• Categories

Vanilla 1.1.4 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

 
  1. Reading the Goffman classic made me wonder if we shouldn't have a general humanistic discussion on such a website. I don't want to fall in with any particular subject. It can be anything guys - poetry, stories, philosophy, music (even film music if in a more "processual" way), art, history, philosophy, psychology, sociology.

    I can start out with Goffman and I got a response from Thor, so I can go with it. Front stage/back stage was fascinating and all I've read. Do we know the roles we play in social interaction (or as Goffman would put - during encounters?). Who do we want to present ourselves us? I don't want you to confess and show your backstage techniques, I just mean in general.
    http://www.filmmusic.pl - Polish Film Music Review Website
  2. What are 'backstage techniques'? This is a term I'm unfamiliar with.
    A butterfly thinks therefore I am
  3. We are always playing a role, belonging to some ensemble. Let's say you are a seller in a shop. You are very kind to your customers, even if they offend you a lot, you are still "in character". In the back stage you start to make fun of these people in the group you do the "show" (Thor, please come here for the right term biggrin ) for - the audience. It's for moral support.

    Backstage is also for preparation for the presentation. As such we may regard our bedrooms and bathrooms where we prepare. Sometimes we fall out of character, when somebody will see the backstage by accident.
    http://www.filmmusic.pl - Polish Film Music Review Website
    •  
      CommentAuthorThor
    • CommentTimeDec 15th 2007 edited
    I have nothing to add at this point...just happy you created this thread. I'm not sure how many here would have our frames of reference. I'll be sure to add stuff when I think of it! smile

    Right now, I'm kinda hooked on rhetorics, especially media rhetorics. In other words, seeing how ancient Greek rhetorical terms and theory applies to a contemporary setting. For example, classical rhetorics relied on a single sender (the orator in public spaces). But who is the sender in a TV program? The host? The program itself/genre? The institution? The guests? Things like that.
    I am extremely serious.
    • CommentAuthortjguitar
    • CommentTimeDec 16th 2007
    I think you guys would maybe need to contextualize this a bit further, I'm not getting it...and I'm usually into things like this. It sounds like your referring to a prior conversation or something, so that might be where the confusion begins?
    •  
      CommentAuthorThor
    • CommentTimeDec 16th 2007
    tjguitar wrote
    I think you guys would maybe need to contextualize this a bit further, I'm not getting it...and I'm usually into things like this. It sounds like your referring to a prior conversation or something, so that might be where the confusion begins?


    It's basically a place to discuss any topic related to the Humanities (mostly in an academic setting). That's my impression, anyway. You'd have to ask Pawel.
    I am extremely serious.
  4. Shall we get started on the cultural merits of Harold Faltemeyer, then? Personally, I think he is an absurdly misogynistic voice in film music, continually underlining conventional gender associations in his scoring. Has the male gaze ever been so roundly affirmed as in his Top Gun score?

    (Note: This post is a parody of a commentary on Bernard Herrmann once given by a group of film music academics.)
    A butterfly thinks therefore I am
  5. Herrmann misogynistic? biggrin WHERE is Vertigo anti-feminine? biggrin biggrin

    I believe that Faltermeyer is misomusical anyway...

    Though I do like Axel F. shame

    Thor is right about the aim of the topic.
    http://www.filmmusic.pl - Polish Film Music Review Website
    •  
      CommentAuthorDemetris
    • CommentTimeDec 17th 2007
    PawelStroinski wrote

    I believe that Faltermeyer is misomusical anyway...



    biggrin
    Love Maintitles. It's full of Wanders.
    •  
      CommentAuthorBregje
    • CommentTimeDec 17th 2007
    Thor wrote
    tjguitar wrote
    I think you guys would maybe need to contextualize this a bit further, I'm not getting it...and I'm usually into things like this. It sounds like your referring to a prior conversation or something, so that might be where the confusion begins?


    It's basically a place to discuss any topic related to the Humanities (mostly in an academic setting). That's my impression, anyway. You'd have to ask Pawel.

