Religion & Beliefs

[WITHTEETH]

Since my last thread went over like a lead zepplin. :"> "How long will religion last" I want to focus on trying to build tolerence with religions.

 

How can we, what are some perspectives to tolerating anothers point of view when that perspective might be doing more harm than good. When you beleive they really ought to know the truth, but then again the truth is just a perspective.

 

You offer them relativism but its a one side deal. Relativism is offering them peace but none in return. It can be tough sometimes to keep a straight head.

 

Ideas?

[metadigital]

You may lead a horse to water, but you can't make them drink.

 

Just provide all the information and let people make an informed decision.

 

End of thread. (")

[Fionavar]

Remember, if you cannot post constructively, please don't post.

[WITHTEETH]

That reminds me of a book i read, similar but i like it more, its goes something like this-

 

"Only give them water when they are thirsty for knowledge, if they are not thirsty then they will not listen." I beleive it was from Children of The Mind, by Orson Scott Card.

[metadigital]

If you want some disestablishmentarian SF then I recommend some Robert Heinlein (doesn't really matter which, they are all pretty much the same); personally I really rather enjoyed Job (as in a modern parable of the biblical figure quoted in Ezekiel and the Epistle of James).

 

Most of Heinlein's plots were just rehashes of Starship Trooper-type Earth near-future societies (which he wrote, e.g. Stranger in a Strange Land).

[Cantousent]

I think it's important to understand the areas where we are in complete agreement, the areas where agreement is impossible, and then, finally, to focus on areas where agreement is possible.

 

The most important step is to agree, first and foremost, on the terms. You and I have come to a working agreement on "relativism." Actually, I offered that I would take "relativism" as I myself might use the term "good manners." Why don't you give a more detailed explanation of what you mean and perhaps we can build on that one term.

[Child of Flame]

If you want some disestablishmentarian SF then I recommend some Robert Heinlein (doesn't really matter which, they are all pretty much the same); personally I really rather enjoyed Job (as in a modern parable of the biblical figure quoted in Ezekiel and the Epistle of James).

 

Most of Heinlein's plots were just rehashes of Starship Trooper-type Earth near-future societies (which he wrote, e.g. Stranger in a Strange Land).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

I should kill you for saying this.

 

You just dissed the Dean of Science Fiction.

[WITHTEETH]

I think the fact that we spend such a long period of time dependant on our parents (as animals go) contributes to desire for and attachment to the idea that "SOMEONE" will watch over us.

 

Just pondering out loud. Thoughts?

[Nartwak]

Freud said as much the same as WITHTEETH. But I think he had complexes.

 

Either way, metadigital probably needs to die.

[Dark Moth]

@ With Teeth: In regard to your previous thread, yes, you should seriously think before posting such offensive threads in the future. <_<

 

Having said that, I'm not sure I really grasp the concept of this thread. What is your point?

[Drakron]

Remember, if you cannot post constructively, please don't post.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

On this?

 

Considering that most religions consider they and only they to be right and the others wrong and they have to convert people so they can be saved its kinda hard sitting in the middle of the fence.

 

Then there are the people that view religion as fairy tales.

 

Its impossible to post something "constructive" on the subject of religion since we dealing with absolutes here, there is no middle ground ... only "I am right, you are wrong".

 

You might as well lock it before posting such warnings since it either a)nobody is going to reply anything of value (tread is useless) or b) People will talk about of what they think and sinces its absolutes here it goes "I am right" and there goes constructive here.

[Archmonarch]

Freud... But I think he had complexes.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Of course he did. Freud was in love with his own sister and had a sexual fixation.

[Cantousent]

Remember, if you cannot post constructively, please don't post.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

On this?

 

Considering that most religions consider they and only they to be right and the others wrong and they have to convert people so they can be saved its kinda hard sitting in the middle of the fence.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Hostile atheists often have the same characteristics in my opinion.

 

However, I don't see why such a discussion should be doomed from the very beginning. People of good faith and tolerance should be able to engage in respectful debate.

 

TEETH himself made used a term, relativism, that he has since refused to define. It might be the starting point from which we can embark on our journey.

[WITHTEETH]

Freud was a genious, he was onto something, he just went to far with it. I beleive that our subconcious controls us to a point, he beleived it controlled everything about us. So what about his personal endevaers, that does not tarnish his impact on his amazing work.

 

Mothman, (breathe TEETH) If you had read my first post you would see that im trying to build a tolerence, thanks for helping. <_<

 

Eldar, relativism is a toughie. basically morals, absolutes, gods are all subjective. so its hard for a religion to accept this, but if "you" cheat and use a worldly view to just understand that we are different, that you can't prove your assumptions any better then i can prove mine, we can make a middle ground there i think.

