GENIUS FORUMS

Here is an excellent one for Islam: http://www.wikiislam.com/wiki/Main_Page
Here is a good one for a number of belief systems, including Scientology: http://www.rickross.com/
Anybody got one for Christianity or other religions?

It is an excellent idea to have all the legitimate criticisms of belief systems neatly organized in one place to help people think for themselves.

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:Here is an excellent one for Islam: http://www.wikiislam.com/wiki/Main_Page
Here is a good one for a number of belief systems, including Scientology: http://www.rickross.com/
Anybody got one for Christianity or other religions?

It is an excellent idea to have all the legitimate criticisms of belief systems neatly organized in one place to help people think for themselves.

Elizabeth,

I don't know how many different mosques you've been in - I've been to perhaps 40-50.

You "seem" to be lumping Islam into a one-size fits all, without taking into account the differences between Sunni and Shia. Then Shia has at least 3-4 differences among those, and the Iraq mess has put a glaring spotlight on the differences. Sunni easily has 8-10 also with its odd alliances. Iran differences - wow!

And this hasn't much to-do with men and women differences.

Was in Iraq back in 1978, all religions were tolerated.

Then all the religions of 'Africa' - the diciplines of India and their tendrils.

Probably why QRS philosophy needs an update ... and why I like this place as one must be a flippin' moron to be banished from here.

It all depends on what country you are from (as the State defines who is and who isn't sanctioned) because the 'powers-that-be' determine who's in and who's fallen from grace.

Are we lumping 'Christianity' as a one-size fits all? It doesn't work that way in the real-world of governing. Note: One of George W. Bush's first acts as commander-in-chief was to send in IRS agents to Indianapolis Baptist Temple. Why? They wouldn't take the 501c3 seal-of-approval from the State. Clinton got the ball rolling and Bush simply showed his true colors. When Bush went to China he made it clear he was attending a "state-sanctioned" protestant church. At the time, I believe, there were all of 13 approved by the State.

Catholic has so many breakaways, note that one was where George Tenet was in Washington D.C., where some famous double-agent was also attending.

Then there is that actor Mel Gibson, whose dad was of some sect not the 'mainstream' stuff.

Mitt Romney and Mormonism "ISM"

David Koresh breakaways.

Jehovah's Witnesses

Eastern Orthodox

Witchcraft and so on


Note: During the so-called christmas season in Jerusalem, Bethlehem, the "priests" got into a fistfight over a ladder's base being on their side of the (imaginary) divider separating where some crib was located.

Of course, Judaism (3-4 branches in USA), well where to start with that? The State of Israel will take anyone in provided they don't speak out against the (ever-changing) party line - see Pat Robertson falling from grace.

Many years ago, had an opportunity to have a semi-private tour (couple dozen of us about) of the Vatican - of course I took the bait - didn't get to go to the Archives though. The Solar Wheel was most impressive (predates official Catholicism) along with the obelisk that rests in the center of wheel and taken from Alexandria, Egypt..

One size fits all? Nawww.

Again, why a lot of people here hide their real names, they can rant on and no perceived consequences, whereas the "real" people that use their given name are in the minority (thus have the most to lose) but in the end are "right" with their moral conscience, the fiber of which keeps this site hummin'.


Thanks David, Dan, Kevin.




Tomas (the tank)
Prince of Jerusalem
16 Degree
Scottish Rite Free Mason



.

Thanks Tomas. It is a wiki - so if you're able to improve it by differentiating Sunni and Shia traditions - please do.

Nope, it isn't one-size-fits-all, but first there must be the concept "shirt" before style, size, fabric, and all the rest. Recognize seeds or a saplings for what they are, and help them become trees - then the fruit will bear forth.

Elizabeth wrote:It is an excellent idea to have all the legitimate criticisms of belief systems neatly organized in one place to help people think for themselves.

It's an even better idea to have them neatly organized in many places, as they are. There are any number of books about comparative religious analysis, some more informative and less judgemental than others.

