What is the point of a religious Forum......

Silvertusk

Registered Senior Member
Reading through the many threads here in this forum there certainly are many different types of posts, rude ones, funny ones, insane ones. But the threads all seem to end up with the same boring fight. You can't prove that God exists and you can't prove that God doesn't exist. And basically is ends up with a slanging match between athiests and Thiests, which is a shame because some of the discussions start of quite interesting.

What therefore is the purpose of this forum if both parties are close minded?

Just wondering.
 
On the contrary, at least one poster has "seen the light" and dropped his faith in God. Whether it has happened in the other direction, I know not.

For myself, as an atheist interested in Religion, philosophy, theological discussions and the origins of the Bible, I may say that I've learned more from this sub-forum than any other I have ever subscribed to.
 
Silvertusk: Reading through the many threads here in this forum there certainly are many different types of posts, rude ones, funny ones, insane ones. But the threads all seem to end up with the same boring fight. You can't prove that God exists and you can't prove that God doesn't exist. And basically is ends up with a slanging match between athiests and Thiests, which is a shame because some of the discussions start of quite interesting.

What therefore is the purpose of this forum if both parties are close minded? Just wondering.
*************
M*W: I felt all alone in my quest to understand why Jesus wasn't the savior of humankind nor was he crucified. Until I came here, I still believed in a creator god, but through the postings, mostly by Christians, I came to realize there was no creator god. Then, I realized I wasn't really alone in my beliefs, and the Atheists helped me to come full-circle in reconciling my religious beliefs (or the reasons for the lack thereof).

We learn something from everyone, whether they are in our court or across the field. From Jenyar, I learned that the creator god was just a fantasy of delusion. From my many fierce and heated arguments with the devoutly Christian SouthStar, I learned there was no salvation in Christianity. Apparently, he learned that, too. Through Vienna and C20, I learned just how evil Christianity could be. Leo Volont and okinrus confirmed for me why I rejected Christianity in the first place. Woody has shown how the belief in Christianity can diminish a person's ability to use his own mind. And Rodolfo, as a prime example of what Christian truly is, has proven, time and time again, why the religion of Christianity is dying worldwide.
 
Because it's hurtful to the human ego to see someone who dares disagree, and thus the ego prompts the mind and body to type up a vehement post to try, though futile, to mentally clobber the target into ideological submission.

In short, because the people participating in religious flamewars are stupid and uneducated and therefore don't know any better. :)
 
Silas said:
On the contrary, at least one poster has "seen the light" and dropped his faith in God. Whether it has happened in the other direction, I know not.

For myself, as an atheist interested in Religion, philosophy, theological discussions and the origins of the Bible, I may say that I've learned more from this sub-forum than any other I have ever subscribed to.

Silas who might this poster be?
 
Silvertusk said:
.. You can't prove that God exists and you can't prove that God doesn't exist.
sure you can,you just have to define what god is and watch it crumble into nonexistence..
since majority of theists here follow

Xian God ...see how easily hes destroyed


if you want to believe in Deistic god which doesnt interfere in humans lifes
its obviously different story,but then why would anyone need to believe in such a useless god in the first place?
What therefore is the purpose of this forum if both parties are close minded?
.
I think only theists are close minded,holding onto their irrational beliefs for fear of burning in the imaginary afterlifes hell..
once they realize theres no souls,spirits etc
they might finaly wake up and see the reality..
 
If you read Wittgenstein on this topic, he says that the most "religious" people don't believe in God based on any sort of extravagant proof...they believe for different reasons, because the thought of God gives them some sort of comfort or coping strategy, if you will. When they start to use these obscure logical proofs for supporting their beliefs, they are, in a sense, missing the point. Hence, sometimes you can attack the most religious person with the most developed or logical argument, and they still won't believe you. Think about it.

Of course, I am not saying that ALL religious people are like that...

Anyways, if you want to read it for yourself, you can read his Lectures on Religious Belief, or Culture and Value---both are interesting in shedding some light on the atheist vs. theist debate.
 
scorpius said:
sure you can,you just have to define what god is and watch it crumble into nonexistence..
since majority of theists here follow

Xian God ...see how easily hes destroyed


if you want to believe in Deistic god which doesnt interfere in humans lifes
its obviously different story,but then why would anyone need to believe in such a useless god in the first place?

I think only theists are close minded,holding onto their irrational beliefs for fear of burning in the imaginary afterlifes hell..
once they realize theres no souls,spirits etc
they might finaly wake up and see the reality..


Yes, some thiests are close minded, but don't restrict that annoying characteristic to just us Theists. Athiests can be just as bad. They have a non shifting view that there is no God whatsoever, and can be incredibly stubborn about it and are not open to the possibility of other ideas. One example is ID vs Evolution. Thiest at least entertain the possibility of a God. Like I said we are as bad as each other, so it is a wonder if anything is actually achieved by all this. It is clear that nothing is going to convince either party unless, and please appreciate the irony in this, there is a divine intervention. Or of course we die.
 
§outh§tar said:
Silas who might this poster be?
I was thinking of you, in fact. I didn't want to say your name, (unlike MW), in case I was misrepresenting you. Which obviously I must have been, for which I apologise.
scorpius said:
I'm sorry, but that guy sounds like an angry, angsty teenager. "An essay I wrote..." "An essay I wrote..." Well, duh - of course he wrote them, it's his site!
 
Last edited:
The most important reason, in my opinion, is this-http://www.cuyamaca.net/bruce.thompson/Fallacies/exercises_main.asp

People need to learn critical thinking skills. I can not think of a richer test bed than this forum.
 
