Total Posts:109|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The Careless Use Of The Word "Religion"

RoderickSpode
Posts: 2,382
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2014 7:11:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
It's a word that describes spiritual and world views as a whole (e.g. religions of the world, 7 major religions of the world, Abrahamic religions, tribal religions, etc.). However, the word religion often does not work very well in socio-political discussion unless it is carefully used to describe it's aforementioned purpose.

I have never heard anyone claim that sports are dangerous. What one will claim is that contests like Boxing, Hockey, Football, all of which of course fall within the definition of a sport are dangerous. They will specify which sport in particular is dangerous. They wouldn't want anyone to get confused thinking they include Tennis for instance in the dangerous category.

In the socio-political discussions involving religion, why do people so casually throw out phrases like "religion is.....(fill in the blank with pejorative description)"? If one thinks Christianity is dangerous, and not Buddhism, why not specify Christianity? In fact, if one doesn't think atheism is dangerous, that would be a good reason not to carelessly use a phrase like religion is dangerous. At least not when you cross over the state line into Wisconsin for those who honor our legal system.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2014 7:18:08 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/27/2014 7:11:45 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
It's a word that describes spiritual and world views as a whole (e.g. religions of the world, 7 major religions of the world, Abrahamic religions, tribal religions, etc.). However, the word religion often does not work very well in socio-political discussion unless it is carefully used to describe it's aforementioned purpose.

I have never heard anyone claim that sports are dangerous. What one will claim is that contests like Boxing, Hockey, Football, all of which of course fall within the definition of a sport are dangerous. They will specify which sport in particular is dangerous. They wouldn't want anyone to get confused thinking they include Tennis for instance in the dangerous category.

In the socio-political discussions involving religion, why do people so casually throw out phrases like "religion is.....(fill in the blank with pejorative description)"? If one thinks Christianity is dangerous, and not Buddhism, why not specify Christianity? In fact, if one doesn't think atheism is dangerous, that would be a good reason not to carelessly use a phrase like religion is dangerous. At least not when you cross over the state line into Wisconsin for those who honor our legal system.

Yes there are many different things which can fall under the same category eg, religion, sports and just because it is true of one thing in that category doesn't mean it's true for all things in this category.

The short answer is expediency, sometimes it just to tiresome to detail ever time what your objections are to something so ergo...............religion is bullsh*t.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
RoderickSpode
Posts: 2,382
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2014 7:36:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/27/2014 7:18:08 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 4/27/2014 7:11:45 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
It's a word that describes spiritual and world views as a whole (e.g. religions of the world, 7 major religions of the world, Abrahamic religions, tribal religions, etc.). However, the word religion often does not work very well in socio-political discussion unless it is carefully used to describe it's aforementioned purpose.

I have never heard anyone claim that sports are dangerous. What one will claim is that contests like Boxing, Hockey, Football, all of which of course fall within the definition of a sport are dangerous. They will specify which sport in particular is dangerous. They wouldn't want anyone to get confused thinking they include Tennis for instance in the dangerous category.

In the socio-political discussions involving religion, why do people so casually throw out phrases like "religion is.....(fill in the blank with pejorative description)"? If one thinks Christianity is dangerous, and not Buddhism, why not specify Christianity? In fact, if one doesn't think atheism is dangerous, that would be a good reason not to carelessly use a phrase like religion is dangerous. At least not when you cross over the state line into Wisconsin for those who honor our legal system.

Yes there are many different things which can fall under the same category eg, religion, sports and just because it is true of one thing in that category doesn't mean it's true for all things in this category.

The short answer is expediency, sometimes it just to tiresome to detail ever time what your objections are to something so ergo...............religion is bullsh*t.
In my opinion, I think it more often than not involves far more than mere expediency. It doesn't take anymore effort to type "Christianity is....", than "religion is...." (only 3 extra letters).

I remember a recent thread here where the word religion was used in the title. The OP however took time to detail his objections to Christianity. The word religion is often used in replacement for the word Christianity. I would say that it might be done somewhat self-consciously, but specifying Christianity can give the impression of intolerance. And that's a major reason I think the word religion is carelessly used. So in a sense, it may be used carelessly....on purpose.
annanicole
Posts: 19,787
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2014 7:52:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/27/2014 7:11:45 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
It's a word that describes spiritual and world views as a whole (e.g. religions of the world, 7 major religions of the world, Abrahamic religions, tribal religions, etc.). However, the word religion often does not work very well in socio-political discussion unless it is carefully used to describe it's aforementioned purpose.

I have never heard anyone claim that sports are dangerous. What one will claim is that contests like Boxing, Hockey, Football, all of which of course fall within the definition of a sport are dangerous. They will specify which sport in particular is dangerous. They wouldn't want anyone to get confused thinking they include Tennis for instance in the dangerous category.

In the socio-political discussions involving religion, why do people so casually throw out phrases like "religion is.....(fill in the blank with pejorative description)"? If one thinks Christianity is dangerous, and not Buddhism, why not specify Christianity? In fact, if one doesn't think atheism is dangerous, that would be a good reason not to carelessly use a phrase like religion is dangerous. At least not when you cross over the state line into Wisconsin for those who honor our legal system.

I've always used the word "re-legion" as referring to the re-binding or re-connecting of man with his Creator. The first pair in Eden were in legion with God. Then they became estranged from Him; hence, the need to re-legion. Thus, I would define it simply as the study of the re-binding of man with God. In my case, that would refer to Christianity, for I believe it to be the true religion. That does not alter the fact that false religions such as Islam, Mormonism, Buddism, and the like are still under the umbrella of "religion".

