Is RF officially ramsacked by the secular movement?

[osgart]

Or do religious people know better than to endlessly debate?

And who's rules are we applying to the debate?

I suppose if I was religious, i might use discretion , and avoid all the worldly scrutiny.

Logic, reason, and evidence, who's winning, and who Is owning who? Or is there better motives at work here?

Personally, I think only dialectic conversation is what religious minded people prefer.

If I'm not mistaken, it is a common religious rule , not to engage people who strive with strife.

 

[Quintessence]

I'm not entirely clear on what it is you want to discuss?

 

[Sunstone]

The older I get, the less willing I am to genuinely debate something. Increasingly, I prefer to merely state my opinion, occasionally clarify it, but not to actually debate it for more than a post or two.

What has driven my attitude towards debating things has been the growing recognition that most debates are - for lack of a better term -- "stupid". That is, most are rooted in misunderstandings of someone's positions or views, in semantic disagreements, and so forth. And that's to say nothing of how often people cite "evidence" that does not logically support their position nor logically undermine someone else's position.

Debates usually suck as intellectual exercises.

On the other hand, the older I get the more I've become interested in other people's opinions, especially if I've not heard them before. Except @SalixIncendium's opinions. I've never been interested in his opinions.

 

[Enoch07]

Or do religious people know better than to endlessly debate?

And who's rules are we applying to the debate?

I suppose if I was religious, i might use discretion , and avoid all the worldly scrutiny.

Logic, reason, and evidence, who's winning, and who Is owning who? Or is there better motives at work here?

Personally, I think only dialectic conversation is what religious minded people prefer.

If I'm not mistaken, it is a common religious rule , not to engage people who strive with strife.

It's always been overrun by secularist from what I know.

It was @SalixIncendium I believe who made a post not too long ago about how debates should take place here. And I tend to agree with him. Basically if someone is attacking (prosecuting) religious beliefs the burden of proof is on the prosecutor, not on the defendant(s). The same applies in the other direction. If someone attacks (prosecutes) a scientific law the burden of proof is on prosecutor to make his case, not the defendant.

Many times here secularist prosecute a religious beliefs with opinion and expect the burden of proof to be on the defendant, to refute their claim, and vice versa when a religious person attempt to refute evolution for example. Which I feel is the antithesis of a fair debate.

 

[osgart]

I prefer to take as neutral a position as I can, but when I fall to a side, I tend to go the dialectic route, and eschew all debate.

I've seen where prosecution turns to defense, and vice versa. And I've also seen where no common language occurs, and each side tries to impose their standards as the rules. Or another trick is the gotcha game, where people are trying to expose the other side as fraudulent.

Then there is the poster who wants to interpret the facts for us. Instead of letting them speak for themselves. Inference is a funny thing sometimes too.

And then the average poster probably isn't prepared for a highly formalized intellectual debate. But probably is a curious inquisitor instead.

Debate is more sport than substance anyway.

 

[osgart]

I'm not entirely clear on what it is you want to discuss?

With the other respondents, I'm getting exactly what I was looking for.

 

[Buddha Dharma]

Here is why I don't endlessly debate OP: because you can't change most people's mind. Modern psychology is showing that too, which I suspect is rather unfortunate on the whole with how the human race is heading. Also though, because it is not incumbent on me to do anything except share the Dharma. I can't change anyone's mind or make them believe in the Buddha. The Kalama Sutra is clear the Buddha taught religious tolerance, in that if you don't believe the Dharma- fine, you don't believe it. I am here to spread the Dharma primarily.

 

[osgart]

Here is why I don't endlessly debate OP: because you can't change most people's mind. Modern psychology is showing that too, which I suspect is rather unfortunate on the whole with how the human race is heading. Also though, because it is not incumbent on me to do anything except share the Dharma. I can't change anyone's mind or make them believe in the Buddha. The Kalama Sutra is clear the Buddha taught religious tolerance, in that if you don't believe the Dharma- fine, you don't believe it. I am here to spread the Dharma primarily.

And what is the Dharma? I am a believer in virtue, and vitalism. I've heard the word before but I never sought it out.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

It's always been overrun by secularist from what I know.

It was @SalixIncendium I believe who made a post not too long ago about how debates should take place here. And I tend to agree with him. Basically if someone is attacking (prosecuting) religious beliefs the burden of proof is on the prosecutor, not on the defendant(s). The same applies in the other direction. If someone attacks (prosecutes) a scientific law the burden of proof is on prosecutor to make his case, not the defendant.

Yet I think you need to consider what you mean by "attacking" (or "prosecuting") religious beliefs. For example, Westboro Baptist is very fond of making the statement -- they believe to be absolutely true and binding on everybody -- that "God hates ****." If I question that "faith belief," and demand that they explain the obvious contradiction between "God is Love" and "God hates," is that an "attack" or "prosecution" of Westboro? Or is it a legitimate question, deserving a legitimate response?

