Replacing Religions

[Nikolai]

The point is, nbarclay is not taking himself seriously, but rather the things he holds holy. You should respect that.

[Solver]

Exactly, he has a very respectable point of view. I see nothing wrong with people who hold some things as holy, and it is entirely normal and respectable if he prefers to remove the link between the game religions and the real ones.

Nbarclay, out of curiosity, are you going to want anything else replaced in the game, or only the religion names and icons? Names and icons should be very easy, but will you want the Missionary art replaced as well?

[Senethro]

His view lost respectability when he showed he took himself seriously to defend himself over his urgent need to change some alphanumeric characters to others.

Religion in this forum? Is OT leaking?

[Solver]

So a person loses respectability when he defends his views?

[Verenti]

Originally posted by Solver


So a person loses respectability when he defends his views?

It depends on the distance of those views from accepted "polite" public views: When he said that his religion was right and all others were not right, it offends the mainstream population sensabilities which, not wanting to start serious animosity amongst themselves has taken a philosophy that, is largely existentialist.

That and saying "I'm right, you're wrong" to a school of thought opens the door to a nasty precident that few people would like to see realised.

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by Verenti

It depends on the distance of those views from accepted "polite" public views: When he said that his religion was right and all others were not right, it offends the mainstream population sensabilities which, not wanting to start serious animosity amongst themselves has taken a philosophy that, is largely existentialist.

That and saying "I'm right, you're wrong" to a school of thought opens the door to a nasty precident that few people would like to see realised.

Believing that other people are wrong is not, in and of itself, dangerous. The real danger is in how people handle it when they believe that they are right and others are wrong. There are two basic ways that people can react in such situations.

In the old state religion model, the attitude was, "I believe your religious beliefs are wrong, so I'm going to try to force you to follow my beliefs instead." The results of that approach have generally ranged from bad to disastrous.

The other approach is to accept that we disagree but recognize that trying to force our beliefs onto each other would almost certainly do more harm than good. If we follow that model, I don't try to force my beliefs onto you, and you don't try to force your beliefs onto me. I don't attack you for believing differently from me, and you don't attack me from believing differently from you. If we follow that model, we can each believe that the other is wrong yet still be friends.

I'm trying to do my part to follow the second model. When I express my belief that my religion is right and conflicting religions are wrong (which is a logical, inevitable consequence if my religion is right), I try to word my belief as a belief rather than stating it as if it were undisputed fact. Other people are free to express conflicting beliefs that they are right and I am wrong, and unless we want to find an appropriate forum for a theological discussion, we can agree to disagree without holding our differences in beliefs against each other.

In contrast, your approach is far less civil. You want to use a rigged concept of politeness that makes it impossible for people to express religious views that you disapprove of without being condemned as impolite. Yet you feel perfectly free yourself to attack people for expressing religious beliefs that you disapprove of. That attitude of yours is far more dangerous to civility than anything I've expressed.

[Nikolai]

I so totally agree with you nbarclay.

And if not the other side agrees, I suggest we take it somewhere it belongs, ie the OT, as I fear we are on thin ice discussing this in this part of the forum.

[Verenti]

My view may be one that is less civil, but it results in a greater civility if followed by a community. Sir, I have not said you shouldn't mod the game or have your beliefs, but having a belief and expressing a belief in public are two very different things: You may not be trying to change other peoples point of view, but you are indeed declaring to the world that their core beliefs, which they may belief just as strongly as you, are wrong and that is somthing that is NEVER well recieved, Especially Sir, if you have nothing but your opinion backing it up. People don't like to hear somone calling their belief structure invalid, no more than you like having your religion "trivialised".

By keeping more "radical" beliefs in the private domain of your parlour, You don't offend those who happen to not share your ideals. I know that this topic started as "I want to change the religions: Any ideas" but thats not all that has been expressed here. By bringing your justifications to the forefront you've turned this topic into a regular circus act, because other people reciprocated and share THEIR religious views which has ticked a few people off.

Now I'm not suggesting that we don't talk about relgion, but by not talking about it in such a way that it becomes an inflamitory subject, its much easier to get along.

[dearmad]

Wow. Gotta say as much an anti-religious nut that I am, I gotta respect nbarclay's point of view on this.