I think the "ligion" or "legion" part comes from "ligure" from which we get our words "ligament" and "ligature", but don't quote me on it: I didn't bother to look it up.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
annanicole
Posts: 19,787
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2014 7:57:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/27/2014 7:11:45 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
It's a word that describes spiritual and world views as a whole (e.g. religions of the world, 7 major religions of the world, Abrahamic religions, tribal religions, etc.). However, the word religion often does not work very well in socio-political discussion unless it is carefully used to describe it's aforementioned purpose.

I have never heard anyone claim that sports are dangerous. What one will claim is that contests like Boxing, Hockey, Football, all of which of course fall within the definition of a sport are dangerous. They will specify which sport in particular is dangerous. They wouldn't want anyone to get confused thinking they include Tennis for instance in the dangerous category.

In the socio-political discussions involving religion, why do people so casually throw out phrases like "religion is.....(fill in the blank with pejorative description)"? If one thinks Christianity is dangerous, and not Buddhism, why not specify Christianity? In fact, if one doesn't think atheism is dangerous, that would be a good reason not to carelessly use a phrase like religion is dangerous. At least not when you cross over the state line into Wisconsin for those who honor our legal system.

I forgot to add this in response to the statement, "If one thinks Christianity is dangerous, and not Buddhism, why not specify Christianity?"

That is true, and they also should distinguish between true Christianity and false Christianity. Ditto as it might apply to other religious groups.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
bulproof
Posts: 25,273
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2014 9:45:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/27/2014 7:57:27 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 4/27/2014 7:11:45 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
It's a word that describes spiritual and world views as a whole (e.g. religions of the world, 7 major religions of the world, Abrahamic religions, tribal religions, etc.). However, the word religion often does not work very well in socio-political discussion unless it is carefully used to describe it's aforementioned purpose.

I have never heard anyone claim that sports are dangerous. What one will claim is that contests like Boxing, Hockey, Football, all of which of course fall within the definition of a sport are dangerous. They will specify which sport in particular is dangerous. They wouldn't want anyone to get confused thinking they include Tennis for instance in the dangerous category.

In the socio-political discussions involving religion, why do people so casually throw out phrases like "religion is.....(fill in the blank with pejorative description)"? If one thinks Christianity is dangerous, and not Buddhism, why not specify Christianity? In fact, if one doesn't think atheism is dangerous, that would be a good reason not to carelessly use a phrase like religion is dangerous. At least not when you cross over the state line into Wisconsin for those who honor our legal system.

I forgot to add this in response to the statement, "If one thinks Christianity is dangerous, and not Buddhism, why not specify Christianity?"

That is true, and they also should distinguish between true Christianity and false Christianity. Ditto as it might apply to other religious groups.

"Christians" can't agree on true/false christianity, ergo asking for them to be distinguished between is rather silly.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
annanicole
Posts: 19,787
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2014 11:03:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/27/2014 9:45:54 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 4/27/2014 7:57:27 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 4/27/2014 7:11:45 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
It's a word that describes spiritual and world views as a whole (e.g. religions of the world, 7 major religions of the world, Abrahamic religions, tribal religions, etc.). However, the word religion often does not work very well in socio-political discussion unless it is carefully used to describe it's aforementioned purpose.

I have never heard anyone claim that sports are dangerous. What one will claim is that contests like Boxing, Hockey, Football, all of which of course fall within the definition of a sport are dangerous. They will specify which sport in particular is dangerous. They wouldn't want anyone to get confused thinking they include Tennis for instance in the dangerous category.

In the socio-political discussions involving religion, why do people so casually throw out phrases like "religion is.....(fill in the blank with pejorative description)"? If one thinks Christianity is dangerous, and not Buddhism, why not specify Christianity? In fact, if one doesn't think atheism is dangerous, that would be a good reason not to carelessly use a phrase like religion is dangerous. At least not when you cross over the state line into Wisconsin for those who honor our legal system.

I forgot to add this in response to the statement, "If one thinks Christianity is dangerous, and not Buddhism, why not specify Christianity?"

That is true, and they also should distinguish between true Christianity and false Christianity. Ditto as it might apply to other religious groups.

"Christians" can't agree on true/false christianity, ergo asking for them to be distinguished between is rather silly.

Then atheists (other than you) can make the distinction. I left you out b/c when the mood strikes you, you can't tell Biblical Christianity from Roman Catholicism.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,130
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2014 11:12:37 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/27/2014 11:03:16 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 4/27/2014 9:45:54 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 4/27/2014 7:57:27 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 4/27/2014 7:11:45 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
It's a word that describes spiritual and world views as a whole (e.g. religions of the world, 7 major religions of the world, Abrahamic religions, tribal religions, etc.). However, the word religion often does not work very well in socio-political discussion unless it is carefully used to describe it's aforementioned purpose.

I have never heard anyone claim that sports are dangerous. What one will claim is that contests like Boxing, Hockey, Football, all of which of course fall within the definition of a sport are dangerous. They will specify which sport in particular is dangerous. They wouldn't want anyone to get confused thinking they include Tennis for instance in the dangerous category.