Many times here secularist prosecute a religious beliefs with opinion and expect the burden of proof to be on the defendant, to refute their claim, and vice versa when a religious person attempt to refute evolution for example. Which I feel is the antithesis of a fair debate.

But almost all of the attempts by the religious to "refute evolution" and that sort of thing is to quote the Bible to deny the science. That cannot work, unless there is some way to show that the Bible has the same mechanism for self-correction in the face of contradictory evidence that science has.

Has anybody ever shown that? I'm 70 this year, and in my lifetime alone, science has changed immeasurably -- I've watched it. The Bible? Not a bit! (Of course, you can try to make the argument that the Bible is inerrant and thus couldn't possibly change, but you'd have a bit of a challenge defending such a claim against anybody who can actually read with comprehension.)

 

[Enoch07]

Yet I think you need to consider what you mean by "attacking" (or "prosecuting") religious beliefs. For example, Westboro Baptist is very fond of making the statement -- they believe to be absolutely true and binding on everybody -- that "God hates ****." If I question that "faith belief," and demand that they explain the obvious contradiction between "God is Love" and "God hates," is that an "attack" or "prosecution" of Westboro? Or is it a legitimate question, deserving a legitimate response?

I would suggest the prosecution of Westboro Church then specifically. Instead of Christianity as a whole. Making a monolith of Christianity or any other ideology by lumping in extremist is not acceptable. It's the same as blaming Islam for the Taliban. Or the same as blaming atheist for the horrors and atrocities Marxist communism brought to the world.

 

[Enoch07]

But almost all of the attempts by the religious to "refute evolution" and that sort of thing is to quote the Bible to deny the science. That cannot work, unless there is some way to show that the Bible has the same mechanism for self-correction in the face of contradictory evidence that science has.

Your agreeing with me here and don't even realize it.

Many times here secularist prosecute a religious beliefs with opinion and expect the burden of proof to be on the defendant, to refute their claim, and vice versa when a religious person attempt to refute evolution for example. Which I feel is the antithesis of a fair debate.

We are correct in that religious people often do try to prosecute using the Bible. This is not how to go about it.

As Sali proposed, if a religious person wanted to tackle evolution citing the Bible is not an argument or a viable citation . The burden of proof would be on them to submit scientific evidence that possibly refutes evolution.

As someone prosecuting a religious beliefs the burden of proof is on them. They would have to cite scripture to support their argument.

Basically the way it is now. It is way to easy to prosecute, because people expect the defendant to provide the burden of proof.

If the burden of proof rest on the prosecutor it makes it much harder for someone to prosecute an idea because they will actually have to work to come up with evidence. So that would reduce the amount of bullcrap threads in general. Thus reducing the amount of useless neverending arguments.

 

[David T]

Or do religious people know better than to endlessly debate?

And who's rules are we applying to the debate?

I suppose if I was religious, i might use discretion , and avoid all the worldly scrutiny.

Logic, reason, and evidence, who's winning, and who Is owning who? Or is there better motives at work here?

Personally, I think only dialectic conversation is what religious minded people prefer.

If I'm not mistaken, it is a common religious rule , not to engage people who strive with strife.

I am into nature so its all clueless to me and informative. Just seems like city folks bumping into the furniture mostly.

 

[osgart]

It's easy to sit back and throw the shots, without being held to accountability. Because you don't have to defend your position. That is unfortunate. And toxic.

Even being right the burden of proof is a two way street.

Innocent til proven guilty, with the prosecution having burden of proof. , that is only fair with any accusation.

However religion isn't necessarily criminal, and this isn't a court.

But it is a power struggle, felt here.

The secular movement wants to show that religion is at least fallacious, and at most criminal.

And indeed some religions want to establish theocracy, or dogma as lawful authority, with the undue pressure to convert or be found reprobate. However there are quite a few religions that don't judge beings this way.

Secular vs. Some Religions, for the right of law in the land.

Of course I find it unjust to see , secularism vs all religions., for the future of all of humanity.

I do believe there are quite a growing number of secularist people who do want to control everybody with their standards of thought, and expression, belief and action. Perhaps many intellectual institutions have this motive of indoctrination or face consequences.

So I find Every religion is on the defense. And many secularists are on the attack.

I find there are many cults masquerading as religion. And to qualify as a religion, I think motive must be established, that is respectful to all citizens, in order to be protected by law.

Secularity, and religion both need protection, and they both need lawful scrutiny too. Because in and of themselves neither is bad.