    Well... to me it's also not entirely clear what is meant with the Humanities... are we talking about social sciences, life sciences or humanistics here or all of them?
    spin

    As some of you may know I teach humanist ethical and world view education. My favourite subjects are humanistics and philosophy. Education and (developmental) psychology are cool as well, so that's what I like about my job, it has everything I like.
    •  
      CommentAuthorBregje
    • CommentTimeDec 17th 2007 edited
    Oh! Never mind. I found the meaning of 'the Humanities'. 'Geesteswetenschappen' in Dutch. smile
  6. Heh, so similar to Geisteswissenschaften (German, sorry Martijn shame )

    Anyway, I had a little discussion here which inspired me to write something more.

    Religion. It will add a lot of spice to the thread, but I ask you to watch out what is written, because, however I know all people here are decent and good (except maybe one tongue .), but it sparks a ot of controversy and is very prone to go very personal.

    Killing people in the name of God. Any kind of fundamentalism is bad, but really the question is, is it still religion? Do people who murder in the name of their own gods (talking about every possible religious system that can go fundamental without being completely absurd, Buddhism e.g. would be absurd and anyway, the concept of deity doesn't exist there if memory serves me well) really understand the concept? Do they listen to their gods?

    "Islam is the religion of peace". We've heard that a lot, especially after 9/11. John Paul II did apologize for the Crusades, which, as a concept, again, is probably as bad, though without the problem of the attack being aimed at civilians. Where is fundamentalism born? Are we really still talking about values?

    I don't think so. People went to fight in Crusades for many reasons, many of them were economical rather than pure religion. Islamic fundamentalists appear in specific conditions, again - economical. They are poor and the feeling of lacking purpose in life makes them fall into religious fundamentalism. And of course the problem of spiral of violence.

    Whose fault is it then? God's or His people? No matter if you believe in God, the case is very complex. Is it a case of too strong belief or rather, if we look at it deeply, lack of thereof with those that have the power?
    http://www.filmmusic.pl - Polish Film Music Review Website
    •  
      CommentAuthorSteven
    • CommentTimeDec 31st 2007
    Steven wrote
    Bregt wrote
    Steven wrote
    Man-made, self-defeating, hypocritical, malevolent, harmful, abusive, immoral.... oh lord, so many associations to choose from! biggrin

    What lord? wink


    Exactly.

    Anyway, my abrasiveness on the matter isn't a result of atheism per se, but more of my absolute disdain for how religion preys on the worse parts of the human condition. Atheism - if you agree with coining it as such - was well explained by a well-known witty author in his recent book "God Is Not Great: The Case Against Religion":

    "Our belief is not belief. Our principles are not a faith. We do not rely solely upon science and reason, because they are necessary rather than sufficient factors, but we distrust anything that contradicts science or outrages reason. We may differ on many things, but what we respect is free inquiry, openmindedness, and pursuit of ideas for their own sake. We do not hold our convictions dogmatically: the disagreement between Prof. Stephen Jay Gould and Prof. Richard Dawkins, concerning "punctuated evolution" and the unfilled gaps in post-Darwinian theory, is quite wide as well as quite deep, but we shall resolve it by evidence and reasoning and not my mutual excommunication. (My own annoyance at Prof. Dawkins and Daniel Dennett, for their cringe-making proposal that atheists should conceitedly nominate themselves to be called "brights", is part of a continuous argument.) We are not immune to the lure of wonder and mystery and awe: we have music and art and literature, and find that serious ethical dilemmas are better handled by Shakespeare and Tolstoy and Schiller and Dostoyevsky and George Elliot than in mythical morality tales of the holy books. Literature , not scripture, sustains the mind - and since there is no other metaphor - the soul.