In the socio-political discussions involving religion, why do people so casually throw out phrases like "religion is.....(fill in the blank with pejorative description)"? If one thinks Christianity is dangerous, and not Buddhism, why not specify Christianity? In fact, if one doesn't think atheism is dangerous, that would be a good reason not to carelessly use a phrase like religion is dangerous. At least not when you cross over the state line into Wisconsin for those who honor our legal system.

I forgot to add this in response to the statement, "If one thinks Christianity is dangerous, and not Buddhism, why not specify Christianity?"

That is true, and they also should distinguish between true Christianity and false Christianity. Ditto as it might apply to other religious groups.

"Christians" can't agree on true/false christianity, ergo asking for them to be distinguished between is rather silly.

Then atheists (other than you) can make the distinction. I left you out b/c when the mood strikes you, you can't tell Biblical Christianity from Roman Catholicism.

I have to say Bulproof makes a valid point. If one does not subscribe to Christianity, how would one determine true from false in regards to sects? If I considered one to be "true", I wouldn't be an atheist.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Keltron
Posts: 161
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2014 11:26:37 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Well, religions share certain cultural, political, psychological, and sociological functions beyond their theological differences, so it's perfectly valid to lump them all together when we're talking about those functions and not theological specifics.
Keltron
Posts: 161
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2014 11:31:11 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/27/2014 7:11:45 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
It's a word that describes spiritual and world views as a whole (e.g. religions of the world, 7 major religions of the world, Abrahamic religions, tribal religions, etc.). However, the word religion often does not work very well in socio-political discussion unless it is carefully used to describe it's aforementioned purpose.

I have never heard anyone claim that sports are dangerous. What one will claim is that contests like Boxing, Hockey, Football, all of which of course fall within the definition of a sport are dangerous. They will specify which sport in particular is dangerous. They wouldn't want anyone to get confused thinking they include Tennis for instance in the dangerous category.

In the socio-political discussions involving religion, why do people so casually throw out phrases like "religion is.....(fill in the blank with pejorative description)"? If one thinks Christianity is dangerous, and not Buddhism, why not specify Christianity? In fact, if one doesn't think atheism is dangerous, that would be a good reason not to carelessly use a phrase like religion is dangerous. At least not when you cross over the state line into Wisconsin for those who honor our legal system.

Religion is dangerous in it's potential as a political force.
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2014 5:58:12 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/27/2014 7:11:45 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
It's a word that describes spiritual and world views as a whole (e.g. religions of the world, 7 major religions of the world, Abrahamic religions, tribal religions, etc.). However, the word religion often does not work very well in socio-political discussion unless it is carefully used to describe it's aforementioned purpose.

I have never heard anyone claim that sports are dangerous. What one will claim is that contests like Boxing, Hockey, Football, all of which of course fall within the definition of a sport are dangerous. They will specify which sport in particular is dangerous. They wouldn't want anyone to get confused thinking they include Tennis for instance in the dangerous category.

In the socio-political discussions involving religion, why do people so casually throw out phrases like "religion is.....(fill in the blank with pejorative description)"? If one thinks Christianity is dangerous, and not Buddhism, why not specify Christianity? In fact, if one doesn't think atheism is dangerous, that would be a good reason not to carelessly use a phrase like religion is dangerous. At least not when you cross over the state line into Wisconsin for those who honor our legal system.

Maybe they generalise, or maybe they're referring to a common aspect of religion. Tennis could be classed as dangerous, it just depends on what standard of dangerous you're using. Atheism is not believing in deities, so to me it's a strange thing to generalise. It seems strange to me if people generalise theism.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2014 5:59:26 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/27/2014 11:12:37 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 4/27/2014 11:03:16 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 4/27/2014 9:45:54 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 4/27/2014 7:57:27 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 4/27/2014 7:11:45 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
It's a word that describes spiritual and world views as a whole (e.g. religions of the world, 7 major religions of the world, Abrahamic religions, tribal religions, etc.). However, the word religion often does not work very well in socio-political discussion unless it is carefully used to describe it's aforementioned purpose.

I have never heard anyone claim that sports are dangerous. What one will claim is that contests like Boxing, Hockey, Football, all of which of course fall within the definition of a sport are dangerous. They will specify which sport in particular is dangerous. They wouldn't want anyone to get confused thinking they include Tennis for instance in the dangerous category.

In the socio-political discussions involving religion, why do people so casually throw out phrases like "religion is.....(fill in the blank with pejorative description)"? If one thinks Christianity is dangerous, and not Buddhism, why not specify Christianity? In fact, if one doesn't think atheism is dangerous, that would be a good reason not to carelessly use a phrase like religion is dangerous. At least not when you cross over the state line into Wisconsin for those who honor our legal system.

I forgot to add this in response to the statement, "If one thinks Christianity is dangerous, and not Buddhism, why not specify Christianity?"

That is true, and they also should distinguish between true Christianity and false Christianity. Ditto as it might apply to other religious groups.

"Christians" can't agree on true/false christianity, ergo asking for them to be distinguished between is rather silly.

Then atheists (other than you) can make the distinction. I left you out b/c when the mood strikes you, you can't tell Biblical Christianity from Roman Catholicism.

I have to say Bulproof makes a valid point. If one does not subscribe to Christianity, how would one determine true from false in regards to sects? If I considered one to be "true", I wouldn't be an atheist.

This. ^
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
Geogeer
Posts: 4,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2014 11:11:03 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/27/2014 11:12:37 PM, Skepticalone wrote:

I have to say Bulproof makes a valid point. If one does not subscribe to Christianity, how would one determine true from false in regards to sects? If I considered one to be "true", I wouldn't be an atheist.

