╌>

Religion--accept it or ignore it!

  

Category:  Op/Ed

By:  texan1211  •  4 years ago  •  64 comments

Religion--accept it or ignore it!

The topic of religion and/or God comes up here frequently.

Passions seem to run high on both sides of the issue.

I know of no other topic that gets people quite so worked up.

Here is a solution to all the fighting:

1. Keep your religion to yourself, and don't try to convert anyone here. It will not work, if anyone hasn't figured that out yet. People don't come here to be converted.

2. If you aren't religious yourself, don't put down people who are. Even if they say something you personally don't like. People don't come here to be insulted.


Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
[]
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1  author  Texan1211    4 years ago

Live and let live.

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
1.1  Gsquared  replied to  Texan1211 @1    4 years ago

Agreed 100% pardner

And if you are religious, don't put down people who aren't...

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.1  author  Texan1211  replied to  Gsquared @1.1    4 years ago

I can agree with that.

Of course, if everyone keeps their religion to themselves, we would have no way of knowing who belongs to what religion, or if they even do belong to one.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
1.1.2  Ozzwald  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.1    4 years ago

Of course, if everyone keeps their religion to themselves, we would have no way of knowing who belongs to what religion, or if they even do belong to one.

And keep religion out of laws and government policies.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
1.1.3  Gordy327  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1.2    4 years ago

That especially.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.4  author  Texan1211  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1.2    4 years ago

Not really the topic.

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
1.1.5  Gsquared  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1.2    4 years ago

Definitely.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
1.1.6  Gordy327  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.4    4 years ago
Not really the topic.

Maybe not. But you have to admit, that's a topic that might get people more worked up other than individual religion. Especially when it comes to partisan politics as TiG pointed out.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
1.1.7  Ozzwald  replied to  Gordy327 @1.1.6    4 years ago
But you have to admit, that's a topic that might get people more worked up other than individual religion.

That's because, if religion is inserted into laws and policies, it is then being forced on people who may follow a different religion or no religion at all.

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
Professor Guide
1.1.8  FLYNAVY1  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1.2    4 years ago

And keep religion out of laws and government policies.

That's precisely the point.  I don't give a damn how a person prays or doesn't pray, but ours is suppose to be a secular government.

They want to be tax exempt, stop spending money on lobbyists to influence our government.

Goldwater had it right....

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.9  author  Texan1211  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1.7    4 years ago

Not the topic.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.10  author  Texan1211  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @1.1.8    4 years ago

Not the topic.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
1.1.11  Ozzwald  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.9    4 years ago

Not the topic.

Your own comment:  "Live and let live."  1  

Forcing your religion into laws that apply to others, is not LET LIVE !  So, unfortunately for you, it is ON TOPIC from your own comment .

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2  TᵢG    4 years ago
I know of no other topic that gets people quite so worked up.

Partisan politics is worse.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1  author  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @2    4 years ago

Maybe, but that hasn't been my experience.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3  TᵢG    4 years ago
If you aren't religious yourself, don't put down people who are

I agree. 

Now, that established, do you preclude people from making critical analysis comments about religion itself or of a particular religion or a religious idea or claim?   A strict focus on ideas and claims rather than personal derogatory comments?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.1  author  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @3    4 years ago

If people keep their religion to themselves, it would preclude all of that, right?

One thing to remember--the vast majority of people here who are religious do keep it pretty much to themselves.

I get that some want to challenge every single statement made regarding God, but really, what's the point?

There is no more point to it than someone trying to convert a nonbeliever.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
3.1.1  Gordy327  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1    4 years ago
the vast majority of people here who are religious do keep it pretty much to themselves.

Then perhaps you should direct the "keeping religion to themselves" towards those that do not keep it to themselves. Perhaps remind them of that if they let slip their religion?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.1.2  author  Texan1211  replied to  Gordy327 @3.1.1    4 years ago
Then perhaps you should direct the "keeping religion to themselves" towards those that do not keep it to themselves. Perhaps remind them of that if they let slip their religion?

