In a recent thread, now locked, a heated debate about religion and Christianity took place. It is not my intention to facilitate that debate with this thread but rather to address it.

There are multiple ways to examine religion and critique it.

One of these is the history of the religion itself, to do seems fair, but it should not be construed as a critique of the religion itself in other ways. To point out the actions of people with a particular belief is not to address that belief and no human, regardless of belief is perfect or lacking human flaws. Indeed the flaws of all religions and belief systems in the historical sense are human flaws and have little to do with the belief system.

Another way to address and critique religion is to examine the beliefs themselves, it takes two major forms, one is to address the individual beliefs of people, another is to address stated beliefs associated with religious tenet. A critique of one should not entail the other, one should be ok with debating a persons beliefs with them in a civil fashion, or be ok with addressing a religions tenet, without addressing a persons individual belief systems.

To critique beliefs about deities is often construed as an attack upon such deities, I believe this is improper. To critique the religious history of the actions or claims of a deity, according to the claims of the religion, should not be, or should not take the form, of an attack upon that deity. One might point out that several gods in several religions willingly take the lives of innocents for various reasons, that they are according to human tenets of decency; indecent gods, does not mean they are being attacked.

No matter what you believe, someone else is going to disagree, even think it is absurd, and take it personally that they believe different than you do.

I really don't care about debating religion in an aggressive way, but do enjoy studies of all religions and belief systems.

I would like to see less hostile reactions, but then I must go back to an earlier point which is this, the same flaws of human character that plague religious history also plague debates of religious topics. I cannot therefor blame the topic and say that people who debate religion are X, or Y, they are just people.

For me the topic then becomes overcoming our human flaws and faults, and not overcoming or countering belief systems. When you look at religions in a specific light, many of them are concerned, via their tenets, with overcoming human flaws. It is ironic.

Well, that is my 2cents.

Really awesome post and seemingly well needed in the current light of things.

Dont worry everyone OM isnt gonna flip out!!!

Seriously about a few months back I potitioned for a topic room such as this one which has strict guidline stickies about how to and how is not the best way to rationally and maturely have a discussion or debate of these topics which many feel is important or simply enjoy. This is a great start. Please feel free to add more if you could. You have already made some great points.

Perhaps keep this thread not about Theology, religion or atheism but about HOW to discuss these topics and everybodys 2 cents on what is fair, ok, and un-wanted.

If I mmay suggest changing the title to not include anyone Faith or religion. How about something like Respectful Theological Critique?
Thank you.

Excellent idea and excellent post, AlbertKLloyd. Thank you.

Well put AKL. There is a certain standard I think we need to keep, everyone though is guilty of being wrong, heated, ignorant, or biased at least sometimes.
We need to respect that we grow at our own paces, in directions of our own choosing and there is no need to attempt to force someone to see our points from our perspective.
Jumping into a debate saying things like you are wrong, this is the most idiotic thing Ive ever heard, you are insane, yada yada is no way to conduct ourselves.
You cannot simply wave fact or science in the face of philosophy or religion, they are totally different realms of thought.

Thanks for this, I find more interesting to make a critique of the critique than to stay within the critique itself. The latter falls into semantics and ad hominem too easily.

But there's some things you say I cannot really agree with, or I think unnecessary.



History is full of wicked acts, and I think when the practice of a belief allows people to act wickedly, the belief is liable. A set of beliefs that could not be criticized would be one that doesn't allow people to act wickedly in a regular basis. Now, I can guess one comment you could make at this point is - "People who act wickedly often do so for their flawed human nature, not for their beliefs" but there's many cases where atrocities have been commited in the name of dogma. And dogma is not only a human flaw, independent from the belief; it's written explicitly in the doctrine itself.

Let me use Christianity as an example. Not to kick back the thread to square one, but because it's where the topic comes from and we know it better than other religions. In the dark ages, the crusades or the invasion of America (not to mention when the ancient hebrews decimated their neighbors) the Bible was often invoked. Selectively, you'll say. Hand picking what agreed with their needs and psychosis and overlooking the messages of love and compassion. But nevertheless, they invoked the Bible.

A belief that contains contradiction is worth of critique, and believers who murder people by the book are either a symptom of the fact that - 1) The beliefs are murderous, or 2) There's contradiction in those beliefs.

In either case, I think using the history of religion to critique the religion itself is perfectly valid.




I agree with your intentions if what we want is helping people to discuss these things in a civil manner, but again, logically speaking, if we know the doctrine we're believing in, an attack to the history of the Christian god implies an attack to God.

But of course the problem happens when we're having an argument and not thinking logically, and our motivation is guarding our beliefs in spite of what our reason might say. Certainly we can do that, but then we're not really having a proper argument, we're just having a clash of egos. And that what's we want to avoid because it's not leading anywhere.

