no religion would make the world a better place.

[brahman]

1. so lets say there were no religions that believed in a higher power.
would there be no arguements about who was the better higher power or evenb what that higher power was?

2. lets say there was no bibles, no koran, no upinshads, mahabharata.
would there be no arguements about what is truth, about how we should act becuase this is what the greats wrote a millinia ago?

3. what if all we had were philosophies that were ever evolving and no one truth was true forever and always? would we have as much war?

4. what if everyone spoke the same language?
would the majority of restaurants in reno nevada have mexicans as the cooks and dishwashers?

[Incredible Bulk]

1. so lets say there were no religions that believed in a higher power.
would there be no arguements about who was the better higher power or evenb what that higher power was?

I've yet to see people argue and debate about who is the higher power off the internet! People are less likely to get so heated about their own faiths when they realise they have no monitor to hide behind. ;)

2. lets say there was no bibles, no koran, no upinshads, mahabharata.
would there be no arguements about what is truth, about how we should act becuase this is what the greats wrote a millinia ago?

Book burning is something the Nazi's did am i right? I am getting the feeling you are an atheist. People have bibles/Korans to read and i think its a good thing that people have something to look up to in terms of commandments.

3. what if all we had were philosophies that were ever evolving and no one truth was true forever and always? would we have as much war?

Ahhh, we have an evolutionist lol. You are trying to say "live by common sense" and that is how i live also, but why remove peoples faith to do so? The world needs culture and religion provides a good piece of this, otherwise the world would be a very dull place...its called diversity.

We have wars these days due to resources( oil), politics (democracy vs communism) and the "greater good" which entails stopping terrorism etc.

4. what if everyone spoke the same language?
would the majority of restaurants in reno nevada have mexicans as the cooks and dishwashers?

You really want to live in a boring world! Why not dress everyone in grey and have everyone drive the same car too. I love the fact i can't speak spanish/italian etc, it gives me the urge to increase my cultural understanding and learn more about the world.
If you had a planet it would no doubt look like a chain of Starbucks with the same "wash rinse and repeat" element.

I find you last statement about mexicans offensive, i am not a Mexican but i feel you are type casting and that is bordering on racist...

[wanderingdaoist]

Hmm... If the world had no religion it'd be pretty much just like Communist China, which I can tell you, has had it's share of violence carried out in it's name.

[brahman]

I find you last statement about mexicans offensive, i am not a Mexican but i feel you are type casting and that is bordering on racist...

whether you want to think its a racist comment or not, the statment i have made is semi true.

though the majority of kitchen people may may nnot be mexican, the largest group is.

i have been told it is because when you have everyone or at least most mexicans in the kitchen, they work togother better. but then again i prolly work for a racist.

[Incredible Bulk]

we can all make up semi-true statements lol, but just because its "semi" true, doesnt mean its any less offensive ;)

but thats another debate....

what do you think would remove the need for war? As long there is jealousy, pride, lust and gluttony, there will always be war IMO.

[Deepsey]

so lets say there were no religions that believed in a higher power.
would there be no arguements about who was the better higher power or evenb what that higher power was?
To solve a problem, one must create it first :D

[holyheadjch]

We have wars these days due to resources( oil), politics (democracy vs communism) and the "greater good" which entails stopping terrorism etc.
I sincerely hope we are not going to have to explain to you the religious motivation behind terrorism

[Incredible Bulk]

I sincerely hope we are not going to have to explain to you the religious motivation behind terrorism

take the one foot off the soap box lol, i know the motivation behind terrorism. Modern wars that countries launch is not the same as a religous sect

[Strafio]

The wish of "no religion" is religious in itself - wanting control of what people can/can't believe. What would be better if people could live and let live when it came to beliefs. All religions are potentially liberal and tolerant, all religions are potentially dogmatic and militant. That includes athiestic/non-theistic etc ones. Any kind of belief.

[greysky22]

I wonder if the Music would be nice. A lot of Musicians say Music is spiritual.

