Why is there so little intertheist discussion?

[wynn]

Yeah that sounds perfectly fine in principle, and I wasn't trying to imply that this subsection is totally useless or of no scientific merit... but this section is only useful to that extent insofar as the participants are actually interested in said crossfire. I don't get the impression that many conversations are started here with any serious interest or intent in changing or adapting one's own views, or with a genuine intention of exploring and understanding an alternative viewpoint. In a nutshell, it seems like a lot of people come here just to fight, and while they may welcome other combatants to the fight, the welcome is only extended for the sake of the fight itself and not to learn anything from it.

What people take from interactions with others is up to them.

But if all there can be between theists of different denominations, is either silence or fighting - then we are not unreasonable to be inclined to believe there is nothing more to them either.

 

[wynn]

I suspect the reason is to avoid the situation where different religions ultimately turn to analyze each other's lists of objective claims. Then they may use existing scientific knowledge to eliminate each others claims; thus, demonstrating that none of them are correct. I suspect that the only way to prevent this outcome is just to not discuss things at all.

Why should the theists be afraid?

They have killed people in the name of their God!
They beat their children in the name of God!
They assassinate, in public, the character of those who do not believe like they do!

So why be reluctant to discuss their differences?
Why turn religious diversity into something mystical and unapproachable?

If they are so damn right, they shouldn't be reluctant about confrontation.

Why should seekers take the whole burden of intertheistic strife?!

 

[Adstar]

Why is there so little discussion between theists of different denominations here?

We have here members of different theistic traditions: Catholics, Protestants, other Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, polytheists, and others.

Generally, there are well-known clashes between them.

And yet they barely discuss their differences here.


How come?

I have had a few theists on theist discussions on this forum. The difference is that when i get into a discussion with another Theist it is usually a comprehensive discussion that ends up covering a few different issues. So in the end the other has either accepted or rejected my points. Theists can walk away from other theists and end discussion far more easy then they can walk away from an atheist.

See the other theist believes in God/ gods so in a way they are responsible for their acceptance of their view of God. atheists are like little children with no certainty. As i have been told in here they supposedly are open to belief in God but only need "proof" so they do not come out and flatly state, "there is no God". So they are an open book whilst the other theist has found their god and believe in something. They are definite.

Also atheists tend to want to debate the same issue a number of times trying different angles but essentially they seem to want to press on with a point until they get the answer they want. Of course they often don't get that answer from a theist.

So with an atheist one is encouraged to press on, but with another theist the motivation to press on is far less. Lets face it most theists who come into forums like this tend to be more solid in their beliefs. So the expectation is that if they dismiss what you say and reaffirm their position to you, they are not going to change. So they go their way and i go my way and we continue talking with the atheists.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

 

[Adstar]

If they are so damn right, they shouldn't be reluctant about confrontation.

It's not about ones confidence in ones beliefs it is about ones assessment of the other guys confidence in their beliefs.

Once you see that the other theist is confident on their beliefs it becomes an issue of the efficient use of ones time.

Continuing to discuss things with a confident Theist is a waste of your work time for God. Better to use that precious time on someone who might move their position rather that a person you are sure is sure of their position.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

 

[Dywyddyr]

Continuing to discuss things with a confident Theist is a waste of your work time for God. Better to use that precious time on someone who might move their position rather that a person you are sure is sure of their position.

Well that's a new take on things.
:roflmao:

 

[hardalee]

So with an atheist one is encouraged to press on, but with another theist the motivation to press on is far less. Lets face it most theists who come into forums like this tend to be more solid in their beliefs. So the expectation is that if they dismiss what you say and reaffirm their position to you, they are not going to change. So they go their way and I go my way and we continue talking with the atheists.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

Perhaps we could have more discourse here than in the past? It's not going bad so far. I personally have an interested in both the theist and atheist points of view, but I am a very liberal theist. Perhaps there is a liberal atheist out there?

So far that has been no flaming, trolling or preaching or bad manners in this thread. Not much off post, which sadly most threads devolve into. Solid opinions about how the various camps of thought have tended to interact in the past have been presented fairly and clearly and have, IMHO much merit.

I was interested in this thread as it is in a science forum. I realize that fact and faith often appear to have little in common, but does that mean they have nothing in common?

Perhaps, on the fringes, we can all find some common ground however small.

Einstein once said “ Science with out religion is lame, Religion without science is blind.”

I have this framed on my desk.

An interesting quote. Any comments on it’s accuracy?

 

[Yazata]

because this isn't the forum for it - you wouldn't get two posts into it without someone quipping "But its just like the invisible pink unicorn" or "but why doesn't god cure cancer?"

there are bigger fish to fry, so to speak ....

edit : oh and I almost forgot the inevitable "an atheist just disbelieves in one more god/religion than you theists"

I've used all of those lines and I didn't intend any them as 'quips'. They are conversational ways of raising serious philosophical-theological issues. Issues that arise in theist-theist encounter as well as between theists and atheists.

In the inter-theistic context, the first two point to epistemological problems that arise when two or more believers make inconsistent universalistic claims. Presumably (but not necessarily) only one of their theistic religions can really be the true revelation of the one God. But both of our theists possess equal faith and similar subjective verification.

And regarding the third 'quip', the issue there is that when theists are confronting atheists, the theist is the one who is stoutly defending religious faith. But when theists confront other inconsistent theisms, they often find themselves in the atheist's role, dismissing the truth and validity of another person's religious faith and experience.

 

[Jan Ardena]

What does this have to do with the thread topic?

It's a live response to the thread.
There's no need for a intertheist discussions in this forum.

Apart from that millitant atheism is way more interesting.

jan.