It's fun to express and argue for your own point of view. It's also fun to be exposed to and consider opinions that you might not have been aware of before frequenting this forum. I would say that, although most of the members here are stubborn and ornery and most threads will eventually degrade into insults, any thread that asks an interesting question or any reply that offers insight to a matter makes visiting this forum worthwhile.
 
Originally, the Religion forum was a natural offshoot of a front-page news-clipper that included archaeological (e.g. Shroud of Turin) and astronomical (e.g. origin of Universe) information that had religious implications. It seemed wise enough to put aside a spot for that discussion, perhaps in anticipation of the eventual disruption of more scientific discussions. At least, that's how I looked at it.

And for a time, the Religion forum was a driving force; at one point we had a forum for Christianity and a separate forum for other issues.

Now it's just a relic. There is an academic value to discussing religion, but very few topics in the history of this site have ever achieved that level.

Part of the problem of the seeming inflexibility of the factions is that it's in the nature of religious rhetoric to be a stiffy. In the end, it's just a lack of creativity on everybody's part.

The purpose of talking about anything can be described in utilitarian terms. However, the lowest common denominator for human communication involves a template that has no regard for utility. It was once calculated, for instance, that women in the U.S. spoke about 8,000 words a day, and men between 3,000 and 5,000. It's not so much the fact that the women are speaking more that is unsettling, but how prevalent are social standards that cause those words to be pointless and absurd. Don't get me wrong, I'm not just knocking women, either. The redeeming thing about men in this case is that they speak fewer words. There's a reason the strong, silent type is admired and desired. And also suspected.

But not everybody understands the value of communication in terms that make their communication worth anything. Or if that's too harsh, we might go with terms that give their communication progressive value.

Sometimes I look back on the vapid aspects of my childhood with shame. For some reason, naîvete isn't as gratifying in remembrance as it is in other people. And believe me, we said some downright stupid things in my day. But the period since has left me gasping because things have only gone downhill. People don't communicate anymore. Yes, that's a broad generalization, but we've become so paranoid as a culture that it's really hard to get any group, be it a couple or a whole nation, to keep the utility of their endeavors in focus.

Yes, it's a little like treading water while trying to get the shotgun into your mouth while sparing a toe to ... oh, never mind.

Yes, some days it seems futile. But watched pots do boil. I promise.

In the Wind of the mind arises the turbulence called I.

It breaks; down shower the barren thoughts.

All life is choked.

This desert is the Abyss wherein is the Universe. The Stars are but thistles in that waste.

Yet this desert is but one spot accursèd in a world of bliss.

Now and again Travellers cross the desert; they come from the Great Sea, and to the Great Sea they go.

As they go they spill water; one day they will irrigate the desert, till it flower.

See! five footprints of a Camel! V. V. V. V. V.


Perdurabo, 42nd Lie
 
I was thinking of you, in fact. I didn't want to say your name, (unlike MW), in case I was misrepresenting you. Which obviously I must have been, for which I apologise.

Oh no, I wasn't offended or anything. Some third party was trying to instigate something..
 
Ozymandias said:
It's fun to express and argue for your own point of view. It's also fun to be exposed to and consider opinions that you might not have been aware of before frequenting this forum. I would say that, although most of the members here are stubborn and ornery and most threads will eventually degrade into insults, any thread that asks an interesting question or any reply that offers insight to a matter makes visiting this forum worthwhile.


Yes I admit the first 10 or so posts in the threads are interesting but you are right it does degenerate into insults.
 
I think people often discuss a topic for reasons that have nothing to do with this topic. Be it that they discuss it just so they can talk about something, or because they follow certain motives -- like persuading others to belileve the same things they do.

This is especially obvious in a religon forum like this. People discuss religion:
Some discuss it because they are interested in the topic.
Some want to get others to believe what they do.
Some talk about religion but are actually merely using the religion discourse to let off steam, to express their dislike for an idea -- so that if they get support from the like-minded, they can feel good about themselves, justified.


* * *

As for being close-minded: What does that mean in practice? Is someone who doesn't think the way you do "close-minded"? If you think you are right, and this makes the other person wrong and close-minded?
Am I close-minded because I don't accept Medicine Woman's theories?
 
water said:
I think people often discuss a topic for reasons that have nothing to do with this topic. Be it that they discuss it just so they can talk about something, or because they follow certain motives -- like persuading others to belileve the same things they do.

This is especially obvious in a religon forum like this. People discuss religion:
Some discuss it because they are interested in the topic.
Some want to get others to believe what they do.
Some talk about religion but are actually merely using the religion discourse to let off steam, to express their dislike for an idea -- so that if they get support from the like-minded, they can feel good about themselves, justified.


* * *

As for being close-minded: What does that mean in practice? Is someone who doesn't think the way you do "close-minded"? If you think you are right, and this makes the other person wrong and close-minded?
Am I close-minded because I don't accept Medicine Woman's theories?


Fair point. I suppose defining "Close mindedness" (if that is a word!!??) is not as straight forward as I first thought.

Approaching it from another angle maybe. Imagine this converstion.

A = Athiest
T = Thiest

A - The universe was created by the big bang
T - Who created the big bang
A - Don't know.
T - What about God.
A - Imaginery beings can't create a universe.
T - Since there is no proof - surely you can discount the possibility?
A - There is no such thing as God.

So it is alright to disagree a point, but making baseless assumptions and sticking to them is I guess being close minded.

Just to be fair......

A - Evolution created man.
T - God created man.
A - What about all the evidence for evolution?
T - God put there their to test us. God created man.
A - What about the possibility that God created evolution.
T - It isn't in the bible so it didn't happen.

We can be as bad as each other.....
 
Back
Top