[Gary]

Religion has already made the world a better place. Before science had answers for the world around us, pretty much all civilisations had to create an explanation for the unknown. These were nearly always that of a higher power, and since these higher powers obviously needed a spokesman for the people, religion became a good way of enforcing laws, rules and ethics. With the power of god/s behind them, leaders could reason why good and bad happens, and help direct the growth of their people.

In modern times, with the growth of science, there is less need for religion to explain the unknown, especially since we can now recreate smaller versions of god/s powers, such as lightning or the sun. Religion is still useful as a moral/ethical tool, but there is an inevitable conflict between opposed beliefs. This can be seen throughout history in many religous wars, as well as many modern day conflicts. Science can easily be seen as a new belief, and the resulting opposition between beliefs is nothing new, other than the arguement is more likely to stay academic than progressing to a militant stage.

[Johnno]

1. so lets say there were no religions that believed in a higher power.
would there be no arguements about who was the better higher power or evenb what that higher power was?

2. lets say there was no bibles, no koran, no upinshads, mahabharata.
would there be no arguements about what is truth, about how we should act becuase this is what the greats wrote a millinia ago?

3. what if all we had were philosophies that were ever evolving and no one truth was true forever and always? would we have as much war?

4. what if everyone spoke the same language?
would the majority of restaurants in reno nevada have mexicans as the cooks and dishwashers?I'm afraid this is so hypothetical as to be completely meaningless. The world would be a different place, and we would be a different species. Religion was as inevitable as differences in language.

[brahman]

thats kinda the whole point of this thread, to discuss the hypotheticals.

[Johnno]

thats kinda the whole point of this thread, to discuss the hypotheticals.OK, but it's a bit like saying 'what would have happened if we had evolved without eyes' or something like that. For me it's a bit too far fetched to imagine. But then I was never a fan of science fiction! :)

[wanderingdaoist]

This topic should be locked...

*ahem*

[Yama Tombo]

Religion out of the picture people who still have problems.

[tekkengod]

Religion has already made the world a better place

In modern times, with the growth of science, there is less need for religion to explain the unknown.


Not in the slightest. Its just so mind numbingly destructive you might have missed it. As much as i would love to eliminate religion as a whole, even if it did go away, it wouldn't eliminate ALL of the problems.


:)

[Agutrot-]

The wish of "no religion" is religious in itself - wanting control of what people can/can't believe. What would be better if people could live and let live when it came to beliefs. All religions are potentially liberal and tolerant, all religions are potentially dogmatic and militant. That includes athiestic/non-theistic etc ones. Any kind of belief.

wow... just wow....

athiesm is not a religion it's a lack of religion. A good metaphor would be ignorant people think black is a color even that it really is lack of color.

Ridding ourselves of religion would solve part of the problem as it would stop some wars, but greed and power will still force people into violence.

Overall I'd agree with the title of the thread as religion creates much more problems then it solves.

[tekkengod]

Ridding ourselves of religion would solve part of the problem as it would stop some wars, but greed and power will still force people into violence.

Overall I'd agree with the title of the thread as religion creates much more problems then it solves.

I agree with both of those. it always has and it always will.

[Agutrot-]

Religion has already made the world a better place. Before science had answers for the world around us, pretty much all civilisations had to create an explanation for the unknown. These were nearly always that of a higher power, and since these higher powers obviously needed a spokesman for the people, religion became a good way of enforcing laws, rules and ethics. With the power of god/s behind them, leaders could reason why good and bad happens, and help direct the growth of their people.

Actually religion was basically a tool for monarchs to opress their people. (Like how the Japanese, Egyptians thought of their leader as a God, and how Westerner's had their people convinced they were appointed by God.) With their followers duped they could make them do anything no matter how ridiculous.

I'm not sure if you've ever heard of "The Holocaust" or "Al Quada" but religion never has nor ever will create peace. It's a fictional story written in a violent time. What do you expect? Open your eyes people.

