Allow Religious Debates.
 

I consider this community and its people mature enough to talk about religious matters without ending up in a flame war; respecting each other.

Why not allow them?

So far, we haven't determined a policy either way. Not speaking for any of the other admins, but I think they could very easily get out of hand like they did back at AF. At the moment, we don't need specific rules on them though, I'd say that as long as they don't start to actually be a problem, that's fine. So really, if anyone wants to, then just remember that. There is already one related thread in the debates forum, I think.

There's one about meat-eating (in which I discussed the inherent problem with moral debates--they can be had as long as no one acts like a child). There's also a debate about believing in God, which I did not participate in and don't intend to at this time. I agree with HNM, until there's a problem there's no reason to treat it like one.

There's a way to keep this from happening: segregation. I'm assuming most religious debates would want to be done within facets of each region. If the Catholics and the Protestants want to debate, that's fine because they both believe in Jesus. If Shi'as and Sunnis want to debate, it's all right because they both believe in Allah. Same with denominations of the Hindus, the Buddhists, New-Agers, whatever.

As long as they're all kept in within their own confines, the debates would absolutely never turn into flame wars as far as ultimate beliefs go. Sure, some particular about the religion might get heated, but at the end of the day they'd all shake hands because they both believe in the same god/force/deity/entity.

That's my solution. In fact, there should be a sub-section on the Debate forum called "Religious Debates".

Well, while I agree with Woodsprite, someone may want to jump faiths... What do we do in that case? No offense to any "true believer" out there, but there's no logically-airtight way to "prove" one religion over another.

Naturally, as a Protestant I believe all other religions are completely false... and I have claims for a few religions that I believe are valid discrediting factors... But I'll keep 'em to myself because there's a time and place for those discussions... and that time isn't now, and the place isn't here. ;)


...There's also the tension between atheists and theists (and New Agers). I believe discussions between atheists and theists are totally fine, because they're essentially opposite. Opposite points are better debated and discussed than slight differences of who's the "true" god. If it's "God vs. No God", then the stage is set: you can't possibly be at more odds than that, which means it'll be pretty hard to flame someone who believes what you believe is entirely absent. :) Of course, no one expects to change their mind about whether or not there's a god, but discussions that result tend to be very intriguing and interesting to read.

I welcome the idea of a sub forum for religious "debates". I prefer to call them discussions and I don't see why it would be a problem to discuss each other's religions or lack thereof but not devolving into a flame war. That must be avoided at all costs. NO flaming someone because they are of a different belief system. I have seen it done before. Just look on the Avatar IMDB board. It devolved in some placed into a Christian/Atheist flame war. Also, there were several insults directed at specific religious groups.

I understood why there was a policy on the AF curtailing these sorts of discussions. However, I agree that we are mature enough to deal with discussions of this sort. Just look at the political discussions that we have. People can get just as heated about politics as they can about religion but it is very important to talk about these things. If we pretend that no one believes strongly in their religion/political view, etc then how are we to understand each other?

IDK about the "debate" section exactly. Imho, I have my belief and you have yours why not leave it there and respect that? I fail to see the point in the religious debates between believers and non believers because it is always the same two people get mad and go off in the thread. Also, the ones who do not believe will not change their mind and likewise for the people who do believe. So if you want to debate for the sake of debating why not choose a better topic that is assured not to escalate into a flame war?

That said, if it is able to be held under wraps with everyone showing each other respect than I am fine with the idea. It will just need to be monitored imo.

Gunny, that is why I prefer discussions as opposed to "debates." With a discussion it can be something like in my beliefs, etc we believe this because of this and the other can say, well, I believe that because of that. This way, it isn't a debate but a discussion, a sharing of beliefs so that one can learn to understand the person even though you might be totally opposed to their beliefs. Does that make sense?

I do not think this is a sensible idea. General forum policy dictates that NO religious debates take place. As you can see in the Do You Believe in God thread, even a simple question can escalate through tangential comments. There is no doubt that the users of this forum are mature and sensible but it would only take one ill phrased comment for the debate to escalate into something more.

Yes, I agree a discussion would be a million times better than a debate. A place to discuss ideals and learn about other ideas and religions would be a good idea. Debate just always leads to issues from what ive seen lol.

Sadly, not everyone is like me. :P

But this suggestion is not about whether or not we bend the rules. This is about changing them; about changing the general policy. It's true one ill-taken comment can lead to certain things, but we've gotten far enough as it is with many topics in the Debate section that are already borderline-religious, and those haven't erupted into anything negative.

I really don't see the case for a specific subforum for it though.

Also, allowing them but only for people within the same one - seems a bit pointless to me.