 

[CptBork]

Perhaps, on the fringes, we can all find some common ground however small.

Einstein once said “ Science with out religion is lame, Religion without science is blind.”

I have this framed on my desk.

An interesting quote. Any comments on it’s accuracy?

Einstein also defined religion as a sense of awe and wonder at the vastness and mystery of the universe around us. He wasn't saying anything about growing a Quaker beard and naming his kids Ezekiel and Jebediah. Most religions today wouldn't even be compatible with Einstein's personal definition, because they seek to remove the universe's mystery and personify it with untestable omnipotent deities.

 

[hardalee]

Einstein also defined religion as a sense of awe and wonder at the vastness and mystery of the universe around us. He wasn't saying anything about growing a Quaker beard and naming his kids Ezekiel and Jebediah. Most religions today wouldn't even be compatible with Einstein's personal definition, because they seek to remove the universe's mystery and personify it with untestable omnipotent deities.

IMHO, you are absolutly right in the above post.

I on the other hand, don't seek to remove the mystery, only to learn more of what Einstein refered as "the Old One" though further and continuing study.

Kind Regards

 

[Jan Ardena]

IMHO, you are absolutly right in the above post.

I on the other hand, don't seek to remove the mystery, only to learn more of what Einstein refered as "the Old One" though further and continuing study.

Kind Regards

Why do you think do he is ''absolutely right''?

jan.

 

[S.A.M.]

Why is there so little discussion between theists of different denominations here?

We have here members of different theistic traditions: Catholics, Protestants, other Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, polytheists, and others.

Generally, there are well-known clashes between them.

And yet they barely discuss their differences here.


How come?

Preaching is not allowed

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Why should the theists be afraid?

They have killed people in the name of their God!
They beat their children in the name of God!
They assassinate, in public, the character of those who do not believe like they do!

So why be reluctant to discuss their differences?
Why turn religious diversity into something mystical and unapproachable?

Because they might show each others beliefs to be false... as well as their own.

If they are so damn right, they shouldn't be reluctant about confrontation.

Probably because they are not.

Why should seekers take the whole burden of intertheistic strife?!

That's a subjective question. Only you can answer it for yourself.

 

[hardalee]

.

Why do you think do he is ''absolutely right''?

jan.

He quoted Einstein's feelings on the quote I made correctly, based on my readings of Einstein’s life and beliefs.

 

[kx000]

Religion is retarded.

 

[kx000]

Because they might show each others beliefs to be false... as well as their own.



Probably because they are not.



That's a subjective question. Only you can answer it for yourself.

Yes, many religions are false. The Christian church for example.

 

[Rav]

So with an atheist one is encouraged to press on, but with another theist the motivation to press on is far less. Lets face it most theists who come into forums like this tend to be more solid in their beliefs. So the expectation is that if they dismiss what you say and reaffirm their position to you, they are not going to change. So they go their way and i go my way and we continue talking with the atheists.

So what you appear to be saying then is that you do indeed try to change the minds of other theists. This obviously implies that you believe that at least some of them aren't going to be saved (else, why would you try to change their mind about anything?). So according to you we have a situation where there are theists running around trying to 'save' atheists who aren't saved themselves (since you did say that you both go back to talking to the atheists).

This is the absurdity that very few other theists around here have the balls to address, so I guess Adstar gets some credit just for implying it.

Of course I do realize that some theists are cast from a more inclusivist mold, and as such don't believe that any legitimate conflict between different religions exists. But everyone knows the conflicts are real, and any denial of such an obvious fact can only be born of ignorance or deception.

This fact alone deals the single greatest blow to the credibility of each and every theist on this board (and indeed everywhere else) who 'presumes' to be in a position of religious and/or spiritual authority.

To put it simply, it's a joke.

 

[wynn]

There's no need for a intertheist discussions in this forum.

Why not??

Apart from that millitant atheism is way more interesting.

Why?
Because that kind of fighting appeals to your psyche?

 

[wynn]

Why should seekers take the whole burden of intertheistic strife?!

That's a subjective question. Only you can answer it for yourself.

It's not subjective.

It is a reality that anyone living in the modern West is likely to experience.

It begins in one's neighborhood, when a child first realizes there are people of different races and persuasions in the world - and that one has to deal with them on a daily basis.

Multiculturalism and religious pluralism are formally addressed and taught in schools - but no real solution to the inter-religious conflicts is offered.

Moreover, in many Western countries, the laws on multiculturalism and religious pluralism protect the religious, but not the non-religious.

A Christian can start preaching to me, and if I oppose, I get to be the bad one, because by law I am the one being intolerant of his religion.
By law, the religious have to exhibit some measure of tolerance for people of other religions, but can be as intolerant of the non-religious as much as they like!


People have a natural striving for some kind of "higher living" (which can be called "spirituality," "religion," or "self-culture").

But when they try to act on this, they are met with numerous organizations, institutions and individuals who claim to be authorities on this "higher living" and who claim to be able to show others the way.
These numerous organizations, institutions and individuals tend to claim quite different things.
The confusion objectively exists.

 

[wynn]

Preaching is not allowed

Why would that be preaching??

The phrase "The Absolute Truth" still means something to some people.

It is not something to toss around, as if it were something trivial.


Theists of various persuasions believe that people have the right to know about God.
Allright, I agree, and I believe that too.

And I also believe that people have the right not to be confused and mislead in the pursuit and name of God.

Theists, if salvation and integrity mean anything to them, should see to it that people do not get confused and mislead in the pursuit and name of God.

For this, they need to clear up things in their own lines.

We who are not of any particular religious affiliation, have every right to call the theists on this and to hold them responsible.