[brahman]

OK, but it's a bit like saying 'what would have happened if we had evolved without eyes' or something like that. For me it's a bit too far fetched to imagine. But then I was never a fan of science fiction! :)


sounds like a good topic to me, if we were all blind,hmmmm....... :eek:


maybe there would be less religion :D

[Yama Tombo]

Not in the slightest. Its just so mind numbingly destructive you might have missed it. As much as i would love to eliminate religion as a whole, even if it did go away, it wouldn't eliminate ALL of the problems.


:)

It's people that cause religion [and science] to have highs and lows. People are "mind numbingly destructive" enough without religion being a central issue.

[tbubb1]

It's people that cause religion [and science] to have highs and lows. People are "mind numbingly destructive" enough without religion being a central issue.

So it's not religion that's bad, but those who misrepresent it?

[Yama Tombo]

Yeah

[Strafio]

wow... just wow....

athiesm is not a religion it's a lack of religion. A good metaphor would be ignorant people think black is a color even that it really is lack of color.
It's a religion as in it's a "claim to truth".
Some people say there's an intelligent God, some says that's a monist God (some force of nature), some people say there's no God. Atheism is the later. Not a lack of belief but a belief that there isn't God. The difference?
Someone who lacks belief in God won't see a believer as "wrong" wheras someone who believes that there isn't a God will see as believer as wrong.

Ridding ourselves of religion would solve part of the problem as it would stop some wars, but greed and power will still force people into violence.
So the trick is to stop people from believing anything so we have nothing to argue about? Incidently, religions are generally seen as the main antidote to greed...

[Knight_Errant]

There is a religion that would make the world a better place- you could all worship me and give me all your money, making the world a better place for me.

[Agutrot-]

It's a religion as in it's a "claim to truth".
Some people say there's an intelligent God, some says that's a monist God (some force of nature), some people say there's no God. Atheism is the later. Not a lack of belief but a belief that there isn't God. The difference?
Someone who lacks belief in God won't see a believer as "wrong" wheras someone who believes that there isn't a God will see as believer as wrong....

Athiesism is denying the existance of God. If you think that's a religion I pity your parents. I don't play basketball. Does that make me a kind of basketball player?

So the trick is to stop people from believing anything so we have nothing to argue about? Incidently, religions are generally seen as the main antidote to greed...

Antidote to greed, but the poison of government, science, peace, and ignorance.

[CKava]

Strafio by that logic anyone who has a view about Communism is a Communist.

ever heard of "The Holocaust"
The holocaust was not perpetrated because of Hitler's religious beliefs.

[tekkengod]

It's people that cause religion [and science] to have highs and lows. People are "mind numbingly destructive" enough without religion being a central issue.


thats exactly what the relgious would have you think but its not that simple, even if it was, if it wasn't around, it couldn't be "misinterpritated, overlooked, taken out of context, misread, biased" or what ever other term they would use for Spun.

indeed they are, but when you add in religion, things escalate to the point of no return. as they have in the past and continue to do so today.

also, i'm not sure why you put "and science" in there too, if you are trying to make a correlation, try again. They are 2 diffrent things, designed to do 2 diffrent things. period the pros are a little unpriportinate between them if ya didn't notice. :)

[Strafio]

Athiesism is denying the existance of God. If you think that's a religion I pity your parents. I don't play basketball. Does that make me a kind of basketball player?
I probably mis-used words a bit. I'll try again.
Atheism itself isn't a religion but there are plenty of atheist religions just as there are plenty of theist religions. Are you trying to tell people what they should and shouldn't believe in? I thought the main problem people had with religions was the dogma?

Antidote to greed, but the poison of government, science, peace, and ignorance.
That's silly. Plenty of the worlds greatest scientists had theistic beliefs as such. Plenty of religious organisations have done what they can to help peace in times of war. Yes, religion can become a politicians tool to manipulate people, but then the real problems is the politician's own motives which'll normally be greed based. If you're talking about ignorance then you're just assuming that you know better than them.

Name one problem to do with religion that's not related to either dogma (being told what to believe) or intolerance of other beliefs. Is intolerance and/or dogma exclusive to religions? Not at all. Look at the Nazi's and Commie states. Are religions always dogmatic? No. They can be but a good deal of them aren't. You just don't hear so much about them because only the screw-ups hit the headlines.