    We do not believe in heaven or hell, yet no statistic will ever find that without these blandishments and threats we commit more crimes of greed or violence than the faithful. (In fact, if a proper statistical inquiry could ever be made, I am sure the evidence would be the other way round.) We are reconciled to living only once, except through our children, for whom we are perfectly happy to notice that we must make way and room. We speculate that it is at least possible that, once people accepted the fact of their short and struggling lives, they might behave better toward each other and not worse. We believe with certainty that an ethical life can be lived without religion. And we know for a fact that the corollary holds true - that religion has caused innumerable people to not just conduct themselves no better than others, but to award themselves permission to behave in ways that would make a brothel-keeper or an ethnic cleanser raise an eyebrow. [...] There is no need for us to gather every day, or every seven days, or on any high and auspicious day, to proclaim our rectitude or to grovel and wallow in our unworthiness.

    We atheists do not require any priests, or any hierarchy above them, to police our doctrine. Sacrifices and ceremonies are abhorrent to us, as are the relics and the worship of any images or objects (even including objects in the form of one of man's most useful innovations" the bound book). To us no spot on earth is or could be "holier" than another: to the ostentatious absurdity of the pilgrimage, or the plain horror of killing civilians in the name of some sacred wall or cave or shrine or rock, we can counterpose a leisurely or urgent walk from one side of the library or the gallery to another, or to lunch with an agreeable friend, in pursuit of truth or beauty.

    Some of these excursions to the bookshelf or the lunch or the gallery will obviously, if the are serious, bring us into contact with belief and believers, from the great devotional painters and composers to the works of Augustine, Aquinas, Maimonides, and Newman. These mighty scholars may have written many things or many foolish things, and been laughably ignorant of the germ theory of disease or the place of the terrestrial globe in the solar system, let alone the universe, and this is the plain reason why there are no more of them today, and there will be no more of them tomorrow. Religion spoke its last intelligible or noble or inspiring words a long time ago [...]"
    - Christopher Hitchens

    There's very few words here that I don't whole-heartedly agree with.


    Quoted from the Association of Thoughts thread. smile
    •  
      CommentAuthorBobdH
    • CommentTimeDec 31st 2007 edited
    Steven wrote
    we have music and art and literature, and find that serious ethical dilemmas are better handled by Shakespeare and Tolstoy and Schiller and Dostoyevsky and George Elliot than in mythical morality tales of the holy books. Literature , not scripture, sustains the mind - and since there is no other metaphor - the soul.


    You are well aware Dostoyevsky, in Crime & Punishment, muses over the right for certain people to kill others, as long as it serves a higher purpose? Literature, actually, draws a lot of its basis on ethics from the Bible, they are human interpretations of dilemma's already tread upon in religion. Oh, man, I can go over this for ages... but I doubt will actually get you to other thoughts.

    Well... a little bit, then.

    Religion has often been used as a tool to commit murder, to raise war and hell... Yet, when religion wouldn't exist, would mankind lose it's desire for battle? I highly doubt it. As soon as their religion is gone, man will find another excuse, yet many see the cause for war within Christianity and what not. Let's not forget the Bible has been written ages ago and simply shouldn't be implied to this day and age we live in right now. You just can't. 9/11 was a political crime, not a religious one.

    Nay-sayers to religion often neglect to look at the good side of it, namely the comfort it gives to so many. Recently, a child passed away from the school my sister teaches, in gruesome conditions. And I truly hope the family was Christian, since they will at least have the faith that their child is in good hands. Without faith, religion, the believe in life or something beautiful after death... The thought of being completely alone, when lost or without company... I'd consider that to be horrible. Church and faith brings people together, it preaches against murder, jealousy, bigotry... Is that wrong?
    •  
      CommentAuthorSteven
    • CommentTimeDec 31st 2007 edited
    The bible is a terrible source for modern morality, especially the old testament. Truly horrific.

    Granted, there are some moral 'truths' (if any kind of 'truth' can be agreed upon in ethics) to be had form the bible, but I personally would rather turn to modern philosophy and my own sense of morality given to me by genetics.

    You'd be surprised at how common a reaction "now is not the time" is when I confront a theist about their beliefs.
    •  
      CommentAuthorSteven
    • CommentTimeDec 31st 2007
    BobdH wrote
    Steven wrote
    we have music and art and literature, and find that serious ethical dilemmas are better handled by Shakespeare and Tolstoy and Schiller and Dostoyevsky and George Elliot than in mythical morality tales of the holy books. Literature , not scripture, sustains the mind - and since there is no other metaphor - the soul.


