Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
My personal point, relative to the thread, is repeated arguments over atheism or religion is never productive; and to suggest it can be implies your end-goal is to persuade another into your way of thinking. That’s proselytizing. Hence the point relative to one’s psychological health (or lack thereof); because the vast majority of us (atheists) aren’t invested in others’ personal beliefs, particularly relative to people we don’t (care to) know on a personal level. In other words, an intelligent discussion need not have any ‘requirements’ or end-goal whereas an argument over atheism/religion is always about anger/persuasion. If one’s argument is knowledgeable relative to a city, business, university or the law, that’s one thing; but many of us don’t even feel the need to waste our time correcting/arguing such (in a forum) when people will die on their own sword of stupidity, so to speak, before admitting they’re wrong, lol. That said, it is especially important to consider relative to personal opinion/belief when there is no correct answer, other than they have the right to believe in a god as I have the right not to. At the end of the day, it’s simple logic.
Philosophy is a more interesting subject (and open to discussion) in that it encompasses the study of knowledge, reality and existence. That said, some (wrongly) believe an interest in such translates to a belief in a god (and want to argue that as well). Philosophy is not religion, although there is a branch of philosophy that studies/analyzes concepts, practices, and beliefs relative to various theistic religions. Unfortunately, so many fear education or can’t see beyond their tunnel vision (or what someone tells them to believe), they are ready to argue it full-force as well, per the thread.
That said, what is a ‘psychic’/clairvoyant/telepathic injury’?
Though I tend to agree that repeated arguments over atheism and religion is never productive (and boy are they repeated in this forum), I'm not sure I agree with all the rest of your comment...
Though unproductive from the standpoint of changing anyone's mind in this forum, I sometimes feel compelled to counter what I view as wrong-thinking or wrong-doing, because especially in the case of religion, what people think and do can have profound effects on all concerned. Up to and including violence and war. Just hard to read sometimes without inserting what I consider correction or balance where needed.
Rarely if ever do I feel anything really accomplished by doing so. Perhaps I'm just scratching an itch that I can't scratch in my personal life, to counter wrong-thinking or wrong-doing, but an itch that comes and goes often given the news I also follow closely about what is going on around us locally, nationally and internationally.
If we all "lived and let live," and "stayed in our lane," I'd probably not feel the itch as often as I do, but since that's not the case, I sometimes express objection along those lines in this forum. For whatever any of that is worth. Again I know, not much.
I think you have expressed several misconceptions/opinion about what a productive discussion can be. It is productive if it clarifies, educates, reveals. It is not an argument about right and wrong, but a discussion on what is and is not. I also disagree with your ideas about Philosophy and Religion. Religion Studies is a discipline by itself and is worth pursuing and encompasses sever other disciplines. That philosophy and religion are divided is a western viewpoint and is not the only correct one. It is a sad conclusion that is a loss for those who only know western thought.
I have been informed many times on this forum about the injury and the resulting suffering endured by those who were indoctrinated by Christianity. I am also told the effects are long lasting well into adulthood and beyond. While sad this is not a healthy state of being and is bound to color one’s opinions that they bring to the discussion and their interaction with others. Instead of engaging in CD it would be fruitful to seek professional therapy.
1. "It is productive if it clarifies, educates, reveals": The problem with that is that you think that your posts clarify, educate, and reveal, while the listener may not find your posts to clarify anything of value, may not find your posts at all educational, and may not find that your posts reveal anything of value. [The 'your' here is the 'royal your'].
2. It is difficult to reasonably expect any resolution for most these matters because 'we' fundamentally disagree about "what is and is not".
3. Basically, you're insulting those of us who don't believe. Perhaps it's the believers who need to seek professional therapy.
