New Mod for Religion Subforum

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

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. dumbest man on earth Real Eyes Realize Real Lies Valued Senior Member

    ...I concur...
  2. Guest Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Yazata Valued Senior Member

    How would renaming the forum change the nature of the conversation taking place there? That's a function of the participants posting in the forum, not the forum's name.

    The word 'theology' literally means 'discourse about God'. In the sense of an academic discipline, it arose in medieval times and refers to Christians' attempts to systematize and understand orthodox Christian tradition and the revelation upon which it is based.

    That's often called 'religious studies' today. It differs from theology in a number of ways. Most obviously, it treats reason as its guiding principle, even if that leads to conclusions that contradict tradition and revelation. It brings the resources of philosophy, philology, history, archaeology, psychology and anthropology to the study of religion. And it's incorporated the vast body of work on non-Christian religions produced over the last two hundred years, meaning that it isn't dependent on concepts and presuppositions derived entirely from the Christian tradition and no longer assumes that Christianity is the paradigm of religion against which all other forms of religiosity are measured.

    Sure. What else is it supposed to mean?

    How would changing the forum's name to 'theology' possibly accomplish that?

    You aren't going to have university-style academic discussions on any forum on Sciforums, unless you populate the forum with people who have academic training in the forum subject. As long as Sciforums is a board that seemingly wants to attract the general public, it's going to be populated by laymen and will host discussion at that level.

    In the case of religion, that seemingly applies to Sciforums' moderators as much as anyone. I don't believe that any of Sciforums moderators have any substantial academic training in the study of religion. But even if they did, I'm not sure there's a whole lot they could do to turn the religion forum into a university seminar, short of replacing Sciforums' participants with people who already have academic exposure to the subject.
  4. Guest Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Balerion Banned Banned

    So you'd allow for discussion of specific religions, just not religions today? Again, I don't see what the point would be. And if you wanted to discuss how a religion has varied over the years, you'd have to discuss modern religions.

    I don't see any good reason why they should.

    I would disagree that the religion is irrelevant, since it was the religion in both cases that either informed or empowered the behaviors. And in any case, why should the discussion of religion be forbade?
  6. Guest Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Syne Sine qua non Valued Senior Member

    "Theology" is actually the more encompassing term.

    Theology is the systematic and rational study of concepts of deity and of the nature of religious truths, or the learned profession acquired by completing specialized training in religious studies, usually at a university or school of divinity or seminary. -

    And only the English term "theology" was originally used in Christian contexts (no surprise as Christianity was the dominate English-speaking religion), but the original Greek word dealt with the divine in general or the Greek gods specifically. But "theology" is now widely accepted as dealing with religion in general.

    As you can see above, "theology" is generally a rational study as well.

    The problem with "religious studies" is that it is ostensibly a secular study, which considering the tension between religion and the secular, basically boils down to criticism of religion (which no doubt is all many posters to that forum are really looking to do). But without self-reported experience (from actual religious, theists, deists, etc.), like any other social-science relies on, it leads to dilettantism. This is where those studying a subject have no real understanding of it in its own terms, as illustrated by the way many atheists here have recently insisted on conflating "religion" with a concept or belief of "god". This has occurred in several threads, and if allowed to go completely unchecked will simply lead to any atheist dismissing anything even remotely religious-associated with a thought-terminating cliche to quell cognitive dissonance (although recently it has only digressed every such thread into a debate on this issue alone).

    If quelling cognitive dissonance is the goal, the the majority of posters here would probably be better served by having the religion forum removed entirely (although I have always thought it existed on SciForums mostly as a way to draw certain posters away from more rigorous subfora). But if the goal is to provide an outlet for both secular and religious criticism (hopefully generating some thought-provoking or intellectually challenging discussion), then either "religion" or "theology" would be an apt name, and terms defined by other than critics should find some respect.