I guess my point is that if we want to avoid personal, emotional confrontations when discussing things like religion, the guidelines are more simple than this, and as you say afterwards, it's about not taking personally the observations of the other, assuming the other will do the same, and reasoning.

The problem seems to be the identification of the self with the belief, and for that I suspect the only true way out is breaking or transcending the self, but that would be another topic.



Agreed completely, we should focus on improving our selves and not our beliefs. Maybe because beliefs seem to be a consequence of us, not a cause.

Very well said Albert, thank you for sharing.

I actually was forwarded to this thread by Oly when I PMed him to apologize about the previous thread and the direction it took. I'm happy to say that we've squashed any and all beef. I've just got a pet peeve with the whole atheism vs theism debate that I constantly see occurring in the real world as well as online. This usually just amounts to the atheist railing off facts and contradictions of the bible, jesus, etc. While the believer constantly interjects with his dogmas leading to the atheist asking them to defend their beliefs through logic and reason. It's a vicious cycle that leaves neither person better off. Atheist vs theist = objective vs subjective. There's no winner in that game.

This thread shouldn't just be about theological critiques, but atheological critiques as well.

That said, I propose that all a/theological critiques should be in separate threads from introductions. I just don't think it's right for a believer/nonbeliever of any ideology, in his introduction on the nexus, get his stance on life dissected and then asked to defend it. I understand it's en vogue to pick apart christianity, but let's keep it to our own separate critique threads instead of involving the personal. This way things can remain respectful and civil throughout the discussion.

Excellent critique of the critique Vodsel, .
So I like what ntwhtyouknw wrote and it got me thinking about some more good ground rules so to speak.

Science vs. science- Firstly where I see so many debates just go flat and become un interesting is when special interest science keeps being used as an argument. Again not to pick on any one group but something like a creationist scientist's papers mean absolutely squat so bringing up endless links or research from Christian science web sites and books really shouldn't be allowed. Nor should new age fringe science either. People like Nassiem Harremiem. Yea he is a smart guy but not one paper peer reviewed and accepted by the science community but exalted by the new age movement. BTW the guy doesn't even hold a phd in the very science he claims to have figured out but does have some very interesting ideas I will say. However no peer review...no entry!

If both sides cant agree that science used as defense or argument must be published, peer reviewed and void of special interests and ludicrous claims of being oppressed by the Gvt. for knowing the truth then it needs to just be left out. True science has no opinion and its methods are not perfect but the best we have and has got us this far. So if you are willing to use medicine and doctors when your child is dying or sick you best be willing to accept other sciences from the community or your a big ole hypocrite.

Philosophy vs philosophy- Kind of self explanatory and where the meat in the sandwich is for debating these topics. Its a tough one in debates but a needed one because its not even a soft science. Its understanding the world not by observation but by contemplation and thought. All I could really say about this is if you cant keep reason and basic logic in your arguments then leave the table. Examples like; "The majority of the worlds population are non believers in Christianity. This is just what Satan intended therefore God exists". Thats actually an accepted by Christian groups philosophical argument!!!! This is what Im referring to. Again, not picking on Christianity here I used Islam earlier so I'm spreading the love so to speak.

Backing up your adjectives- Here is the one that I couldn't get someone to see in the other thread. That I wasn't using slander or empty attacks nor was I attacking individual people. If said Deity is being discussed and said Deity condones say the murdering of every 3rd infant born, then calling this Deity adjectives like disgusting, twisted, and murderous is more than justified and if the opposing side takes offense to that personally then they need to bow out because nobody attacked them. NO challenges on accepted beliefs or ideology's should ever be off the table just because somebody might get there feelings hurt! Nobody here made this stuff up if its coming from a holy text. Nut up! (obviously I'm speaking from a sided view point just to make it easier to make my points, but Im trying to call out my side as well)

That being said back up your shots people on both sides. If your going to claim Muslims as a whole are killing machines you best explain with some facts. Furthermore if your saying atheists are immoral people don't just use the go to of Mao or Stalin as an example. Explain how all or most atheist are immoral with facts not just some infamous leader from history.

Define what is being debated and stay on track!!!!- This one is the biggest merry go round cluster F'k we all have seen. The topic for discussion must be defined but just as important the definitions. Are we discussing the probability of the existence of a God or the Probability of the Abrahamic God. HUGE freaking difference and takes the discussion in totally different directions.

Within Theism, theology, atheism ext there are more topics that could be debated in a single conversation and individually have been debated for hours. Don't start bringing up evolution is a crock or Noahs flood is B.S. when the discussion is about the reasons for separation of church and state!