History. You can go back through history and the writings of the Church Fathers all the way back. You can see which sect of Christianity existed from the beginning and is consistent with those early teachings and beliefs.

Bishop Newman was an Anglican Bishop who read through the Church Fathers in order to write a book to prove Catholicism wrong. Halfway through his book he converted to Catholicism because of the overwhelming evidence for it.

You can also look through the theologies and see which ones have depth that all interrelate and which ones don't.
perplexed
Posts: 863
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2014 11:13:52 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/27/2014 7:11:45 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
It's a word that describes spiritual

well since there is no evidence of the spiritual realm...but we have evidence of being emotional people...then it would be more apropos to say it's a word that describes emotions...
: At 4/29/2014 3:14:36 AM, annanicole wrote:

:
: I'll be happy to concede the raping of virgin girls, if you can find it somewhere.
RoderickSpode
Posts: 2,382
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2014 11:56:33 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/27/2014 7:52:25 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 4/27/2014 7:11:45 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
It's a word that describes spiritual and world views as a whole (e.g. religions of the world, 7 major religions of the world, Abrahamic religions, tribal religions, etc.). However, the word religion often does not work very well in socio-political discussion unless it is carefully used to describe it's aforementioned purpose.

I have never heard anyone claim that sports are dangerous. What one will claim is that contests like Boxing, Hockey, Football, all of which of course fall within the definition of a sport are dangerous. They will specify which sport in particular is dangerous. They wouldn't want anyone to get confused thinking they include Tennis for instance in the dangerous category.

In the socio-political discussions involving religion, why do people so casually throw out phrases like "religion is.....(fill in the blank with pejorative description)"? If one thinks Christianity is dangerous, and not Buddhism, why not specify Christianity? In fact, if one doesn't think atheism is dangerous, that would be a good reason not to carelessly use a phrase like religion is dangerous. At least not when you cross over the state line into Wisconsin for those who honor our legal system.

I've always used the word "re-legion" as referring to the re-binding or re-connecting of man with his Creator. The first pair in Eden were in legion with God. Then they became estranged from Him; hence, the need to re-legion. Thus, I would define it simply as the study of the re-binding of man with God. In my case, that would refer to Christianity, for I believe it to be the true religion. That does not alter the fact that false religions such as Islam, Mormonism, Buddism, and the like are still under the umbrella of "religion".

I think the "ligion" or "legion" part comes from "ligure" from which we get our words "ligament" and "ligature", but don't quote me on it: I didn't bother to look it up.
I've never looked it up either. Without doing so, it certainly appears correct. And in my opinion there's probably correlations with the word religion and legion (re-legion) and Biblical principles and events. The first that comes to mind is the man (or men) possessed with multiple demons named "Legion", which would represent being legioined with the opposite Kingdom to God's.
RoderickSpode
Posts: 2,382
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2014 12:05:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/27/2014 11:31:11 PM, Keltron wrote:
At 4/27/2014 7:11:45 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
It's a word that describes spiritual and world views as a whole (e.g. religions of the world, 7 major religions of the world, Abrahamic religions, tribal religions, etc.). However, the word religion often does not work very well in socio-political discussion unless it is carefully used to describe it's aforementioned purpose.

I have never heard anyone claim that sports are dangerous. What one will claim is that contests like Boxing, Hockey, Football, all of which of course fall within the definition of a sport are dangerous. They will specify which sport in particular is dangerous. They wouldn't want anyone to get confused thinking they include Tennis for instance in the dangerous category.

In the socio-political discussions involving religion, why do people so casually throw out phrases like "religion is.....(fill in the blank with pejorative description)"? If one thinks Christianity is dangerous, and not Buddhism, why not specify Christianity? In fact, if one doesn't think atheism is dangerous, that would be a good reason not to carelessly use a phrase like religion is dangerous. At least not when you cross over the state line into Wisconsin for those who honor our legal system.

Religion is dangerous in it's potential as a political force.
Just about anything is dangerous in it's potential as a political force. For instance, do you think we should do away with ethnicity?

Not to mention the dangerous elements of anti-theism that we've witnessed in recent history via communism. Anti-theism is basically what atheist activist groups are.
RoderickSpode
Posts: 2,382
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2014 12:07:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/28/2014 5:58:12 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 4/27/2014 7:11:45 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
It's a word that describes spiritual and world views as a whole (e.g. religions of the world, 7 major religions of the world, Abrahamic religions, tribal religions, etc.). However, the word religion often does not work very well in socio-political discussion unless it is carefully used to describe it's aforementioned purpose.

I have never heard anyone claim that sports are dangerous. What one will claim is that contests like Boxing, Hockey, Football, all of which of course fall within the definition of a sport are dangerous. They will specify which sport in particular is dangerous. They wouldn't want anyone to get confused thinking they include Tennis for instance in the dangerous category.

In the socio-political discussions involving religion, why do people so casually throw out phrases like "religion is.....(fill in the blank with pejorative description)"? If one thinks Christianity is dangerous, and not Buddhism, why not specify Christianity? In fact, if one doesn't think atheism is dangerous, that would be a good reason not to carelessly use a phrase like religion is dangerous. At least not when you cross over the state line into Wisconsin for those who honor our legal system.

