What has sparked the current obsession with religious questions?

[madmaggot]

Why can't people just believe or not as they see fit and stop trying to convince others of the 'rightness' of their personal opinion?
One either has faith or doesn't, if it's not truly felt then it isn't faith and no amount of argument will convince someone who does not believe.
If you believe in your god; great, good for you. If you don't believe; that's your perogative, also fine.
Just stop trying to convince others, please.

[jno]

'Religion and Spirituality' has always been a place of great argument and counter-argument.

Not really; the usual ratio is about ten atheists to one believer (try counting heads if you don't believe me), which is understandable as atheists only start threads in order to pat each other on the back; believers are condescended to rather than debated with.

"Great" arguments against theists recently include the weird claim that cutting and pasting is wrong, and that they're plagiarists.

[elgreco]

I tried to say the same as you madmaggot on a previous thread. Didn't get me anywhere. Still, keep trying, perhaps the fervent believers and non believers will punch themselves out.

[MarkRae]

> it's like throwing early christians to the beasts in the arena

Urban myth: http://www.mariamilan...diator_christians.htm

[rowanwitch]

Ok MR I was wrong... sorry ....

[jno]

your link doesn't exactly bear out the claim of it being an urban myth. It just says crucifixion was more common. But it also says Nero set dogs on them.

[Ankou]

damnatio ad bestias was a common spectacle in ancient rome. some might have had christian tendencies, you never know.

[DTCwordfan]

because the cutting and pasting from the Jehovah's is beyond excessive, jno, its bloody annoying and it covers not only their responses but several of their questions. All part of their attempts at indoctrination.

Anyway things have quietened down over there, largely because their chief spokesman, protagonist, cutter and paster, has been suspended by the Ed.

There is indeed a God to thank for that, Ed the head of The AB Apotheosis.

[naomi24]

//If you believe in your god; great, good for you.//

Really? I expect that applies to those who scar children for life by indoctrinating them with horrific stories of hell, to those who subjugate women, to those who create untold misery by banning the use of condoms ... and to the people who hijacked the planes on 9/11 too. None more religious than them - but good for them, eh!

[cupid04]

I agree with you Naomi that there are a lot of atrocities in certain religions but
that dosen't necessarily make all religion bad. You seem to have this tendency
to pick out the worse crimes against humanity then imply if we believe in God
then we are guilty by association.It dosen't quite work like that. You never
mention all the good things that churches do,they are usually first to help in
any natural disaster. They feed the homeless. They counsel and advise if the
need arises whatever colour or creed you may be. And they don't judge you.
They run lots of clubs for the elderly to try and combat lonliness. There are lots of good things the church do to try and alleviate suffering but you never
mention any of them. You only ever mention the negative. There are bad apples in every orginizations, religious or not!

[naomi24]

Cupid, I have the greatest respect for, say, the work of the Salvation Army, and have said so many times. Nevertheless, they, like all churches espouse the philosophy of sin and damnation - and that is damaging. Religious organisations that do good works would be truly great - if they ditched the superstition they wallow in.

[LazyGun]

You can believe whatever you want maggot, and so long as you keep it to yourself, do not attempt to evangelise, or misrepresent, selectively misquote, or outright lie about science or fact, I for one do not have any problem with that.

If someone posts misrepresentation, or selective (mis)quotation, or outright lying for jesus in defence of their faith or evangelise for their particular cult, I might add a post or 2 :)

And whilst i might respect an individual, i have no respect for faith, sincerely held or not.

The current spike in activity has been almost entirely driven by a few members of one of the more extreme sects of christianity, who have taken to using R&S as a soapbox for their cut and paste sermons.

Finally, if your faith causes you to feel offended at criticism of faith - I would recommend not reading the posts, because they might raise your blood pressure.

[Davethedog]

"believers are condescended to rather than debated with" no there not, how many times are you and others asked questions which you either "decline" to answer or post quotes from your books that have no relevance.

If by condescended to you mean "we can't enter the debate because we don't have any answers and on the rare occasions we do say anything you nasty people just ask more questions" your right.

I suggest before you insult the people on here who don't believe in fairy tales you look in the mirror and try and get some facts

[naomi24]

^^ Can't argue with that.

[LazyGun]

@jno - the ease with which the religious will disregard any action if it in defence of faith staggers me.

Cut and Pasting without attribution is intellectually dishonest. It lacks transparency, denying the contributors access to the original source, it is used often as an argument from authority by misrepresentation, and, since most cut and paste throw together about 5 or 6 arguments, it is an underhand tactic, since it only takes a couple of seconds to cut and paste, whether you understand the argument or not, whereas to properly refute or rebut the pasted arguments can take time to properly construct a post.

It is also, I believe, against Site Rules, although I dont know that for definite. Do you also support the use of cutting and pasting for those students submitting coursework, or essays for PhDs?

Lying for Jesus, condoned by the religious - sad really.

[jomifl]

One of the reasons atheists argue more than believers is that they don't have the simple cop out of saying 'well that is what I believe' or 'that is my faith'. Atheists have to argue for and justify points of view that they espouse. Most atheist postings are to counter the propogation of propaganda and lies, If believers did not post nonsense they would not attract ridicule.

[Cowtipper]

I like the R&S section until people start to get hateful. Some don't wait and start with the venom but I think most of those people are nasty in most their posts anyway.

[Davethedog]

Cowtipper which people?

[jno]

LazyGun, the rules are here

http://www.theanswerb...s/Question965826.html

There is of course no rule against cutting and pasting. It's the lifeblood of the internet. (It is not the lifeblood of PhD study, but AB is not an academic site devoted to original research, so the analogy doesn't hold.)

Whether the arguments cut and pasted are right or wrong is another matter. But to draw some sort of moral distinction between someone who cuts and pastes a sentence, someone who retypes it himself, and someone who rewrites it in his own words, is as pointless as trying to rebut an argument on the grounds that it is misspelt.

[LazyGun]

@Jno - I find it a shame that you are happy to defend an intellectually dishonest process, one that deprives the other contributors of access to the original source,(something that can have a significant bearing on the argument itself) as well as being a process that is just plain lazy. Defence of any tactic in support of faith however seems to be considered acceptable by those of faith, which I think is sad.

Such methods are not acceptable in academia.They are not acceptable in science, or medicine. They are not acceptable in school for homework. It should not be acceptable here.

You want to use someone elses argument to support your worldview, just link to it. If you wish to cut and paste screeds of prose, at least have the decency to edit it and offer attribution with a link to the original.

[Davethedog]

Jno do you not think that the use of "cut and paste" shows an intellectual paucity, thereby opening questions about the intelligence of the poster and a lack of free thinking on behalf of the poster thereby reinforcing the belief that the poster has just been brainwashed.