Threads here about theology rarely begin with a clear topic so if you want to jump in first things first.
A-what are we discussing
B-What are the agreed upon definitions needed to have this conversation.
C- Have a ball,

This is especially important with labels. For one there isn't just one type of Christian. There are many and there are also many types of agnostics and atheist's. So Christians and other faiths help me out here. I know there are those that interpret the Bible and take every single word as divine literal truth and the other end of the spectrum those that feel its a series of stories to get you to think or make points but no...nobody was swallowed by a freaking whale and popped out days later all fresh and jubilant!

I know for my side there are 5 different versions of atheism and I will list those and define when needed. Just making a point. There is no one size fits all in these discussions so know who you are, and who is across the table to avoid getting side tracked on details.

Have a thick skin and a cool head- Man that goes a long way and is so often over looked.


Anyway these were just some things that popped in my head that feel pertanant from past discussions here and in life. I truly enjoy debating these topics as do others. I understand more Agnostics and Atheists are quicker to engage but a word to the believers of other faiths...there are some damn fine Theist debaters out there and I've seen some give it as good as they get. watch youtube you would be surprised.
The best ones I watch are those that don't get too out there, they don't often go to creationism cuz, im sorry guy''s, its so clearly and easily blown out the water, Hell even the Vatican accepts evolution and geological aged earth. So watch how the big 3 do it, it can be done and done well. Ill even concede that one debate I feel the theist took it hands down and Im an ATHEIST!!!!

Good thread and IMO about time!

Well said and I agree with this part above.

Guys lets not get into the debate here and now. This thread has great promise for laying good constructive ground rules so these discussions can happen without getting locked and too heated.

awesome read olympus. very well said, this is such an abstract and broad subject. this is absolutely pertinent for any discussion or debate of any kind. couldn't agree more witchya



correct. no need to turn this thread into a a/theological critique or debate. this thread is about general critiquing conduct. and I'm learning a lot from it I must say.

What social mammal lacks the same flaws that we face?

Dogma or not.

Take dogs for example, packs exterminate and fight other packs, they fight for territory, for food. They fight for sex etc. some kill for fun.

Some groups of chimps engage in what is very analogous to warfare, entering into the territory of others and killing them. That is not unlike the crusades.

So while we humans can blame or excuse dogma and belief systems, the fact that our behavior is analogous to dogs who do not have those belief systems leads me to believe that we are often missing the point of the problem, which is our nature itself.

I disagree with some notions here, for example I think to point out that gods exist that do not reach our own standards of ethics, in terms of the scripture claims of many religions, is not to attack such gods. Gods are credited with rape, for example, the Hellenic theology has this in spades, so to speak, but if you say that a god raped someone and that indicates they are not up to human standards of ethics, is that to slander the god? To me it is to point out a fact, like saying the sky is blue.
Now if someone believes the sky is some other color, they might indeed take that as a personal attack against the sky, but is it truly reasonable to infer this as an attack or rather is such an inferance merely a symptom of our natures which I have already addressed?

I find human reasoning extremely flawed, my own included. I find our minds to be very limited in their abilities, my own included. Language I feel hinders the mind due to the artifacts it creates in terms of logical sequence, but that is a whole other topic.

We cannot overcome, as a species, our natures. I don't blame the crusaders for the crusades anymore than I blame a wolf pack for trying to kill another wolf pack. I blame the beliefs of the wolves as much as I do the beliefs of the humans.

Herodotus said that we generally belief in the systems of our fathers, exceptions are known, but they are still the exception, it comes down to things like peer pressure and social interaction, not belief systems, in my opinion.

However I am not very bright and have my own flawed human nature so take this as the opinion of a fool.

IMPORTANT!

This topic is now cleaned from anything that is offtopic.

I am not amused by both sides digging in and making a trenchwar over this. If I see anything that is even remotely bashing the other side or making bad remarks it will be removed.

Remember that this topic is about how to discuss religious topics without resulting in a forum wide nuclear war. This topic is not to dicuss any details of any religion.


The Traveler

One thing I feel is important and that is very misunderstood by all sides often is the reasons and purpose of a debate or opposing discussion. (To be overly P.C.)

The Purpose of a debate is not to get the other side to agree with you or change their minds. You would be a fool to think that even possible. A person has the same odds of getting me to dedicate my life to Islam as I would getting them to reject their faith and enter the Atheist speaking circuit.

Debates can be eye opening, fun, and challenging. Debating, to me, is the best way I know to truly test my knowldge and understanding of my opnions and ideas. If I couldnt succesfully defend my opinions then I'm just not thinking hard enough or doing my reseacrh. Debates challenge one to defend their view points, not with emotion or childish tactics but with knowledge, reason and logic.

I love to debate and learn more about how, as well as about myself every time. I haven't had the same debate style twice yet and feel good at seeing progression.

No, Im FAR from great or perfect and succumb to the most difficult temptation at times, anger and emotional blindness. This is what Im persoanly working on. I feel I know my stuff but need to work on staying calm under fire and certainly not lowering to other peoples level.