    You are well aware Dostoyevsky, in Crime & Punishment, muses over the right for certain people to kill others, as long as it serves a higher purpose? Literature, actually, draws a lot of its basis on ethics from the Bible, they are human interpretations of dilemma's already tread upon in religion. Oh, man, I can go over this for ages... but I doubt will actually get you to other thoughts.


    Is that to say that all his morals aren't benign? Can it not be up to the reader to discriminate, like readers of the bible do? The bible also teaches its morals as an ultimate truth unable to evolve. I would imagine the aforementioned authors do not preach their's as such.
    •  
      CommentAuthorBobdH
    • CommentTimeDec 31st 2007 edited
    Steven wrote
    Is that to say that all his morals aren't benign? Can it not be up to the reader to discriminate, like readers of the bible do? The bible also teaches its morals as an ultimate truth unable to evolve. I would imagine the aforementioned authors do not preach their's as such.


    Let's not forget the Bible has been written ages ago and simply shouldn't be implied to this day and age we live in right now. You just can't.

    Can it not be up to the reader to discriminate, like readers of the bible do?


    Exactly wink The Bible should be interpreted to our age, which is what preachers, referents and such do nowadays.
    •  
      CommentAuthorSteven
    • CommentTimeDec 31st 2007 edited
    BobdH wrote
    Steven wrote
    Is that to say that all his morals aren't benign? Can it not be up to the reader to discriminate, like readers of the bible do? The bible also teaches its morals as an ultimate truth unable to evolve. I would imagine the aforementioned authors do not preach their's as such.


    Let's not forget the Bible has been written ages ago and simply shouldn't be implied to this day and age we live in right now. You just can't.


    Exactly. But a lot of people still do, which is what I find stupifying. Especially the most scary of all religions: Islam. The the fact that you recognise it has been written ages ago and that it 'just can't' be implied to this day and age is surely hypocritical to the assumption it is the word of god, hypocritical to the idea that it is a holy scripture worthy of blind worship and following. If god, the creator of all things and he who sees all things, past and present and future, had written these words or at least endorsed them as such, surely the bible would be as relative today as it was 2000 years ago?

    Can it not be up to the reader to discriminate, like readers of the bible do?


    Exactly wink The Bible should be interpreted to our age, which is what preachers, referents and such do nowadays.


    Again, exactly. But the interpretation that preachers, referents and such make comes about because they have to. They simply have to make sense of the bible in anyway possible so that they can continue to justify its 'legitimacy' in a modern world - and it is becoming harder for them to do so, certainly more so than 2000 years ago. But then why trust it so implicitly if you are to rely on your own sense of morality to discriminate as such? Doesn't the mere fact that it is up to you how to interpret it go against the very thing religion stands for? What makes your interpretation of it any less or more sufficient than someone else's?

    I wouldn't mind if religion was considered a theory by its believers. But it's not. It's considered a "truth". But how on earth can they profess to have knowledge on things they possibly could not assert? Why is faith even considered an answer to such a question?

    I think my signature sums it up pretty neatly.
    •  
      CommentAuthorSteven
    • CommentTimeDec 31st 2007 edited
    And anyone else is welcome to join this discussion you know! dizzy smile

    (Please, let's not resort to patronising 'wink' emoticons though. I personally think they're unnecessary in a discussion where the intent is not to offend but rather to challenge.)
    •  
      CommentAuthorplindboe
    • CommentTimeDec 31st 2007
    Hitchens is a good writer but appears like such a prick in interviews. I prefer Sam Harris, he's very provocative, but speaks so gently you just want to hug the guy. I'm more of a Sagan guy myself though, filled with passion and compassion.

    Peter kiss
  7. I'll get more into this subject later, but I want to state one thing.

