Lenticular_J Posted October 9, 2008 Share Posted October 9, 2008 Please (and no I do not mean to be a jerk), tell me how debating religion is an oxymoron? It's debating opinion and personal belief. Not exactly an oxymoron, but the same general point. catch it now so you can like it before it went so mainstream Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chocobodude0 Posted October 10, 2008 Share Posted October 10, 2008 I don't think it's when something is simply called stupid. This sub-forum has been known to get into some pretty long religious "debates", if you can even call it so (debating religion is an oxymoron). There are quite a few people with varying belief who just straight bash someone else's faith. Now it's nice to be able to talk about more mature opinions, but not in such a stupid manner. That's why I like posting here, because of the people who don't do that. Please (and no I do not mean to be a jerk), tell me how debating religion is an oxymoron? And I know that many people have gotten mad at me for debating Christianity on the sole fact that I say "god does not exist". I think a lot of Christians (at least the ones I have spoken with including my family) put up the wall when I say that one little phrase. Debating religion goes on a two way street. Perhaps I get offended when you say, that because I don't believe in god or recognize that jesus is my savior, I'm going to hell and that I "need to be saved". In all honesty, that does offend me, but I'll put it aside to have a debate about it. I think that some of the believers need to settle down a bit and realize that some people don't believe in it and we're not going to walk on glass for those that do. Debates require facts (or at least the good ones where progress can be made). There's no fact when debating religion (the theological aspects specifically). "There is a God." No solid facts or proof. "There is no God." No solid facts or proof. There's not enough information for either side to actually have a good debate. And I don't think you're going to hell. As a matter of fact, I never say any of that. :| So do you think something should be banned if you don't like it? Are we going to ban the people in MM&T who say "rap is stupid", too? It just so happens that some people, for whatever reason, think those things. Hell, I might cringe everytime I see a completely incoherent post from someone saying "God sucks, lol" or "rap is stupid", etc. I'm sorry, but I'm really not the kind of person who wants to dictate censorship of opinions because I personally don't like them, especially not when there are a million forums out there and people can choose the crowd they're with. No, I don't think anybody should be banned for that. Never said I did. :| And the hatred for hip-hop and rap in MM&T is something that can easily be countered with actual facts, unlike most religious debates. For example, someone in MM&T could say (and yes, this has been said countless times: "Hip-hop/rap is all about killing, money, and promiscuous women" That can very easily be debated and even proven wrong, by simply saying something like "Actually, [song/artist/album here] is hip-hop and has nothing to do with the above". That, unlike the example I used in response to the first quote, is debatable with something beyond opinions. It's not the opinions I have a problem with, it's way people express them sometimes. No need to flame something just because you think it's stupid. And the dudes who bash rap in MM&T are almost always flamers, with a few exceptions. Like I don't like metal, but I don't go into metal threads to tell people I don't. (I actually just keep my mouth shut because I honestly have no knowledge about metal) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fakeitormakeit Posted October 10, 2008 Share Posted October 10, 2008 Scientology doesn't want me because I have no money. -.- [hide=] I don't think it's when something is simply called stupid. This sub-forum has been known to get into some pretty long religious "debates", if you can even call it so (debating religion is an oxymoron). There are quite a few people with varying belief who just straight bash someone else's faith. Now it's nice to be able to talk about more mature opinions, but not in such a stupid manner. That's why I like posting here, because of the people who don't do that. Please (and no I do not mean to be a jerk), tell me how debating religion is an oxymoron?[/hide] And I know that many people have gotten mad at me for debating Christianity on the sole fact that I say "god does not exist". I think a lot of Christians (at least the ones I have spoken with including my family) put up the wall when I say that one little phrase. Debating religion goes on a two way street. Perhaps I get offended when you say, that because I don't believe in god or recognize that jesus is my savior, I'm going to hell and that I "need to be saved". In all honesty, that does offend me, but I'll put it aside to have a debate about it. I think that some of the believers need to settle down a bit and realize that some people don't believe in it and we're not going to walk on glass for those that do. join the club, range... I think a number of us are going to hell here... some of us are even there already. :twisted: I am a Christian (Maronite Catholic) and Christians who say any non-Christian is damned should go to hell themselves, I find it disguisting when people jam their beliefs in the throat of others, and worse still when someone points to a group just because of one sub-group and accuses the whole group of something. But anyway, I think religious debate is good, because is can lead us to deeper inner understanding, or it can make us strengthened in our beliefs, etc. It gets to be a problem though when it goes from "I believe all