I could list my favorite debaters and youtube vids if anyone cares. And btw no they are not all Atheists. I really respect a couple Theist debaters just as much.

Its like a sport, maybe one team is your favorite but you can certainly admire the talents of the opposing team at the same time. Thats the maturity needed for healthy debate.

I know this isn't exactly about how to discuss theology but it is how to debate anything so I feel it fits here.

I know some here do not like me using this term and feel it should be a discussion but make no mistakes friends...its going to end up a debate eventually. This doesnt have to be, nor is it a bad thing. If we get this right, good discussions or debates can remain civil and non volatile.

Cheers
OM

@Albert - There's always the chance that both you and I fall in the mistake of finding ways to back up our stances, instead of properly questioning them, but I promise I do my best to avoid that. We might be fools, but we try not to be. That's cool enough



Ok, when we try to discuss a topic I think it's convenient to trace its boundaries, to try and exhaust it before we transcend the topic itself and shake it off with a big shrug because it's become too broad. Otherwise, virtually any discussion about human affairs can be aborted after appealing to human nature. And even if every single social, political, ideological aspect of human history is either a direct result of or strongly determined by human nature, trying to determine which aspects of a doctrine offer a choice and which not is critical, IMO, in order to make a critique.

I don't think the beliefs of wolves (if we can use the word with them) and the beliefs of religious humans are equivalent. A wolf is a wolf, and a human is a human, but organized religion is not built into our biology. As you say, it is acquired, or if you're lucky, actually chosen. That's what makes it susceptible to critique in the first place.

Religion is not a natural impulse, or at least, not the major religions we're bringing up. And most importantly, the major religions, specially the abrahamic ones, are not only a view of the world, they are a model for behavior, crafted following the needs and circumstances of ancient peoples and -above all- their rulers. They tell you how to behave. They define good and evil actually NOT agreeing with human nature. Take the repression of sex, for instance. It follows either an outdated purpose, or a completely arbitrary one, and if a reasoning is ever provided, it has more holes than a swiss cheese. That's dogma, it's a command for behavior, and it often goes way beyond our natural flaws, the flaws we could indeed compare with the wolves flaws.

I try to take critique of religion the same way I would take critique of any idea or social construct. I was raised catholic, became an atheist, then an agnostic and now bugger me if I know what I am. But I worked hard to shake off grudges, and even if I won't judge a religion only according to the crusades for the same reason I won't judge communism only according to the soviet purges, I know by personal experience that beliefs (and their outcome) are a choice. Some people might never truly have it, but those cases of inevitability do not turn a doctrine, religious or political, into an integral part of everyone's nature - and hence beyond the point of any argument.

Humans can have a strong influence in their own beliefs. It's the funny thing about the so-called free will, and even if you think that we have "free will" only in appearance, we certainly seem to be able to choose wider than wolves, for good or bad.

I think the point Albert was trying to make was that when you look at any population, you're bound to see all sides of everything. There will be those who will be violent regardless and there will be those who will be docile regardless. It's within human nature to run the gamut, and we can all sometimes be a bit too selective in which side of the world and which human behavior we choose to see. While appealing to human nature may be a sure way to kill or pigeon-hole a debate, I can empathize with Albert's notions.

Pretty much yeah.


About the wolves, they don't exactly have beliefs like we do. But they behave almost identically. My point is that our human behavior is pretty consistent across the board regardless of belief systems, in terms of populations and groups and history. In individuals this is not always the case, nevertheless this is my opinion.

Man you guys are so intelligent my brain is hurting to keep up. Its sounds to me like this is the old Its not religion, faith, or beliefs, its humanity and culture discussion.

Thats a noble distinction you can make not blaming the crusadors but blaming their theology. Im not sure Im there yet or maybe just disagree. I think when things get to the point of suicide bombing, or crusades the individual is absolutely to blame, while the beliefs that encouraged these acts are the reason.

Its a tricky subject because you have two hands of cards in the same palm. One says I dont blame the individual I blame their beleif systems and teachings, while the other says the lack of questioning these beliefs indirectly and directly condones such acts. So in some ways the individuals are to blame as well.

How this is on topic is maybe targeting individuals isnt always in bad taste even if they are just moderates.

Agreed. I was not exonerating the crusaders... in cases like that, I think both particular humans and their religious doctrine are to blame.

In that example, religion is guilty for providing explicit grounds and justification for atrocities, and a lot of humans are guilty as well for not challenging those rules and using them to justify their own barbarism, and turn it into divine command.

Reversely, one could say that in our example humans are innocent because they are mere puppets of a religious doctrine, or that religion is not to be blamed because humans are a bunch of mindless savage twats.

But I think the first position is not just closer to what actually happens, it's also a better way for improvement. We are liable, doctrines are liable. Now, let's see what can we do to improve either, etc.