Allow Religious Debates.

[Aquaplant]

Originally Posted by Woodsprite

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.

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?

[Woodsprite]

Originally Posted by Aquaplant

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.

[Aquaplant]

Originally Posted by Woodsprite

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.

[Woodsprite]

Originally Posted by Aquaplant

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.

[Aquaplant]

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.

[ZenitYerkes]

Originally Posted by Aquaplant

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.

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.

[ZenitYerkes]

Originally Posted by Aquaplant

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.

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.

[Human No More]

Originally Posted by Woodsprite

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.

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.

[Woodsprite]

Originally Posted by Aquaplant

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?

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.

Originally Posted by Aquaplant

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.

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 ).

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.

Originally Posted by Aquaplant

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

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:



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.

[Woodsprite]

Just noticed yours,

Originally Posted by Human No More

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.

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.

[Sonoran Na'vi]

Originally Posted by Woodsprite

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.

I believe that depends on what language we are referring to: The original language of the Bible or the many languages it has been translated into. From my understanding, based on some people I know that have studied the Bible in its original text, there has been some problems translating the Bible into languages like English due to difficulties in translating certain words or phrases. Institutions such as the Catholic Church have traditions that stem from the Bible and also due to difficulties of the times (such as the tradition that is usually carried out for the Sacrament of Penance). But the Catholic Church studies scripture in its original language.

[Lyra]

Dont allow religious debates, not directly anyway.
It just causes trouble, and flame wars etc etc etc.

[Aquaplant]

Originally Posted by ZenitYerkes

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.

Be that as it may, but I'd say you'd do just as well handling reality without the use of old myths.

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.

People will always be judged by their actions, not their ideals. Besides, what true evidence would you say there is to all of it?

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.

Now you're just putting words into my mouth. I have about too many flaws, and I know them all too well, but they are not relevant to this discussion. There have been countless of atrocities committed in the name of Christianity, and I'm just stating that there hasn't really been that much to be particularly proud about. And what am I exactly preaching about here? I'm only advocating that people should think for themselves, rather than being told what to do and what to believe.

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

Well how can one discuss about intangible things without invoking beliefs?

Originally Posted by ZenitYerkes

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.

People can be just as good without religion, but to quote something along these lines:

"For good people to do bad things, it takes religion."

And that's because when and if people take their fate too literally, they can think it's justified to do anything as long as it's sanctified by their beliefs.

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.

Well you can't really cherrypick and ignore the bad ones. Sure none of us have any real way of knowing for certain what went on in those times, since history is always written by someone, and that someone may or may not be a biased party, so everything should be taken with a grain of salt.

Suffice to say I'm pessimistic towards everything by default unless proven otherwise, and like in this case, there just isn't any solid proof around.

[Aquaplant]

Woodsprite:

Atheism doesn't tell you to do anything, it's simply rejecting the idea of religion itself. What kind of logical connection is there in Atheist doing something bad, that can be attributed to the person being an Atheist? It's like saying men with mustaches do bad things, just because Stalin had a mustache.

[ZenitYerkes]

Originally Posted by Aquaplant

Be that as it may, but I'd say you'd do just as well handling reality without the use of old myths.

Where are the old myths in my reasoning?

Originally Posted by Aquaplant

People will always be judged by their actions, not their ideals. Besides, what true evidence would you say there is to all of it?

Actions? Let's see, we've got 900 years ago the crusades, 400 years ago the Inquisition and 5 years ago churches making social work along with charities. Which part should I take more in count?

You're free to pick whatever information may support your posture, but don't ignore the rest of the facts when trying to make a truthful approach.

Originally Posted by Aquaplant

Now you're just putting words into my mouth. I have about too many flaws, and I know them all too well, but they are not relevant to this discussion. There have been countless of atrocities committed in the name of Christianity, and I'm just stating that there hasn't really been that much to be particularly proud about. And what am I exactly preaching about here? I'm only advocating that people should think for themselves, rather than being told what to do and what to believe.

Well, as long as you're in any kind of association, and not only of the religious kind, you'll be determined by your environment, receive a certain education, be told what things you should and shouldn't do, follow patterns,...

Being a freethinker is almost impossible as long as you're a social being. However, there are degrees: thus there are more liberal or closed minded people, even in religious organizations. I myself have been discussing with a Catholic priest, and enjoyed it: there are real people beneath the cassock.

Originally Posted by Aquaplant

Well how can one discuss about intangible things without invoking beliefs?

Invoking the perspective of a certain religion on a certain point, not religions themselves. Collectivizing leads to prejudices.

Originally Posted by Aquaplant

People can be just as good without religion, but to quote something along these lines:

"For good people to do bad things, it takes religion."

And that's because when and if people take their fate too literally, they can think it's justified to do anything as long as it's sanctified by their beliefs.

Hey, I know; I don't follow any kind of religion and believe I'm a good guy. There are values outside religion: I only state that it's easier to learn them in a traditional context rather than by trial and error.

Anywho, I agree that blind-faith followers that act according to their books literally are most of times mistaken. There might be good values in there but pick the wrong verse or misinterpret it, and you've got burkas for example.

Originally Posted by Aquaplant

Well you can't really cherrypick and ignore the bad ones. Sure none of us have any real way of knowing for certain what went on in those times, since history is always written by someone, and that someone may or may not be a biased party, so everything should be taken with a grain of salt.

Suffice to say I'm pessimistic towards everything by default unless proven otherwise, and like in this case, there just isn't any solid proof around.

You can't either cherrypick and ignore the good ones; however, judging for what they did is useless and you may lack the information to bring something true.

Judge them for what they do now. Go to a church and see what Masses look like, visit a mosque and ask them to show you what aid projects they are currently working in, get into a synagogue and discuss with a rabbi,...

It's not all what you've been shown on TV, or through the screen of your PC.