So is religion the problem or is intolerance and dogma the problem?
Now by telling the world to scrap theistic beliefs aren't you being both dogmatic on what people should believe and intolerant with theistic beliefs? The best way to deal with extremists is not to think like one.

(By the by, Scientism is more or less a religion. It's an unscientific faith in the idea that every problem in the world is solvable by science and science alone.)

[Agutrot-]

That's silly. Plenty of the worlds greatest scientists had theistic beliefs as such. Plenty of religious organisations have done what they can to help peace in times of war. Yes, religion can become a politicians tool to manipulate people, but then the real problems is the politician's own motives which'll normally be greed based. If you're talking about ignorance then you're just assuming that you know better than them.

Just because a religious group offers help doesn't mean religion doesn't cause more problems then it creates. What real help does religion offer? Say God will help those suffering. Make a small donation? As soon as religion has stopped as many wars as it's started I'll agree with you, but bad news- it hasn't.

Regarding politician's motives. Again it doesn't matter if they it's their fault religion still obscured their follower's vision. Look at the bigger picture. If people didn't have blind faith to believe in the religion they never would have been duped.

Regarding ignorance. "Why does Big Brother have telescreens everywhere?" "God made them, now shut up and mine your damn coal." Viewing something as greater then all humans makes you into a pawn for that being. Read the book 1984 and see what entails.

Name one problem to do with religion that's not related to either dogma (being told what to believe) or intolerance of other beliefs. Is intolerance and/or dogma exclusive to religions? Not at all. Look at the Nazi's and Commie states. Are religions always dogmatic? No. They can be but a good deal of them aren't. You just don't hear so much about them because only the screw-ups hit the headlines.

First off, it's the ignorance it creates, the shroud drawn over you obscuring your view of the big picture. When you follow a leader blindly as religion has you do you end up in serious turmoil. Secondly you're asking me to give an example of a problem with religion that doesn't involve dogma. Religion without dogma is a belief. (Like athiesm)

So is religion the problem or is intolerance and dogma the problem?
Now by telling the world to scrap theistic beliefs aren't you being both dogmatic on what people should believe and intolerant with theistic beliefs? The best way to deal with extremists is not to think like one.

(By the by, Scientism is more or less a religion. It's an unscientific faith in the idea that every problem in the world is solvable by science and science alone.)

Intolerance and dogma are created by the religion. Are guns the problem or is physics the problem?

No I'm not being dogmatic because I'm not of the church. (The dictionary is your friend)

More or less a religion? Man why am I debating someone like you? Hating fat people is more or less a religion too.

Q.E.D.

[Agutrot-]

The holocaust was not perpetrated because of Hitler's religious beliefs.

Ya but how did that work out for people that happened to be Jewish? Did religion help or hurt them?

[Strafio]

Secondly you're asking me to give an example of a problem with religion that doesn't involve dogma. Religion without dogma is a belief. (Like athiesm)
So you define religion (http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?s=religion&gwp=13) as dogmatic? Relgion can be dogmatic but isn't necessarily. My parents, for instance, are Catholics but they're as anti-dogma as anyone. They have the belief in Jesus and that Catholic faith but they don't necessarily agree with all of what the church says.

Intolerance and dogma are created by the religion. Are guns the problem or is physics the problem?

No I'm not being dogmatic because I'm not of the church. (The dictionary is your friend)
One definition of dogma (http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?s=dogma&gwp=13) mentions the church but look at number 2. If you're thinking that everyone should give up theistic beliefs then you've got a dogmatic mentality that's got an intolerance of theism. You're thinking the same way as those extreme evangelicals who think that everyone should believe in Jesus, just swapping "Jesus" for "atheism".

If dogma and intolerance is the difference between belief and religion, didn't your beliefs just become religious?

More or less a religion? Man why am I debating someone like you? Hating fat people is more or less a religion too.
Could be made into one...
religion (http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?s=religion&gwp=13) is a shared set of beliefs held by a group of people (check definition 4 and 1.b). So scientism is a relgion.