 

[Estro Felino]

I suppose if I was religious, i might use discretion , and avoid all the worldly scrutiny.

Logic, reason, and evidence, who's winning, and who Is owning who? Or is there better motives at work here?

People here forget that we come from very different countries and cultural backgrounds, and endless debate is a consequence of the tendency we all have (even unwillingly) to impose the values of our education to the others.
Even in the West there are more secular countries than others, and this generates debate and disagreement.

The secular movement wants to show that religion is at least fallacious, and at most criminal. Secular vs. Some Religions, for the right of law in the land.

That's not true..we secularists just want religious people to separate the public sphere from the private one. Religions are something private and religious groups must be "put in their place" and forced to accept the secular law.

I do believe there are quite a growing number of secularist people who do want to control everybody with their standards of thought, and expression, belief and action. Perhaps many intellectual institutions have this motive of indoctrination or face consequences.

I'm a Christian but I'm realizing I'm more "Secularist" than lots of atheists/agnostics here....

 

[osgart]

People here forget that we come from very different countries and cultural backgrounds, and endless debate is a consequence of the tendency we all have (even willingly) to impose the values of our education to the others.
Even in the West there are more secular countries than others, and this generates debate and disagreement.


That's not true..we secularists just want religious people to separate the public sphere from the private one. Religions are something private and religious groups must be "put in their place" and forced to accept the secular law. In Europe we have some troubles with certain ethnic groups who haven't evolved from the "religious stage" yet. And it's an anthropological issue...it's not their fault.



I'm a Christian but I'm realizing I'm more "Secularist" than lots of atheists/agnostics here....

Long live free will!

 

[Kuzcotopia]

It's easy to sit back and throw the shots, without being held to accountability. Because you don't have to defend your position. That is unfortunate. And toxic.

Even being right the burden of proof is a two way street.

Innocent til proven guilty, with the prosecution having burden of proof. , that is only fair with any accusation.

However religion isn't necessarily criminal, and this isn't a court.

But it is a power struggle, felt here.

The secular movement wants to show that religion is at least fallacious, and at most criminal.

And indeed some religions want to establish theocracy, or dogma as lawful authority, with the undue pressure to convert or be found reprobate. However there are quite a few religions that don't judge beings this way.

Secular vs. Some Religions, for the right of law in the land.

Of course I find it unjust to see , secularism vs all religions., for the future of all of humanity.

I do believe there are quite a growing number of secularist people who do want to control everybody with their standards of thought, and expression, belief and action. Perhaps many intellectual institutions have this motive of indoctrination or face consequences.

So I find Every religion is on the defense. And many secularists are on the attack.

I find there are many cults masquerading as religion. And to qualify as a religion, I think motive must be established, that is respectful to all citizens, in order to be protected by law.

Secularity, and religion both need protection, and they both need lawful scrutiny too. Because in and of themselves neither is bad.

What do you mean by secularist? And what do you mean by attack?

This might work best with a specific example of how a secularist movement has specifically attacked religion here on the forums. Who among those posting are members of such a movement?

I guess I didn't see the secular flyer in time, so I missed the meeting where we all decided as a single organized movement to attack religion in a concerted fashion. Since I missed it, how did we do it?

 

[osgart]

What do you mean by secularist? And what do you mean by attack?

This might work best with a specific example of how a secularist movement has specifically attacked religion here on the forums. Who among those posting are members of such a movement?

I guess I didn't see the secular flyer in time, so I missed the meeting where we all decided as a single organized movement to attack religion in a concerted fashion. Since I missed it, how did we do it?

I'm sure you have heard of Sam harris, and I'm sure you've seen religion under attack on RF. I ain't going to name people.

And I didn't say secular people all do it. But it doesn't take much effort to see that religion in general is under fire.

 

[Kuzcotopia]

I'm sure you have heard of Sam harris, and I'm sure you've seen religion under attack on RF. I ain't going to name people.

And I didn't say secular people all do it. But it doesn't take much effort to see that religion in general is under fire.

I don't know what you're taking about. . . You make it sound incredibly obvious that religion is "under attack" but I don't know what that means.

Is the attack successful, at least? How would you know? What's your plan for the counterattack/defense?

 

[osgart]

You can look up the names Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Christopher Hitchens, Lawrence Krauss, and Sam Harris. Those are the leaders of the anti religion movement.

I have no religious affiliation. But I do have religious beliefs of my own making.

I don't plan on counter attacking. Other then speaking my mind, when the opportunity arises.

The thread 'Religious Fervor or Mental Illness' is an anti religious thread on RF

 

[Kuzcotopia]

I don't plan on counter attacking. Other then speaking my mind, when the opportunity arises.

Is it possible that what you perceive as attacks are actually just other people speaking their minds too?