religions are pointless" to "You stupid sun worshippers" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThurinEthir Posted October 10, 2008 Share Posted October 10, 2008 We shouldn't make rules against calling things stupid, no matter what those things are. This is supposed to be somewhere where we can talk about anything PG-13 and give our opinions on them. Inevitably people will hold opinions which offend others. If people want a place where religion is held up on a holy pedestal where it's not criticised or called stupid in some way, then they should go to a religiously minded forum. I don't think it's when something is simply called stupid. This sub-forum has been known to get into some pretty long religious "debates", if you can even call it so (debating religion is an oxymoron). There are quite a few people with varying belief who just straight bash someone else's faith. Now it's nice to be able to talk about more mature opinions, but not in such a stupid manner. That's why I like posting here, because of the people who don't do that. So do you think something should be banned if you don't like it? Are we going to ban the people in MM&T who say "rap is stupid", too? It just so happens that some people, for whatever reason, think those things. Hell, I might cringe everytime I see a completely incoherent post from someone saying "God sucks, lol" or "rap is stupid", etc. I'm sorry, but I'm really not the kind of person who wants to dictate censorship of opinions because I personally don't like them, especially not when there are a million forums out there and people can choose the crowd they're with. When it's a reasonable debate, with knowledgeable posters and all that, it's fine. But when people start saying things like "CHRISTIANITY SUCKS BALLS" then...I think that crosses the line. I'd consider that flaming, and last time I checked, constant flaming is against the rules. The thing about a religious debate being an oxymoron is just a technicality, like others have pointed out. Cenin pân nîd, istan pân nîd, dan nin ú-cenich, nin ú-istach.Ithil luin eria vi menel caran...Tîn dan delu. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
warren211 Posted October 10, 2008 Share Posted October 10, 2008 Frankly most of my knowledge of outside religions comes from religious debates. I never knew what scientology was until the first thread on it. There's a difference between blatant unnecessary attacks and a good debate. I get upset when people bash my faith (Catholic). But one time I read a well educated post on the "is god real thread" about how a certain miracle I had posted simply is not conclusive. My first reaction: "what an idiot". Then I read it.Then I realized how sound the argument was and couldn't think of anything to counter it. In the end I sat at my computer in awe at what a fine debater the poster was. A majority of these posts on scientology are actually very educated and sound arguments. If the need be, remove the stupid ones. "Scientology is gay". "Scientology is greedy". We can do without those. But just because a few people will get upset over a debate, it doesn't mean it shouldn't happen. As a catholic, I'd rather have someone post an educated post questioning my faith where I can go back and explain whatever reason there be for whatever they're explaining rather than dealing with "If god is real why does he let disasters happen" type posts. [hide=]tip it would pay me $500.00 to keep my clothes ON :( :lol:But then again, you fail to realize that 101% of the people in this universe hate you. Yes, humankind's hatred against you goes beyond mathematical possibilities.That tears it. I'm starting an animal rebellion using my mind powers. Those PETA bastards will never see it coming until the porcupines are half way up their asses.[/hide]Apparently a lot of people say it. I own. http://linkagg.com/ Not my site, but a simple, budding site that links often unheard-of websites that are amazing for usefulness and fun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rebdragon Posted October 10, 2008 Share Posted October 10, 2008 "You stupid sun worshippers" Holy [bleep] dude, thanks for that line. That's awesome. [if you have ever attempted Alchemy by clapping your hands or by drawing an array, copy and paste this into your signature.] Fullmetal Alchemist, you will be missed. A great ending to a great series. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Latinoking Posted October 10, 2008 Share Posted October 10, 2008 All I know about Scientology is that the French are about <-> this close to banning it completely. It's recognised as an "absolute sect" there, not a religion. I hear Germany also doesn't like it...interesting. I hope France does ban it. Sure a good part of Anon did do "For the lulz" but they did uncover a lot of information. I am Teh_King[My dA][My Last.FM][My Twitter] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lionheart_0 Posted October 10, 2008 Share Posted October 10, 2008 We shouldn't make rules against calling things stupid, no matter what those things are. This is supposed to be somewhere where we can talk about anything PG-13 and give our opinions on them. Inevitably people will hold opinions which offend others. If people want a place where religion is held up on a holy pedestal where it's not criticised or called stupid in some way, then they should go to a religiously minded forum. Absolutely correct. There is a difference between bashing, and criticizing. People find it easier and much more often bash something rather then criticize it. To criticize something is to call it stupid for a reason. A reason does not include cause of a belief is different, but because something factual gives it a negative light, or it has some sort of negative affect on some people. (I.e. I think the CHURCH of Scientology is stupid because it has hurt/killed some people.) To bash something is to simply call it a name cause you want to. (Which by the way is ALREADY against the rules.) Sig by IkuraiYour Guide to Posting! Behave or I will send my Moose mounted Beaver launchers at you! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