Wikis make me uneasy at best and more often not a little bit frightened. It is said that a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing, and Wikipedia, for insatnce, is chock full of "a little knowledge." I find myself referring others to a Wikipedia article only if I have read that article and it more or less fairly represents knowledge that I already possess in a way that I already understand it. This is sheer expedience, a.k.a. "laziness." The good thing about Wikipedia is the links.

A good way to educate yourself about a topic, be it a world religion, the history of a people, or a scientific concept, is to use Amazon.com, I find. There are few other resources that list so many things in print with synopses, reviews, and often even "peeks" inside. You can print out a representative list of material on your subject of choice and take it to your local public library, or you can purchase right then and there and have it in your hands within days.

Philosphaster noted in another thread how the Web made it possible for people to find and communicate with others with like views in a way that wasn't possible before. That is so true that I am wondering whether what we have taken for "human nature" or typical behavior isn't changing fundamentally before our very eyes.

I am not as afraid of the Wiki generation as I am afraid for it. Information is one of the human being's necessities, as much as water, food, and air. What MacDonald's has done for hunger, the Web is doing for our need to know things. It not only exposes our minds to "information" which is unfiltered, unanalyzed, and entirely unsupported, it almost guarantees that people are "learning" things that are false and harmful.

But I make no propositions concerning this. I don't think the Web should be regulated any more than I think TV and radio should be censored. The best we can do to stay alert and make sure our own intake is healthful and not harmful, and to monitor the intake of those for whom we are responsible, like our children.

Wikipedia isn't that bad. Comparisons have shown that it contains only slightly more errors than Brittanica, on average. Some wikipedia articles were actually superior to the Brittanica ones. Sure, there are errors on Wikipedia, but people tend to blow them way out of proportion. It seems kind of odd to focus on the errors when the fact that ordinary people have built a viable encyclopedia from the ground up is staring us in the face. Personally, I find that pretty amazing. I would have called it impossible if someone had proposed the project to me.

brokenhead wrote:Philosphaster noted in another thread how the Web made it possible for people to find and communicate with others with like views in a way that wasn't possible before. That is so true that I am wondering whether what we have taken for "human nature" or typical behavior isn't changing fundamentally before our very eyes.

I believe that it is. As just one example, the internet generations can't be fed the same prejudices that the governments have fed their armies in the past. The military intentionally instill hatred of a race to make it possible for soldiers to kill them, then the soldiers bring those opinions back to their families and it spreads. Talk to some people who fought in WWII. These men were programmed to hate one group or another. My father was programmed to hate Germans. A friend's grandfather was programmed to hate the Japanese because of Pearl Harbor, and his family was contaminated with the programming. How can the military of today program its soldiers to hate the people that they online chat with about their favorite topics?

What is the deal with Wikipedia, can you just post any article? I assume there is a review process before the article is added to the encyclopedia. I guess there are some pitfalls because I used to rely on it all the time before I heard all that stuff about random article postings.. Then I thought, maybe it's not a credible source.. Now I use it from time to time, and I figure it seems to be pretty reliable. Any additional info there?

.


-honey buns-
snow bunny - What is the deal with Wikipedia, can you just post any article?

-tomas-
Sure! Just like you do here :-)




-honey buns-
I assume there is a review process before the article is added to the encyclopedia.

-tomas-
Fawk no! We're one big happy family here. Do what you wanna do.. whenever! It's party time!




-honey buns-
I guess there are some pitfalls because I used to rely on it all the time before I heard all that stuff about random article postings..

-tomas-
You not be talkin' about yerself here, would you?




-honey buns-
Then I thought, maybe it's not a credible source..

-tomas-
You can think?!! (But YOU are credible)




-honey buns-
Now I use it from time to time, and I figure it seems to be pretty reliable.

-tomas-
Which side of the see-saw are you on?




-honey buns-
Any additional info there?

-tomas-
Keep us posted, honey buns...

ps- Gawd, yer aw jean-yus.

pps- Hahahahah



Tomas (the tank)
VietNam veteran - 1971


.

yeah, yeah. I'll keep it short, that way you can't write that much if you reply, 'cause all you're doing is going for a piggyback ride.. maybe you're the flamer, who knows?

