Why do religious threads always cause such heated arguments?

You are so wrong! There is only ONE Grand PooPawh, and she is the queen of the universe! All Hail PooPawh!

Please make a contribution through PayPal to show your loyalty.

We are a very warlike race. We desire glory and combat. We always have to fight about something. If we can't beat each other in the head, we might as well fight with words.

I for one can't wait to die and then try to find everyone on this forum and go "ha ha I told you there is an afterlife! I told you we don't just go to dust!" I told you God exists! (admintingly not so sure myself on God's existence). I can't wait. The thing is, if aeitheism is true and if we die, we just die, then no one is going to be able to go ha ha to me!! Awesome!!

LOL! Now THAT's what I call evil!    You should join us in the Tyranny of Evil Empire.   

"Why do religious threads always cause such heated arguments?"

...BECAUSE THEY INVOLVE RELIGION!

Heh. Seriously, if there's one subject where people are willing to toss rational thought and respect to the side, it's in defending their worldview, whatever their faith (or lack of faith). That's not to say that rationale debate isn't possible, merely that it is unlikely.

Yes my Lord. That is actually the perfect empire for me as I love sporing every planet out of existence with the Korath. Time for me to shed myself of the Sentient Data Network (gay).

It is done my Lord Senator MottiKhan. I am now a member of your most insidous empire. Now I feel like I am where I belong at long last. May evil, chaos, death, damnation, and most importantly, gal civ 2 forum argument over religion and other nonsense continue forever!!!

I noticed you are 20th overall - very impressive. And on suicidal difficulty also. Clearly you have mastered the ways of evil.

Religion's not the only subject that can get folks heated. Take the intersection of sexual identity and slang. I wish folks would use vigorous, precise language if you're going to hurl insults. This tired '90s usage is so gay.

Great news, Stanley Tarrant!    I'll post a proper welcome in our empire thread.   

Because people are emotionally invested in their religion. After all, if you choose the wrong one bad things will happen to your soul. wooowwoooo

Because no one can prove they're right on either side. It's a discussion that has went in circles for hundreds of years and probably will for hundreds more. That makes it both intriguing to some, but pointless to others.

The short answer is that it's impossible to discuss religion in an open forum without people turning up who, rather than exploring the beliefs of others, are solely interested in converting others to their own. This is true of both religious individuals and the more enthusiastic non-believers, both sides have their share of militant evangelicals. The cloak of anonymity provided by the internet allows for generally less civil behavior than a face to face conversation, which serves to exacerbate things into an all out flame war in short order.

It's a pity, because a good discussion about spiritual and religious beliefs can often be a fascinating thing.

But the atheist have logic on their side. THere is no evidence for any deity so the default position is atheism.

I wonder this myself, because I have a tendency to be a little...enthusiastic in my viewpoint. Which usually ends up with people giving me weird looks if the debate is in public.

Near death experiences are evidence for life after death, but perhaps not God.

Human logic can not comprehend no beginning to the universe. How is it possible that everything just was?? If matter-energy cannot be created or destroyed, then how did all this crap get here if it wasn't somehow created?

Scientists tell us universes may indeed exit that have more than 3 spacial dimensions. It is utterly impossible for the human mind to comprehend or visualize more than 3 spacial dimensions.

So, logic concludes there are definetly things that our logic cannot grasp. A higher power and the afterlife are certainly possible.

So, if atheist have logic on their side, then how is it possible everything was just here with no beginning.

Something being possible does not mean probable.

One thing I can guarantee you though, is that even if there somehow is a god, it is nothing like any religion on earth or any other planet could ever hope to describe/understand, simply because a human mind could never hope to put into perspective something like that.

I'm sorry, but life after death experiences are in no way evidence for an afterlife. All processes that occur at death are natural and explainable. Many studies have been done, check out a few research journals. For instance, the "Light at the End of the Tunnel" is just the eye's pupils dilating as the muscles relax, hence letting in more light. It is not a glimpse of heaven.

Anyway, sorry I got sidetracked. What I really wanted to say was to the guy who started this thread. Jimmy10101, I'm assuming you're English because of your mention of UK football. A neat little fact, fully 90% of Americans believe in a supreme being of some sort. I think it's also a well known fact that Americans are considered to be some the most obnoxious people around, especially if they aren't educated. Oh by the way, education and belief are negatively correlated. Haha sorry for the jab, not sure if that last sentence is actually true.

This is exactly why these threads cause heated arguments. Posts like these. A simple statement with absolutely no effort of explanation. Basically implying you are just an idiot if you don't accept my view without any explanation or civil debate.

Now this I agree with 100%.