I know you read what I wrote, and I am sure you have noticed that I didn't single one side out. In fact, I led with "1. Keep your religion to yourself, and don't try to convert anyone here. It will not work, if anyone hasn't figured that out yet. People don't come here to be converted."

I believe anyone reading that would see that I mean for religious folks to keep it to themselves. Do you honestly think I meant something different when I wrote that?

And if they let slip their religion, can it not simply be ignored if you don't agree with it?

It won't cost you anything.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
3.1.3  Gordy327  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.2    4 years ago
I know you read what I wrote, and I am sure you have noticed that I didn't single one side out.

I'm just saying, when violations occur, or even for those known to let slip their religion on a regular basis, should they also not be reminded of the steps to avoid any "fighting?"

And if they let slip their religion, can it not simply be ignored if you don't agree with it?

Again, it depends on how they let it "slip" (which I doubt would be a singular occurrence). But if they let slip their religion with a claim, it's only fair then to let slip with a challenge. After all, they violated the rules first.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.1.4  author  Texan1211  replied to  Gordy327 @3.1.3    4 years ago
Again, it depends on how they let it "slip" (which I doubt would be a singular occurrence). But if they let slip their religion with a claim, it's only fair then to let slip with a challenge. After all, they violated the rules first.

Now that sounds like you just want to argue if someone dares to mention their belief in God. And yes, I know you stated "with a claim", but like I said earlier, why not let it slide? It costs you nothing to show tolerance on a sensitive subject.

Most people, when talking about God, are saying what it means or is to THEM.

I believe in God and Jesus Christ. It doesn't matter to me if anyone else does.

But being told I am illogical for doing so is one of the reasons I wrote this.

I have never attempted to convince anyone about God. I consider it very personal, and whatever someone believes is okay with me regarding religion and/or God.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
3.1.5  Gordy327  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.4    4 years ago
Now that sounds like you just want to argue if someone dares to mention their belief in God.

As I said, if someone acknowledges it's just a belief, then it's not really a problem. But when the belief is put forth as an affirmative claim, then that's going to far. But if someone mentions their belief/claim in god, doesn't that violate your first rule? So why should they get a free pass to violate the rule, but subsequent critiques made due to their own violation be criticized?

but like I said earlier, why not let it slide?

See previous statement.

Most people, when talking about God, are saying what it means or is to THEM.

That's nice. But you seem to fail to notice the distinction I'm making here: namely when they pass off god (or any other religious claim) as fact rather than mere belief.

I believe in God and Jesus Christ. It doesn't matter to me if anyone else does.

Good for you.

But being told I am illogical for doing so is one of the reasons I wrote this.

When you or anyone try to claim god/Jesus is real or fact, then that will invite a response.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.1.6  author  Texan1211  replied to  Gordy327 @3.1.5    4 years ago
As I said, if someone acknowledges it's just a belief, then it's not really a problem. But when the belief is put forth as an affirmative claim, then that's going to far. But if someone mentions their belief/claim in god, doesn't that violate your first rule? So why should they get a free pass to violate the rule, but subsequent critiques made due to their own violation be criticized?

yes, it would violate the rule. Violating the rule back isn't correcting anything, it is causing a fight. That is what I am hoping to avoid. Of course for it to work perfectly, everyone must obey the rules 100% of the time. That isn't likely to ever happen, given human nature.

That's nice. But you seem to fail to notice the distinction I'm making here: namely when they pass off god (or any other religious claim) as fact rather than mere belief.

Trust me, I know exactly the distinction you are making. You seem much more interested in arguing with them than anything else.

When you or anyone try to claim god/Jesus is real or fact, then that will invite a response.

Now I believe you are being obtuse and looking for an argument.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
3.1.7  Gordy327  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.6    4 years ago
Violating the rule back isn't correcting anything, it is causing a fight. That is what I am hoping to avoid. Of course for it to work perfectly, everyone must obey the rules 100% of the time. That isn't likely to ever happen, given human nature.

I guess it comes down to whom violates the rule first.

Trust me, I know exactly the distinction you are making. You seem much more interested in arguing with them than anything else.

Not at all. But a violation leads to a reciprocal response. Fair is fair after all.