Maybe they generalise, or maybe they're referring to a common aspect of religion. Tennis could be classed as dangerous, it just depends on what standard of dangerous you're using. Atheism is not believing in deities, so to me it's a strange thing to generalise. It seems strange to me if people generalise theism.
And what is the common aspect of religion?
RoderickSpode
Posts: 2,382
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2014 12:35:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/27/2014 11:12:37 PM, Skepticalone wrote:


I have to say Bulproof makes a valid point. If one does not subscribe to Christianity, how would one determine true from false in regards to sects? If I considered one to be "true", I wouldn't be an atheist.

Actually, annanicole makes a valid point as well. The fact that someone is not a Christian/believer does not mean they don't have to understand that there are basic core tenets of Christianity that unite even those who are divided by denominations and doctrines. You can always check out a church's statement of faith to see what their belief is.

These 2 churches would be considered the polaroid opposites of one another. One is a northern pentecostal church, the other is a baptist church in the south.

We are founded upon the belief that the Bible is the inspired, infallible Word of God.

We believe in the great commission and are endeavoring to share the Gospel of Jesus Christ with love, mercy and compassion.

We believe there is only one God (Deuteronomy 6:4 ). He is the creator of heaven and earth, and of all living beings. He has revealed Himself to humanity as the Father (Creator), as the Son (Savior), and as the Holy Ghost (indwelling Spirit).


And

There is one eternal God, personal and knowable who is in Himself three distinct persons: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. He is worthy of our worship, confidence and obedience.

Jesus is the eternal, pre-existent Son of God. He willingly took on the body of a man, was virgin-born, became our sinless substitute, shed His blood on the cross to completely pay for the atonement of our sins. We believe He died, was buried, resurrected in a literal body, ascended into Heaven, and is presently our advocate and only High Priest. We also believe that Jesus will return to establish His Kingdom.


There's an idea that because there technically may be 30,000 or so denominations, this means that there are 30,000 divisions that completely differ from each other in belief even though they all consider themselves Christian. Well, the 30,000 consist of different denominations, but also a lot of subdivisions of subdivisions of subdivisions where there really wouldn't be any differences in belief other than a splitting off for political or geographical reasons.

And that concept is not really any different than listing airline companies at an airport and separating Virgin America from Virgin Atlantic who are not bitter rivals in that they are affiliated with each other. Or Cathay Pacific and Dragon Air (a division of the parent company Cathay Pacific) who are not slashing each others throats as they are affiliated.

But among that 30,000 there are also sects that fall outside of the core tenets of Christianity. They are included in those stats because they may make a reference to Jesus, or Christ in their title. Or they refer to Jesus Christ, or Christ in their teachings (Christ Scientists, Latter Day Saints, etc.). Jesus Christ not being the Son of God, but maybe something like a consciousness (Christ conscious) as an example.

Yes, there are those who believe that if Christians don't embrace their doctrines that are actually separate issues from statements of faith, they are not Christians. But I would say far more Christians understand that doctrinal differences themselves do not separate the Church of Jesus Christ (not referring to the denomination called Church Of Christ), but Christians as a whole.
RoderickSpode
Posts: 2,382
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2014 12:37:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/28/2014 11:13:52 AM, perplexed wrote:
At 4/27/2014 7:11:45 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
It's a word that describes spiritual

well since there is no evidence of the spiritual realm...but we have evidence of being emotional people...then it would be more apropos to say it's a word that describes emotions...
But a lot of things stir up emotions....that sometimes turn bad. If we did away with everything that stirred up strong emotions we'd probably get rid of most competitive sports.
monty1
Posts: 1,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2014 12:38:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/28/2014 12:35:27 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 4/27/2014 11:12:37 PM, Skepticalone wrote:


I have to say Bulproof makes a valid point. If one does not subscribe to Christianity, how would one determine true from false in regards to sects? If I considered one to be "true", I wouldn't be an atheist.

Actually, annanicole makes a valid point as well. The fact that someone is not a Christian/believer does not mean they don't have to understand that there are basic core tenets of Christianity that unite even those who are divided by denominations and doctrines. You can always check out a church's statement of faith to see what their belief is.

These 2 churches would be considered the polaroid opposites of one another. One is a northern pentecostal church, the other is a baptist church in the south.

We are founded upon the belief that the Bible is the inspired, infallible Word of God.

We believe in the great commission and are endeavoring to share the Gospel of Jesus Christ with love, mercy and compassion.

We believe there is only one God (Deuteronomy 6:4 ). He is the creator of heaven and earth, and of all living beings. He has revealed Himself to humanity as the Father (Creator), as the Son (Savior), and as the Holy Ghost (indwelling Spirit).


And

There is one eternal God, personal and knowable who is in Himself three distinct persons: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. He is worthy of our worship, confidence and obedience.

Jesus is the eternal, pre-existent Son of God. He willingly took on the body of a man, was virgin-born, became our sinless substitute, shed His blood on the cross to completely pay for the atonement of our sins. We believe He died, was buried, resurrected in a literal body, ascended into Heaven, and is presently our advocate and only High Priest. We also believe that Jesus will return to establish His Kingdom.


There's an idea that because there technically may be 30,000 or so denominations, this means that there are 30,000 divisions that completely differ from each other in belief even though they all consider themselves Christian. Well, the 30,000 consist of different denominations, but also a lot of subdivisions of subdivisions of subdivisions where there really wouldn't be any differences in belief other than a splitting off for political or geographical reasons.