And considering we are the technological super power of the world and have been for some time, not bad for a bunch of uneducated God believing idiots.



Maybe it is true, but some of the greatest and most educated minds in history believed in God.



http://www.near-death.com/evidence.html

Read through this link then post counter-argument to some or all of the arguments presented here.

The relationship between human soul/spirit and our bodies is likened to a T.V. signal from a station and a T.V. set. Our bodies are like a T.V. set. The show is like our spirit/soul. If I take a bat, I can damage the T.V. I can cause permanent injury to the T.V. I can cause the T.V. to become filled with static or become all black and white. Heck I can even kill the T.V. or utterly destory it. However, the television show is still in the air waves. Destroying the T.V. set does nothing to destory the television air waves. Likewise, being killed destroys the body but not the spirit.

The problem with the NDE studies is that the vast majority of them are purely anecdotal and cannot be replicated. I do not doubt that something is happening, but there is no evidence (that can be tested and verified) to support the theory that we are dealing with spirits. However, the link was useful in that it presents a balanced view: namely, citing studies that show a neurological basis.

I am afraid the jury is out on NDEs.

Religion ALWAYS causes conflict because of it's inherent nature. Religion is an expression of the human nature to want an explanation of the unknown and this explanation does not have to be logical, it just has to make the believer feel comfortable. Therefore by default you cannot have a logical/rational discussion with a "true believer” for their belief system is not based on the rational. That is why there is conflict even between religions that believe in the one g god (by logical analysis this would have to be the same god), for they cannot escape their narrow “belief” in their religion, for that would destroy what gives them comfort and stability in the face of the unknown.beleiver

Heated arguments, because religon relies on BLIND faith. Blind faith to give Benny Hinn so much money! (maybe Hinn only play as the Good Torians in galciv2).

Why don't people read history and think for themselves? I hate history books that implies European history as World history (where's Africa, Asia?). The romans were the barbians conquering the more civilized societies, not the other way around.

Judaism, an early part/root of Christanity starts with Moses so maybe 1000BC. Thus is only 3,000 years old. The belief in multiple gods (Zeus, Hades, Athena, Apollo) had least 5,000 years before the birth of Christ. The current belief in Christ is only how many years? The belief in Zeus has fallen out of favor. The Church's views on witchcraft, heretics, planets that rotate around the earth has fallen out of favor. Religon itself, changes and adapts to the times. Everything is impermanence, changing never constant, and doesn't last.

Our souls are impermanence, it changes from minute to minute, from year to year. If the same choice was presented to the same person at two different time intervals, as a 30yr old and as a 19yr old, the outcome might be very different. What if life itself is a video game of learning? We ourselves have different personalities when playing different video games. How can something that changes so much, have an identity? What if at the time of death a "soul" like a rain drop that falls into an ocean?

Man has always fear the unknown. In ancient times, he fear many gods and deities. Now he fears less and soon he must learn to fear himself. He must see every action has consequences, it's like Newton's 3rd law. Man is capable of unimaginable evil and unimaginable kindness.

Man must learn that everything is literally connected. After lunch, he had depended on half the world's population from clothes, food, beer, gasoline, electronics, and raw materials. When man buys a starbucks coffee, he depended on a Vietnamese farmer, that farmer inturn depended on many people to support him to grow the beans. (Sorry it ain't columbian beans, members of the board needed money, and columbians make more money from growing cocaine, and you needed those extra savings to buy more stuff at walmart.)

Why argue over who created the universe, when we will all die before knowing the answer? Why complain about global warming when there are tasks that can done? Natural diasters can have a positive side. They break barriers between rich and poor, christain and muslim. After a Tsunami/hurricane, a big mansion is worth the same as a
small house; it's all washed away. The arrogant rich man and the jealous poor man must work together to survive the cold nights ahead. Until, help arrives and reestablishes those barriers (doh!).

What really is so uncomfortable if aeithesists are right and we die and thats it? It isn't like I get to somehow stay alive in my coffin and have to live with my memories in some form of Hell. No, if we cease to exist than you will no longer feel any pain at all... Also, if aeitheism is true, then you don't have to worry about going to some form of a Hell. You can do whatever you want in this world, taking comfort that when you die, no punishment awaits. Shit, if you want to be Hitler because it brings you awesome pleasure, why not? You can just commit suicide before someone catches you...

So should we be constantly worried about making use of our limited time on this planet? Some people die when they are 1. Many babies are aborted everyday. Life certainly isn't fair if you consider aeitheism. If I get to live for 300 years, have sex with 5 women every day, am super rich etc., when I die, who cares. My awesome and pleasant memories will die when my last neuron dies... Also, my last painful memory will die when my last neuron distintigrates.

