Fundies!

[eriador]

Yeah, but there's no one truth.

[Wil]

Unless, of course, your opinion is for/against God. Or, rather, subjects in general where there can not be no clear cut winner because there is no proof or defining reasoning for or against either side. Agnosticism for the win!

N.B. The following is not a rant directed primarily at you, Wil, but you happened to say the wrong thing at the wrong time.

The study and theory of religion isn't just "what I believe." It's a complicated, interdisciplinary field involving philosophy, anthropology, linguistics, history, political science, literature, art, and a whole lot more. It has rules and guidelines and conventions just like any other field. You have to study and read and learn just like any other field. We don't just shoot from the hip like so many ignorant chickens, as so many people seem to think it's okay to do.

There's far more to the topic of religion that the average idiot on the street thinks, but for some reason only the loud, ignorant idiot on the street gets to talk. And somehow they think their opinion should count as much as someone who has poured years of their life into the field, because after all, "it's what I believe and you can't say anything against it!!!" Excuse me, but I don't walk into a psych class and assume that because I have a brain too I get to claim equal weight as the prof.

It's not just a free-for-all, and statements like you made, Wil, really get my goat. I find them academically offensive (not to be confused with personally offensive). No, there can't be a "winner." But opinions can be attacked or defended, because there ARE norms to the debate. And people who have studied and poured the time and effort into the field have the right to demand those norms be held to.

But then, most of the people I find worth talking to on the subject aren't interested in winning in the first place.

It's no problem, and I happen to agree with you completely. What I said just happened to fall right after a debate I had with someone about how atheists act the exact same as those devout religious types with just flopped beliefs.

Of course there is more to religion, my comment was just directed at the exact subject of a God. I meant it in a way that acted more as such that it seems idiotic to debate the existence of something which may or may not exist where there is no proof in either way. God is obviously the highest rung of this ladder and I am unable to think of another subject that has the same idiocy in a debate. Of course, you can debate the pros and cons of believing in a God, or the pros and cons of weighing too much on the existence of a God.

Morals can be debated as there is no winner (using winner loosely, not to signify the obtaining of a goal) in terms of right and wrong, however you can debate the pros and cons of whatever moral ideal that is being discussed. Religion as a whole can be debated for the same reasons as well.

I completely agree with you, it was just the wrong time and frame of mind for me to make such a statement. Then again, I find many debates completely pointless from a defending-a-one-truth belief stand point. The only thing to gain in those discussions are learning about another side of a discussion and learning more about the person with whom you are discussing. These points only work, though, if the person with whom you are debating isn't a closed minded fool.

Sorry for... seeming out of place and causing rants to be had.

[Yebra]

Yeah, but there's no one truth.

ARRGH, YES THERE IS!!

Something is either true, or it isn't. There's nothing that's true for you, but not for me.

There's either a god or there isn't. Our idea of what that truth is might be up for debate, but there is only ONE truth!

[Yebra]

Unless, of course, your opinion is for/against God. Or, rather, subjects in general where there can not be no clear cut winner because there is no proof or defining reasoning for or against either side. Agnosticism for the win!

N.B. The following is not a rant directed primarily at you, Wil, but you happened to say the wrong thing at the wrong time.

The study and theory of religion isn't just "what I believe." It's a complicated, interdisciplinary field involving philosophy, anthropology, linguistics, history, political science, literature, art, and a whole lot more. It has rules and guidelines and conventions just like any other field. You have to study and read and learn just like any other field. We don't just shoot from the hip like so many ignorant chickens, as so many people seem to think it's okay to do.

There's far more to the topic of religion that the average idiot on the street thinks, but for some reason only the loud, ignorant idiot on the street gets to talk. And somehow they think their opinion should count as much as someone who has poured years of their life into the field, because after all, "it's what I believe and you can't say anything against it!!!" Excuse me, but I don't walk into a psych class and assume that because I have a brain too I get to claim equal weight as the prof.

It's not just a free-for-all, and statements like you made, Wil, really get my goat. I find them academically offensive (not to be confused with personally offensive). No, there can't be a "winner." But opinions can be attacked or defended, because there ARE norms to the debate. And people who have studied and poured the time and effort into the field have the right to demand those norms be held to.