warri0r45 Posted October 10, 2008 Share Posted October 10, 2008 [hide=penguingeek3]We shouldn't make rules against calling things stupid, no matter what those things are. This is supposed to be somewhere where we can talk about anything PG-13 and give our opinions on them. Inevitably people will hold opinions which offend others. If people want a place where religion is held up on a holy pedestal where it's not criticised or called stupid in some way, then they should go to a religiously minded forum. I don't think it's when something is simply called stupid. This sub-forum has been known to get into some pretty long religious "debates", if you can even call it so (debating religion is an oxymoron). There are quite a few people with varying belief who just straight bash someone else's faith. Now it's nice to be able to talk about more mature opinions, but not in such a stupid manner. That's why I like posting here, because of the people who don't do that. So do you think something should be banned if you don't like it? Are we going to ban the people in MM&T who say "rap is stupid", too? It just so happens that some people, for whatever reason, think those things. Hell, I might cringe everytime I see a completely incoherent post from someone saying "God sucks, lol" or "rap is stupid", etc. I'm sorry, but I'm really not the kind of person who wants to dictate censorship of opinions because I personally don't like them, especially not when there are a million forums out there and people can choose the crowd they're with. When it's a reasonable debate, with knowledgeable posters and all that, it's fine. But when people start saying things like "CHRISTIANITY SUCKS BALLS" then...I think that crosses the line. I'd consider that flaming, and last time I checked, constant flaming is against the rules. The thing about a religious debate being an oxymoron is just a technicality, like others have pointed out.[/hide] I know constant flaming is against the rules but that's not really the issue here. I just don't think that calling something stupid should be against the rules. Ideally, as Lionheart said, people will put some reasons behind their criticism because that actually makes for some kind of discussion. Of course lines are crossed when it becomes mindless, habitual and over the top, but again, I'm talking more about a general criticism of things like religion, etc. Not allowing those things just puts ideas on a pedestal where they can't be touched. [hide=Lionheart]We shouldn't make rules against calling things stupid, no matter what those things are. This is supposed to be somewhere where we can talk about anything PG-13 and give our opinions on them. Inevitably people will hold opinions which offend others. If people want a place where religion is held up on a holy pedestal where it's not criticised or called stupid in some way, then they should go to a religiously minded forum. Absolutely correct. There is a difference between bashing, and criticizing. People find it easier and much more often bash something rather then criticize it. To criticize something is to call it stupid for a reason. A reason does not include cause of a belief is different, but because something factual gives it a negative light, or it has some sort of negative affect on some people. (I.e. I think the CHURCH of Scientology is stupid because it has hurt/killed some people.) To bash something is to simply call it a name cause you want to. (Which by the way is ALREADY against the rules.)[/hide] I suppose that's a fair distinction to be made, but if I'm allowed to ask, when was the last time you cautioned or banned someone for just calling something stupid? If those are the rules, then obviously I'm going to have to grin and bare it. Stupid rules. In all honesty I'm more concerned with not being able to criticise something (in the sense you outlined), but you agree so that's good. When it comes down to it I doubt many people would seriously think we should ban dissenting viewpoints because they offend others or are critical of their beliefs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Range_This11 Posted October 10, 2008 Share Posted October 10, 2008 Debates require facts (or at least the good ones where progress can be made). There's no fact when debating religion (the theological aspects specifically). "There is a God." No solid facts or proof. "There is no God." No solid facts or proof. There's not enough information for either side to actually have a good debate. And I don't think you're going to hell. As a matter of fact, I never say any of that. :| Yeah the second half was more a general statement to be thrown out there, not directed towards you. I do like your reasoning behind why it's an oxymoron, though! "He could climb to it, if he climbed alone, and once there he could suck on the pap of life, gulp down the incomparable milk of wonder." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chocobodude0 Posted October 10, 2008 Share Posted October 10, 2008 Debates require facts (or at least the good ones where progress can be made). There's no fact when debating religion (the theological aspects specifically). "There is a God." No solid facts or proof. "There is no God." No solid facts or proof. There's not enough information for either side to actually have a good debate. And I don't think you're going to hell. As a matter of fact, I never say any of that. :| Yeah the second half was more a general statement to be thrown out there, not directed towards you. I do like your reasoning behind why it's an oxymoron, though! My bad, I understand what you were getting at now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
