Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
Faith is the first step in the process of knowledge. In the absence of possible experimentation, you naturally take a stance on speculative matters.

That's not true at all.

In the absence of experimentation you speculate. You propose an answer for purposes of investigating to see if it will help gain knowledge, but you always keep in mind that it's just speculation and you shouldn't have any confidence in your potential answer yet.

You speak as if uncertainty wasn't a part of religious beleif. The thesis of Catholicism, if you take only that particular example, is that there is a universal God that has communicated his love of humanity through his son, Christ, and that this love, amongst many things, is demonstrated by the gift of existence and the immortality of the soul. This thesis will be validated or invalidated for every beleiver once they wake (or not) in God's realm after their death. Because it's not something that can be proven otherwise, it's perfectly admittable to choose your stance. It would only be a sophism if it was argued that God exists because you cannot prove the contrary of the claim (sophism by ignorance)

Many of the beleivers that I know are fully willing to admit that it's entirely possible that God does not exist. But because of p, q, r... they prefer to beleive in his existence. Such a position is perfectly acceptable, unless you can demonstrate that p, q and are are sophisms.

Faith means that you have confidence in your answer, even though you have no reason to be confident about it.

Not at all, it's that you have confidence in your answer despite not having a proof. You can have plenty of reasons and not a single proof.

The difference is that science proceeds by dealing with observed reality and bases its conclusions on facts while recognizing where it doesn't have an answer yet, while religion just declares that it has all of the answers and tells you to shut up and stop asking difficult questions. "God did it" isn't an explanation in any useful way, unless your goal is to avoid learning more about the world.

You know, if your argument relies on lumping all religions togheter and assigning a general bad will to it, then it's hard to take it seriously. I mean, this gives the impression that you are just a angry teenager lashing out at his family for forcing him to attend Church all those sundays...

I really don't know how to approach Christianity in total because I know there are plenty of good christian folks in the world but the wingnut zealots in the bible belt of the U.S. and the insane world history of Christianity make me completely abhor the religion in all of its aspects. I am not the type that goes seeking arguments about this subject but it is hard to take the church seriously when they speak of compassion and such and during the period of the Crusades alone murdered millions in the name of God. And then proceeded during the Inquisition to burn thousands of people to death as witches and for other various religion based offenses that were completely wacko.

I just think that a religion that could have that type of fanatic mentality could be potentially dangerous especially given the churches past.

With that said May C'thulu be with you always lol.

If you're going to judge Christianity because of things like the crusades (11th, 12th and 13th century) or the spanish inquisition (1480 - finally abolished in 1834) then why not judge everything by the same standard?

The UK and the USA are both then evil, I'm sure both countries have had too many wars to count which weren't religion based.

Check the beneath.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_wars
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_Great_Britain

I'm not hating either country - I'm just showing why I don't agree with that statement.
If you're going to dislike religion, do it on your own personal experiences.
Christianity (in the UK - IMO) consists of going to church on a sunday, talking to like minded people and helping others.

Would you turn down help on the basis that in the 12th century, someone you've never heard of did something horrible to someone you've never met in somewhere you've never been?

I just think that a religion that could have that type of fanatic mentality could be potentially dangerous especially given the churches past.

Fanatics are the problem, not the religion. They also aren't just confined to religion.

 sebster wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
Yes we do. for example:

I am gay.

Its a true comment about myself, it means I am happy.
But I don't go around calling myself gay because the meaning of the word gay has changed, or more accurately there is now a double meaning but one meaning is far more widely understood than the other..

You have established that words can change meaning, but missed that that has nothing to do with the idea that people don't get to go around changing the meanings of words whenever it helps them make their argument.

The concept that Christianity is not a religion is as old as the New Testament. Its not a dodge to reclassify religion in order to exclude Christianity.