[Socrastein]

If you're thinking that everyone should give up theistic beliefs then you've got a dogmatic mentality that's got an intolerance of theism. You're thinking the same way as those extreme evangelicals who think that everyone should believe in Jesus, just swapping "Jesus" for "atheism".

I think everyone should give up racist beliefs. Everyone should learn to respect others regardless of skin color. Apparently that makes me dogmatic, but if it does, then I guess dogma isn't inherently bad, now is it? Or maybe you're just stretching the definition a little too much?

[Strafio]

Good example.
As it happens, I think that anti-racist dogma is bad as well.
It makes people hate racism because it's unfashionable, rather them genuinely understanding what's wrong with it. So they might start picking on odd racist jokes but still treat someone differently because of their skin. It's where this "positive discrimination" came from.

Secondly, anti-racial dogma (and anti-drug dogma similarly) hasn't solved the probelms. It's encouraged people to hide it instead, bottle it up, keep quiet about what they really believe because they've been told not to "be racist" rather than be convinced that racism is stupid. It's the difference between telling a kid not to play with matches and making them understand how dangerous fire is...

The whole "creationist science" movement is a direct response to what the Christian community feels is scientific dogma against their faith. That's why they like to stress that evolution isn't proved and things like that.

[Socrastein]

:)

Fine... anti rape "dogma"? Anti murder "dogma"? Anti molestation "dogma"?

And best of all: anti dogma "dogma".

:D

[Strafio]

:)

It's hard to say...
These are all actions now...
Anti-action dogma is necessary for safety.
Anti-belief dogma isn't necessary and causes problems.
At the end of the day, if people's only reason for not murdering and raping was dogma, that would be better than them having no reason, but still a bit dodgy...

Anti-dogma is an easy one though.
I've not told anyone to stop being dogmatic, just pointed out that the reason why they hated religion was down to the dogma and they'd become what they'd hated. ;)

[Socrastein]

So how do you define dogma, specifically?

[Strafio]

Telling people what to think.
Giving up your own reasoning in favour of some sort of authority.

Ofcourse, there's times when you have good reason to just trust someone, so it's not quite that simple.

[Socrastein]

What about telling people how to think?

I spend a great deal of my time on this and other online forums debating and discussing various scientific and philosophical issues. One of my biggest pursuits is teaching people how to think rationally. You could say I try to force logic down people's throats, because I refuse to engage in fallacious and irrational debates.

Does that make me dogmatic?

[Strafio]

Sometimes your arguments come across kind of dogmatic because you prove things on your terms rather than theirs and seem to expect them to have the same foundations as you. I've no doubt that I do it as well. (I can't tell by reading my posts but I'm certain I'm not the only non-dogmatic person in the world! :D)

Having said that, "dogmatism" isn't binary.
Some things can be more or less dogmatic.
Trying to push someone's train of thought to a certain conclusion might be slightly dogmatic while telling something to just accept a certain truth would be very dogmatic. It's another case of there being a black, a white and a billion shades of grey in between. :)

Also, although dogma would be unnecessary in a perfect world, this world isn't perfect. Sometimes people need to understand certain things and a slightly "dogmatic" approach can help them get there faster (although not necessarily in a stable way - they're more likely to come back and question it later).

When it comes to teaching, that can be really tricky...
If you tell a Christian that this rational thinking will lead them to disbelieving in God then they're already going to distrust you as they see you as having "political" motive for what you're trying to teach them. Another thing is that a lot of your reasonings are difficult to follow unless you've studied formal philosophy. That is, someone who's rational in thinking but isn't familiar with your language and standard arguments won't be able to follow you. I've found your writing making a lot more sense to me since I did that module in epistemology.

At the end of the day, if you really want to change someone's attitude then you have to do it on their terms. Everyone can agree on the most basic tenet of logic - non-contradiction so I guess that's what you'd start with. From there, if someone's position is irrational, you have to spell it out in a way that they can recognise.

Which is tricky. :)
It's why it arguments rarely end in someone changing their mind.