    Tolstoy's and Dostoyevsky's work is largely based on religious morality, really. The Orthodox rather than Western though, so it's not necessarily easy to get all the concepts out, like Raskolnikov killing a handicapped girl (Lizaveta) and craziness/mental handicap is sometimes seen as a gift of God (they listen to Him or something like that).
    http://www.filmmusic.pl - Polish Film Music Review Website
    •  
      CommentAuthorSteven
    • CommentTimeDec 31st 2007
    Ooh, I love Hitchen's razor sharp wit. Have you seen his debate with McGrath? He certainly doesn't appear to be a dick to me:

    http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=Ip2nw0NWUW4

    But yes, I prefer Harris myself too. I prefer his more philosophical and reflective stance on religion.
    •  
      CommentAuthorplindboe
    • CommentTimeDec 31st 2007
    BobdH wroteReligion has often been used as a tool to commit murder, to raise war and hell... Yet, when religion wouldn't exist, would mankind lose it's desire for battle? I highly doubt it. As soon as their religion is gone, man will find another excuse, yet many see the cause for war within Christianity and what not. Let's not forget the Bible has been written ages ago and simply shouldn't be implied to this day and age we live in right now. You just can't. 9/11 was a political crime, not a religious one.

    Nay-sayers to religion often neglect to look at the good side of it, namely the comfort it gives to so many. Recently, a child passed away from the school my sister teaches, in gruesome conditions. And I truly hope the family was Christian, since they will at least have the faith that their child is in good hands. Without faith, religion, the believe in life or something beautiful after death... The thought of being completely alone, when lost or without company... I'd consider that to be horrible. Church and faith brings people together, it preaches against murder, jealousy, bigotry... Is that wrong?


    Those are very good arguments, and I do agree that religions have it's share of good stuff as well. Though I don't agree 911 was purely political. It was basically religion and politics mixed together in one unpleasant mess. The problem with religions is that they tend to bring so much harmful, or potentially harmful, baggage with them. Christianity and Islam is stuffed with the us vs. them mentality and dogmatism is promoted, as doubt is ascribed to a satanic influence (i.e. evil).

    We'll probably never get rid of religion though, and I'm not even sure the world would be that much better off without them, since we'll always manage to come up with excuses to hate each other; all part of being a social animal. But dissent is still important, without it, humans tend to become arrogant and dominating, so when you disparage anti-religious sentiments I think you underestimate their importance.

    I hope for more benevolent religions though in the future, the currently dominating ones are filled with archaic morals, promoting silly superstitions and dogmatism. Perhaps I should start one. smile

    Peter wink
    •  
      CommentAuthorBobdH
    • CommentTimeDec 31st 2007 edited
    I wouldn't mind if religion was considered a theory by its believers. But it's not. It's considered a "truth". But how on earth can they profess to have knowledge on things they possibly could not assert? Why is faith even considered an answer to such a question?


    It all depends on the way that the followers of the religion perceive it. After all, it's a 'faith', which also implies that you're not sure of it. You believe in God, as opposed to know there is a God. Yes, people dictate is as though being 'the truth', but who says it's against a religion not to take everything it stands for literally? After all, the Bible is an allegory of writings from several aposthles and their gospels who contradict each other themselves. They all had another vision, yet the chore of their vision was the same. And that's, for me, what Christianity and religion in general is all about: to take the text, the meaning, and make it your own. I am a follower of the chore of Christianity, not of the Biblical verses that preaches to murder homosexuals.

    Why is that hypocritical? My vision of Christianity isn't going against anything God told us to do, I just think for myself, instead of following the dictations of others. It's a perfectly healthy way of having a religion, which makes it an everchanging 'thing' (can't think of a better word), by which several Churches within Christianity have evolved.

    The problem with the Islam is the way a lot of the followers use their religion; they refuse to believe in the everchanging times and new interpretations, and that's where it goes wrong (let's not forget; not everybody feels this way within that religion!). They know how to use their religion for their good, and are not afraid to use it. Again, it's mankind and it's evilness that causes it, not the religion itself, and as soon as their religion would ceize to exist, they would find different ways.

