Go ahead and Talk about Religion

[churchmouse]

Woohoo! I can post this without getting an infraction now!! (Yes, I really did... )

WTH is it.....bad acid trip?????

 

[IndyDave1776]

This and the more or less parallel thread bring some thoughts to mind on the subject of religious discussion:

1. Truth and fact are not negotiable. They are what they are, not subject to opinion. The problem is that the truth and what we choose to accept as truth are in fact two different things by nature and most people fail to make that distinction. The two MAY be the same, but this is a product of choosing to believe something that is actually true. The choice to believe does NOT make it truthful. My position is that regardless of what anyone believes, there is only one truth, just as there is only one set of laws of physics. Choose carefully.

2. Once again, this becomes a matter of the freedom of thought underlying the more directly applicable freedoms regarding religion. Freedom of thought will necessarily default to the right to be wrong. What is objectively wrong is objectively wrong. As for what any given individual believes to be wrong according to the standard of objective truth, well, your mileage may vary.

3. Ridicule on on a scoundrel's short list of last refuges. If you are correct that someone else's position is not tenable, it should be sufficiently easy to demonstrate that point without ridicule and without being a jackass about it.

 

[Snapdragon]

WTH is it.....bad acid trip?????

Flying Spaghetti Monster - Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia It's basically a spoof religion that's not even real.

 

[IndyDave1776]

WTH is it.....bad acid trip?????

That would be the Flying Spaghetti Monster, to which I almost made a reference as an example in my last post before deciding that less is more. The best I can offer is that it is a facetious deity originating from the agnostic camp.

 

[churchmouse]

That would be the Flying Spaghetti Monster, to which I almost made a reference as an example in my last post before deciding that less is more. The best I can offer is that it is a facetious deity originating from the agnostic camp.

Well......choices.

 

[KG1]

It has been four days short of eight months since I stopped posting on INGO, with this issue being the primary reason why. So far as I am concerned, Fenway and the mods have taken a very reasonable position on the matter which leads me to a few thoughts:

One of the most interesting discussions on religion that I have had was in person with a Christian of significantly different denominational background and an atheist. All three of us had an enjoyable time comparing ideas and learning more about each other. With a different issue with one side of the dissent usually resting on a religious foundation, one of the more interesting discussions on homosexuality in which I have participated involved a homosexual couple, a straight couple, an unattached homosexual, and me. Once again, it was an enjoyable conversation for all in spite of bringing significant differences and irreconcilable beliefs to the conversation. The common themes in both events are that those who are actually party to a controversy or a difference of position are generally easier to have a discussion with than are uninvolved apologists (case in point, most propagators of 'religion of peace' propaganda are NOT Moslems, and most homosexuals I have met are far less aggressive than are straight liberals). These experiences tell me that discussion of extremely thorny issues can take place without the discussion devolving into a virtual barroom brawl of the type that will result in bans.

The best way I can explain my own position on such matters is that all of the rights enumerated in the First Amendment rest upon the freedom of thought, which ultimately amounts to the right to be wrong. In the above-mentioned conversations, I was speaking with at least one person who considered my views to be wrong, and likewise had his or her views seen in the same way by me. I generally am willing to explain why I believe as I do but see no need for vitriol or nastiness with the caveat being that I am willing to take appropriate action in the case of someone else's belief system calling for inflicting harm on me or those about whom I care. The bottom line is that I find no need to encroach on anyone's freedom of thought with the caveat that the freedom of thought does not translate into freedom of doing unto me or mine.

While a friend has encouraged me to return to active participation, I am not sure about doing so. Having read this thread and the Ban Prediction thread, I have to wonder how much real discussion will be taking place and how much heckling especially from the ban vultures will be taking place. Much of the discussion so far seems to be snarky enough discourage a person from giving much thought to jumping in. My thought is that this little experiment will tell us much about the true nature of the INGO community for good or for ill. I am hoping for the best but have reservations. There are still a lot of good people on INGO, but I also see that there are plenty who are not such pleasant folks--and I have been surprised both ways. In my own experience, I have since 9/27/14 developed a significant amount of respect for someone who was one of my more outspoken critics and have also been surprised by people about whom I thought highly standing in line to kick me on the way to the door. This will definitely reveal a lot about what people are made of. That said, I, for one, am most likely to continue as I have been for a while.

Fenway's original post addresses an issue that stood out to me in a huge way from the beginning: Most of the activities which led to the prohibition on religious discussion (variations in interpretation of what constitutes religious discussion notwithstanding) were already against the rules. I am hoping for the best. Now, (cue sound of chains as anchor is raised) I am going to continue as I have been for the time being. My sincere hope is that this leads to discussion with comprehensive truth handled in a mature manner. Then again, it could go the direction of snarky delivery of Political Correctness which seems already to be taking place. I wish you the best.

Maybe one day INGO can live up to your expectations and you may once again find safe harbor in this port. Carry on.

 

[mrjarrell]

Pirates and beer volcanoes beat out wings and harps any day of the week.

 

[Dead Duck]

Flying Spaghetti Monster - Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia It's basically a spoof religion that's not even real.

YOU TAKE THAT BACK!

 

[femurphy77]

Religion is about money and power.


WooHoo!!!! I successfully posted in the religious thread and am still here.


(Am I still here?)

 

[mom45]

Religion is about money and power.


WooHoo!!!! I successfully posted in the religious thread and am still here.


(Am I still here?)

You are until a mod sees that post.

 

[mbills2223]

You are until a mod sees that post.

 

[findingZzero]

If Jibbers walked the earth, there would be some record. At least in the Holy See Food Chronicles. I contend that Jibbers is a spoof......a parody of the one true one who unites us all. The IRS. All hail the exemptions. Of which there are many. At least 12. Maybe more. And now back to hiding under my bed.

