|
Post by Ryan on Jul 2, 2010 23:32:51 GMT -5
Religion is a very temperamental debate topic. It is also one of the reasonings behind many things that end up being debated upon.
While it is perfectly acceptable to debate religion, it is important to keep in mind a few things when doing so.
1. Not all religions are the same, and you do not know all religions. This means that it is always inappropriate to speak out against religion as a whole. Any problem with a religion that you might see or have, is not a problem with all religions, and therefore you cannot use 'religion' as an all encompassing term.
2. While religion has been used as a guise for corruption in the past, is currently used as one for the present, and will be in the future, not all forms of religion are used to hide corruption. Assuming that any form of religion is corrupt without evidence to support your claim of corruption, is a blind prejudice. Also, any corruption found within a group of religious people, is not a reflection on the religion that group follows. While the whole applies to its parts, the parts do not always apply to the whole.
3. If you use "God" or "god" in an argument make sure you use proper capitalization as well as reference to whom you are referring to. "God" is the deity that Christians and Jews worship, He is also called Allah, and all references to Him are capitalized. This capitalization is a rule of English grammar, not a rule of the church, so please don't make me call the grammar nazi on you. Also, referencing to whom you are referring is important, because not all gods are created equal.
4. Never resort to name-calling or religion bashing. Religion is a personal choice, often celebrated in a group. Here on the moon we are a group, but we do not share a religion. None of us have a better or worse religion than another. Having religion simply means you believe in something that others might not necessarily believe in. You only believe that you are right, you do not know that you are. Therefore, never tell someone that they are wrong about their belief system. Never try to convince someone to believe in your belief system. And never act like someone in a level 2 tribe. This rule only applies between religions, so a person of one religion should not bash a person of another religion. For religion versus science, see rule 5, as it is more applicable.
5. One should never use religion in an argument in which concrete evidence is needed to support a claim. Religion is based in a set of beliefs which are in turn mostly set in faith. The momment one claims faith, is the momment that they lose the right to argue, for faith requires no evidence, and is in fact the certainty that something is truth, without any evidence to support said certainty. Religion is meant to understand the nature of the universe, but is not a tool for understanding nature. To sum up this point, keep religious arguments religious, and arguments of fact and nature, to the facts.
If you follow these simple rules, you will find it much easier and more efficient to debate things - especially things that cross into the realm of religious debate.
Thank You Tyme
EDIT: Rule # 4 clarified, Rule # 5 added - 7/4/10
|
|
|
Post by Joey on Jul 2, 2010 23:41:56 GMT -5
Can you add that you can't base a religion one the extremists (angry atheists and condemning Christians) because it is made of many people.
Great job btw
|
|
|
Post by krzych32 on Jul 3, 2010 2:02:51 GMT -5
in nr.3 you got Allah mixed up with Jehovah.
|
|
|
Post by NormanTheOne on Jul 3, 2010 7:04:52 GMT -5
I don't think so, God is reffered to as Allah in the Koran.
|
|
|
Post by krzych32 on Jul 3, 2010 10:41:01 GMT -5
He said Christians and Jews worship. And they call got Jehovah. Koran is Muslim, and even if at the end of the day it comes down to being the same God, you still have to use the names correnctly.
|
|
Philosoraptor
Moon
dangling prepositions is something up with which I shall not put
Posts: 145
|
Post by Philosoraptor on Jul 3, 2010 10:53:23 GMT -5
The fact that it's possible classify something as a religion means that there are at least some unifying properties common to all religions. For example, one property of religion that's nearly universal is the profession and acceptance of the supernatural. And, relevantly, this is a problem I have with religions.
It's not necessarily the history of religion being used to hide or glorify genocide, hate, corruption, enslavement, and bigotry I'm against, it's the fact that religion has been and will always be an extremely easy medium for those things to spread through. Religion is one of the most effective ways of controlling and oppressing people, and that is not a product of one religion or another, it's a problem with religion as a concept.
