Religion Thread

With which religion do you identify?

  • Protestant Christianity

    Votes: 24 6.6%
  • Catholic Christianity

    Votes: 32 8.8%
  • Other Christianity

    Votes: 21 5.8%
  • Sunni Islam

    Votes: 39 10.7%
  • Shia Islam

    Votes: 2 0.5%
  • Other Islam

    Votes: 7 1.9%
  • Judaism

    Votes: 3 0.8%
  • Hinduism

    Votes: 2 0.5%
  • Jainism

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Sikhism

    Votes: 2 0.5%
  • Paganism

    Votes: 16 4.4%
  • Confucianism

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Shintoism

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Other Traditional Religion

    Votes: 1 0.3%
  • Pantheism

    Votes: 1 0.3%
  • Agnosticism

    Votes: 30 8.2%
  • Non-religious, but spirituality in some form.

    Votes: 17 4.7%
  • Atheism

    Votes: 119 32.7%
  • Other

    Votes: 10 2.7%
  • Taoism

    Votes: 1 0.3%
  • Buddhism

    Votes: 2 0.5%
  • Terrible at Werewolf

    Votes: 35 9.6%

  • Total voters
    364

Users who are viewing this thread

Magorian Aximand said:
Vermillion_Hawk said:
There you go. You made one, perhaps without even knowing it.

Do you think I was calling specific views childish? Because that's not what I said...

Vermillion_Hawk said:
Well you more focused on the one bit where you essentially claimed that most, if not all religious teachings were useless to follow if the source was flawed (something you inevitably believe considering your viewpoint).

I'm focused on that because I'm making a specific point to that effect. It would be foolish to assume that because I'm making that point I'm unwilling to learn anything about any religious beliefs. You're making assumptions about me again...

Vermillion_Hawk said:
Anyways, essentially what I was getting at is that the application of logic is subjective in the current circumstances, i.e., metaphysical discussion. Logic can be adhered to, but it is no longer applicable as a rigid methodology universally. Essentially, the same thing as what I was getting at with the whole dark room thing. How did you not get that?

Because it doesn't follow. :lol: How any person "applies logic" is always subjective. Whether or not any beliefs are actually valid or actually not valid (according to logical principles) is always objective fact. Those two things are true, regardless of the kind of discussion you're having or how you think I'm "approaching" it. Your assertion that metaphysical discussion is somehow exempt from the application of logic is one that you have never supported, and that must resort to special pleading to support. Like I've said all along...

Response forthcoming, fear not. I've been busy.
 
You are supposed to explain that you are too busy composing a symphony or eating breakfast right now but will respond as soon as possible.

Think of all the valuable video game time you two guys are wasting here. Maybe you should exchange phone numbers.
 
Well apologies for the delay, I had (insert intellectually-stimulating activity here) to do.

Magorian Aximand said:
Do you think I was calling specific views childish? Because that's not what I said...

No, but you automatically made assumptions regarding specific views in making that statement, unknowingly perhaps.

Magorian Aximand said:
Because it doesn't follow. How any person "applies logic" is always subjective. Whether or not any beliefs are actually valid or actually not valid (according to logical principles) is always objective fact. Those two things are true, regardless of the kind of discussion you're having or how you think I'm "approaching" it. Your assertion that metaphysical discussion is somehow exempt from the application of logic is one that you have never supported, and that must resort to special pleading to support. Like I've said all along...

Once again, you're not viewing this issue properly. Logic is a side on the scale but it does not permeate the scale in its totality. Logic is applicable but it is not the sole applicable concept, nor will it lead, whether right now or in the future, to a singular point in which faith is not valid. Which brings me to another point, which is your misguided assertions as to the nature of faith.

You criticize me on the boundaries of not comprehending enough about the tenets of anti-theism (which you insist is a position without doctrine, so I'd really like to know if this is true what there is to know about it), but you misunderstand, likely a result of the teachings of Dawkins, on faith. In fact, when it comes to the nature of faith, you have essentially, thus far, mindlessly spewed Dawkins rhetoric, in that you characterize faith as being a state of mindlessly believing in a deity with no question whatsoever, and thus being susceptible either to the manipulations of religious organizations or to fundamentalist groups, or being an apologist of such. The truth is that you are correct in that faith has multiple definitions. The faith possessed by fundamentalist groups would definitely fall into the category of which you have already previously informed everyone here, of blind obedience. The faith of the average believer though? Not so much.

