Actually I have to disagree.
A religion can hardly be judged by it's adherents, especially when you are looking at it's fringe adherents.
If we do that.. then all Muslims are terrorists, all Christians are witch hunters, all Buddhists are martial artists, all Irish are Leprechauns, etc.
Whether you believe a religion is true or not... whether you believe it is sane or not.... you have to judge a religion, or for that matter any kind of belief, by the exposition of it's smartest and most rational member. Otherwise you are simply judging the flaws of the people involved... and we all have those.
In fact, that rather applies to science as well. Should science be judged by the many cranks that infest it's ranks, the people who believe that the Earth or Sun is hollow or that gravity isn't real or that it's a push, etc? Should it be judged by it's errors and misapplications... like bombs or weaponized viruses?
We can only judge the merits of something by it's clearest exposition, not it's most distorted.
Amen.
QUOTE (RobDegraves+)
That is why I don't let Newguy affect my perception of religious belief. I remain agnostic despite the many efforts of people like him to convince me that all religious people are nuts. I prefer to deal with facts than people's delusions.
How does it feel to have a "nut" constantly show you that you don't know a damn thing about history? If I'm a "nut", then you're peanut butter...
flyingbuttressman
18th October 2009 - 04:18 PM
I will repeat:
What line do you draw to separate the true followers from the false ones?
(all humans fall short of the teachings of the bible, remember that)
RobDegraves
18th October 2009 - 05:20 PM
Newguy
QUOTE
How does it feel to have a "nut" constantly show you that you don't know a damn thing about history?
I will tell you when it happens.
Again you seem to have that basic problem discerning between assertion and fact. You can keep saying something over and over again, it won't make it true. I think most people here can tell which one of us knows his history and which one of us is the religious nut. Certainly my department could... why don't you come up and discuss it with them sometimes.. we could use a laugh.
flyingbuttressman
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| How does it feel to have a "nut" constantly show you that you don't know a damn thing about history? |
I will tell you when it happens.
Again you seem to have that basic problem discerning between assertion and fact. You can keep saying something over and over again, it won't make it true. I think most people here can tell which one of us knows his history and which one of us is the religious nut. Certainly my department could... why don't you come up and discuss it with them sometimes.. we could use a laugh.
flyingbuttressman
What line do you draw to separate the true followers from the false ones?
That is a much more difficult question. Like many such questions it does not have a simple answer.
It's really not a line but more of a general guideline. It has a lot of gray areas.
*******************************************************************
In general I would say that the interpretation that contradicts the least known facts is more comprehensive than one that contradicts known facts, either historical or physical.
*******************************************************************
Let's look at a few examples and apply the general rule of thumb.
Creationism vs ID
Both can be seen as religious viewpoints. ID has no actual evidence but it does not contradict known facts. It's possible that at some point in the chemical evolution of the Earth, some unknown intelligent force shaped things as it wished.
Note that I am not speaking from belief nor is there any evidence of this. However it is possible.
On the other hand, creationism contradicts a large number of facts that are known about the Earth and evolution in general.
It's easy to see the extremes...
Zen VS demons.
Karma vs Flying Spaghetti Monsters (keep in mind that I am a member of that church)
Etc.
It's much harder to determine the more moderate positions as to their accuracy.
As a historian I have a great deal of respect for people who understand the history of their faith and who do honest and unbiased research in it. I have met a number of priests of various religions who are acknowledged leaders in the field of historical research.
Those you can have a decent conversation about belief with and whether you agree with their faith or not... you will always learn something.
flyingbuttressman
18th October 2009 - 05:49 PM
I'm pretty sure that it's pointless to try to create a separation. Each human's actions must be taken on their own merit. Their faith cannot be held for their actions, good or bad. In other words, religion is fairly pointless.
buttershug
18th October 2009 - 07:11 PM
QUOTE (RobDegraves+Oct 18 2009, 03:44 PM)
That is why I don't let Newguy affect my perception of religious belief. I remain agnostic despite the many efforts of people like him to convince me that all religious people are nuts. I prefer to deal with facts than people's delusions.
Did you mean to say "all other religious people"?
I don't recall Newguy trying to convince you that he is nuts.
flyingbuttressman
18th October 2009 - 08:13 PM
QUOTE (buttershug+Oct 18 2009, 03:11 PM)
I don't recall Newguy trying to convince you that he is nuts.
That is not his intention, but that is the only thing that he has really accomplished.
Granouille
18th October 2009 - 09:17 PM
I submit this for your enjoyment. Again.
QUOTE (Scientific American - February 1892+)
Professor R. L. Garner proposes to visit Africa, with such appliances for a residence among the gorillas as will enable him to become acquainted with their speech. He intends to occupy a large and strong iron cage, in which he can be safe from the attacks of the powerful animals, while he listens to their remarks and preserves them by the phonograph. Professor Garner thinks that he will be able to ascertain the views of leading gorillas with less difficulty and more precision than is possible in the case of some distinguished persons who speak with great facility on topics of vital interest.
If I have to make the point
completely obvious it'd be wasted, hm? Shall I bold the relevant passage for you? Take care.
orestis
18th October 2009 - 09:35 PM
QUOTE (newguy+Oct 18 2009, 08:54 AM)
These people aren't Christians...they're DEVILS.
At what point does Christian conviction turn Christians into Devils?
Do you recognize the point?
It's just after "My belief is the only truth."
******* hypocrites.
Physfan
21st October 2009 - 03:15 AM
QUOTE
Whether you believe a religion is true or not... whether you believe it is sane or not.... you have to judge a religion, or for that matter any kind of belief, by the exposition of it's smartest and most rational member. Otherwise you are simply judging the flaws of the people involved... and we all have those.
You're onlyaccepting and encouraging relativism which does everyone no good.
Physfan
RobDegraves
21st October 2009 - 03:46 AM
QUOTE
You're onlyaccepting and encouraging relativism which does everyone no good.
That hardly matters if it's true.
MjolnirPants
21st October 2009 - 05:04 AM
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Oct 18 2009, 11:18 AM)
I will repeat:
What line do you draw to separate the true followers from the false ones?
(all humans fall short of the teachings of the bible, remember that)
To me, that's a fairly loaded question.
First, you have to establish the actual doctrine of a faith. For instance, Christianity has numerous commands from God and Jesus scattered throughout the bible, plus the ten commandments of course.
Then, you have to interpret that doctrine, which is where things get tricky. I suppose the only real way to do so is by polling people. The most popular interpretation is the one you must accept, all things being equal. (For instance, many people interpret the bible's prohibition of drunkenness as a prohibition of alcoholism, but the majority interpret it as a prohibition against actual situational drunkenness. So even though both have their merits, you must choose the latter by virtue of it making sense that way to more people.)
Then, anyone who adheres to that doctrine for the most part (say 90% of the time) while not behaving in a manner which is the polar opposite of that doctrine the rest of the time could be said to be a true follower.
Of course, the majority could interpret something badly, while the well educated minority interpret it well, and the degree to which a person adheres to the doctrine is an arbitrary number that many would disagree with, so it's simply not cut and dry.
To me, anyone who makes an honest effort to behave as much like Jesus as possible, while accepting that perfectly christian behavior is impossible is a true Christian. Of course, I cannot speak to anyone's motivations with any degree of certainty, so I tend to avoid labeling people as true Christians, and stick to labeling people as false Christians when their behavior flies in the face of Christian norms (as is often the case with newguy).
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click
here.
ridiculous isn't it?