I more-or-less agree with your other points, although 4. could use some clarifying. It is indeed useless to claim one religion is "better" or "more correct" than another religion, but the argument between religion and verifiable evidence is a completely valid and reasonable argument.
|
|
|
Post by low on Jul 3, 2010 11:03:35 GMT -5
in nr.3 you got Allah mixed up with Jehovah. Yahweh, actually. In Jewish tradition, Yahweh was spelled with the vowels missing, the Hebrew script equivalent of YHWH, as Jews are not traditionally supposed to speak or write the name of their god. Jehova (or "Yeh-HO-vah" phonetically, with "J" representing a "y" sound and "v" and "w" being interchangeable in most European languages) was a name created by misinterpretation of which vowel sounds should be placed where. As far as responding to the actual topic, I do think that insulting (most) religion(s) has its merits because (most) religion(s) place an emphasis on faith, which is having a belief that has no evidence to support it and is itself impervious and impermeable to evidence going against it. There are certain sects of Buddhism (tibetan sects, I believe) which place an emphasis on skepticism, which is formulating a belief based on evidence and not believing things on faith, that are capable of earning my respect. But when the largest belief system in the world are telling people to keep on believing something for no reason and often going against reason, then it can cause a lot of trouble and influence laws which affect everyone and cause ideological based warfare. Religion is adamant about maintaining beliefs that, were they not protected under the guise of religion, would be treated as irrational beliefs worthy of committing their believers to mental institutions. If you believe that the dead can rise, that homosexuals should be stoned to death, that water can turn into wine, that burning bushes can talk to people, then you have beliefs comparable to a paranoid schizophrenic, but, if you say you're religious, then these beliefs become excusable. That's the difference between logic and rationality. Logic is using material evidence and known principles to make sense of something and rationality is having a mental disposition considered sane or typical. Religion is only rational right now because of the sheer number of people who practice it.
|
|
|
Post by ladystardust on Jul 3, 2010 12:00:52 GMT -5
3. If you use "God" or "god" in an argument make sure you use proper capitalization [...] This is not accurate in all circumstances. The word "god" without capitalization refers to the abstract noun meaning a supernatural ruler and/or deity. Do you feel the need to capitalize the word "deity"? I didn't think so. If you are referring to "God" as a specific individual, then capitalization is only necessary because it is a proper noun, just as "Sarah" or "Canada" is a proper noun. Ex. "The Greeks believed in many gods." "I do not believe there is a god." "I put my trust in God." "Remember that God has a plan." If you are trying to argue that capitalizing "God" is necessary out of respect for some cosmic sky-daddy, this is a statement of opinion, not fact. No one is required to agree with that opinion. Just thought I'd clarify matters.
|
|
|
Post by Ryan on Jul 3, 2010 12:06:28 GMT -5
@ all who disagree with the fact that religion is based typically in faith and not things that are proven/provable - Not all can be proven, at some point or another, all will require a leap of faith. Philosoraptor- a religion requires no belief in the supernatural Religion - in general, a set of beliefs explaining the existence of and giving meaning to the universe While many religions do hold belief in the supernatural, not all do. Also, religion is an easy way to spread corruption, not in its inherent nature, but because it is often celebrated in groups. Societal groups have a tendency to lead to corruption, but just because most of the societal groups of today are bonded by religion, does not mean that corruption is inherently easily spread via religion. My point 2 holds, please respect it. I will add point 5 later regarding religion vs fact arguments, but now I must go to work.
|
|
Nakor
Star
Non-Prophet
Posts: 991
|
Post by Nakor on Jul 3, 2010 12:09:32 GMT -5
^ That's actually what he meant. He didn't say to always capitalise it, only to capitalise it correctly based on your intention. (Heck, he left "gods" uncapitalised in the same paragraph. ) Re: 1, only because religion is a vague term that doesn't always involve gods or even the supernatural (some Buddhist sects highly encourage scepticism). There are aspects that can be globally debated regardless of whether one knows all the options. For example, one can debate against theism without knowing every sort of religion and/or god that could exist. An Occam's Razor argument works well regardless, until and unless someone presents valid evidence in favour of one. Similarly the supernatural could be argued against universally, with an understanding that if evidence was provided then we could change our minds. Re: 4, it might need a bit of clarification. After all the nature of many religious debates takes the form of whether it is true or not, or whether it could be true or not. By its very nature that sort of debate involves two sides arguing in favour of what they think to be true and could be seen as trying to convince the other side to think the same way. Yet I don't think that such debates are wrong in any way, as long as they are tactful.