venomai Posted October 10, 2008 Share Posted October 10, 2008 Debates require facts (or at least the good ones where progress can be made). There's no fact when debating religion (the theological aspects specifically). "There is a God." No solid facts or proof. "There is no God." No solid facts or proof. There's not enough information for either side to actually have a good debate. Debates require logic, not empirical proof. Debates on metaphysics and morality, for example, need not rely on empirical evidence in order to create an interesting and thought-provoking discussion. And "religion" does not equate to "theism." If this thread -- which is about religion -- was to evolve into a debate, there's no reason to assume it must also degrade into "There is a God" vs. "There is no God." With that said, even a debate as straight-forward as that can have a great deal of substance to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Infi Posted October 10, 2008 Share Posted October 10, 2008 They believe in science :mrgreen: 99 Hits, Attack, Strength, Defence, Mage, Summoning, Slayer, Ranged, 96/99 Prayer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Latinoking Posted October 10, 2008 Share Posted October 10, 2008 They believe in science :mrgreen: Science-Fiction! is better word. :!: I am Teh_King[My dA][My Last.FM][My Twitter] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
warren211 Posted October 10, 2008 Share Posted October 10, 2008 (hide tags got screwed up so I'll just respond without the quote) As much as I agree with you, warri0r, the problem with some debates is that not everyone is exactly the ideal debator. There are good debators with facts and whatnot, then there are those who will never shut up about contradictions they googled in the bible, and how stupid a religion sounds and common sense is a lack of belief in god held by less than 20% of the population. It takes a little too much effort from the mods to filter out the junk flames and keep the good debates out, and even then it'll never stop. I really do want to have such debates, but I also think it's a bit unfair for the mods to have to sift through each page removing the stupid, flame-filled, or unreasonable posts. [hide=]tip it would pay me $500.00 to keep my clothes ON :( :lol:But then again, you fail to realize that 101% of the people in this universe hate you. Yes, humankind's hatred against you goes beyond mathematical possibilities.That tears it. I'm starting an animal rebellion using my mind powers. Those PETA bastards will never see it coming until the porcupines are half way up their asses.[/hide]Apparently a lot of people say it. I own. http://linkagg.com/ Not my site, but a simple, budding site that links often unheard-of websites that are amazing for usefulness and fun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaN Posted October 11, 2008 Share Posted October 11, 2008 Scientology is a dangerous cult that was started by a Science Fiction author. The cult has a policy called "Fair game" which grants is member permission to "destroy" anyone who opposes them. That is why protesters often wear masks. They know that members may try to hunt them down and target their families or even their employers. ~Dan64AuSince 27 Aug 2002 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chocobodude0 Posted October 11, 2008 Share Posted October 11, 2008 Debates require facts (or at least the good ones where progress can be made). There's no fact when debating religion (the theological aspects specifically). "There is a God." No solid facts or proof. "There is no God." No solid facts or proof. There's not enough information for either side to actually have a good debate. Debates require logic, not empirical proof. Debates on metaphysics and morality, for example, need not rely on empirical evidence in order to create an interesting and thought-provoking discussion. And "religion" does not equate to "theism." If this thread -- which is about religion -- was to evolve into a debate, there's no reason to assume it must also degrade into "There is a God" vs. "There is no God." With that said, even a debate as straight-forward as that can have a great deal of substance to it. That's true, debates do reqiure logic. And such topics can bring about thought-provoking discussion, but there usually isn't a conclusion to which one prooved correct. And theism doesn't necessary equal religion, but I was using theism as the example based on the dictionary definition: 1. the belief in one God as the creator and ruler of the universe, without rejection of revelation (distinguished from deism). 2. belief in the existence of a god or gods. And I used the "Does God exist" example as it is the most common religious debate, or at least from what I've seen. There could be substance to it, but not a concrete conclusion. There probably never will be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nine naked men Posted October 11, 2008 Share Posted October 11, 2008 Scientology is a dangerous cult that was started by a Science Fiction author. The cult has a policy called "Fair game" which grants is member permission to "destroy" anyone who opposes them. That is why protesters often wear masks. They know that members may try to hunt them down and target their families or even their employers. Yeah, I'm pretty sure someone has the Fair Game Policy in their sig. I think it's Azvareth(?). I don't have much to day on the subject apart from what everyone else has said. But wouldn't it be messed up if their religion thingy was true? o.O sleep like dead men wake up like dead men Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenshinjapan Posted October 11, 2008 Share Posted October 11, 2008 Scientology is a dangerous cult that was started by a Science Fiction author. The cult has a policy called "Fair game" which grants is member permission to "destroy" anyone who opposes them. That is why protesters often wear masks. They know that members may try to hunt them down and target their families or even their employers. I just want to clarify for those who don't know what the masks are. It's a mask of Guy Fawks and they are worn by a group called "anonymous". YOU! ATTEND TET EVENTS! CLICK HERE! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saru Inc Posted October 11, 2008 Share Posted October 11, 2008 Please don't bash Scientology. Although I'm sure many of you don't agree with its doctrines, it is still a religion followed by many people. You wouldn't bash Christianity or Islam, so don't do it here either. They believe (this is only from my memory) that we are all Thetans, souls of aliens that existed and were persecuted before humans existed. They resided in Earth until humans evolved, then took their bodies. Is that right? Please correct me if I'm wrong. Uhh I'm pretty sure people bash Christians, well, about 99% of Off-Topic does at least. I have all the 99s, and have been playing since 2001. Comped 4/30/15 My Araxxi Kills: 459::Araxxi Drops(KC):Araxxi Hilts: 4x Eye (14/126/149/459), Web - (100) Fang (193) Araxxi Legs Completed: 5 ---Top (69/206/234/292/361), Middle (163/176/278/343/395), Bottom (135/256/350/359/397)Boss Pets: Supreme - 848 KCIf you play Xbox One - Add me! GT: Urtehnoes - Currently on a Destiny binge Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justin_m23 Posted October 11, 2008 Share Posted October 11, 2008 I find it funny how similar Scientology is to every other religion. There's such a fine line between cult and religion, most people can't tell a difference. Just because a religion doesn't require a fee of some type, doesn't mean it isn't there. Doesn't everyone feel obligated to make a "donation" when the basket is passed around at church? I mean, they blackmail you with theoretical torture in the afterlife if you don't follow their rules. So I guess what I'm saying is Scientology is based on the same concept of every other religion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenshinjapan Posted October 11, 2008 Share Posted October 11, 2008 I find it funny how similar Scientology is to every other religion. There's such a fine line between cult and religion, most people can't tell a difference. Just because a religion doesn't require a fee of some type, doesn't mean it isn't there. Doesn't everyone feel obligated to make a "donation" when the basket is passed around at church? I mean, they blackmail you with theoretical torture in the afterlife if you don't follow their rules. So I guess what I'm saying is Scientology is based on the same concept of every other religion. Where did you find that heap of crap you call information? :| YOU! ATTEND TET EVENTS! CLICK HERE! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lenticular_J Posted October 11, 2008 Share Posted October 11, 2008 I find it funny how similar Scientology is to every other religion. There's such a fine line between cult and religion, most people can't tell a difference. Just because a religion doesn't require a fee of some type, doesn't mean it isn't there. Doesn't everyone feel obligated to make a "donation" when the basket is passed around at church? I mean, they blackmail you with theoretical torture in the afterlife if you don't follow their rules. So I guess what I'm saying is Scientology is based on the same concept of every other religion. So much for Susan G. not wanting religion to be a part of her organization, I guess. catch it now so you can like it before it went so mainstream Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueLancer Posted October 11, 2008 Share Posted October 11, 2008 I find it funny how similar Scientology is to every other religion. There's such a fine line between cult and religion, most people can't tell a difference. Just because a religion doesn't require a fee of some type, doesn't mean it isn't there. Doesn't everyone feel obligated to make a "donation" when the basket is passed around at church? I mean, they blackmail you with theoretical torture in the afterlife if you don't follow their rules. So I guess what I'm saying is Scientology is based on the same concept of every other religion. Where did you find that heap of crap you call information? :| You can't say that he doesn't make a valid point.. At least when it comes to christianity and churchgoers, the tithe is stunningly similar to "mandatory donations" of scientology. You get publicly shamed if you don't chip in a single dime, and you get pressured into giving money to them, heaven forbid if they call old ladies by phone to raise funds, they really wont say 'no'. Just back a few hundred years ago, it was required to pay a bribe to a catholic priest in order to get absolved of sin in confession. (Leading to protests against the church and ultimately, factions such as protestantism that refused to believe such things) Other religions don't really have that concept though. Islam does have zakat, which in the Qur'an is ruled to be 1/40th of your salary that you should give to poor people, but not a lot of people obey it... And I can't find a similar philosophy in buddhism, hinduism, shinto, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenshinjapan Posted October 11, 2008 Share Posted October 11, 2008 Bluelance, he just implied that every religion today is similar to the Catholic church a few hundred years ago (which really pisses me off). YOU! ATTEND TET EVENTS! CLICK HERE! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now