 

[bulletsmith]

This and the more or less parallel thread bring some thoughts to mind on the subject of religious discussion:

1. Truth and fact are not negotiable. They are what they are, not subject to opinion. The problem is that the truth and what we choose to accept as truth are in fact two different things by nature and most people fail to make that distinction. The two MAY be the same, but this is a product of choosing to believe something that is actually true. The choice to believe does NOT make it truthful. My position is that regardless of what anyone believes, there is only one truth, just as there is only one set of laws of physics. Choose carefully.

2. Once again, this becomes a matter of the freedom of thought underlying the more directly applicable freedoms regarding religion. Freedom of thought will necessarily default to the right to be wrong. What is objectively wrong is objectively wrong. As for what any given individual believes to be wrong according to the standard of objective truth, well, your mileage may vary.

3. Ridicule on on a scoundrel's short list of last refuges. If you are correct that someone else's position is not tenable, it should be sufficiently easy to demonstrate that point without ridicule and without being a jackass about it.

I will confess that I got a bit lost on this one. It seems that there must be some history to this. I just can't resist commenting on the irony of discussing "Fact" in a thread about religion, which is based in faith. I suspect that most would agree that faith exists almost entirely independent of fact.

 

[ATM]

"It is true, that a little philosophy inclineth man’s mind to atheism; but depth in philosophy bringeth men’s minds about to religion."

~Bacon

 

[ArcadiaGP]

"Talk about religion"

There are two ways to view this. There's the non-confrontational way - Wherein we, as a whole, discuss religious influences on events, history, and the geo-political climate. Then there's the confrontational (and frankly, pointless) way - Wherein people argue if there is/isn't a God. INGO seems to have jumped right onto the latter of these two ways. Last thing I want to see is /r/atheism leaking into here. Let's avoid attacking each other on this, can we?

Most of us can abide by the "keep your beliefs to yourself" rule... and that doesn't rule out discussion on the topic. I don't care what "Atheist #1" and "Deist #2" personally believe... I care more about what they both think of "Event Influenced By Religion #3"

But, maybe that's just me, and you guys would rather tear each other down about your beliefs.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

"Talk about religion"

There are two ways to view this. There's the non-confrontational way - Wherein we, as a whole, discuss religious influences on events, history, and the geo-political climate. Then there's the confrontational (and frankly, pointless) way - Wherein people argue if there is/isn't a God. INGO seems to have jumped right onto the latter of these two ways. Last thing I want to see is /r/atheism leaking into here. Let's avoid attacking each other on this, can we?

Most of us can abide by the "keep your beliefs to yourself" rule... and that doesn't rule out discussion on the topic. I don't care what "Atheist #1" and "Deist #2" personally believe... I care more about what they both think of "Event Influenced By Religion #3"

But, maybe that's just me, and you guys would rather tear each other down about your beliefs.

High minded. Doubt it works. Too much emotion. Too little realization there are real people at the other screen. With words like "libtard" so prevalent here I don't see religious discussions taking a higher path than regular discourse.

 

[saleen4971]

Flying Spaghetti Monster - Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia It's basically a spoof religion that's not even real.

who is to say that it isnt "accidentally real" - this COULD be the only true religion, and how owuld we know?

i used to be hardcore born again christian. such things, and the peopel i associated with led me to that, and it did wonders for me, and saved me from many things.

now i look at religion as a joke, tbh. the only religious people i would say are "jokes" are the ones who cant follow the teachings that they preach about.


i have no time for religion in my life, and without any real proof i wouldnt ever follow one again.


(take no offense to this) i see no reason why discussions based on religion have to go south, but they tend to as folks who hold beliefs (a religion is jsut that - a belief with no factual or quantified proof) will get angry about questioning such things. ont he other side, athiests tend to be so dead set that "religion is blahblahblah" that they feel it is their duty to attack anyone who identifies with any religion.

​JUST DONT GET ME STARTED ON DEM DANG A-RABS AND MAH RIGHTS!

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

"Talk about religion"

There are two ways to view this. There's the non-confrontational way - Wherein we, as a whole, discuss religious influences on events, history, and the geo-political climate. Then there's the confrontational (and frankly, pointless) way - Wherein people argue if there is/isn't a God. INGO seems to have jumped right onto the latter of these two ways. Last thing I want to see is /r/atheism leaking into here. Let's avoid attacking each other on this, can we?

Most of us can abide by the "keep your beliefs to yourself" rule... and that doesn't rule out discussion on the topic. I don't care what "Atheist #1" and "Deist #2" personally believe... I care more about what they both think of "Event Influenced By Religion #3"

But, maybe that's just me, and you guys would rather tear each other down about your beliefs.

Yep...Many like to watch stuff burn down.

 

[mbills2223]

now i look at religion as a joke, tbh. the only religious people i would say are "jokes" are the ones who cant follow the teachings that they preach about.

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone

 

[Beowulf]

Will the civil discussion rule apply to the discussion of other religions, say like Islam? I've noticed that ridicule of Islam tends to slip past the religion filters in most threads where the comments are made (to be fair, generally these pop up in the General Politics threads, though I've seen it sneak into the General Discussion section on occasion).

Don't get me wrong, I'm no fan of that religion myself, but neither am I a fan of the tenets of quiet a few religions. However, if we are going to be required to treat one religion with respect (even if we are respectfully disagreeing with it), then that should apply to all.

That all being said, I'm personally a fan of no filters at all. If you are tough enough to dish it out, you should be tough enough to take it. That applies to whether you are talking about how Glocks are plastic pieces of crap and 1911s are God's gift to mankind through his prophet, John Moses Browning or whether you are choosing to criticize someone else's religious beliefs (or lack there of).