If you'd seen some the debates I had with Catholics as well as other Protestants in other forums, you wouldn't think it so pointless. ;)

I think we are going to be OK, for now, with allowing whatever type of debate you want, in the debate forum only. Anyone who is not comfortable with spirited disagreement should not be in that entire section, and I've added such a disclaimer to the forum description. Personal attack and flaming will not be allowed.

Use common sense, and do not enter a discussion you are not capable of taking seriously and courteously.

This is what the majority of users want, so we acquiesce. We will have to watch the religious threads religiously (:P) to ensure that nothing too bad comes out of it. Nobody wants too heated a debate

I don't think it would be a good idea, just askin for trouble in my opinion.

The one time only that I will post on this subject. On this subject 'spirited debate' can very quickly become something much worse. I am not in favor of 'debating' this subject.

However, if you choose to have it, may I suggest an additional rule. You CANNOT say to another 'You are wrong'. Religion is very personal and should be treated such.

Just my 2 cents.

However, I've said many times to people that "I believe/think you are wrong" and they never took any mind to it. It's all right for me to think whatever I want to on here... as long as it isn't in opposition to the forums themselves, and as long as I don't dislike Avatar. ;)

In debating, however, you can't technically say "You are wrong" when talking about another person's faith because debating is about colliding facts about certain principles, like doctrine, religious history, interpretation, etc. The term "You're wrong" automatically comes by itself to the opposing side, meaning if there's anyone to say something is wrong about their beliefs concerning factual cases, it is the opposition that will figure this out (hopefully, if they have an open mind).

I've debated countless times on a slew of subjects over the course of about six years, and the only time someone "loses" a debate on the internet is when one side concedes to being in the wrong. I've seen it before many times from my opponent, and I've admitted many times that I was in the wrong. Such debating has shaped my knowledge and thought-process concerning bunches of subects.

However, on religious matters it is indeed possible to prove someone wrong, but only so far as difference in doctrine (backed by facts), difference in interpretation (backed by common sense or lexicon roots), difference in historical events (backed by accounts and/or historians), difference in scientific evaluation (backed by scientific observation, obviously), and many other factual differences. Difference in systemic belief is not an option to debate. If I want to be a Christian and another wants to be an atheist, so be it. That's not the issue. The issue is, what makes more sense? That's where the fun comes in.

Of course, "what makes more sense" doesn't apply to every religion. Most of the time it's about evidence concerning the other religion's prophecies. But this is why I want to keep most religious discussion (if not all) within the confines of each. As I've said, Christians debating Christians (as in Catholic vs. Protestant) is much easier than Hindus debating Muslims. They're just... too different. Anyone who says all religions are the same are either ignorant, or just-plain stupid. Hopefully ignorant, because ignorance can be fixed. Stupid is forever.


Also, on a side note, the primary reason I want this to be allowed is because I might slip up sometimes in a discussion and veer to the religious side. I don't want that to be a problem. If religious debates/dicussions are allowed, I don't have to worry about "slipping up". ;)

Nooooo religion here!!!!!!

If there's going to be any religious debates, Im staying out of them.

One can't really debate about religion, because in the end, it's about belief, blind trust to something regardless of what might or might not be considered "reasonable".

Debates usually have to lead somewhere, but when people debate about religion, one can never really prove or disprove the involvement of the divine, because that's the very point of believing in something. We don't need to believe that 2+2=4, because we can prove this by universally accepted mathematical rules, whereas religious topics can never be proven either way, due to their fundamental nature of being something intangible.

And this is coming from a person who really, really likes to debate about pretty much anything, especially controversial subjects, but what's the point in debating about something, when it always comes down to just believing in something just for the sake of believing in it?

I'm not in any way against debating about it, since I think that debates are pretty much one of the most efficient ways to increase one's knowledge about the world. But in cases like these, there's always the danger of things getting a bit too personal, seeing as religion is, and always will be, something personal, and whenever people fall back to the argument about just believing in it, the only real way to address those arguments, is to drag it all down to personal level, and that never ends well.

In the end, I'd encourage people to talk and debate about religion, because nothing should be considered 'too touchy', because that's the way these problems always come about, if some things are not allowed to open discussion. I know I'm sort of going all over the map here with this post, but it's because I know that these things usually don't end up all that well, when stubborn people like myself engage in a debate about something that cannot be solved.

Most (if not all) religious discussions going on now are either about showing how much more logical one belief is over the other, or educating/correcting others about what one's belief actually dictates (if there's a misconception surrounding something).

I would agree that part of building community and bridges of understanding must therefore allow mature discussion and exploration of Truth in all it facets, and religion and spiritual beliefs are an intrical part of whom we are as individuals and influence greatly much of our responses not only to Avatar but to life as a whole.

If in discussing these facets we can agree to at least be open and receptive to that others have differing opinions and tolerant, meaning we can agree to disagree, than such discussions can be quite illuminating and promote greater understanding of others and their beliefs.