Please understand that the early church was counter to most religion. Even when not persecuted they tended to meet in peoples houses, there is evidence of women priests at a time when female emancipation of any kind was rare. Though that has to be balanced with an understanding of the counter message in Corinthians that the organised church used to stamp out womens right for centuries.

Christianity started as a movement, only later did it become an organised cyclopean 'church'. Religion is made by politicially minded people, not faith minded people. By the early second century the church was a political organisation as religion was a shortcut to secular power.

For a modern example look at Wesley and the rise of Methodism.

 sebster wrote:

"I believe the Ferrari doesn't have a prancing horse for a logo because I think a horse is a kind of hat" is not a viable argument.

This bears no relation to what I was saying in any form of fair allegory.

 sebster wrote:

Religion has many meanings, sure. But it is a nonsense to argue that a thing isn't a religion because it doesn't meet one specific definition, especially when that definition is the most relevant to the discussion at hand. If it meets any of the definitions, it is that thing.

Actually when applied at its most elementary level Christianity doesn't have the characteristics of a religion. Religion doesn't necessary mean belief in God or faith, its wider than that and encompasses ritualism. Christianity is entirely practicable without ritual. Good example would be the thief on the cross granted salvation. He did nothing to practice religion, he spent his entire life as a "man of the faith" in a few hours under torturous execution. Jesus said he would make it to heaven anyway.

Now the vast majority of Christians practice religion, and most if not all organised denominations are clearly religious in nature, though some try not to be. This is why I personally find it safer and easier for Christians to say 'yes I am religious' and keep the deeper theology to themselves. It's not a lie to do so, but it's confusing not to.

 Orlanth wrote:

Religion doesn't necessary mean belief in God or faith, its wider than that and encompasses ritualism.

So what would you say that the word "religion" means?

 Orlanth wrote:

Christianity is entirely practicable without ritual.

No, it isn't. You've even said that it can't be done. Shocking though it may be, only having two rituals (to ape your words) still means having rituals.

 Bloodfrenzy187 wrote:
I really don't know how to approach Christianity in total because I know there are plenty of good christian folks in the world but the wingnut zealots in the bible belt of the U.S. and the insane world history of Christianity make me completely abhor the religion in all of its aspects.

I think you have a profound misunderstanding of people and religion in the Bible Belt, and maybe of the South in general. The vast majority of us are good people, with a healthy love for God. Please don't lump us in with those Westboro Baptists (which are in Yankee Kansas, not the Bible Belt) or Terry Jones. And really, if those few and extreme examples make you abhor Christianity, then I really have to question whether or not you have even a tenuous grasp of what constitutes our faith.

 Bloodfrenzy187 wrote:
I am not the type that goes seeking arguments about this subject but it is hard to take the church seriously when they speak of compassion and such and during the period of the Crusades alone murdered millions in the name of God

While there certainly were terrible things done during the Crusades, by both sides mind you, please consider the very simple fact that the Crusades were very much a political response, sadly draped in the frock of religion, to militant expansion by Muslim forces.

 Bloodfrenzy187 wrote:
And then proceeded during the Inquisition to burn thousands of people to death as witches and for other various religion based offenses that were completely wacko.

So, before we start going all Edgar Allen Poe on the Inquisition, let me ask you a few questions. Which Inquisition are you referring to? How many people do you think were put to death by the Church? I assume you mean the Spanish Inquisition, because that was the only one that had any ability to actually sentence people to death, and it was not overseen by the Church, but rather by the Spanish monarchy. Any rational person can see that it was a political tool utilized by the Spanish monarchs to aid them during the Reconquista, because nobody holds a grudge like a Spaniard.

 Bloodfrenzy187 wrote:
I just think that a religion that could have that type of fanatic mentality could be potentially dangerous especially given the churches past.

The catholic Church (being a good Anglican, I am careful with my capitalization ) has never been a perfect institution, but if you are going to pass such a harsh judgement, especially in light of your grasp of the facts, then I suggest you start applying it to everything in your life.