My personal point, relative to the thread, is repeated arguments over atheism or religion is never productive; and to suggest it can be implies your end-goal is to persuade another into your way of thinking. That’s proselytizing. Hence the point relative to one’s psychological health (or lack thereof); because the vast majority of us (atheists) aren’t invested in others’ personal beliefs, particularly relative to people we don’t (care to) know on a personal level. In other words, an intelligent discussion need not have any ‘requirements’ or end-goal whereas an argument over atheism/religion is always about anger/persuasion. If one’s argument is knowledgeable relative to a city, business, university or the law, that’s one thing; but many of us don’t even feel the need to waste our time correcting/arguing such (in a forum) when people will die on their own sword of stupidity, so to speak, before admitting they’re wrong, lol. That said, it is especially important to consider relative to personal opinion/belief when there is no correct answer, other than they have the right to believe in a god as I have the right not to. At the end of the day, it’s simple logic.
Philosophy is a more interesting subject (and open to discussion) in that it encompasses the study of knowledge, reality and existence. That said, some (wrongly) believe an interest in such translates to a belief in a god (and want to argue that as well). Philosophy is not religion, although there is a branch of philosophy that studies/analyzes concepts, practices, and beliefs relative to various theistic religions. Unfortunately, so many fear education or can’t see beyond their tunnel vision (or what someone tells them to believe), they are ready to argue it full-force as well, per the thread.
That said, what is a ‘psychic’/clairvoyant/telepathic injury[/b]’?
That's kind of cheesy of you to add those irrelevant labels that the poster didn't indicate, CC. Not usually your style.
Psychic injury means injury to the psyche--and I'm pretty sure you know that.
Though unproductive from the standpoint of changing anyone's mind in this forum, I sometimes feel compelled to counter what I view as wrong-thinking or wrong-doing, because especially in the case of religion, what people think and do can have profound effects on all concerned. Up to and including violence and war.
A just society is not about controlling another’s beliefs; it is to be politically, administratively and legally fair/inclusive. Those who incite violence are the problem, not what they believe in and of itself. In other words, consider the Jan 6th attack on the US Capitol. Their opinion in and of itself is irrelevant; what matters is the law (and their lack of good sense) relative to such. The same can be said re: religion or atheism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cb2008
It is productive if it clarifies, educates, reveals.
This comment actually solidifies my point. You’re speaking to proselytizing/arguing as if one person is the teacher and the other a (willing) student. However, discussion is the willingness to share (and to listen as well); neither side need learn anything from the other (or even want to). Hence the point of arguing religion/atheism (particularly in a forum with strangers) comes back around to an unhealthy expectation/need to persuade others. From my perspective, it’s extremely narcissistic and lacks empathy as to others’ rights/emotions i.e. who am I to care if my girlfriend’s grandmother believes in god?
Quote:
Originally Posted by cb2008
I also disagree with your ideas about Philosophy and Religion.
Philosophy and religion are not the same i.e. the latter lacks (the need for) critical thinking/analysis; and there is a set of established rules, principles and ethics that are used to define/replace one’s thinking. The former, on the other hand, is the study of man’s existence, as a whole, i.e. metaphysics, epistemology, axiology and logic.
That said, I’m not asking/expecting you to agree. From my perspective, however, the crux of philosophy is logic/reasoning i.e. the concept of god only exists relative to those who teach it; there are those who have never heard of such. How can they believe in something that requires specific knowledge to believe it’s there/interpret it as such? Why would a god play that type of game i.e. believe - but rely on another’s knowledge/perception to do so. It simply isn’t rational.
A just society is not about controlling another’s beliefs; it is to be politically, administratively and legally fair/inclusive. Those who incite violence are the problem, not what they believe in and of itself. In other words, consider the Jan 6th attack on the US Capitol. Their opinion in and of itself is irrelevant; what matters is the law (and their lack of good sense) relative to such. The same can be said re: religion or atheism.