|
|
|
Post by krzych32 on Jul 3, 2010 15:27:52 GMT -5
low, wasn't sure with one I should use.
|
|
Philosoraptor
Moon
dangling prepositions is something up with which I shall not put
Posts: 145
|
Post by Philosoraptor on Jul 3, 2010 22:12:38 GMT -5
What's an example of a religion that does not involve anything supernatural? I can't think of any offhand. I'm not implying there aren't, I just can't recall any and I'm curious.
|
|
|
Post by Lex on Jul 3, 2010 22:26:23 GMT -5
What's an example of a religion that does not involve anything supernatural? I can't think of any offhand. I'm not implying there aren't, I just can't recall any and I'm curious. He gave an example of some Buddhist sects.
|
|
|
Post by Ryan on Jul 3, 2010 22:26:33 GMT -5
religion is a vague term that doesn't always involve gods or even the supernatural (some Buddhist sects highly encourage scepticism). I believe Nakor already answered that question. The point is, it need not be a popular religion to be a religion. I believe that the universe was created by a big bang and the purpose of this universe is to create life of some high form, throughout billions of years, and then end. I have no evidence to support this belief (the belief in its entirety, for there is evidence which supports the big bang), and this belief explains the existence of and meaning of the universe. If I were to make more beliefs similar to this one, I would have a religion. It has nothing to do with the supernatural, there is no worship involved, and it could be just me who follows this religion, but it is religion nonetheless. - this is just an example btw, not my actual belief system. I think everyone keeps mistaking point 4 for what will be point 5. The thing I was trying to get at was that someone of one religion or religious belief, should not bash someone elses religious belief. Neither belief is accurate, for both require faith which is 100% lacking of evidence. Point 5 will be added shortly.
|
|
|
Post by Benyamin on Jul 3, 2010 22:33:50 GMT -5
I do think that insulting (most) religion(s) has its merits because (most) religion(s) place an emphasis on faith Insulting? Disagreeing?
|
|
|
Post by Ryan on Jul 3, 2010 22:35:53 GMT -5
Ok, point 4 clarified and 5 added.
|
|
Philosoraptor
Moon
dangling prepositions is something up with which I shall not put
Posts: 145
|
Post by Philosoraptor on Jul 3, 2010 23:36:39 GMT -5
Personally, I think it's strange to call that a "religion". I guess I disagree with the general definition of religion is all, then. That's just a personal thing, though, so there's no issue there.
I "believe" in the most accurate, current scientific understanding of the way the universe works. That's a set of "beliefs" I guess, but I don't know if it's fair to call that a religion. If so, every person old enough to think abstractly is "religious" because everybody has some set of beliefs as to how the universe works. I suppose I just have a stricter definition of religion.
|
|
|
Post by Ryan on Jul 4, 2010 0:32:42 GMT -5
And you have encountered the premiere problem with all philosophical debates. In your mind you hold one definition, in someone else's mind, there is a different definition. Since I defined religion earlier in this thread - that is the definition that is to be used (at least for this thread). It is very important for all debates that key terms be defined so that they are not misconstrued. But that's a rule for debates in general, not just religious ones.
|
|
|
Post by ladystardust on Jul 4, 2010 23:00:43 GMT -5
What's an example of a religion that does not involve anything supernatural? I can't think of any offhand. I'm not implying there aren't, I just can't recall any and I'm curious. He gave an example of some Buddhist sects. Do not take for granted that all Buddhist sects are religions. Many of them are more accurately defined as philosophical schools. This is actually a heated debate in academic circles.
|
|
|
Post by Ryan on Jul 5, 2010 0:54:14 GMT -5
Many of these Buddhist sects qualify this definition, not all, but some.
|
|