    After all, if the critics are the ones who get to define the terms, those terms will inevitably be defined in the critic's best interest (which is intellectually dishonest in any subject). Religion is a subject of study in the humanities, and requires the same self-reported data that the study of most human behavior does.
  8. leopold Valued Senior Member

    you know, where did i say that?
    where did i even imply that?
    a posting style such as what you just done should be heavily moderated in the science forums.
  9. Balerion Banned Banned

    Convey your ideas more clearly, and perhaps misunderstandings wouldn't be a problem. As it is, when I asked you how anyone could have a discussion of theology without a discussion of religion, you brought up discussing religion in an historical context, and used the date 1400 as an example. Did you mean something else by this? Instead of pretending that claiming I'm wrong is enough, why not correct me?
  10. leopold Valued Senior Member

    which is probably why the term ,ahem, "offends" atheists.
    it's closely tied to philosophy and like you stated encompasses the rational.
    probably the number one reason they don't want the name changed.
  11. Syne Sine qua non Valued Senior Member

    Also, the Comparative Religion forum already covers much, if not all, of what "religious studies" purports to cover.

    Comparative Religion
    mythology, comparison of religious tradition, history of world religions
  12. MacGyver1968 Fixin' Shit that Ain't Broke Valued Senior Member

    Well...renaming the subforum will do exactly two things....Jack and Squat. You can call it "Rang dilly dang de dang" and it's still going to be the same. It's like deciding to add a bar to your business, and serving alcohol, and expecting no one to ever get drunk and rowdy. Ain't gonna happen. You put alcohol and people together, and you're going to get drunks and fights. You put religion and people together, you're going to get the same. Religion is a special topic that most people have strong beliefs in....firm beliefs....and that brings out the passion in people.
  13. leopold Valued Senior Member

    in my opinion mythology should not be included in theological discussions on this board.
    we have a forum for that.
  14. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    You Make an Excellent Point About Why the Religion Subforum Should Be Eliminated

    Well, you know, the funny thing is that ... er .. you know, there really isn't anything funny about the proposition that atheists really are that stupid. I mean, sure, I'll knock on the religious people and whatever on that count, but the idea that atheists are too stupid to comprehend the difference?

    Oh, wait, that's right, atheists aren't stupid. If a bigot atheist says hate for the sake of hate is a good reason to have a discussion, we should not be so presumptuous as to presume that the more intelligent person—i.e., the bigot atheist—is wrong. Rather, we must presume that notions like reality, logic, and basic human decency are incorrect, as they offend and strangle bigots atheists.

    Now here's the point: Any atheist can complain about the preceding paragraphs. However, if one has not told their bigoted neighbors to shut up, or if you have defended their right to hatemongering, then no, they don't get to complain. It's the same thing I used to tell the religionists: Clean your own damn house, first.

    So here's the problem I have with your argument: Renaming the subforum specifically to invoke its academic discipline apparently will have no effect on people. At least, according to you.

    Now, like I said, I can knock on religious people for certain things. And there will always be the people who argue that the spirit of the dead brother they bullied to death was sent by God to prevent them from accidentally walking in front of a bus is somehow a theological construction, but, you know, I'm accustomed to that sort of shit from religious fanatics.

    What you're telling me, though, is that even atheists are incapable of making the switch from hatemongering to actual intelligent discussion.

    And, well, okay, there's no surprise there. As atheists start to build congregations, devise discriminatory symbols, and demand historical revisionism, we should not be surprised. After all, as one atheist explained to me recently, hate is okay if other people hate you first.

    Meanwhile, don't think I would discount your point at all. As the saying goes, this is why we can't have nice things.
  15. Balerion Banned Banned

    Speaking of hatemongering...

    I guess the lesson here is that if you have no shame, no argument is off-limits, no matter the irony.
  16. gmilam Valued Senior Member

    Kettle, meet pot.
  17. wegs Matter and Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    How are we defining 'hatemongering?' I think that the Religion subforum, for the most part, has been a good source of healthy discussion between atheists and theists. (from that I've witnessed and of the discussions I've participated in) What I've been noticing lately, in lurking in that section, is that some of the people who erect new threads to discuss their 'version' of faith/beliefs, seem unwilling to debate atheists. I don't subscribe to name calling and the like and I do think that is inappropriate, but if a theist creates a new thread to discuss his/her religion, he/she shouldn't expect atheists to not (at least attempt to) refute it. That to me, isn't 'hatemongering,' but I'm just wondering as to how that is being defined here. IOW, the Religion subforum shouldn't be used to serve as an individual's platform to promote his/her faith/set of beliefs/religion.