 

Here is definition

rel

[Nartwak]

Freud... But I think he had complexes.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Of course he did. Freud was in love with his own sister and had a sexual fixation.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't believe you've met; deliberate comic understatement meet Archmonarch. Archmonarch.

[Cantousent]

The dictionary definition is too sterile for my taste. The language lives within us, so let us come to our own agreement of how we understand the term. I'll give it a try, and then folks can raise points as they see fit.

 

Relativism is the belief in debateable standards: the belief that the fine details of right and wrong, goodness and badness, or truth and falsehood are not absolute but change from culture to culture and situation to situation. Nevertheless, there are universal truths that transcend situation, time, or space.

 

I can live with this definition of relativism. I don't expect that my definition, used solely for the sake of this discussion, will meet with "universal approval." Nonetheless, I'll submit this message and hope that we can inch towards some sort of consensus.

[Atreides]

Of course definitions of what's acceptable/good/bad change across cultures. This is observable today - sometimes painfully so where things go on that shouldn't be because they've been ingrained into a culture/society for a very long time.

 

Does that mean that I'll accept it? No.

[Archmonarch]

I don't believe you've met; deliberate comic understatement meet Archmonarch. Archmonarch.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Ah. My mistake. Much of communication is lost without indication of body language and tone. As a (feeble) excuse, I offer my dearth of sleep.

[Darth Flatus]

Relativism is just one end of a scale, i would imagine absolutism to be on the other end.

The definition provided by Withteeth implies an extreme relativism but i think that is only to illustrate the point.

 

Morals and standards vary across cultures and time. I feel that it is acceptable to loosen our adherence to certain "rules" as times and situations change. On the other hand it is ludicrous to put every moral up for review and debate just on the off chance it offend someone's sensibilities.

 

I don't believe there is any universal truth about anything - just a bunch of trial and error and best guess approaches as to how to live in a fairly stable society.

[SteveThaiBinh]

Our morality is shaped by our history, our own day-to-day experiences, and our thought. Those who share a common history are more likely to have similar views of morality, as are those who have similar lives now. There are many points in common, but as was said above, there's room for difference on the fine detail.

 

Relativism is democratic - it is of us, shaped by us and for us. Sadly, it is more often defined by its critics than its adherents.

[11XHooah]

Freud was a genious, he was onto something, he just went to far with it. I beleive that our subconcious controls us to a point, he beleived it controlled everything about us. So what about his personal endevaers, that does not tarnish his impact on his amazing work.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I admit that Freud did some good things for psychology, but the dude was a perv. That's why I don't like him. I don't like the fact that he actually believes that a young child would have intentions to have a sexual relationship with the parent of the opposite sex. And his analyzation of dreams? Don't get me started. He thought that if you walked up stairs in a dream, it symbolized sex. And if there was a light house in your dreams? Well, I think you can figure out what that one represents :D I just think that he was way too obsessed with sex.

 

You could consider him a genius, but there was something seriously wrong with him. I think it may have been the cocaine that he did for 28+ years. :D

[Darth Flatus]

Many of his theories have been discredited and were coloured by his own... issues.

 

However you can't discount him entirely (it would be extremely arrogant to do so) and he is one of the founders of modern psychiatry.

[11XHooah]

Many of his theories have been discredited and were coloured by his own... issues.

 

However you can't discount him entirely (it would be extremely arrogant to do so) and he is one of the founders of modern psychiatry.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Oh, believe me, I'm not discounting him entirely. I know that he was very important for the field of psychology. It's just that I disagree with many of his theories.

[Darth Flatus]

Well thats ok cos so do loads of doctors in the field. Just so long as you dont go all "cruise" "

[Dark Moth]

Well, WITHTEETH, how can you expect me to help if you don't even make you're meaning clear? And about your first thread, don't forget that you pretty much made a mockery of religion and insulted billions of people worldwide. I'm not blasting you for expressing your views, I'm saying you could have done it in a much more respectful manner.

 

In regard to this thread, I think you'll find that many religions in the world tend to be EXCLUSIVE, meaning that they view themselves as the correct religion. As a result, you won't find Muslims agreeing with the concept of Buddhists, for example. You won't see a Christian/Jewish/Muslim/Hindu church. Why? Because their views are different and their religion is exclusive.

 

Christianity, like many other faiths, mandates that it is the true faith. As a result, Christianity wants its followers to convert as many people as possible to its path. However, it also stresses tolerance as well. That means that while we shoud convert, we should do so in an honest, respectful, non-hostile manner. If we cannot, we live in harmony with those around us, being respectful to their faith. That, I believe, is the best solution we can hope for: a world with a variety of different faiths living in harmony with each other. But as I said, I doubt you'll see a blending of beliefs anytime soon.