Now I believe you are being obtuse and looking for an argument.

Not at all. That goes along with the distinction I've been making.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.1.8  author  Texan1211  replied to  Gordy327 @3.1.7    4 years ago
I guess it comes down to whom violates the rule first.

Not at all. It doesn't matter.

One wrong doesn't excuse a second wrong in retaliation for the first wrong, you know that.

Not at all. But a violation leads to a reciprocal response. Fair is fair after all.

See above statement.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
3.1.9  Gordy327  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.8    4 years ago
Not at all. It doesn't matter. One wrong doesn't excuse a second wrong in retaliation for the first wrong, you know that.

Then how should the issue be addressed to the initial violator? What if it's a known and/or repeating pattern? Things can be allowed to slide only for so much after all.

See above statement.

Likewise, see previous statement.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.1.10  author  Texan1211  replied to  Gordy327 @3.1.9    4 years ago

I can see that this is pointless.

You have your opinion, I have mine.

Have a good evening.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
3.1.11  Gordy327  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.10    4 years ago
I can see that this is pointless.

How so? You bring up points on how to avoid fighting. So I'm addressing the details that might need to be worked out. How is that pointless?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.1.12  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1    4 years ago
If people keep their religion to themselves, it would preclude all of that, right?

In theory if religious thinking did not manifest in other factors such as the law of the land, bigotry, etc.   But in practice, there will always be individuals out there pushing ideas and making claims based on religion.   I think there will perpetually be a need to counter the notion that the Bible is perfect and inerrant, etc.

One thing to remember--the vast majority of people here who are religious do keep it pretty much to themselves.

Quite true.   What is the significance of making this point?

I get that some want to challenge every single statement made regarding God, but really, what's the point?

Challenging every single statement regarding God does not make any sense to me.   Why would anyone do that?   The challenges are for claims of certainty.   I cannot imagine how many times I have explained this on just this forum alone.

There is no more point to it than someone trying to convert a nonbeliever.

I doubt any skeptic here is trying to convert a non-believer.   The arguments are for the readers, not for the interlocutor.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.1.13  author  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @3.1.12    4 years ago

I have read all the comments.

Seems as if people are more interested in arguing and making some kind of point because they feel they are right and the others are wrong.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.1.14  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.13    4 years ago
Seems as if people are more interested in arguing and making some kind of point because they feel they are right and the others are wrong.

Is that not true of pretty much any disagreement on any topic in any forum?

Typically, in religious discussions, the thoughtful discourse is short-lived.   The reason is that the religious interlocutor will first (sometimes) try to explain their beliefs and express the idea that their beliefs are sound because of the strength of their faith or that they have the spirit of the Lord or equivalent.   To a skeptic, that basically boils down to 'I believe because I feel it is right'.   That is pretty unsatisfying as an answer so the skeptic will naturally ask questions to encourage the religious individual to explain why they are so convinced they are right.   This is the 'based on what evidence?' stage.

It is here where the religious individual becomes exasperated and the discussion turns negative.   There really is no good answer to the questions.   Some will acknowledge that, but most will try to defend their beliefs by quoting scripture, etc.   This goes nowhere and thus quickly, in most cases, the religious side gets emotional and ... you know the rest.

Personally, I would like someone to explain why they believe as they do.   One person in this forum (Freewill) does an exceptional job of this; another (unnamed) provides well considered, brilliant answers but has little patience for rebuttals.  (Others are pretty good in various ways.)  The problem in most cases is that when the skeptic points out what appear to be flaws in the reasoning, the discussion starts to degrade and in many cases turns into crap.  

Religion is a very difficult thing to discuss.   It is a very emotional topic.   Almost as emotional as partisan politics.   And that is why I do not discuss religion or politics (other than superficially) in everyday life.   I reserve my time for such emotional topics to social forums (especially NT) where the very nature of the forum enables one to interject time to cool things off and has a level of moderation controls to keep things from getting too ugly.

