[Mars]

So, as has been noted, every discussion on HLP seems to turn into a religious discussion; scratch that - they all turn into a school-yard level hyperbole match in which everyone can feel righteously confident that indeed, THEY THEMSELVES are in the right. It's pretty normal really, and it's not like things have changed that much. I remember the days when every discussion ended up being about circumcision.

That said I think that the type of ridiculousness that we're seeing is preventable. What's standing in the way? The vast majority of us. Check it:

• Topic of interest, often in the scope of U.S. policy, the Middle East, or biology
• • Someone on the atheist side of the scale posts a hypothesis of varying validity, suggesting that religion, and christianity in particular has caused the observed problem, obstructed the mentioned discovery, etc, etc.
• • Numerous posts by theists declaring that they've suddenly lost interest in the topic
• • Devolving argument about the merits or dearths of christianity and the lack of it

So how could this be resolved? First the more skeptical minded among us (and I am among your number) should carefully consider if it's worth it to post the Fundamentalist Failure Theory first; is there sufficient evidence for your claim. If so, post away, but perhaps limit your post to the scope of the context; certainly this will not be the last time you'll have the chance to decry the faults of religion on this board.

For the more faith based people, yes, as you probably suspect some people are trying to troll you. On the other hand, the vast majority of people here who would blame religious organizations for something or another have honestly considered the question; and certainly <SOME> religious <ORGANIZATIONS>  have done some pretty heinous things over the years. It should not be hard to accept, for instance, that the Catholic Church has not always been the perfect instrument of God's love, I think everyone here can agree on that. Therefore, if the shirt doesn't fit, don't wear it, and take the comment which you may be tempted to take personally, objectively. Instead of posting "Thanks for ruining this with another religious discussion," perhaps come up with an alternate explanation, critique the text of the article (or whatever the source may be), or make some sort of intelligent comment.

If you're unhappy with the way that these discussions are going, always consider that you may be a part of the problem. I know I've played a part. If you want it to change, than spend some time self analyzing before you post <something ridiculous >

EDIT: Mind, this is obviously coming from my perspective, and is probably skewed toward my own opinion because of it.

[FlamingCobra]

Sticky?

[Nuke]

no! im just gonna lock em as they devolve into drivel.

[Dragon]

The problem is, the catholic Church (as well as other religions, to a lesser extent) has shaped our culture and our mindsets for so long, that very frequently a scientific analysis of a social issue or tendency is bound to be incomplete without considering influence of the religion. Therefore, it needs to be taken into account objectively and scientifically. Some people, when see that religion has been mentioned, decide to pick on that and start a very unscientific debate, which is understandable considering human psychology and the influence the Church has on it. I agree that before posting, one should analyze a post and make sure it's objective and, if possible, scientifically and logically correct. My posts are based on things that I've read in sources I consider trustworthy, things I observed, and my own logical conclusions from these things, in that order. No place for emotions, trolling or things I'm not really sure of. Also, when I sometimes post things I'm not certain about, but I make sure to note that the source may not be too trustworthy or that I'm not sure of an observation/logic leading to the conclusion).
Of course, my posts sometimes get rather long and perhaps a bit over-analyzed (including this one ).

[Nuke]

**** already?

[karajorma]

The problem is, the catholic Church (as well as other religions, to a lesser extent) has shaped our culture and our mindsets for so long, that very frequently a scientific analysis of a social issue or tendency is bound to be incomplete without considering influence of the religion. Therefore, it needs to be taken into account objectively and scientifically. Some people, when see that religion has been mentioned, decide to pick on that and start a very unscientific debate, which is understandable considering human psychology and the influence the Church has on it.

I 100% agree with you that any debate on these subjects would be incomplete without a discussion of the religious aspect. What is getting tiresome though is people posting as if that is the only cause. It isn't true. It's just ridiculous axe grinding. For the moment I'm going to simply split and lock it when I see it but if it continues I'm going to start banning people from the discussion forums.

The forum exists for discussions, not for you to get up on your soapbox and rant about the same thing over and over.

[Dragon]

Indeed, people seem to focus on a religious aspect a bit too much. This might be because religion is something they believe in, or are strongly (we could even say "religiously" to add to the irony) against. Thus, this attracts their attention and thus, other aspects are disregarded in favor of religious discussion. Since religious influence is so ubiquitous in our culture, this is bound to happen in many threads, especially those about social issues and tendencies, as a lot of them will touch on religion sooner or later. And of course, politics and religion are inseparable (when they cease to be, I'll throw a big party, possibly annually to celebrate that day ), so when there's one, there's the other, and both cause emotions and heated discussion, sidetracking other (frequently more important) aspects. I guess that people should concentrate on these other more, rather than politics and religion.

[Sushi]

The forum exists for discussions, not for you to get up on your soapbox and rant about the same thing over and over.

Emphasis mine. I don't mind the discussion. I don't even mind the occasional poop-flinging that occurs. I am extremely tired of the same drivel and pointless bickering three times a week. Grow up, agree to disagree, and shut up about it.

Then again, this is The Internet. What more do you expect?

[redsniper]

Well, the thing is we all must hold extreme diametrically opposed opinions; moderate and middle ground view points are not allowed. So everyone on HLP is either super devout religious or super militant anti-religious. Because on HLP we can only have absolutes. Because HLP is entirely peopled with Sith.

[LHN91]

Well, the thing is we all must hold extreme diametrically opposed opinions; moderate and middle ground view points are not allowed. So everyone on HLP is either super devout religious or super militant anti-religious. Because on HLP we can only have absolutes. Because HLP is entirely peopled with Sith.

Or due to their middle-ground view points not sparking raging discussion, they get swamped in the sea of absolutes. Anyways.