And that concept is not really any different than listing airline companies at an airport and separating Virgin America from Virgin Atlantic who are not bitter rivals in that they are affiliated with each other. Or Cathay Pacific and Dragon Air (a division of the parent company Cathay Pacific) who are not slashing each others throats as they are affiliated.

But among that 30,000 there are also sects that fall outside of the core tenets of Christianity. They are included in those stats because they may make a reference to Jesus, or Christ in their title. Or they refer to Jesus Christ, or Christ in their teachings (Christ Scientists, Latter Day Saints, etc.). Jesus Christ not being the Son of God, but maybe something like a consciousness (Christ conscious) as an example.

Yes, there are those who believe that if Christians don't embrace their doctrines that are actually separate issues from statements of faith, they are not Christians. But I would say far more Christians understand that doctrinal differences themselves do not separate the Church of Jesus Christ (not referring to the denomination called Church Of Christ), but Christians as a whole.

You need to stop wasting your life and smell the flowers Roderick.
perplexed
Posts: 863
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2014 3:54:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/28/2014 12:37:55 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 4/28/2014 11:13:52 AM, perplexed wrote:
At 4/27/2014 7:11:45 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
It's a word that describes spiritual

well since there is no evidence of the spiritual realm...but we have evidence of being emotional people...then it would be more apropos to say it's a word that describes emotions...
But a lot of things stir up emotions....that sometimes turn bad. If we did away with everything that stirred up strong emotions we'd probably get rid of most competitive sports.

however competitive sports do not claim to be representing an all encompassing authority that is supporting ONE team...
: At 4/29/2014 3:14:36 AM, annanicole wrote:

:
: I'll be happy to concede the raping of virgin girls, if you can find it somewhere.
RoderickSpode
Posts: 2,382
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2014 4:26:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/28/2014 3:54:16 PM, perplexed wrote:
At 4/28/2014 12:37:55 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 4/28/2014 11:13:52 AM, perplexed wrote:
At 4/27/2014 7:11:45 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
It's a word that describes spiritual

well since there is no evidence of the spiritual realm...but we have evidence of being emotional people...then it would be more apropos to say it's a word that describes emotions...
But a lot of things stir up emotions....that sometimes turn bad. If we did away with everything that stirred up strong emotions we'd probably get rid of most competitive sports.

however competitive sports do not claim to be representing an all encompassing authority that is supporting ONE team...
Apparently you've never been to an Oakland Raider game. Or a Los Angeles Dodgers game. Or the British equivalents....Manchester United etc.....

If you ever go to a Raider game, don't wear sports paraphernalia of the opposing team...trust me.
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2014 4:39:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/28/2014 12:07:14 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 4/28/2014 5:58:12 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 4/27/2014 7:11:45 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
It's a word that describes spiritual and world views as a whole (e.g. religions of the world, 7 major religions of the world, Abrahamic religions, tribal religions, etc.). However, the word religion often does not work very well in socio-political discussion unless it is carefully used to describe it's aforementioned purpose.

I have never heard anyone claim that sports are dangerous. What one will claim is that contests like Boxing, Hockey, Football, all of which of course fall within the definition of a sport are dangerous. They will specify which sport in particular is dangerous. They wouldn't want anyone to get confused thinking they include Tennis for instance in the dangerous category.

In the socio-political discussions involving religion, why do people so casually throw out phrases like "religion is.....(fill in the blank with pejorative description)"? If one thinks Christianity is dangerous, and not Buddhism, why not specify Christianity? In fact, if one doesn't think atheism is dangerous, that would be a good reason not to carelessly use a phrase like religion is dangerous. At least not when you cross over the state line into Wisconsin for those who honor our legal system.

Maybe they generalise, or maybe they're referring to a common aspect of religion. Tennis could be classed as dangerous, it just depends on what standard of dangerous you're using. Atheism is not believing in deities, so to me it's a strange thing to generalise. It seems strange to me if people generalise theism.
And what is the common aspect of religion?

"Religion is a set of variously organized beliefs about the relationship between natural and supernatural aspects of reality, and the role of humans in this relationship." - https://en.wikipedia.org...
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
Pitbull15
Posts: 479
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2014 7:44:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/27/2014 7:11:45 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
It's a word that describes spiritual and world views as a whole (e.g. religions of the world, 7 major religions of the world, Abrahamic religions, tribal religions, etc.). However, the word religion often does not work very well in socio-political discussion unless it is carefully used to describe it's aforementioned purpose.

I have never heard anyone claim that sports are dangerous. What one will claim is that contests like Boxing, Hockey, Football, all of which of course fall within the definition of a sport are dangerous. They will specify which sport in particular is dangerous. They wouldn't want anyone to get confused thinking they include Tennis for instance in the dangerous category.

In the socio-political discussions involving religion, why do people so casually throw out phrases like "religion is.....(fill in the blank with pejorative description)"? If one thinks Christianity is dangerous, and not Buddhism, why not specify Christianity? In fact, if one doesn't think atheism is dangerous, that would be a good reason not to carelessly use a phrase like religion is dangerous. At least not when you cross over the state line into Wisconsin for those who honor our legal system.

Good point... If people would learn just that, religious discussions on this site would go a lot better.
zmikecuber and I debate the Modal Ontological Argument
http://www.debate.org...