The faith of the average believer is not rooted in such blind and almost unthinking adherence to some sort of ideology or doctrine. Faith, what I would perhaps egoistically refer to as true faith is not something which is broken upon being challenged, but neither is it one which is iron-hard and unflinching in its treatment of other faiths or values. True faith is something which is challenged often, but never broken, but rather enhanced by these experiences. Most importantly, perhaps, the treatment with which treats one's beliefs when one has true faith enables tolerance of the beliefs of others, and even empathy. This is the faith which the majority of informed believers who I've interacted with have espoused. Unfortunately, as is usual, fundamentalism happens to drown out this faith, instead giving the impression that to have faith is to be like a fundamentalist.

Regardless, suffice to say this is where Dawkins and Hitchens and all those other fellows in the "new atheist" crew are dreadfully wrong in their vilification of religion. Religion is not, for the majority of people, a practice which either promotes harm on people or acts apologetic towards fundamentalism, which causes harm. This is why I find Dawkins to be incredibly presumptuous (not to mention incorrect) when he assumes, at the start of The God Delusion, that "religious readers who open it will be atheists when they put it down". Dawkins makes that assumption (among other things) that faith is something unbased and unthinkingly adhered to which can easily be dispelled with a wave of the magic logic wand. The truth is it is not, and that is why the aforementioned blurb has proven to be utterly incorrect, in my case and in the case of the many other theologians who have read his book. A lesser person might even say he's committing a straw man fallacy.

This is also where you are incorrect, along with Dawkins. You and he are demonstrating the key features of a fundamentalist group in your blanket usage of this type of faith. You are showing an very willing ignorance of the driving forces behind the opposing side, and in fact refuse to acknowledge an opposing side, but rather a side that is correct and a side that is incorrect. But all having been said, I do't dislike the whole "new atheist" thing. In fact, I herald Dawkins and company, as it's about time that atheism had its own uncompromising, unflattering and uncooperative fundamentalist group.
 
Damn this a wise man! http://www.youtube.com/user/allsaintsmonastery I know this thread is quite dead, but some times if needed some info about some things that might have some thing to do with the bible, this dude probably has it addressed in one of his videos. This is the kind of holyman that i like, he is not too fanatic and he does not make everything so one sided he allways has many types of explanations to things that someone has asked him to talk about, even thou im realy that religious but some times if i have heard some thing interesting, i might check out what religion thinks about it
 
Vermillion_Hawk said:
Well apologies for the delay, I had (insert intellectually-stimulating activity here) to do.

Magorian Aximand said:
Do you think I was calling specific views childish? Because that's not what I said...

No, but you automatically made assumptions regarding specific views in making that statement, unknowingly perhaps.

Magorian Aximand said:
Because it doesn't follow. How any person "applies logic" is always subjective. Whether or not any beliefs are actually valid or actually not valid (according to logical principles) is always objective fact. Those two things are true, regardless of the kind of discussion you're having or how you think I'm "approaching" it. Your assertion that metaphysical discussion is somehow exempt from the application of logic is one that you have never supported, and that must resort to special pleading to support. Like I've said all along...

Once again, you're not viewing this issue properly. Logic is a side on the scale but it does not permeate the scale in its totality. Logic is applicable but it is not the sole applicable concept, nor will it lead, whether right now or in the future, to a singular point in which faith is not valid. Which brings me to another point, which is your misguided assertions as to the nature of faith.

You criticize me on the boundaries of not comprehending enough about the tenets of anti-theism (which you insist is a position without doctrine, so I'd really like to know if this is true what there is to know about it), but you misunderstand, likely a result of the teachings of Dawkins, on faith. In fact, when it comes to the nature of faith, you have essentially, thus far, mindlessly spewed Dawkins rhetoric, in that you characterize faith as being a state of mindlessly believing in a deity with no question whatsoever, and thus being susceptible either to the manipulations of religious organizations or to fundamentalist groups, or being an apologist of such. The truth is that you are correct in that faith has multiple definitions. The faith possessed by fundamentalist groups would definitely fall into the category of which you have already previously informed everyone here, of blind obedience. The faith of the average believer though? Not so much.

