything different here.

    There should also be no restriction on the creativity of posters when they start a new topic, whether very pro or anti. The clearly stupid threads die off quickly, but some of the more bizarre topics do indeed stimulate new ideas and aspects that can develop into interesting debates.
     
  16. cluelusshusbund + Public Dilemma + Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,780
    Sounds good... an clear enuff/simple enuff that mods coud achieve a higher level of consistency in ther moderation... which will make Sciforums a beter experience for mods an posters.!!!
     
  17. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,938
    Cris, I would object to one point - you may find an idea contemptuous, but you should still respect it/the person in so much as you hold a civil conversation.
     
  18. cluelusshusbund + Public Dilemma + Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,780
    I have only 1 objection to that:::

    Respect for the person or ther ideas is not required... just a civil conversation is required.!!!
     
  19. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,938
    That is a part of respect cluelesshusband; as is refraining from name calling, lying, etc. I'm not saying you have to LIKE or AGREE with it, but basic respect goes a long way

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  20. cluelusshusbund + Public Dilemma + Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,780
    What you just said sounds muddled... what i said is clear.!!!

    As long as the conversation is civil... respect for the person or ther ideas is irrelevent.!!!
     
  21. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,938
    How do you figure mate? I'm asking for basic respect; no lies, no name calling, no misrepresentation, no intellectual dishonesty.
     
  22. Cris In search of Immortality Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,199
    Kitt,

    No - and this is the key point. You must be able to separate the idea from the person voicing the idea, and then treat each independently. It makes no sense to pretend to be respectful of an idea when you really hold it in contempt, just who would be lying to who?

    Civility towards the person comes first and has priority and is an absolute requirement. The way you then express your contempt for the idea becomes the challenge, and likely the basis of your post. The lazy approach would be to be abusive towards the idea and that also tends to stray into a lack of civility towards the person as well. I would argue that it is always possible to portray contempt for an idea in a polite manner, especially when you will be expected to justify your position, as should always be expected in civilized debate. It is always possible to use powerful and forceful arguments to express your perspective without resorting to abuse.
     

Share This Page