[Flipside]

It can be difficult to have a middle-ground conversation on here about religion, we have achieved it, once or twice though. It is, after all, perfectly acceptable to have a discussion on the phsychological attraction of religion, regardless of religious belief, and still not offend anyone if you are respectful of the fact that their beliefs do not match your own.

I think the problem is in part is that 'religion is bad' is not really a breach of the rules, stating a specific religion is closer, but an opinion is an opinion and it would be dealt with on the basis of the entire post. The truth is that saying 'religion is bad' is like saying 'Capitalism is bad', almost a case of throwing out the baby with the bathwater. There are problems with both, certainly, but don't confuse the idea with the result of human interaction with it.

The vast majority of religious people in the world are perfectly nice, intelligent and tolerant individuals who just happen to believe in a God or Gods. Some of them have problems with things like Homosexuality, but I suspect a large majority of them are probably far too busy putting food on the table to really go all esoteric about the finer details.

The problem is, "Religious person is quite nice" is never going to make the headlines any more than "Model Student goes to school unarmed as usual", so our mental images of religion, among many other things, are the very worst the world has to offer of them.

When you combine that sort of imagery with the Greater Internet Dickwad theory, well, you can see the result

[achtung]

An ancient thread about religion and evolution (maybe started by bob) helped send me on my path to Agnosticism/Atheism/IDGAFism.

I feel that a discussion about religion on HLP helped me discover who I am, and mature as a person. Just thought that would be something interesting to mention.

[Cyborg17]

Mars, that was a good post.  Thank you for blaming organizations and not individuals.

From the apposing side, I believe this is at least one reason why we're reacting the way we are to most of the posts: they are worded so that they do not differentiate in who is to blame.

(at least that I've seen, and I have honestly been avoiding most of them because I don't like to argue)

When "religion" is blamed and you do not clarify in blaming a specific organization, we feel like you blame us, all of us, individually, and we are saddled with their mistakes.  And we know those mistakes just as well as you do, and we initially react the same way you do, with disgust.  And we probably would think like you do, as well, except for what God has done for us.

I think one thing this board needs to understand about itself is that we are horrible communicators.  We are excellent at programming, modding, mission design, modeling, texturing, etc.  But because we are good at those things more than communicating, and because some (or maybe most) of us have English as a second language, we do horribly at communicating what we're really trying to say.

What we've tried to say to each other thinking that we are being helpful has been interpreted as demeaning or insulting -- and not just in the general discussion, but in many other places, too.

So therefore, we should be careful in every way to say what we mean to say.

And if anyone purposely blames us, (Christians) individually, for the world's evils, then they absolutely, unequivocally need to stop, because there are many, many initiatives started by Christian individuals which do good in the world. And we will accept that men use God as an excuse to grab power and do evil.  And if you see it and speak against it, we will speak against it, too, because we know that it is wrong. 

But do not lump us with those who do those things because we haven't done those things.

Thank you again, Mars for trying to instill peace in the situation.  This post is meant to show why we have reacted the way we have, as far as I can tell, and I hope it does not lead to this thread being locked as well.

That is all I have to say.

[Bobboau]

There see, it does work.

...

...and religion is objectivly the singular source of all problems in the world.

[Scotty]

There see, it does work.

...

...and religion is objectivly the singular source of all problems in the world.

And this is why we can't have nice things discussions.

[achtung]

There see, it does work.

...

...and humans are objectivly the singular source of all problems in the world.

FTFY

Let's keep this discussion clean bro. Your views are a bit extreme at times.

I feel like I might be missing some sarcasm though.

[Cyborg17]

In case anyone is confused, (many) Atheists claim that God is the reason for evil and (most of) Christianity believes that humanity is the reason for evil.  Now that we know that difference, I don't think that there's anything else useful that can be said on the debate between them since these ideas come from different assumptions and deciding which is correct is out of the scope of our perception since God cannot be proved or disproved and the nature of humanity cannot be proved or disproved. 

So, unless someone feels that there is a grievance that has not been addressed, we probably should not post in this thread anymore.

Edit:*clarification*

[Mars]

In case anyone is confused, (many) Atheists claim that God is the reason for evil and (most of) Christianity believes that humanity is the reason for evil.  Now that we know that difference, I don't think that there's anything else useful that can be said on the debate between them since these ideas come from different assumptions and deciding which is correct is out of the scope of our perception since God cannot be proved or disproved and the nature of humanity cannot be proved or disproved. 

So, unless someone feels that there is a grievance that has not been addressed, we probably should not post in this thread anymore.

Edit:*clarification*

Those are two very huge generalizations, that certainly do not cover all opinions of all christians or atheists. It is those generalizations that are the downfall of debate. Believing those is certainly understandable, but certainly try to realize that there are many more opinions in both ranks that exist.

[achtung]

In case anyone is confused, (many) Atheists claim that God is the reason for evil and (most of) Christianity believes that humanity is the reason for evil.  Now that we know that difference, I don't think that there's anything else useful that can be said on the debate between them since these ideas come from different assumptions and deciding which is correct is out of the scope of our perception since God cannot be proved or disproved and the nature of humanity cannot be proved or disproved. 

So, unless someone feels that there is a grievance that has not been addressed, we probably should not post in this thread anymore.

Edit:*clarification*

I feel that there's quite a bit wrong with that "clarification", but beyond that, I shall let it be.

[Cyborg17]

You are right that they are generalizations. I do know and recognize them, which is why I added those qualifiers.  Many, not most atheists, and most Christians (since it is a central tenant of the Christian faith, after all).  I'm sorry if that did not represent you accurately, but that's how many feel and that is what is causing remarks in this case.

However, the point of which side is correct cannot be decided because the basis of both beliefs are untestable assumptions, making debate useless, anyway.