However, if there is a life after death, if there is a God, than many of us may be worried. Worried because we may indeed be held accountable for our actions. Now this could be very scary.

Case in point. The funny thing is, I don't disagree with any of this, but it's also in no way useful to the discussion. Religious folks read it (I think rightly) as an attempt to convert them, become defensive, and return in kind. Other non-religious people see the religious people attacking the poster, see that they agree with the poster, and leap to the defense of his position. With one post, the thread goes from discussion to argument, and once lines have been drawn and tempers have flared there's no way to turn it back.

i haven't read the full discussion so far, but this is closest to my opinion of the issue. and it indeed isn't just religion: issues of politics and nationalism are equally prone to causing flame wars. heck, you look at younger groups and they're get into flame wars about whether a particular song is emo or melodic hardcore.

as far as my own perspective on things, it's very much influence by my academic studies. i majored in sociology with an emphasis on social psychology, and one of my main foci was identity. in Modernity and Self-Identity, Anthony Giddens does, in my opinion, a very good job of describing what identity is and how it works. he says, "A person's identity is not to be found in behaviour, nor - important though this is - in the reactions of others, but in the capacity to keep a particular narrative going. The individual's biography, if she is to maintain regular interaction with others in the day-to-day world, cannot be wholly fictive. It must continually integrate events which occur in the external world, and sort them into the ongoing 'story' about the self" (pg. 54, my emphasis). he's thinking like a sociologist: as a group of scholars, we don't pay much attention to who you think you are; we're more interested in the processes that allow you to think you're someone in the first place.

in my own work on identity, i tied in the psychological concept of cognitive dissonance. basically, cognitive dissonance happens when a person experiences two contradictory thoughts or pieces of thought (cognitions). people have three general responses to cognitive dissonance: ignore, attack or integrate. the particulars of when and how each one occur is what interested me as a sociologist.

this might sound like very wordy techincal jargon without much meaning to you or me, so here's how it applies to the situation at hand. religious beliefs are obivously a very central part of identity. they provide a sense of self-confidence, a belief in right living, a indullible connection to other people, and answers to some of life's Big Questions (what does it mean to be human?, what happens when we die?, how did we come to be?, etc.). when an idea challenges a person's beliefs (religious or otherwise), it isn't simply an abstract philosophical exercise for most people. if this contradictory idea is true, it could mean the individuals notions about his or her past actions or self-worth are invalidated. naturally, no one wants that to happen. so the methods of resolving cognitive dissonance come into play.

"flame wars" are an obvious example of attack in most case. in my observation, they're full of ad hominems, vulgar words, teleological reasoning and appeals to sentimentality. but i think ignoring such arguments is just as common - the people who get disgusted by such arguments, those who'd want to ban public "debate" (flaming) on the issues, those who respond, "whatever you're selling, take it somewhere else."

integration is, in my experience, perhaps the most difficult, or at least uncommon, of responses to cognitive dissonance. i think some of the methods include the idea that every religion has at least some truth to it, for example.

of course, as a sociologist, i think the reasons one occurs and not the other - those reasons are rooted in culture. my mom raised me to believe that every human life has value, that every voice deserves to be heard, and that no matter what my emotional reaction to a person might be, he or she deserves my respect. she wasn't raised like this at all; she had a very difficult childhood for many, many reasons. but she made her own sense of it, and passed the things she learned on to my brother and me.

there isn't much in terms of practical application value in these ideas, though, at least nothing beyond common sense. when discussing such topics, i've learned that it's best not to offer my own points of view unless (at least implicitly) asked. and it's better to ask questions (not the loaded kind!), than simply to pontificate and opine at great length (as i'm doing now - hey, no one's perfect!).

so, i apologize if my post is absurdly long, and i hope at least a few people find it interesting. normally, i love discussing religion, but i learn more and more every time that i should be careful how i do it and with whom.

cheers,
dystopic

Dystopic's nice, long post reminded me of one other plausible reason that religion-centered threads too easily become flame-fests.

Too many people like short, simple answers to Biq Questions despite the fact that the world we share is a freakin' complicated place *even if* you try to ignore Homo Sapiens Sapiens traits like language, our ability to feel awe, and our apparent need to have other humans help us form a sense of self (identity).

Don't let the fancy jargon put you off. I detest mainstream therapy culture and the power of many psychology departments, but this cognitive dissonance stuff is well worth considering, especially if you buy the whole "An unexamined life is not worth living" thing. That's been popular since before Jesus and certainly fits with the guidelines of many a modern monothesitic faith, not to mention those faiths with many or no deities.

That's pretty much it not just about religion but about any subject we care about. Even scientist sees those who disagree with their view as idiots.