"YOU ARE A TOTAL MORON!!! LOL!!!- invisibledeity

"I have shown incredible restraint in the face of unrelenting stupidity."-Izbo10

"Oh my God, WHO THE HELL CARES?!"-Peter Griffin

"Let me put this in Spanish for you: NO!!"-Jase Robertson
perplexed
Posts: 863
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2014 7:50:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/28/2014 4:26:48 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 4/28/2014 3:54:16 PM, perplexed wrote:
At 4/28/2014 12:37:55 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 4/28/2014 11:13:52 AM, perplexed wrote:
At 4/27/2014 7:11:45 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
It's a word that describes spiritual

well since there is no evidence of the spiritual realm...but we have evidence of being emotional people...then it would be more apropos to say it's a word that describes emotions...
But a lot of things stir up emotions....that sometimes turn bad. If we did away with everything that stirred up strong emotions we'd probably get rid of most competitive sports.

however competitive sports do not claim to be representing an all encompassing authority that is supporting ONE team...
Apparently you've never been to an Oakland Raider game. Or a Los Angeles Dodgers game. Or the British equivalents....Manchester United etc.....

If you ever go to a Raider game, don't wear sports paraphernalia of the opposing team...trust me.

and you are comparing that nonsense to the marginalization of the LGBTQ community to be justified by ones belief in their god who is understood to be representing an authority over everyone EVERY SINGLE DAY OF THEIR LIFE? really....
: At 4/29/2014 3:14:36 AM, annanicole wrote:

:
: I'll be happy to concede the raping of virgin girls, if you can find it somewhere.
perplexed
Posts: 863
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2014 7:52:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/28/2014 7:44:20 PM, Pitbull15 wrote:
At 4/27/2014 7:11:45 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
It's a word that describes spiritual and world views as a whole (e.g. religions of the world, 7 major religions of the world, Abrahamic religions, tribal religions, etc.). However, the word religion often does not work very well in socio-political discussion unless it is carefully used to describe it's aforementioned purpose.

I have never heard anyone claim that sports are dangerous. What one will claim is that contests like Boxing, Hockey, Football, all of which of course fall within the definition of a sport are dangerous. They will specify which sport in particular is dangerous. They wouldn't want anyone to get confused thinking they include Tennis for instance in the dangerous category.

In the socio-political discussions involving religion, why do people so casually throw out phrases like "religion is.....(fill in the blank with pejorative description)"? If one thinks Christianity is dangerous, and not Buddhism, why not specify Christianity? In fact, if one doesn't think atheism is dangerous, that would be a good reason not to carelessly use a phrase like religion is dangerous. At least not when you cross over the state line into Wisconsin for those who honor our legal system.

Good point... If people would learn just that, religious discussions on this site would go a lot better.

learning would imply gaining knowledge
religious discussions is about regurgitating the same stuff...."my god is the real god, yours is a false god"
: At 4/29/2014 3:14:36 AM, annanicole wrote:

:
: I'll be happy to concede the raping of virgin girls, if you can find it somewhere.
Pitbull15
Posts: 479
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2014 7:55:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/28/2014 7:52:24 PM, perplexed wrote:
At 4/28/2014 7:44:20 PM, Pitbull15 wrote:
At 4/27/2014 7:11:45 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
It's a word that describes spiritual and world views as a whole (e.g. religions of the world, 7 major religions of the world, Abrahamic religions, tribal religions, etc.). However, the word religion often does not work very well in socio-political discussion unless it is carefully used to describe it's aforementioned purpose.

I have never heard anyone claim that sports are dangerous. What one will claim is that contests like Boxing, Hockey, Football, all of which of course fall within the definition of a sport are dangerous. They will specify which sport in particular is dangerous. They wouldn't want anyone to get confused thinking they include Tennis for instance in the dangerous category.

In the socio-political discussions involving religion, why do people so casually throw out phrases like "religion is.....(fill in the blank with pejorative description)"? If one thinks Christianity is dangerous, and not Buddhism, why not specify Christianity? In fact, if one doesn't think atheism is dangerous, that would be a good reason not to carelessly use a phrase like religion is dangerous. At least not when you cross over the state line into Wisconsin for those who honor our legal system.

Good point... If people would learn just that, religious discussions on this site would go a lot better.

learning would imply gaining knowledge
religious discussions is about regurgitating the same stuff...."my god is the real god, yours is a false god"

On the contrary, religious discussions can make even the dumbest of people intelligent over time.

Would that not be gaining knowledge?
zmikecuber and I debate the Modal Ontological Argument
http://www.debate.org...

"YOU ARE A TOTAL MORON!!! LOL!!!- invisibledeity

"I have shown incredible restraint in the face of unrelenting stupidity."-Izbo10

"Oh my God, WHO THE HELL CARES?!"-Peter Griffin

"Let me put this in Spanish for you: NO!!"-Jase Robertson
perplexed
Posts: 863
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2014 7:57:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/28/2014 7:55:24 PM, Pitbull15 wrote:
At 4/28/2014 7:52:24 PM, perplexed wrote:
At 4/28/2014 7:44:20 PM, Pitbull15 wrote:
At 4/27/2014 7:11:45 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
It's a word that describes spiritual and world views as a whole (e.g. religions of the world, 7 major religions of the world, Abrahamic religions, tribal religions, etc.). However, the word religion often does not work very well in socio-political discussion unless it is carefully used to describe it's aforementioned purpose.

I have never heard anyone claim that sports are dangerous. What one will claim is that contests like Boxing, Hockey, Football, all of which of course fall within the definition of a sport are dangerous. They will specify which sport in particular is dangerous. They wouldn't want anyone to get confused thinking they include Tennis for instance in the dangerous category.