I for one enjoy learning and appreciating Truth and Light no matter in what lamp it appears or garden it blooms, seeking to understand the greater aspects of the spiritual no matter the source it comes from. Attachment to the outer forms and practices of religions and spirituality can in fact become an impediment to ones own personal growth. But in freeing oneself from preconcieved ideas and notions, and is that not what so many of our discussions are about in the essence of what Avatar has awakened, we discover a myriad of 'truths' and beauty that are in unity and harmony across humanity's various cultural, religious, and spiritual diversity. If our 'cup is full' of self there is no room for this process to take place. If we think that we are 'right' and everyone else is 'wrong' than this becomes the greatest obstacle on the path of seeking unity. And unity is necessary if we are to reach the truth, for truth in truth is one!

...That's not really true most of the time, though.

You can seek "unity" all you want, but you can never fully interpret what "truth" is without some sort of basis for it. And even then, some facets of the said religion/belief might not be agreed upon by others, even when you know in your heart that it's true. Some things cannot be reconciled without giving examples of "why" or "how", and if you can't prove something, your belief is automatically in question, which makes it absolutely impossible to compromise what you believe with someone else's argument.

In other words, you can claim to "keep an open mind" all you want, most people have an established belief system that they know in their hearts to be the absolute truth. You can't... change that. Ever.

That's why I revert back to my previous post, most discussions on religion here are either about correcting a misconception on a belief, or showing how logical one belief may be over the other. Simple.

Isn't that really the point of all religions, belief that doesn't need any proof? Because if there were proof, there wouldn't be any need to believe now would there?

But how can there by any misconceptions, if everyone believes that they are right, and you can't change that? And since when does logic have anything to do with belief?

I mean proof surrounding something historical, or something claimed to be fact that is testable.

By "misconceptions" I meant misconceptions about what someone else may believe as opposed to what the other thinks the other person believes (as in, one person understood a teaching incorrectly).

By logic, I mean any given item in the said religion that can be shown to be true using only logic. Certain religions have logical teachings. While not everything can be solved in any belief, some things can be. :)

Well that's certainly a major problem with pretty much anything these days. But that's partly due to the vague nature of anything religious, because they are so open to interpretation, so you can't really fault people for understanding things differently and making up their own minds.

Well I've never had any specific interest in any religion, so I know nothing of any tidbits of trivia, or anything else for that matter. Religions do not really offer any answers, they only raise more questions, so they do not really hold any practical value.

Asking questions got me into becoming a theist, actually. Asking questions about religions and learning about them would help in finding out the true nature of their existence. You can't just say they hold no value, yet admit simultaneously that you have no knowledge about religion. ;) You should look into these things. You have to look first before you truly understand.

But as far as I can tell from many discussions going on*, religion (specifically Christianity) has always been regarded on ToS as guilty until proven innocent, which makes me quite angry... Although I try my absolute best not to show it.

Heh, and so does rapunzel. :grolleyes:

*(and have gotten this from many already including a few moderators/admin)

Well religions are sort of like lazy philosophies, where most of the difficult questions are just explained by the divine. So what is there exactly to know about religions, when you can't really know anything important, when there's only the divine explanation to it all?

I think of religion as not only "religious", but also a big help to the secular world concerning historical events, many of which have been shown to be just as accurate as portrayed.

But if you want to talk philosophy (specifically Christianity), I'm not a big expert on things like the Psalms and Proverbs, but Zenit could probably list a whole bunch of scriptures that are very useful for the human psyche, as good examples to follow. He's a perfect example of a non-Christian who still takes the Bible as a good book to use as a guideline in certain areas of life. :)

Sure, everything regarded in the Bible is primarily labeled as "divine inspiration", but much of what it says has meaning to it. Even if it isn't regarded as a holy book, it's still quite an inspiring read.

Well it certainly doesn't take a holy man to record history, so I don't think that as a relevant point of discussion.

And I'm sure Zenit is expert at presenting all sorts of mind boggling philosophies, but they are usually more or less so utterly complex, that they are useless when it comes to dealing with reality. Besides, a true philosopher should be as independent from outside influences as possible, and I'd say especially Christianity, being the major power religion it is, isn't exactly non biased base of reference.

I wasn't referring to philosophers, I meant philosophy. :) And going to how much the Catholic church has influenced a lot of the world, I don't really go by what any church says. I just go by what the book they claim to follow says. ;)

The only problem is, the minority (secularism) is forcing its views on the majority all around the world, except maybe in places like Saudi Arabia. I'm certainly not in favor of mob rule by pure majority opinion, but I don't think minority rule is any better.