    And let's not say God would have foreseen the future and therefore should've made a Bible that could work in every age. First of all, it's simply impossible, or you'd have several versions ("For usage in the 18th Century, the 19th, etc"). Second, it isn't God himself who wrote the Bible, don't forget this. It's the work of humans and their interpretations of it, which is the same with (basically) every religion. Which leads me to my previous point.
    •  
      CommentAuthorBobdH
    • CommentTimeDec 31st 2007 edited
    Tolstoy's and Dostoyevsky's work is largely based on religious morality, really. The Orthodox rather than Western though, so it's not necessarily easy to get all the concepts out, like Raskolnikov killing a handicapped girl (Lizaveta) and craziness/mental handicap is sometimes seen as a gift of God (they listen to Him or something like that).


    Exactly! And not just their work, the Bible really is the most influential book ever written in the western world, so it seems... weird and wrong to dismiss the Bible, and focus on the writings of those who were inspired by that same Bible. Just because you supposedly don't have to take their texts literally, while you could also just say; let's take from the Bible those passages that I feel good with.
    •  
      CommentAuthorSteven
    • CommentTimeDec 31st 2007
    Jediism! biggrin

    I too cannot possibly see how 9/11 came about purely on politics. These men who committed themselves to such an unforgivable act were well-taught, educated human beings. Unfortunately, they simply believed unequivocally that by performing such an act they would be rewarded in the after life. They weren't crazy, they weren't psychotic, no - they simply had faith. I think if it was purely political, then they would have sent missiles to perform their deads.

    If religion were to somehow dissipate entirely, humans - as you say Peter - will always find something to fight about. That is unfortunately inherent to the human condition. Religion though, in its very nature, grants humans the permission to act so wrongly. This is the problem with faith. This is what I so fervently and passionately disagree with.

    And the fact that religion in some cases does help people does not make it any more truthful. Surely there are other (and better) ways to bring people together without having to resort to doctrines of fallacious teachings? Surely we do not have to believe absurdities to reap the benefits of such a social network?
    •  
      CommentAuthorSteven
    • CommentTimeDec 31st 2007
    BobdH wrote
    Tolstoy's and Dostoyevsky's work is largely based on religious morality, really. The Orthodox rather than Western though, so it's not necessarily easy to get all the concepts out, like Raskolnikov killing a handicapped girl (Lizaveta) and craziness/mental handicap is sometimes seen as a gift of God (they listen to Him or something like that).


    Exactly! And not just their work, the Bible really is the most influential book ever written in the western world, so it seems... weird and wrong to dismiss the Bible, and focus on the writings of those who were inspired by that same Bible. Just because you supposedly don't have to take their texts literally, while you could also just say; let's take from the Bible those passages that I feel good with.


    I'll get reply to your previous post after this, but I just have to point out that no one in their right mind could dismiss the bible in that sense. Hitchens himself believes that studying religiousness and its respective scriptures is an integral part of learning about both literature and human history.
    •  
      CommentAuthorBobdH
    • CommentTimeDec 31st 2007 edited
    Steven wrote
    And the fact that religion in some cases does help people does not make it any more truthful. Surely there are other (and better) ways to bring people together without having to resort to doctrines of fallacious teachings? Surely we do not have to believe absurdities to reap the benefits of such a social network?


    This sounds like religion for 90% shouts to others to kill people, with a mere 10% to be good, but actually, it's the other way round. It's just that religion will only get news headlines as soon as someone blows himself up for it, but don't get influenced by the media. They have a way of twisting reality. And the believe in an afterlife for the loved ones who passed away, of being taken care of and such, that's something only religion can give you.

    Unfortunately, it's that same comfort that religion gives that is used by mankind to do their own evildoings. It's the flipside of the coin, but they're the same coin. And I wouldn't want to think there's nothing after I die, just because it gives disturbed, mentally ill people the motivation to do horrible stuff.
  8. It's quite a complicated subject really. You see, I am speaking from a theist point of view. And I find many points that people have against religion, though I wouldn't find it as abrasive as Steven and many atheists tend to do. I know atheists and I know that they are often more decent people than some religious people (I know too) are.