    That said, it's quite possible to respect posters, but not respect their beliefs. Healthy disagreements can be found all over this site, and as long as both 'sides' choose to refrain from personal, offensive attacks, and just focus on beliefs being discussed, I think it shoould work just fine. The rules that I've noted here also call for no preaching, etc...and some of the newer threads seem to border that. (and should be deleted, frankly) If enough of those types of threads are deleted, it will send a message as to what is permitted and not, in that section. If these threads are left to remain open, then of course atheists are going to 'protest' and that can be seen in some of them. Not advocating e-fights, but religious preachy threads should be removed, before it heads into that direction.
  18. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    This and That

    Oh, please, do go on.

    I am especially interested in your defense of the atheistic privilege of crackpottery.

    Nor, sir, am I the one whose argument demands that atheists are incapable of intelligent discussion.

    So, yes. Please. Do go on.

    You have my attention. I'm very interested in what you have to say.

    • • •​

    Just to reiterate—

    Now here's the point: Any atheist can complain about the preceding paragraphs. However, if one has not told their bigoted neighbors to shut up, or if you have defended their right to hatemongering, then no, they don't get to complain. It's the same thing I used to tell the religionists: Clean your own damn house, first.

    —quit crying.

    Given that you have repeatedly argued that actually knowing what one hates is irrelevant to hatemongering

    "The point was that it was unnecessary in the present discussion ...."

    —no, really, Balerion, you have zero credibility.

    As I noted:

    ... setting aside the question of what one country bumpkin from east of town thinks about any particular group of people, it still cracks me up that the guy had no idea what he was trying to lay his hate on.​

    So even in your hate-is-okay-because-they-started it argument, you're still missing the point: If you're going to bother the rest of us with your hatred, at least have the basic decency to have a clue what you hate.

    Crackpottery is crackpottery. Period.
  19. Balerion Banned Banned

    Pointing out the hypocrisy in your position isn't crying. You claim atheists are all bigots while simultaneously twisting Mac's words to support the bigoted premise that they are incapable of intelligent discussion. All the atheists in this forum have done is criticize (and yes, insult) an ideology; you, on the other hand, go out of your way to insult people.

    I haven't said, inferred, or suggested any such thing. My assertion was that there was no need for a dialectic on the meaning of religion when the context of the original premise, as well as the intended target, were clear from the start.

    And let's not forget that you're pretending my objection to your ruse was the last word on the subject; others in the thread--including Q himself--took you up on the subject. Instead of admitting that there were differing views, you act as if nobody wanted to talk about it. This is, again, evidence that you weren't really interested at all in an academic discussion; rather, you simply wanted to mock atheists. Just like how you taunted us in that thread for several posts about how nobody took you up on your "pop quiz," until several posters actually did take you up on it, at which point you dropped the subject and then soon disappeared from the thread.

    The strawman here is that atheists hate religious people, which is obviously false. You'll notice the only one insulting a people is you. Broad-strokes Tiassa, condemning atheists the world over.

    How ironic that you fake-demand an academic discussion of religion, yet have no problem lumping all groups you disagree with into such a nebulous category.
  20. leopold Valued Senior Member

    question for you:
    is there an "edge" to the universe?
    state your answer as a fact please.

    this is, in essence, what atheists do, state something as fact when the reality is they have no clue.
    atheists have NO CLUE whether there is a god or not.
    science itself refuses to address the topic but yet these "know it alls" tells us what "the facts" are.
    yes, very intelligent indeed.

    before anyone gets their bowels in an uproar let me state that religious fanatics are guilty of the very same thing.
  21. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    I'm completely baffled that after all this time, Tiassa hasn't figured that out, yet.
  22. Balerion Banned Banned

    Oh he has. Our neighbor isn't dumb, he's full of crap.
  23. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    How do you determine what is mythology and what is a religious "fact" for you?
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page