But why would you go by the book? Isn't it much more interesting to think things yourself, rather than have ready made answers to everything done by someone else? Still, you are essentially going by what the church says, because you go by the book it's based on. Or should I say that the church itself is rather fail, if it doesn't go by the book it's supposed to be based on.

Oh well, religions aren't really about enlightment or anything like that, because they are essentially a tool to keep things under control.

Did I just read my name? Oh? "Utterly complex"? "Useless when it comes to dealing with reality"? "Independent from outside influences"?

First, my only influence is reality. And being reality complex, my theories are complex. And being Christianity part of reality, I consider it; just as I consider anything else.

Second, stop dumping things you only know by a false facade. It's like saying Karl Marx was the devil without reading Das Kapital, or the Communist Manifesto first.

Third, there isn't worse deaf than who doesn't want to hear. If you don't want to admit any flaws you may have and receive critique from other points of view, don't discuss. Period. If you're totally convinced Christianity is the worse thing ever happened to humanity and won't change your mind ever, then don't go preaching your Evangel and your only point of view if you are not ready to face maturely other postures.

And fourth, religious discussions are to discuss about elements of faith such as God, prophets, teachings... and not beliefs themselves.

Look, if I quit Catholic Church, it was exactly because I wanted to know things by myself; but in the end I realized that religious people tended to be good people. Why? Because religions are also a way to contain and preserve values throughout the ages by tradition.

Religion can be many things if seen by various perspectives; but they're all false if taken just one or two. To know how religion works you've got to take in count its history and how it's been used.

And it's not all propaganda and brainwashing.

Yet christians are also a minority overall compared to other beliefs in total. that's why such things should be private and not used as a basis for decisions, because someone will always disagree. A secular environment gives people the opportunity to believe what they want, only not to make demands based on it or try and tell others what to do. It gives equal rights to all regardless of their invisible friend(s) or lack of such.

That's the beauty of it: I haven't read the entire Bible. And for me, believing is seeing. While reading it, I just see the logic in what it says; in what philosophies it gives. A lot of it doesn't make sense to secular people, but it does to Christians because... well, I guess because we see, spiritually I mean.

You'll probably think of it as ignorance, as an excuse to block out the realities of what the world really is, and an escape from intelligence to stupidity, by living in a dream world that man created for control.

But you can't base that idea on the billions of people who've accepted it as the truth. You can't be as obtuse as Bill Maher and say we're all mentally diseased who need to be cured by reality. An example of it would be changed lives, for one. Salvation Army. The Red Cross. Countless charities. It's a positive influence on everyone except maybe the freaks like Darwin Fish, or some evangelists like the one in the "Common Minister's Reaction" thread. :grolleyes:

I'd say there are quite a few churchs that are "fail", in that you're right about how some of them don't even follow what the Bible says. But I'm technically not going by a church (actually, I don't go to church :shy:).

Churches can start traditions that are totally alien from what the original teachings say (imo, the Catholic church). Like you said, though, you can leave it to interpretation, but many of the basic teachings are grounded, in that you can't interpret them any other way since the language is plain enough.

History shows that with people who desire power over God, that'd be true. But the religion itself, the teachings within: they aren't about control. They're beliefs held by people who seriously think they're true. And if enlightenment has nothing to do with religion, how do you explain the reformation era? How do you explain the influx of knowledge and invention immediately after the Dark Ages ended? (The Dark Ages were caused by corrupt power-seekers in the Catholic church btw, not by Christianity itself.)

It's like this poster:

http://www.sciscoop.com/images/smart-atheists.gif

Weird to note that Lincoln was a staunch Christian, Einstein and Franklin were agnostics, Jefferson was a deist, and it isn't even sure whether or not Hemingway was a Catholic or just agnostic. Only 3 of the 8 people depicted were/are actually confirmed atheists, which kind of makes me annoyed with this 'famous' pic...

But I kinda like this picture better--

EDIT: Reductio ad Hitlerum removed. Keep that to yourself.

:)

Just noticed yours,

See that's where you're mistaken... at least, in America. I don't know how the government does things in the U.K., but in the U.S. Christianity is cracked down on a lot by the government, and by organizations like the ACLU.

I understand Christianity is a minority when compared to the rest of the world. No question. I also believe it should be treated just as equally as any other religion in schools, represented in the government as equally as any other belief, and taught around the world with the same time and chance given to teach any other alternatives.

I agree with everything you've proposed. But the fact is, it isn't happening. Christianity isn't being treated just as equal as any other belief. It's usually made fun of, blasted, marred, destroyed by the media and the film industry, and butchered literally by the hundreds to people in other countries like China. You don't see nearly as much discrimination against any other religion in the world as much as you do Christianity, and this isn't my opinion. This is a fact. :(


EDIT: I think in light of how the discussion has been going lately, we should move this to the debate thread, considering how religion has already been "passed" as an 'ok' debate category. :)