But then, most of the people I find worth talking to on the subject aren't interested in winning in the first place.

I’ve read through this a few times now, and if you’re saying what I think you’re saying, you’re utterly wrong.

Reading what Wil said, he isn’t claiming that Apostles ’ Creed is unknowable or arguing that there’s no proof either way on the existence of the Bible, rather he’s saying that it’s hard to have constructive arguments about the existence of God, something he is absolutely right about.

Religion is indeed complex, as is the study of it, but it rests on fundamental assumptions like the existence of God which cannot be proven and for which the philosophical arguments are flimsy at best. Whilst the person on the street shouldn’t claim their opinion means as much as an expert, neither can you as an expert claim greater knowledge that the person on the street on a subject that is fundamentally unknowable.

I get the point of the rant, but this was the wrong time to use it. Of course, if I’ve misrepresented you here, feel free to jump in and correct me. I live to learn.

[Wil]

Yeah, but there's no one truth.

ARRGH, YES THERE IS!!

Something is either true, or it isn't. There's nothing that's true for you, but not for me.

There's either a god or there isn't. Our idea of what that truth is might be up for debate, but there is only ONE truth!

Morals don't have one truth as they are simply the majority ruler. What is wrong for me isn't wrong for you. It is most apparent when you set the various political parties together and compare them.

Yes Guns <-> No Guns. Yes Broadcast Censorship <-> No Broadcast Censorship. War is required <-> War should be avoided at all costs. Digital File Sharing of Copyright Arts legal <-> Digital File Sharing of Copyright arts illegal. Gambling good <-> Gambling bad. Animal fights good <-> Animal fights bad. Eating meat good <-> Eating meat bad.

There is no "one truth" or "one correct answer" for any of these things simply because they are completely and totally personal opinions. You can, however, state facts about the positives and negatives of said opinions, and I suppose in turn you could say one is more true, or better, than the other if the positives outweigh the negatives.

The belief in a God, however, can be and usually is different as it can be better defined as a personal belief and not an opinion. You can either believe in a God, or not believe in a God. One day one side may be proven, but as for right now it can not be.

[wigginboy]

OK, breaking in to the convo a little late. Anyway. The Thread is about tolerance of fundamentalist Christian groups. From what I've read by skimming over the pages, most people think that people should be somewhat accepting of other faiths regardless of what they themselves believe. So I ask this. What if the fundamentalist group is so horrendously repulsive, and so offensive to anyone, regardless of faith, that tolerance just is not an option? As an example, I give the only true example i can think of, the Westboro Baptist Church. For those of you who don't know, these people, about 150 strong, are dedicated to spreading the message that homosexuality is the route of the worlds problems and because we are becoming more tolerant of gays, that we are all going to hell. Their stance is that God hates gays, anyone who sympathizes with gays, the military, the entire United States. The leader, Fred Phelps, says that most of the world is going to hell and that we cannot be saved. They picket the funerals of dead soldiers, they pickets concerts, shows, political buildings and anything else they feel is evil in this world. They believe that just about everything IS evil and stop and next to nothing to get their message home. They dont talk much to the media, and many people across the United States hate them. Could such a group be tolerated? They are tolerant of nothing, so it seems, so should we tolerate them?

If you haven't heard of them, their official website tells it all. www.godhatesfags.com


EDITED:SENTENCE FRAGMENTS
EDITED AGAIN: HYPERLINK

[eriador]

Short version: I don't think that the WBC is intolerable.

Long version: I think that a lot of religious belief falls in the same area as the WBC. In fact, just about all of it. Any un-substantiable belief (i.e. religion) that claims it has the "one way" is fundamentally identical to the Westboro Baptist Church, it's just the WBC is louder and more abrasive. Of course that does set them apart, but I come at this issue from the POV of what others believe less than what they do. I guess what I'm trying to say is that I may disagree with all of these people who hold unsubstantiable beliefs, but I can realize that that's what they believe, and maybe try to show them what I believe.
In short: most religion is effectively identical to the WBC, and I have to live with it.

P.S. Don't hyperlink if you don't like the WBC. It will just raise their site's search engine placement when the bots crawl this page.