The faith of the average believer is not rooted in such blind and almost unthinking adherence to some sort of ideology or doctrine. Faith, what I would perhaps egoistically refer to as true faith is not something which is broken upon being challenged, but neither is it one which is iron-hard and unflinching in its treatment of other faiths or values. True faith is something which is challenged often, but never broken, but rather enhanced by these experiences. Most importantly, perhaps, the treatment with which treats one's beliefs when one has true faith enables tolerance of the beliefs of others, and even empathy. This is the faith which the majority of informed believers who I've interacted with have espoused. Unfortunately, as is usual, fundamentalism happens to drown out this faith, instead giving the impression that to have faith is to be like a fundamentalist.

Regardless, suffice to say this is where Dawkins and Hitchens and all those other fellows in the "new atheist" crew are dreadfully wrong in their vilification of religion. Religion is not, for the majority of people, a practice which either promotes harm on people or acts apologetic towards fundamentalism, which causes harm. This is why I find Dawkins to be incredibly presumptuous (not to mention incorrect) when he assumes, at the start of The God Delusion, that "religious readers who open it will be atheists when they put it down". Dawkins makes that assumption (among other things) that faith is something unbased and unthinkingly adhered to which can easily be dispelled with a wave of the magic logic wand. The truth is it is not, and that is why the aforementioned blurb has proven to be utterly incorrect, in my case and in the case of the many other theologians who have read his book. A lesser person might even say he's committing a straw man fallacy.

This is also where you are incorrect, along with Dawkins. You and he are demonstrating the key features of a fundamentalist group in your blanket usage of this type of faith. You are showing an very willing ignorance of the driving forces behind the opposing side, and in fact refuse to acknowledge an opposing side, but rather a side that is correct and a side that is incorrect. But all having been said, I do't dislike the whole "new atheist" thing. In fact, I herald Dawkins and company, as it's about time that atheism had its own uncompromising, unflattering and uncooperative fundamentalist group.

The problem I have with tolerant and questioning "true faith" is that eventually you have to agree with the core beliefs of the religion you profess to have this faith in. For Christians that means that you believe in a virgin birth, a heaven which can only be reached by Christians, and eternal suffering for those who have sinned in this life. For atheists your tolerant faith still excludes them from the nice parts of the afterlife, requires supernatural interventions and worst of all presents the paradox of an evil god who believes in torture for all eternity that supposedly is loving and forgiving.  Atheism and deism are both hard to argue against.  But theism, the particular belief in a specific religion, is impossible to argue for by virtue of there being so many religions, most of which profess to be the "true faith".

Yes Dawkins and ilk can be dismissive, rude and evangelical, and yes they fail to see many of the benefits and good that religion can promote, but their core messages can still apply to those with tolerant "true faith" as well as those who are fundamentalist.
 
I would disagree. The Catholic Church, at the very least, doesn't hold the traditional views on "eternal punishment" which you see in the sects of Protestantism and Lutheranism and their ilk (although I can't say for the Eastern Orthodox church). And the hell professed by the Catholic Church which lies beneath the traditional veneer is not reserved for those who necessarily disbelieve in God, but rather those who actively reject what God stands for, which is, according to the Church, love and respect for other humans. I believe official Church dogma is that atheists don't go to hell unless they're unrepentant of whatever sins they may have committed - they instead go to Purgatory and may attain Heaven. The nature of hell itself is not defined by the Church, so we can't really say if it is eternal punishment and torture, but that's a point of debate for theologians.

Catholicism has never been about some exclusive sect, nor is it about some eternal reward. In my opinion, it's not like other sects of Christianity which, also in my opinion, essentially put the end well above the means. Catholicism is about repentance, and repentance is something which everyone knows at some point or another.
 
Jesus didn't talk about hell or purgatory. Sticking two totally different religious books which don't correlate with each other was a horrible idea from the bible's original publisher.
 
Back
Top Bottom