Discussion in 'Chit Chat' started by rajatworld, Jan 8, 2012.
Nope. Merely introducing some memes that might be new to some people.
I'm not sure why you came to that conclusion. I acknowledged the fact that discussion such as this is very unlikely to change anyone's opinion, but that shouldn't stop me from talking about it.
I agree, so why not try to defend and justify them in more than a few forum posts?
Why does it matter who brings their thoughts to the table? What gives you the right to restrict what we post? Especially considering you tried to do so on moral grounds, which now seem to have disappeared from your argument.
All I did was propose a rule; I haven't even pushed it. I am honestly at a loss as to what you mean by "moral grounds." I was just pointing out that it seemed excessive and unnecessary and a little hostile to confront fairly sparse religious statements as if they were meant to prove anything.
A rule that goes against the fundamental point of a forum. You were coming to the defence of a user that didn't really need to be defended, and discouraging discussion because it might offend someone who is insecure enough to take points of an argument as some kind of personal criticism (which would be understandable if users were being insulting, but that's not the case).
So okay, nobody liked the rule idea. I'm not broken up by it.
I didn't really come to mythique's defense, in the sense that I haven't supported her actual statements. My concern is only the vibe and atmosphere of this thread and its impact on the community's willingness to share their rather personal, intimate views. That's all.
I didn't mean to say you supported her statements, but that you defended her in a kind of protective way.
That's fair enough, and you obviously meant well, but I don't think that restriction and paranoia of accidentally offending someone is healthy for a discussion forum. If I offend somebody, I'm happy to acknowledge and apologise for that, but whether I respect their right to be offended really depends on what we're discussing. So far, I don't see why anybody should be offended.
As I've heard Richard Dawkins (and others) suggest, tolerance is not respect. Saying 'I know that my faith is true, but you can believe what ever you want to believe' is actually quite condescending. I think it's far more respectful to say 'I think you're wrong, and this is why' (not that I've even been that aggressive).
And I didn't mean to emphasise your rule idea, I just thought it was a non-solution really.
Yeah, but Dawkins and others actually make that statement as an argument against certain religions because of how those religions are thought to view non-believers. But as Telcontar mentioned, everyone in some way has their own religion, and I'll add that even the official versions of those religions often give more space to members of differing belief systems than is commonly understood. It might not really be condescending at all.
But it's just as likely to be condescending to say, prove your beliefs to me right here, right now, in a forum post, in front of everyone, while we team up and challenge the logic behind them. I feel like that's what's happened.
((edit)) I'm sorry, thread hijack complete, I won't post again unless it's to share my own beliefs.
It can be used as a way to justify debate between any two people of different beliefs, and I didn't imply anything more than that. Of course not all religions view non-believers in the same way, but they do assume that they are right and non-believers are wrong, so the point still remains.
How is it condescending to question a belief? I would argue that if people didn't want to discuss their opinions, they shouldn't bring it to a discussion forum, but I'll settle on saying that if they do have a problem, they're free to say so. And it's not like we intended to 'team-up' on anyone, so why are you equating what seems to have been a perfectly civil discussion as bullying?
In fact, the first insults are just starting to surface, and you're the one using them.
I agree; that's not what "condescending" means. The act of asking someone to support their claims while you try to debunk them is not, in itself, condescending. It can be done in a condescending way, but so can anything.
On an unrelated note:
Has anyone noticed when someone tries to defend their point of view on well... just about anything considered a "Button Issue" They get ultra defensive? And the opposing person goes into attack mode, and I don't mean just attacking the topic they will hit way below the belt. So much so that "baby mamma drama" is preferable to spending even one more moment in the same room with them?
I wonder why that is?
At least you guys can have a civil debate about something without it becoming a pointless poo slinging contest.
Thanks for that! You're all rock stars.
In many cases, though certainly not all, the person isn't entirely grounded in their own belief, or they haven't given a substantial amount of thought to it, or they are unable to articulate it and defend it in a logical manner. Because of this, even if the belief can stand up to scrutiny, the individual person isn't able to adequately defend it. It makes them feel foolish, and then angry, because they're adopting a position they can't defend (or for which they cannot articulate a defense).
Yes, but why attack the individual posing a differing view point?
Name calling, and persoanl attacks just serve to make them look even smaller. I guess I just don't understand that. Then again I was raised with a father who would sit for hours on end arguing a point with me both of us with stacks of refference books in hand. Maybe I was just lucky like that?
At least it ballanced out my mother who is one of those attack type people.
Anywho, said it once I will say it again I'm glad that the members here are more even headed than the majority of the human population.
I only just noticed this. I think it's fair to continue posting (providing you want to), because now we're getting on to the discussion of whether religion is fair game for debate, which is somewhat relevant to the original topic.
And I have to agree with The Blue Lotus. I wish all debates were this calm and collected. Face-to-face debates usually get more heated because people don't have time to consider their points before making them, which leads to mistakes and misinterpretations. This leads to frustration, and the easiest place to direct that frustration is to the person opposite.
Yar. This is perilously close to arguing about arguing, which is the death of conversation
Anyway, it's reasonable to discuss religion, even if that means asking someone to provide evidence for their beliefs. Nobody's obligated to participate in the discussion.
Does anyone at this point have any actual points to make?
Sorry for not being faster... here is my belief: God is prime reality. He created all the existing things around us, as well as things we cannot see. The Bible is the secondary source of truth and is the infallible inspired words of God. God is Triune (don't ask me to explain that) and sent his Son to be the blood offering, not to apease God, but to be the catalyst for the new covenant. I believe in Heaven and Hell. I also believe that you cannot get to heaven by works but by faith. That's the basics. But if you want more... trust me there is more.
I agree completely but I have studied and supported my faith a majority of my life, after all it is the deciding factor on how you live. And I believe my faith to be very logical nad thought out. However, I have encountered many who have so many questions that they literally fall apart the second anyone challenges them with supposed evidence.
As for points to make: I think that disscussing your beliefs (not arguing) can be one of the most valuable ways of beginning to learn about yourself and the world around you.
What about those who are brought up in an environment in which they are not exposed to the belief in a Christian God, and have not been given the opportunity to attain faith? Does their lack of knowledge deny them entrance in to heaven?
I won't speak for anyone here but my parents fully believe that would be true. Billions of people who have never heard of Christ are doomed.
But it's ok, just imagine what they think about me! ROFL I left the church and converted to a "pagan" religion. In their eyes... I am the devils handmaiden!
I on the other hand happen to think that God is known by many names, many faces, and that there are many paths to him. Not a one is more right than the other. Why would a benevolent being set 90% of the human population up for failure? That just makes no sense to me, and given my studies, I can't swallow that particular pill.
Devil's handmaiden? That's kinda harsh... but I understnad the view. I believe that there is one path to salvation: through Christ. I do believe that there are ways for a person to not know the name of Jesus, but have his entire story and believe, and be saved. Salvation isn't in the name but in God.
That would seem to run contrary to what I thought the Bible had to say about the matter, but it's been a while since I read anything from it.
Sent from my Blade using Forum Runner
Back when I was still a believer, I though there might be an intermission of sorts between death and judgement where all souls learned the truth, whatever that may be. Then those who had lived a good life and accepted this final revelation were admitted to heaven. Only truly wicked folks wouldn't be able to accept the truth, and they go... elsewhere.
I came up with this because obviously no benevolent god would damn billions of his people due to his own use of poor advertising. Word of mouth is a terrible way to spread the only hope of eternal salvation.