Religious Debates Are Banned

[Dark0ne]

The reasoning is simple; religious topics are often deeply personal and linked to one's hopes, dreams, beliefs and lifestyle. People don't appreciate having these things debated when the conclusion is simply a stand off of ideas that can NEVER be proven one way or the other. If science proves a theory, religion quickly jumps onto the notion of it being their God's doing, or simply wrong, etc.. It's a debate that just cannot be won because neither side is willing to compromise.

 

Over the years religious debates have not worked. They go down the same path of people disagreeing and then things disolving into petty flame wars. Once one person throws a name, everyone jumps on board.

[WITHTEETH]

I think people are capable of changing their minds. Ideas are contagious, and good ones have the capacity to spread. But i suppose people really change their mind on such topics when they are forced to in that dark place, frustrated and want free.

 

Thats how the Greeks discovered philosophy, and how after the dark ages, the enlightenment came. Such change comes from struggle much of the time. Although I don't see the harm in online religous debates, nobodies going to bring a knife.

 

I should drop it. I will respect your wishes.

 

Love peace chicken grease. :biggrin:

[worm82075]

Welcome or not here is my 2 cents. To truly understand what the Dark0ne has said, WITHTEEH, you must first deceifer the difference between your own ideas and beliefs. Religion is a belief structure and often instilled from birth. An idea is saying here is what i think now you tell me what you think and simply absorbing that. And that is what makes believing in the non-existence of god and trying to spread that word, a religion in and of itself. Your supposed idea that people should be more open minded to change in their belief structures is in fact itself a belief. Without knowing anything more about you than what i read in this thread i can say with 90% certainty that that is what you believe and are intent on spreading your beliefs. Philosophy is the exchange of ideas without the pressure on the opposing side to change what they believe. A true philosopher will do nothing more than state his own ideas and listen to others without debate. The moment you follow a person's comment on what they believe with a counter point you have entered a debate and are no longer sharing ideas, but are essentially actively trying to change that persons view on their beliefs.

 

As your are doing now by trying to get Robin to change how he believes his site should be run. My suggestion to you is that you do some research in all concerned areas and from all points of view to better understand the implications of spreading religious propaganda. You will find that most horrifically it has lead to nothing but war and death. So by all means share your idea's with others, but when it comes to someones beliefs, keep yours to a single statement of what you believe and then you will be sharing without immposing.

[ninja_lord666]

<edit>

Wise words, but the defining characteristic of philosophers is debate. They, of course, weren't pressuring anyone to change their beliefs, but they did debate. It takes a special skill, a skill almost no one possesses anymore, to debate without trying to convert.

[WITHTEETH]

Well worm.

I disagree with your position, especially as a lover of wisdom on your viewpoint on philosophy. As I said before. Ill leave this argument alone for the second time.

 

Love peace chicken grease!

[ResidentWeevil2077]

<edit>

Wise words, but the defining characteristic of philosophers is debate. They, of course, weren't pressuring anyone to change their beliefs, but they did debate. It takes a special skill, a skill almost no one possesses anymore, to debate without trying to convert.

That isn't so true of myself - in fact, I could care less if you believed your arse was your mouth and your mouth just a hole to regurgitate food :P . But that's not the point. The fact of the matter is one needs to understand both sides of the debate in order to make a responsible, informed argument. I'll admit that I at times fail to follow this advice, but I try to place an understanding between myself and my opponent(s). If they are not being reasonable, I try to (somewhat) make them see how their arguments are not exactly "the truth".

 

I admit I'm a Catholic (or at least try to set a good example for others to follow if they so choose), but I prefer to leave my beliefs out a debate (especially if those involved are non-believers). As Dark pointed out, people do tend to hold firmly to their beliefs and moral systems, and won't be easily moved if someone who doesn't exactly share is those beliefs tells them otherwise. And we wouldn't want to have a massive religious flame war happening here, as that would seek to create a community divided.

 

There is a (very) big difference between "what is" and "what one chooses to see/believe/hear/etc".

[Malchik]

We want no flame wars on any matter!

 

There are basically two kinds of valuable debate. The first is private and involves only you. You learn as much as you need to learn about any subject and then decide on your standpoint (if you feel the need to have one). There is absolutely no requirement to understand either side (indeed few people usually bother). It can go 'my mother and father vote republican, they are good people and I trust them, I don't need to hear anything more'. Or it can be 'I have studied the actions of democrats and republicans in power over the last 50 years and found that it makes no damned difference who you vote for so I shall not vote'. Or it can be 'I have examined the views of the various contestants and have decided, notwithstanding my parents' opinions, to vote democrat'. You can expand and mix and match as you choose but you get the idea. How you arrive at your decisions is entirely your affair and should never be divulged. Other people may try to challenge your views and accuse you of being illogical or irrational. So what? Humans are illogical and irrational why should you be different? No one has the right to tell you how you should think, what you should hear and the method by which you should arrive at your views. You can never win an argument with people who believe they have the right to tell you how to think so don't even enter into one. There is also no need to justify or explain your opinions (unless perhaps there is some legal issue involved).

 

 

The second valuable form of debate is where your views are challenged at one remove. You hear others talking, you read articles or books, you see a film etc. etc. You learn things you did not know and this may (and equally as conceivably may not) make you reassess your earlier decision. This is where a debate thread can be useful. Provided those who are doing the debating are pretty expert in their field the 'audience' can learn a lot. Such debates can become aggressive but usually this revolves around the 'interpretation', 'accuracy' or 'completeness' of facts presented. In theory a religious debate could be conducted on those lines. E.g. The Bible says it is wrong to dance, with a discussion on which parts of the bible are relevant to that topic, what they say and how they can be interpreted. However religious debates are rarely about facts. They fall into the category of one person trying to tell others how to think. With freedom of speech they are fully entitled to do so but their own agendas make it impossible for them to hold any meaningful debate. Since the only response must be increasingly heated shouting it is better to prevent them starting off in the first place.

 

There are many places on the net where you can debate and even rant about religion. This forum is not one of them. That is the rule. On this matter there is no debate.

 

Is that clear.

[Javalin]

Well, I'm glad to hear that... I get enough of the religious debates with the religious side of my family at Christmas time and New Year.

 

I'm so glad I took mainly from my dads side :)

[jesser380]

I think this is a beautiful rule! I had to leave a forum recently because some "intellectual" wanted a "debate" but he was just trying to tear to shreds anyone who disagreed with him, which isn't fair. I don't mind a debate, but not one where you'll never win, no matter what stance you take :)

 

:thanks:

[LordTenaim]

I think this is a beautiful rule! I had to leave a forum recently because some "intellectual" wanted a "debate" but he was just trying to tear to shreds anyone who disagreed with him, which isn't fair. I don't mind a debate, but not one where you'll never win, no matter what stance you take :)

 

:thanks:

That is what people have to advoid, sometimes it is hard but everyone doing a debate should not use it to tear, people who disagree with you, apart.

So this as religion will cause this is a very good rule.