I like how you slid in the “simply throw it out” there.
One of the problems with religion – and why the fanwank criticism applies to it and not to science – is that theists DON’T “simply throw it out”. The flawed text is taken as a given. If it appears to say things that are contradictory, or stupid, or just flat-out wrong then the response is not to discard it and start over, but to construct commentary and glosses that explain how the text doesn’t REALLY mean what it literally appears to mean, but instead means something that’s less contradictory, stupid and/or wrong. The over-arching goal of theology is always to preserve the continuity of the canon, not to discover the truth.
If you want to start a religious thread then go ahead. I’ve seen quite a few interesting religious subjects discussed rationally here. Most of them dealt with factual information like discussions of biblical texts or explanations of the tenets of different sects. If you want to discuss facts, this is the place.
If your goal is to use “because God said so” as a fact then what could possibly be the point of starting such a discussion? I don’t mean that you are saying that. I’m asking, what is there to talk about once someone injects that into a conversation?
You might start your thread by stating your premise up front, with a statement like this: Postulate that an all powerful beings exists. His (or Her) powers include, x, y and Z and he likes to do n and p.
One problem with these discussions I that I see is the non-believers seem to always end up chasing around the believers, trying to get them to define something, anything, that they are willing to state as a demonstrable fact so that the debate can get some traction. Whacky hijinks ensue.
Seems like science is an equally guilty party. Again, we could go into physics or a lot of things but since I started this particular round with Clovis, lets visit it a little longer. Human habitation of North America began roughly 12,000 years ago and it all came through Siberia/Asia and the land bridge? To many of us that seemed as silly on its face as much of the stuff in the Bible. But what was unearthed at Clovis and like sites appeared to prove it. Until Meadowcroft came along and the date went back to 16,500 years or so. And now with some of the artifacts turning up in the Carolinas not only does that date look a little “new” but it looks like we had two or possibly three different routes operating at different times.
But science is loath to question the canon. You will find most texts even today insist the one-route-12,000-year gospel is indeed Gospel and infallible. Meadowcroft has been around for how long now? But basically its called the scientific equivalents of “heretic” and belittled. And the newer stuff coming out is just totally ignored. Once science recognizes a fact it can almost take an (pardon the expression) act of God to get it removed.
We could go back and argue Flat Earth and like things but you would just blame the church and religion for them - more modern examples like the settlement of the Americas and the Ultimate Speed Limit of the Universe make for less muddy waters.
And note that I’m not claiming science is inferior to religion or the same as religion - just that they do indeed share some of the same traits. As the above well illustrates.
Or the flip side of that coin - something of which I am sometimes guilty. But either way its something that makes this a nice place. So don’t give up on it.
If you take the “text” or “canon” here to mean the postulation (postulate?) that a God or gods exist, then you do have a point. For example, moving the popular conception of “heaven” from “in the sky” to “outside the physical universe”. I understand the accusation of “fanwank” in this kind of situation, although I’d rather attribute it to evolving understanding / what we call progressive revelation.
However, if by “text” or “canon” you mean actual religious texts, for example the Bible (as that’s the one that applies in my case) then the following applies: If you think that theologians never discard things, even bits of Biblical text, or if you think that real, serious, students of the Bible are interested only in preserving the continuity of the canon at the expense of truth, then you are hanging around the wrong Christians. I doubt whether you’d be interested in what even serious Christians have to say, though, so I won’t insult you by recommending journals or conferences.
I don’t know about anybody else, but I do take note of and make an effort to respect requests that the thread be answered by religionists, as long as that request is in the thread title and the OP where I can notice it. This doesn’t stop me from responding from a religionist perspective, mind you, and I do occasionally slip and mention that the best explanation for a contradiction is that it’s a fiction, but I don’t threadshit. Yes, I know that’s just me.
Also I think that religion threads put in Cafe society will (and should) immediately be moved back here, as they would be rather explicitly in the wrong forum.
We’ve had some religous discussion threads on the board that have been fairly free of threadshitting. Not necessarily about theology (that I can recall) but about things like scriptures, church history, doctrinal definitions, and so forth. It’s best to note in the OP and/or title if you’d prefer to limit the discussion to believers or Christians or whatever, although sometimes non-Christians have worthwhile contributions. Also if you’re clear up front about the purpose of the thread, and someone comes in and shits in it, you have a pretty good case to invoke the “don’t be a jerk” rule with a mod.
Usually when threads just get derailed into “the RCC is evil” or “God is delusion” is when I drop out, though. No point in dragging it out after that.
I think that is a very intelligent suggestion. And in those circumstances I’d even feel comfortable reading or participating in such a discussion even though I am a rabid anti-theist.
I also found your maturity and style of posting so attractive that I will have to make a mental note of “Very smart religious person, read his posts!” and attach it to your screen name.
This might be a foolish or untenable suggestion, but would it be worth having a separate forum for religious discussions? I know Great Debates is supposed to fill that place at the moment, but as many people have noted, it isn’t a very good environment for hosting conversations that aren’t fairly explicitly hostile to religious practicers.
As a “nice” (well, I think I am, anyway :)) atheist, I would like to say that I very much endorse the spirit (if not the specifics) of PsyXe’s OP. I really don’t think Cafe Society is an appropriate place for most religious discussions, however, and I am not sure that much can be done, in structural terms, to improve the environment for them.
In any case, despite the high levels of atheism, this board is really not all that hostile an environment for religious discussion. You just do not get anything like the sort of thing that goes down regularly in the comment sections at Pharyngula, for example, if a religious person, or even an atheist prepared to grant that not all religious people are necessarily blithering idiots, dares to poke their head above the parapet? That place (the comments much more than the main blog) makes me ashamed to be an atheist.
Maybe but I doubt it. It would only help if the no believers didn’t bother to go there at all. If they jump into religious threads to hijack there’s little reason to think they wouldn’t do the same in a seperate forum.
If you’ve been reading the “Why are there so many atheists here” thread you’ll see the general feeling is that believers in general need to be a little less thin skinned.
I do agree that they should be able to start a thread aimed at a discussion among believers without being hijacked.
I’d like to point out that it is irrational of you to feel responsible for the actions of other atheists since it is not a belief system, only an absence of specific beliefs.
That may or may not be true, but I’m betting that it isn’t for njtt. Of course if he (falsely!) believes that atheism is a belief system AND that he is part of a collective belief system then it is rational. But the basis for his rational shame would still be irrational. The irrational hole in the link has just been moved.
I just enjoy the process of reasoning, whether it is relevant, a spin-off or an absurd theoretical construct. I of course realized that you were not offering an issue for debate I just thought it would be fun to spin off on it. I understand if you don’t find it relevant or amusing.