The haters posting against him are really coming across as idiots, immature kids, ignorant , and just plain small-thinking.

Bad.

And for god's sake (joke intended) where in this thread did he ever say he was right and others were wrong- he wrote he BELIEVED he was right and that others were wrong. Look at the OP! Jumping up and down all over that is just plain IQ=40 behavior.

[Verenti]

Originally posted by dearmad
And for god's sake (joke intended) where in this thread did he ever say he was right and others were wrong- he wrote he BELIEVED he was right and that others were wrong. Look at the OP! Jumping up and down all over that is just plain IQ=40 behavior.

Isn't saying you believe somthing saying you think it's true? If not, I must admit my english is not what it used to be.

[dearmad]

No. It's not the same. And the real premise of your arguement has been something like: "You say people are wrong and you are right," when in fact he has said again and again, "I *beleive* I am right and others are wrong.

This implies strongly that the material in question is not so factual as to be a forgone conclusion beyond any discussion. It implies very strongly that it is an issue of faith, which means that it admits others may have faiths that differ from the premise of the belief.

It also strongly implies that the beliver is making a leap in his logic (rationale) and freely admits to it, though this leap may not be definable in terms of language as to what he is leaping over (emotions, facts, stubborness, whatever).

For me to say (as I have had occasion to do in grad school when talking to someone about their research (scientific)): "This is wrong. This is the right way." Is VERY different from saying, "I believe this is wrong, here's why:" The first means, get out of the lab if you're not onboard, something I would probably only say to an undergraduate. The second means, feel free toexpress your point of view on this, though I think I'm right.

Worlds apart. Nietzsche knew this: He didn't say "I believe god is dead." He said, "God is dead."

[Verenti]

But the fact is both lines "This is wrong. This is the right way" and "I believe this is wrong, here's why" both contain those three words "This is wrong". How certain he is in the statement that other religions are wrong because his is right is irrelevent. He's still tossing out the statement that the other religions are wrong. For example (Only an example, and don't take this as directed at anyone here) one of my favourite ways to insult somone is by saying

"I'm sorry, I'm straining rather hard by refraining from calling you an utter moron" or "I was going to call you an idiot, but I decided against it." Does the phrasing make it any less of an insult? No, It doesn't. Likewise in saying "I belive this to be true" is indeed saying you believe it to be true, You are indirectly saying, that atleast as far as you are concern, That those other religions are false.

And the difference between saying in a scientific community between those two 'This is wrong' statements is after the second one you would provide facts to back up your position. Now as I mentioned previously, The only thing provided to back his up was his opinion. Now If I was being told that you thought my belief system was wrong, I would hope you could provide me with a little more than that its because yours is right. But in this case, its not important. Why? Because he's not trying to convince us of the validity of his statements. It was just a justification for his plans to mod the game.

Again, I'm not complaining about the mod. But consider if you were deeply religious to one of those other faiths and you came onto this board and you were hit by that bombshell. How would that make you feel? Well, It would probablly be some ugly emotion and there would be some sort of relatiation (text, I'm assuming, challenging his posistion). Probablly why its said that "Religion and Politics are not fit for discussion at the dinner table."

Why is it so offensive the suggestion that we all refrain from talking about our possibly offensive religious views, Athetist, Christian and otherwise, in the interest in not turning a simple topic about new (fake) religions into a five-page flame war?

[Nikolai]

He voiced his opinion, and he is in his rights to do so. So are you, but the intolerance you're showing him, practically saying that only your modern, atheisitc view is allowed to be voiced as right, is unacceptable. Can't you see that you are doing exactly what you are accusing him of doing?

[dearmad]

Well, I concede your point about refraining about discussing religion in the light of wrong versus right. But I can't really see why the OP deserves the dogpile he's under. Especially since he's remained relatively calm in light of some pretty saturated ad hominem disgust.

The strange thing about humans is they are so much more willing to die and kill for what they believe than what they know. It's truly startling at times.

[Solver]

Verenti, you're being extremely intolerant here. The very point of faith, in religion, is that a person believes one religion to be right and the others wrong. Also, the person typically views his religion as something holy.

What you are saying is that your opinion is the one that's correct and no other way!