    I seem to rather agree with Soeren Kierkegaard. It's harder to believe. Faith is not always rejecing rationality. It's something like supension of disbelief. But if you have to accept that God, the person that is to love us with no borders and created us, demands from a man to sacrifice his only child as a test of faith, it's really hard. I'm not saying that atheists take it easy.

    Religious people do choose a morality and even metaphysical system from the Holy Books and their beliefs. Is it taking it easy? Yes and no. Ethics are so complicated that I do state that people who tell to murder for the sake of religion are going AGAINST the principles of religion. Add to it the general poverty that makes the metaphysical aspect of religion very appealing. We MAKE sense, so let's do whatever the leader tells us. He listens to God! And God knows what we should do.

    No, He doesn't or rather. He knows, but He wants us to get it ourselves. Humanity was given free will and that's the problem. We should take our lives in our hands and try to make the best we can out of it. Moral principles? The 10 Commandments are only a start. Even atheist value system is based on those anyway. As long as we are sticking to the basic guidelines (10 Commandments, in case of Christians - the two commandments of love and seven blessings) and are fair to others and ourselves - I think we are able to do the best of our lives and not being far from religion. The question is do we accept the suspension of disbelief or not.
    http://www.filmmusic.pl - Polish Film Music Review Website
    •  
      CommentAuthorSteven
    • CommentTimeDec 31st 2007 edited
    BobdH wrote
    I wouldn't mind if religion was considered a theory by its believers. But it's not. It's considered a "truth". But how on earth can they profess to have knowledge on things they possibly could not assert? Why is faith even considered an answer to such a question?


    It all depends on the way that the followers of the religion perceive it. After all, it's a 'faith', which also implies that you're not sure of it. You believe in God, as opposed to know there is a God. Yes, people dictate is as though being 'the truth', but who says it's against a religion not to take everything it stands for literally? After all, the Bible is an allegory of writings from several aposthles and their gospels who contradict each other themselves. They all had another vision, yet the chore of their vision was the same. And that's, for me, what Christianity and religion in general is all about: to take the text, the meaning, and make it your own. I am a follower of the chore of Christianity, not of the Biblical verses that preaches to murder homosexuals.


    An excellent defense of why and how you follow a particular religion, but a weak one in asserting any truth upon it.

    So you follow Christianity as a philosophy of life rather than a truth to life? This at least I can respect.

    I always find that the theist defends their religion in regards to how and why it helps them, yet never any good arguments alluding to the 'truth' some seem to hold so dearly - they cannot. They simply cannot give any good arguments in favour for the historical and factuality of their religion, yet there are infinitely better arguments against the presumptuous 'truth' of religion through science, thought and reason.

    Why is that hypocritical? My vision of Christianity isn't going against anything God told us to do, I just think for myself, instead of following the dictations of others. It's a perfectly healthy way of having a religion, which makes it an everchanging 'thing' (can't think of a better word), by which several Churches within Christianity have evolved.


    But unfortunately many believers still do not take such a liberal view of Christianity (and many other religions) as you have. To me, it seems hypocritical because a religion in its very nature professes to know so much about the cosmos, yet in today's society it is up to the faithful how to interpret it? What you call faith, I call ignorance. (And I don't mean to cause offense here, not at all. Ignorance is merely a lack of understanding. We are all ignorant to many things. We're only human after all.)

    The problem with the Islam is the way a lot of the followers use their religion; they refuse to believe in the everchanging times and new interpretations, and that's where it goes wrong (let's not forget; not everybody feels this way within that religion!). They know how to use their religion for their good, and are not afraid to use it. Again, it's mankind and it's evilness that causes it, not the religion itself, and as soon as their religion would ceize to exist, they would find different ways.


    The religion of Islam encourages and teaches evilness at its very core, even though Muslims are blind to this fact. They simply know they are the righteous, and with this in mind are free to carry out acts of shear indignities and wrong-doing, to put it all too mildly.