Finally, these discussions in person with families and friends can cause substantial, long-term problems.   In a forum like NT, if someone cannot deal with the fact that I have a different view on religion and can put forth a fairly decent argument supporting my position, and that individual subsequently flames out, there is almost no down-side.   I personally have no issues with losing an online friend who cannot engage in thoughtful disagreement / debate without getting angry and ugly about it.   But that works poorly for the entire family if one is dealing with one's sister instead, for example.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.1.15  author  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @3.1.14    4 years ago

Since you readily admit that there are no good answers for why people believe in God, why do you persist in asking that which you admit can not be answered satisfactorily for you?

Some just can't live and let live, I guess.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.1.16  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.15    4 years ago
Since you readily admit that there are no good answers for why people believe in God, why do you persist in asking that which you admit can not be answered satisfactorily for you?

Well, Texan, I have explained this countless times.   I respond to claims of certainty; especially those that directly contradict modern science.   When someone is out making claims that I am convinced are false, I will sometimes issue a rebuttal.

You will be hard pressed to find a case where I approach a religious person and demand that they explain or defend their beliefs unless in response to a claim of certainty that they just made.    For example, have I ever approached you and asked you to state your beliefs and then defend same?

In my real life most everyone in my family and friends are religious.   This causes no problems for me and we generally do not discuss religion.   An online forum, however, is the perfect venue for such discussion.   The fact that I have a different opinion on the Bible and the religions based on the Bible does not mean that I have any negative emotional feelings for believers.   I do not.   Nor do I have even the slightest notion that belief is a direct function of intelligence.  I am convinced it is not.   I have, however, an interest in pointing out positions that I am convinced are wrong.   For example, when I see someone claiming that homosexuality is an abomination because God said so, I have something to say about it (and the Bible that promotes such thinking).   When I see someone claiming that evolution is a worldwide conspiracy of godless scientists, I am quite inclined to respond.  

I oft remind Gordy that religious discussions are like panning for gold.   On occasion, rarely, the discussion will not turn to crap and some religious insight might emerge.   Sometimes the discussions can be rather interesting.   It is just that one must deal with people losing their emotional cool most of the time to find those few times where a level head can engage you.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
4  Gordy327    4 years ago
Here is a solution to all the fighting:

There is also a 3rd option"

3. Don't try to pass off religious belief as fact or truth, lest it invites a direct challenge.

Keep your religion to yourself,

George Carlin couldn't have said it better.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.1  TᵢG  replied to  Gordy327 @4    4 years ago

I would also suggest that if someone seeks to make a claim of certainty (most religious claims are claims of certainty referencing some religious authority) then at least think one step ahead and imagine the most likely rebuttal.   Once imagined, figure out how you would defend your claim against that rebuttal.

To just broadcast claims of certainty and then get miffed when someone dares to rebut the claim —especially with the rebuttal is cogent— is a great way make oneself frustrated and then be motivated to lash out emotionally.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.2  author  Texan1211  replied to  Gordy327 @4    4 years ago

I believe "1. Keep your religion to yourself, and don't try to convert anyone here. It will not work, if anyone hasn't figured that out yet. People don't come here to be converted.'

pretty well covers it already.

And since we both know that someone is unable to prove God exists, why not just let it slide once in a while?

It costs you absolutely nothing.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
4.2.1  Gordy327  replied to  Texan1211 @4.2    4 years ago
And since we both know that someone is unable to prove God exists, why not just let it slide once in a while?

As long as no one makes the claim "god exists," or even "I believe god exists," then sure it'll slide. But if someone doesn't keep their religion to themselves and states "God exists, period," then that invites a critical analysis of the claim.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.2.2  author  Texan1211  replied to  Gordy327 @4.2.1    4 years ago

You know, not everything HAS to be answered or criticized.

Why not look at it this way:

Most people here, when talking about God, are relating THEIR experience and their beliefs. No, it does not apply to everyone, but what is the point, besides of one side thinking that they are right and have proven something?

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
4.2.3  Gordy327  replied to  Texan1211 @4.2.2    4 years ago
You know, not everything HAS to be answered or criticized.

There's nothing wrong with analyzing and finding  answers.

Most people here, when talking about God, are relating THEIR experience and their beliefs.

