why does false information need to be refuted,,,,,?...seriously?

Ok, let me reword it then, IF someone felt there was false information in the thread, they could easily share the information that they knew to be truth and let the readers decide.

MsHarmony.....please don't keep changing the rules....if you made the effort to specially use the term "refute" then why now try to back pedal....

if was you that say that you envision a thread or forum where people can post their "share beliefs" in which the validity of the posts would not be questioned ....

in case you didn't know...to "refute" is to question the validity of

Refute can be used in many contexts. I could have put quotes around the word 'refute'. I was quite obviously referring to the concern that people could spread false information without refute.

IT seemed as if that concern was primarily about information not being correct for which the solution would be to make multiple explanations available for the reader.

which is the exact same thing that is taking place in this forum ...you want a forum where you can play God ....just become a moderator

I would not be playing God, I would just be having a virtual show and tell about religion with others who agreed to do the same.

again...that's the exact same thing taking place in this forum ...except in your virtual version it is you that controls the "morality" button

Religion is a Nuisance to Us( Humanity), We are conditioned to believe???
I must say the the originators are amazingly genious, their work made billions seem like fools... Dying for Religion!
rather die to save tree... Lets be practical.. we humans MUST and Should come out of all this ******** conditioning to be free and build Faith of Love and Mutual respect!

How many times does someone have to point out that there are exclusive forums for the hardcore people of religion here and that this one is for general religious discussions?

After reviewing this thread a bit it proves that religiosity can and does affect IQ...

I dont know about IQ, but I still feel it would be a nice change for people to share their own beliefs without attacking others,,,, it would be nice for enough people to WANT to share the beliefs that lead their lives,,,,not mandatory, not about morality, just about finding people who wish to talk about the 'I' of their own beliefs instead of the 'you' of others,,,


didnt realize it was such a complicated or moral issue,, I guess manners and maturity fall in line with morals and all those other terms, which in our culture are becoming 'subjective' and impossible to agree upon....

and let's say there were such a place.....

so who would determine what the rules or the guildlines were that constitute an attack or belittlement

the common sense of mankind would determine,(although it becomes kind of obvious everyday that this is not such a common thing anymore, watch how many will object to me even bringing up such a concept as 'common' sense)

but a good rule of thumb would be no posts with the words 'you', 'yours', 'those'..etc..

the posts would be about personal belief apart from the belief of anyone else

Anything that challenges their faith is considered to them as an attack or a belittlement...there's no avoiding it...but they have their warm and fuzzy private forums so I am not sure why they are here feigning being attacked..oh yeah, the IQ factor.

This is sad. I stated that it would be nice if people could share their beliefs without attacking others,, and THAT suggestion brings dissention?


smh, I will just never understand I suppose

Just a note...ALL religions have their own specific forum. In General Religion ALL are welcome to post. Keep in mind that everyone has their own beliefs.

wouldn't the "common sense of mankind" dictate that what may seem like an attack or belittlement to you may not seem like that to another

I understand. I would like to share beliefs sometimes instead of JUST being amongst those of the same religious name(christian, jewish,,etc,,).

Because I believe what I believe , does not mean that I dont have an intellectual curiousity about what drives others and what ther values are as well. I totally respect everyones right to believe their belief, I was posting a personal interest in the idea of having a discussion void of personal attacks and belittling for the singular purpose of sharing(not being right or wrong or smarter or dumber,,or any such thing).

Please ..don't forget to include the word "only"

Can we replace belittle and attack with PERSONAL attack? Any time someone is RESPONDING to what someone else says it becomes a PERSONAL exchange. ONe which may or may not have been meant to belittle but can seem that way to the one being addressed.

WE could nit pick words and make everything subjective if we wanted to,,but I think that does little to encourage a progressive conversation where people can LEARN from each other,, which was what I think would be a wonderful conversation if ever it happened.

"Recovering Religionists are people discovering the joy of living superstition free. Individuals who want to interact with others who are escaping their religious upbringing and want the social support that religion offers, without all the religious and superstitious baggage. Instead of praying for you, we will listen and support you.

Instead of telling you how much Jesus or Allah cares, we will provide the care. Instead of asking what your astrological birth sign is, we will help you celebrate your birthday. We will challenge you to think for yourself and to think rationally about the problems we all face in life. We will encourage you to seek the best answers and avoid the easy ones that religion uses to trap and ensnare.

We welcome anyone, but we are not interested if you are coming to share your faith or tell us about your god, Jesus, or Allah. You can leave your tea leaves and crystals at home. Don't ask what anyone's sign is. If you want to preach or pray for us, do it in your church. We are leaving religion, not changing to yours.

"Now, what happened before that [Big-Bang]? There are two views. One is 'Don’t ask that question,' which is very close to saying that God did it. And the other is that we live in an oscillating universe in which there is an infinite number of expansions and contractions. The former of these views happens, by chance, to be close to the Judeo-Christian-Islamic view, the latter, close to the standard Hindu views. And so, if you like, you can think of the varying contentions of these two major religious views being fought out in the field of contemporary satellite astronomy. Because that’s where the answer to this question will very likely be decided. This is an experimental question. And it is very likely that in our lifetime we will have the answer to it. And I stress that this is very different from the usual theological approach, where there is never an experiment that can be performed to test out any contentious issue. Here there is one. So we don’t have to make judgments now. All we have to do is maintain some tolerance for ambiguity until the data are in, which may happen in a decade or less." (Carl Sagan, 1985 Gifford Lectures).



It would have been nice to share outlooks with Mr Sagan.