[brahman]

What about telling people how to think?

I spend a great deal of my time on this and other online forums debating and discussing various scientific and philosophical issues. One of my biggest pursuits is teaching people how to think rationally. You could say I try to force logic down people's throats, because I refuse to engage in fallacious and irrational debates.

Does that make me dogmatic?

considering that you are pro-dogma, it stands to reason. YES.

[Socrastein]

I was under the, perhaps mistaken, impression that I put great effort into "spelling it out" to people. I've seen people who debate by just pointing out fallacies in their opponent's arguments, one after another, and conclude with "your argument is illogical, try again". This of course assumes that the person already understands what a fallacy is and what all the different latin phrases stand for.

I don't really do that. If someone, for example, argues a straw man of my position, I tend to point out what I did say, what they said I said, what the difference is, how that makes their argument a fallacious straw man, and I usually tell them what they should be trying to argue so that their points are relevent.

Also, I'm curious as to your mentioning a transition in your understanding of my posts and arguments. I stopped posting here for almost 6 months or so, and just started again within the past week or two. Are you referring to arguments you remember from half a year ago?

And could you give specific examples too of where I'm to presumptious? Like I said, I try very hard not to be, so if I can see what I'm saying that is hard to understand, I can see what not to do in the future.

[Socrastein]

considering that you are pro-dogma, it stands to reason. YES.

Well I can't recall saying I am pro-dogma, but regardless, if trying to enforce rational debate is dogmatic, this naturally begs the question - what's so bad about dogma?

[BendzR]

I was under the, perhaps mistaken, impression that I put great effort into "spelling it out" to people. I've seen people who debate by just pointing out fallacies in their opponent's arguments, one after another, and conclude with "your argument is illogical, try again". This of course assumes that the person already understands what a fallacy is and what all the different latin phrases stand for.

I don't really do that. If someone, for example, argues a straw man of my position, I tend to point out what I did say, what they said I said, what the difference is, how that makes their argument a fallacious straw man, and I usually tell them what they should be trying to argue so that their points are relevent.

I believe that you do this, and you do it quite well. Your literacy is quite impressive at times but sometimes (atheistic morality thread) you can be a bit confusing. Maybe I'm just stupid.

Nevertheless I wish I had the literate dexterity that you have. ;) I did not need you to teach me how to think rationally, but the way you write has actually tough me a thing or two about trying to teach others about rationality.

Hope that makes sense. :)

[Socrastein]

I know that while I was specifically debating AZeitung I didn't really bother to simplify my arguments for him because I know from debating him in the past that he has a pretty good grasp of the basics of logic and sound arguments, as well as many philosophical concepts.

If I was confusing otherwise and talked over people's heads unnecessarily, then I will try harder in the future not to. I hate to waste time on a well thought out post just to have it go soaring over people's heads because I used uncommon words and such.

To my credit, it should be noted I racked up a couple thousand posts or so on philosophyforums.com for over a year before I branched out to any other forums, such as this one. It's hard for me to get used to talking to people who don't all fully understand every logical and philosophical concept I mention.

Man I hope that doesn't sound condescending, because I assure you, I am not trying to be.

[Agutrot-]

Strafio I'm never debating anything with you again. You just respond with psuedo answers that don't apply to what has been said.

For the last time. Your parents believe in Jesus and the like but not dogma? Beleiving in Jesus is dogma.....

[Strafio]

Why is believing in Jesus dogma?
I mean, some people might because they're told to but you're saying that it's dogmatic by default? (It's alright. You don't have to answer if you don't want to debate with me anymore, but atleast think about it! :))

I was under the, perhaps mistaken, impression that I put great effort into "spelling it out" to people. I've seen people who debate by just pointing out fallacies in their opponent's arguments, one after another, and conclude with "your argument is illogical, try again". This of course assumes that the person already understands what a fallacy is and what all the different latin phrases stand for.
Yeah. You do put a lot of detail in. There might be a couple of flaws if you're trying to teach. You might use terms and "assumptions" (assumptions that people who've studied philosophy will agree on, because they've studied them for themselves) that they don't agree with/understand, and you might rile them up a little so they get defensive and less open to what you're saying. We're going to be talking about that thread "Do you believe in God" from the summer, the one that got locked. I'll get to that in a bit.