When it's relayed as just belief, there's no problem. Good for them. It's when the belief is relayed as fact that it then becomes an issue.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.2.4  author  Texan1211  replied to  Gordy327 @4.2.3    4 years ago
When it's relayed as just belief, there's no problem. Good for them. It's when the belief is relayed as fact that it then becomes an issue.

Statements like that are precisely why I wrote this.

You may indeed have an issue with them saying that, but what do you accomplish by criticizing those statements?

Has anyone ever changed their minds based on what you say to them regarding God or religion?

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
4.2.5  Gordy327  replied to  Texan1211 @4.2.4    4 years ago
You may indeed have an issue with them saying that, but what do you accomplish by criticizing those statements?

What do they accomplish by not keeping their religion to themselves? Should they be allowed to get away with it unchallenged?

Has anyone ever changed their minds based on what you say to them regarding God or religion?

It's not about changing anyone's minds. Although I doubt anyone would be open minded enough to actually consider any evidence. But I digress.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.2.6  author  Texan1211  replied to  Gordy327 @4.2.5    4 years ago
.What do they accomplish by not keeping their religion to themselves?

Absolutely nothing.

Should they be allowed to get away with it unchallenged?

I suppose not--if one just wants to argue it endlessly with no change in positions on either side. Seems pretty productive to me.

t's not about changing anyone's minds. Although I doubt anyone would be open minded enough to actually consider any evidence. But I digress.

Now, that would be evidence I would love to see some time. I have never seen anyone be able to prove that God doesn't exist.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
4.2.7  Gordy327  replied to  Texan1211 @4.2.6    4 years ago
Absolutely nothing.

Other than potentially triggering the "fight" you think might occur. Hence the necessity of the first rule.

I suppose not--if one just wants to argue it endlessly with no change in positions on either side. Seems pretty productive to me.

Fair enough.

Now, that would be evidence I would love to see some time. I have never seen anyone be able to prove that God doesn't exist.

You're not likely to, since proving the nonexistence of something is a logical fallacy. Of course, there is no empirical evidence for a god nor can anyone seem to provide it. That's what many seem to not want to consider.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.2.8  author  Texan1211  replied to  Gordy327 @4.2.7    4 years ago
Other than potentially triggering the "fight" you think might occur. Hence the necessity of the first rule.

No one fights by themselves.

You're not likely to, since proving the nonexistence of something is a logical fallacy. Of course, there is no empirical evidence for a god nor can anyone seem to provide it.

Which is why I was surprised by your comment " Although I doubt anyone would be open minded enough to actually consider any evidence."

If it is a logical fallacy, what kind of evidence would be able to be produced?

That's what many seem to not want to consider.

Are you wanting me to consider evidence not shown? 

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
4.2.9  Gordy327  replied to  Texan1211 @4.2.8    4 years ago
No one fights by themselves.

But someone often starts the fight. 

Which is why I was surprised by your comment " Although I doubt anyone would be open minded enough to actually consider any evidence."

I admit, I worded that poorly. That's on me.

If it is a logical fallacy, what kind of evidence would be able to be produced?

That's just it, there is no evidence (that I know of) for the non-exitance of something. But there should be evidence of something that does supposedly exist, as some affirmatively claim.

Are you wanting me to consider evidence not shown? 

Again, bad wording on my part [note to self, don't drink before typing, Lol]. Let me put it this way, if one (no one specifically) believes in a god (never mind if they pass it off as a belief or fact, let's forget about that for a moment), can they be open minded enough to seriously consider that their beliefs might be false, especially given the lack of empirical evidence for a god?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.2.10  author  Texan1211  replied to  Gordy327 @4.2.9    4 years ago

I believe most (the very vast majority) of adults have heard the arguments for and against believing in God.

There is no evidence for or against God existing, so what difference will hearing it yet one more time make?

Anyway, I will let you go last on this thread because we have strayed afar.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
4.2.11  Gordy327  replied to  Texan1211 @4.2.10    4 years ago
There is no evidence for or against God existing, so what difference will hearing it yet one more time make?