This comment actually solidifies my point. You’re speaking to proselytizing/arguing as if one person is the teacher and the other a (willing) student. However, discussion is the willingness to share (and to listen as well); neither side need learn anything from the other (or even want to). Hence the point of arguing religion/atheism (particularly in a forum with strangers) comes back around to an unhealthy expectation/need to persuade others. From my perspective, it’s extremely narcissistic and lacks empathy as to others’ rights/emotions i.e. who am I to care if my girlfriend’s grandmother believes in god?
Philosophy and religion are not the same i.e. the latter lacks (the need for) critical thinking/analysis; and there is a set of established rules, principles and ethics that are used to define/replace one’s thinking. The former, on the other hand, is the study of man’s existence, as a whole, i.e. metaphysics, epistemology, axiology and logic.
That said, I’m not asking/expecting you to agree. From my perspective, however, the crux of philosophy is logic/reasoning i.e. the concept of god only exists relative to those who teach it; there are those who have never heard of such. How can they believe in something that requires specific knowledge to believe it’s there/interpret it as such? Why would a god play that type of game i.e. believe - but rely on another’s knowledge/perception to do so. It simply isn’t rational.
This comment actually solidifies my point. You’re speaking to proselytizing/arguing as if one person is the teacher and the other a (willing) student. However, discussion is the willingness to share (and to listen as well); neither side need learn anything from the other (or even want to). Hence the point of arguing religion/atheism (particularly in a forum with strangers) comes back around to an unhealthy expectation/need to persuade others. From my perspective, it’s extremely narcissistic and lacks empathy as to others’ rights/emotions i.e. who am I to care if my girlfriend’s grandmother believes in god?
Philosophy and religion are not the same i.e. the latter lacks (the need for) critical thinking/analysis; and there is a set of established rules, principles and ethics that are used to define/replace one’s thinking. The former, on the other hand, is the study of man’s existence, as a whole, i.e. metaphysics, epistemology, axiology and logic.
That said, I’m not asking/expecting you to agree. From my perspective, however, the crux of philosophy is logic/reasoning i.e. the concept of god only exists relative to those who teach it; there are those who have never heard of such. How can they believe in something that requires specific knowledge to believe it’s there/interpret it as such? Why would a god play that type of game i.e. believe - but rely on another’s knowledge/perception to do so. It simply isn’t rational.
I dont know why a discussion should turn into a lecture, or a marketing and selling session, and not remain a discussion among equals. Of course that is conditional upon the participants being on the same wavelength, not in opposite camps sharpening their weapons. That is, we are speaking from a common purpose, from a common position and discussing various ways Religion and Spirituality is experienced. This is possible and very much wanted by several here.
The distinction you make between philosophy and religion, as i already stated, is an artificial division created in the west, a sad mistake. Eastern thought has no such division. Gautama Buddha was a philosopher and a spiritual seeker. So was Jesus, and several other philosophers.
Why argue? I dont want or have a need to argue, only explore ideas of spirituality and religion. The way this space Religion and Spirituality is designed, it is an impossibility.
So, argue on.
What you describe is not a discussion but proselytizing. There is a difference and if one is unable to distinguish that it is their problem, not those who want to engage in a discussion. Not all religions proselytize.
Discussion of Religion, like any other discipline, requires clarity of terms that are being used. Like any other discipline Religion too has special terms and meanings.
How and what one brings to a discussion of Religion also matters. One can bring curiosity, knowledge, Philosophy, and interest, all of which will make discussion productive. Disdain, hate, psychic injury, and a need to derail the discussion because it makes one insecure cannot be productive. A discussion with a therapist would be helpful.
There is no other special requirements to engage in a discussion of Religion and Spirituality.
Those qualities are certainly appreciated and conducive to a discussion. While I am very curious, there are areas I will not follow, and recognize that others have their own boundaries as well. It is easy to see why interjecting atheism can be a derailment because it is inferred and implied that the first step has already been taken, which is the agreement between two parties that God exists. I'm just not 100% convinced that atheism is off-topic in a religious forum when it has been determined by some that atheism itself can be considered a religion.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