I don't really do that. If someone, for example, argues a straw man of my position, I tend to point out what I did say, what they said I said, what the difference is, how that makes their argument a fallacious straw man, and I usually tell them what they should be trying to argue so that their points are relevent.
Strawman is a phrase that's taken me a while to get my head around. :)

Also, I'm curious as to your mentioning a transition in your understanding of my posts and arguments. I stopped posting here for almost 6 months or so, and just started again within the past week or two. Are you referring to arguments you remember from half a year ago?
Yeah. The "Do you believe in God" thread.
The thing that stood out the most at the time was that you said "people who believe in God are ignorant and/or irrational". I found it sort of insulting because it kind of implied that people who believed in God weren't thinking or didn't know anything when we'd all (those of us who were arguing) put a lot of thought into our beliefs. Still had a lot to learn, still had gaps and inconsistancies in our knowledge, but we were working on it like you were.

I don't think that you meant it like that.
Perhaps you meant that you've yet to come across a believer who'd given what you considered a good reason for believing but it sounded like you were just dismissing all people who believed in a "higher power" as idiots.

Also, I didn't quite follow your reasoning too well either.
Maybe I wasn't reading it properly because I was wound up, but I think I'd understand it a lot better now I've know a bit more about what it is to have a "justified belief".

Lastly, if you start with a conclusion then people can instinctively (I know that I accidently do this sometimes) argue against the conclusion and almost skip over the arguments. If someone is attached to a conclusion, e.g. that God exists, then they might clutch at straws to keep to it. If you can argue a point with someone where the conclusion doesn't linger, maybe they could take that point for what it was and be more open minded about it, without getting defensive.

Sometimes people can't be pushed to a conclusion, especially if it's one they don't like. I went to Christian Union meetings where they'd try and push us to conclusions. At the time I couldn't argue my position, it just felt really wrong what they were saying, and sure enough as the dust settled and I looked more into it I found lots of reasons why I didn't believe it. Back in the summer, I couldn't out-argue you but I was 100% sure that you'd gotten something wrong and I just hadn't figured what. As a result I was never going to admit that I was wrong. So sometimes it's best just to sow a seed and let it mature in it's own time. Kind of like that story with sun, the wind, and that guy with the coat.

And could you give specific examples too of where I'm to presumptious? Like I said, I try very hard not to be, so if I can see what I'm saying that is hard to understand, I can see what not to do in the future.
No specific examples of the top of my head but I'll keep my eyes out.
You do the same for me. :)

I know that latin phrases don't help (if you're trying to get someone's head around a concept, the last thing you need is a distracting phrase to confuse them more) and layman terms are always very good.

Hope that was helpful. I kind of pride myself on explaining things when I can so I like to think I've thought about this a lot. I'm planning to try and disprove the possibility of a loving God sending people to hell on a Christian's own terms. The amount of my own beliefs and assumptions I had to give up was incredible :eek:, but maybe I'll be able to "prove" a couple of them back in. ;)

[brahman]

Well I can't recall saying I am pro-dogma, but regardless, if trying to enforce rational debate is dogmatic, this naturally begs the question - what's so bad about dogma?


i dont recall you straight out saying you are pro-dogma, but your statements have lead me to believe you are pro-dogma. and depending on what you are being dogmatic about, it could be a bad thing.

[Strafio]

Nah. He was more playing "Devil's Advocate" to my anti-dogma posts.

[Socrastein]

http://media-cyber.law.harvard.edu/blogs/static/gaetano/satan.jpg

Who Me?

[KickChick]

no religion would make the world a better place

I certainly agree that it would make MartialArtsPlanet.com a better place ! :)

[Johnno]

I certainly agree that it would make MartialArtsPlanet.com a better place ! :)Kickchick,

So what did you that they punished you by giving you the Religion forum to administer? It must have been really bad... ;) :D