And yet, there are some believers who disagree with that and try to put fort "evidence," which isn't really evidence anyway. But they are trying to make the claim anyway, regardless of "evidence." Again, it comes down to the rules you established.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.2.12  author  Texan1211  replied to  Gordy327 @4.2.11    4 years ago

Tit for tat seems very unproductive and a little juvenile to me.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
4.2.13  Gordy327  replied to  Texan1211 @4.2.12    4 years ago

I'm  just addressing the point you made.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.2.14  author  Texan1211  replied to  Gordy327 @4.2.13    4 years ago

No, you are being the usual argument-loving person you usually are regarding the topic.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.2.15  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @4.2.14    4 years ago

You know that Gordy disagrees with your position so of course he will provide a counter.    All he said was that some put forth 'evidence' that is not actually evidence.   That is not tit-for-tat, it is Gordy expressing a fact as he sees things.   He did not say anything negative about you.   But note how you turned this personal about Gordy.  

I am trying to gently point this out to you.  Just read the last few comments objectively.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.2.16  author  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @4.2.15    4 years ago

I know exactly what he wrote.

You can pretend I don't all you want.

Both of you say that there is no logical reason to believe in God.

And constantly ask those who do why they do, even though you probably have heard every possible answer in your life.

Nothing changes--someone makes a statement that God is real or some such, and you and he are on point about it instantly, demanding answers you know can't ever satisfy you.

Living to argue seems rather sad to me, but hey, live and let live!

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
4.2.17  Gordy327  replied to  Texan1211 @4.2.14    4 years ago

Not even. But it seems you want to make things personal now.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.2.18  author  Texan1211  replied to  Gordy327 @4.2.17    4 years ago

So be it.

I will leave you two to it.

Have a blast!

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
5  Sean Treacy    4 years ago

I think that's what most people over the age of 17 do.

The amount of pointless energy spent on this topic is something else

 
 
 
pat wilson
Professor Participates
5.1  pat wilson  replied to  Sean Treacy @5    4 years ago

Then don't waste yours.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
5.1.1  Sean Treacy  replied to  pat wilson @5.1    4 years ago

I don't. That's why I almost always ignore these seeds.

Carry on with your whining. 

 
 
 
pat wilson
Professor Participates
5.1.2  pat wilson  replied to  Sean Treacy @5.1.1    4 years ago

I don't whine. But you knew that.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
6  JohnRussell    4 years ago

I generally agree with the premise of this article. The worth of religion cannot be proven or disproven because it pertains to topics that are by definition not subject to "proof".  Hence religious belief is often described as "faith". 

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
9  Buzz of the Orient    4 years ago

"Religion--Accept It Or Ignore It!"

Or just use it for moral and ethics guidance....and when needed, for comfort.

(There is no need to limit concepts like religion to "EITHER OR" - because there are many shades of gray in between black and white.)

 
 
 
Account Deleted
Freshman Silent
10  Account Deleted    4 years ago

If you have a group specifically devoted to the debate and discussion of religion, let them set their own rules,I don't have to join the group.  I would like to know that a discussion in that group is happening but I would prefer not to see their comments on the home page. (Not sure if that is possible.)

As far as general seeds, excluding religion as a topic would pretty much also require excluding politics since over the years both  have become increasingly mixed with religious leaders and politicians eager to ignore Roger Williams' plea for separation of church and state. It's frequently a news item so hard to avoid.

People don't come here to be insulted.

But they do come here to be entertained. If we can't take a "you're full of it" from time to time we should probably all stick to "Zoom" meetings for one.

Rather than prohibiting insults, perhaps a better approach would be for us to voluntarily limit exchanges to a couple of shots across the bow then sail on.

(Let's face it Texan - you're going to stick it to me from time to time and I'm going to pee on your leg. But I don't think either of us is interested in generating  5 screens full of crap.)

At the root of the problem is probably the intention and quality of the seeds.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
11  author  Texan1211    4 years ago

Since the seed fell short of what I was hoping for, I will close it now.

No point in rehashing the same old arguments again for the 1000th time.

Probably never be something that will be tolerated by all sides anyways.

Live and let live is a pipe dream, I guess.

Too much tolerance must be bad for you!

 
 

Who is online









76 visitors