In the socio-political discussions involving religion, why do people so casually throw out phrases like "religion is.....(fill in the blank with pejorative description)"? If one thinks Christianity is dangerous, and not Buddhism, why not specify Christianity? In fact, if one doesn't think atheism is dangerous, that would be a good reason not to carelessly use a phrase like religion is dangerous. At least not when you cross over the state line into Wisconsin for those who honor our legal system.

Good point... If people would learn just that, religious discussions on this site would go a lot better.

learning would imply gaining knowledge
religious discussions is about regurgitating the same stuff...."my god is the real god, yours is a false god"

On the contrary, religious discussions can make even the dumbest of people intelligent over time.

Would that not be gaining knowledge?

well you tell me how these so called religious discussions turn out when both claim they are representing the TRUTH...
can you show me of any such discourses?
: At 4/29/2014 3:14:36 AM, annanicole wrote:

:
: I'll be happy to concede the raping of virgin girls, if you can find it somewhere.
Pitbull15
Posts: 479
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2014 8:03:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/28/2014 7:57:07 PM, perplexed wrote:
At 4/28/2014 7:55:24 PM, Pitbull15 wrote:
At 4/28/2014 7:52:24 PM, perplexed wrote:
At 4/28/2014 7:44:20 PM, Pitbull15 wrote:
At 4/27/2014 7:11:45 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
It's a word that describes spiritual and world views as a whole (e.g. religions of the world, 7 major religions of the world, Abrahamic religions, tribal religions, etc.). However, the word religion often does not work very well in socio-political discussion unless it is carefully used to describe it's aforementioned purpose.

I have never heard anyone claim that sports are dangerous. What one will claim is that contests like Boxing, Hockey, Football, all of which of course fall within the definition of a sport are dangerous. They will specify which sport in particular is dangerous. They wouldn't want anyone to get confused thinking they include Tennis for instance in the dangerous category.

In the socio-political discussions involving religion, why do people so casually throw out phrases like "religion is.....(fill in the blank with pejorative description)"? If one thinks Christianity is dangerous, and not Buddhism, why not specify Christianity? In fact, if one doesn't think atheism is dangerous, that would be a good reason not to carelessly use a phrase like religion is dangerous. At least not when you cross over the state line into Wisconsin for those who honor our legal system.

Good point... If people would learn just that, religious discussions on this site would go a lot better.

learning would imply gaining knowledge
religious discussions is about regurgitating the same stuff...."my god is the real god, yours is a false god"

On the contrary, religious discussions can make even the dumbest of people intelligent over time.

Would that not be gaining knowledge?

well you tell me how these so called religious discussions turn out when both claim they are representing the TRUTH...

If you're going to wail on religious debate for this reason, then why debate at all?

can you show me of any such discourses?

Read anything zmikecuber, Sswdwm, or philocristos have posted.
zmikecuber and I debate the Modal Ontological Argument
http://www.debate.org...

"YOU ARE A TOTAL MORON!!! LOL!!!- invisibledeity

"I have shown incredible restraint in the face of unrelenting stupidity."-Izbo10

"Oh my God, WHO THE HELL CARES?!"-Peter Griffin

"Let me put this in Spanish for you: NO!!"-Jase Robertson
perplexed
Posts: 863
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2014 8:29:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/28/2014 8:03:31 PM, Pitbull15 wrote:
At 4/28/2014 7:57:07 PM, perplexed wrote:
At 4/28/2014 7:55:24 PM, Pitbull15 wrote:
At 4/28/2014 7:52:24 PM, perplexed wrote:
At 4/28/2014 7:44:20 PM, Pitbull15 wrote:
At 4/27/2014 7:11:45 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
It's a word that describes spiritual and world views as a whole (e.g. religions of the world, 7 major religions of the world, Abrahamic religions, tribal religions, etc.). However, the word religion often does not work very well in socio-political discussion unless it is carefully used to describe it's aforementioned purpose.

I have never heard anyone claim that sports are dangerous. What one will claim is that contests like Boxing, Hockey, Football, all of which of course fall within the definition of a sport are dangerous. They will specify which sport in particular is dangerous. They wouldn't want anyone to get confused thinking they include Tennis for instance in the dangerous category.

In the socio-political discussions involving religion, why do people so casually throw out phrases like "religion is.....(fill in the blank with pejorative description)"? If one thinks Christianity is dangerous, and not Buddhism, why not specify Christianity? In fact, if one doesn't think atheism is dangerous, that would be a good reason not to carelessly use a phrase like religion is dangerous. At least not when you cross over the state line into Wisconsin for those who honor our legal system.

Good point... If people would learn just that, religious discussions on this site would go a lot better.

learning would imply gaining knowledge
religious discussions is about regurgitating the same stuff...."my god is the real god, yours is a false god"

On the contrary, religious discussions can make even the dumbest of people intelligent over time.

Would that not be gaining knowledge?

well you tell me how these so called religious discussions turn out when both claim they are representing the TRUTH...

If you're going to wail on religious debate for this reason, then why debate at all?
i am not wailing...i am asking you to point me to a discussion that has resulted in both parties learning something..

can you show me of any such discourses?

Read anything zmikecuber, Sswdwm, or philocristos have posted.
point me to the discourse....
: At 4/29/2014 3:14:36 AM, annanicole wrote:

:
: I'll be happy to concede the raping of virgin girls, if you can find it somewhere.