Unidian wrote:Wikipedia isn't that bad. Comparisons have shown that it contains only slightly more errors than Brittanica, on average. Some wikipedia articles were actually superior to the Brittanica ones. Sure, there are errors on Wikipedia, but people tend to blow them way out of proportion. It seems kind of odd to focus on the errors when the fact that ordinary people have built a viable encyclopedia from the ground up is staring us in the face. Personally, I find that pretty amazing. I would have called it impossible if someone had proposed the project to me.

I'm just pissed it wasn't around when I was in school. I think the Wikipedia project is awesome, don't get me wrong. It's just that it's so easy to go there and nowhere else. Maybe some things should be taken for granted, I don't know. Fundamentally, to “wiki” something is no different from to "look it up in the encyclopedia." But somehow back when I was in Uni, you knew that an encyclopedia was just a starting point for research. The less effort it takes to acquire knowledge, the less the statement “knowledge is power” holds true. In some sense, the very ubiquity of information in our post-modern age acts to devalue information. And if so much of it is literally at our fingertips, can we be so sure that it is making its way into our minds? “It’s all out there.” But is it in here?

Wiki has improved markedly since its birth, but it's a mistake to rely on any single resource, no matter its reputation. To do so is really just lazy.

In some cases, Wikipedia is the only available resource that is free. Sure, there are web pages about anything, but the reliability of most independent web sites makes Wikipedia look like God's Own Word. Encarta and the others are capitalist operations that feel knowledge is only for those who can afford it. In many cases, I go only to Wiki because that's the only choice I have.

Well, yeah, that's actually true. There's lots of content on Wiki that you literally won't find elsewhere and that's one of its great virtues. You'd be hard pressed to find info on something like the 70s Kiwi/Aussie band "Mother Goose" and their smash hit Baked Beans anywhere else.

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:Here is an excellent one for Islam: http://www.wikiislam.com/wiki/Main_Page
Here is a good one for a number of belief systems, including Scientology: http://www.rickross.com/

They do seem to have a lot of detail. The main thing that disappointed me about both sites though was that there was no overview/summary page that spelt out what exactly the nature of the religion(s) is and exactly what is flawed about it.

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:Anybody got one for Christianity or other religions?

No. I haven't even tried looking for one.

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:It is an excellent idea to have all the legitimate criticisms of belief systems neatly organized in one place to help people think for themselves.

Reading other people's criticisms is "thinking for yourself"?

Nevermind pooch, it's meant to be a gentle ribbing.

Laird wrote:

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:It is an excellent idea to have all the legitimate criticisms of belief systems neatly organized in one place to help people think for themselves.

Reading other people's criticisms is "thinking for yourself"?

(bold italics added to point out a word you seem to have missed)

If all that anyone ever gets is the same story over and over again, they never think to question any of it. It is at the first bit of contradiction that people are then forced to think for themselves to resolve the dissonance. The more contradictory information that people get, the more likely that they will question all that comes in.

Very true, Elizabeth. It's a dialectical process - and too often we aren't exposed to the antithesis of a culturally favored thesis. Reading criticisms gives us that exposure, and allows us to begin the process of synthesis.

Unidian wrote:Very true, Elizabeth. It's a dialectical process - and too often we aren't exposed to the antithesis of a culturally favored thesis.

Has this anywhere or at any time not been the case?

Yes, brokenhead. Most religions and cults do their best to make sure that the indoctrinated get little or no exposure to other ways of thinking. This allows them to brainwash their people into believing their version of the truth without question far more easily. With the advent of the internet and the information age, it is easier for more people to see more views, which stimulates people to think more for themselves.

Me: Very true, Elizabeth. It's a dialectical process - and too often we aren't exposed to the antithesis of a culturally favored thesis.

brokenhead: Has this anywhere or at any time not been the case?

Nope.

But it has also never been the case that some people don't find their way in spite of it.

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:Yes, brokenhead. Most religions and cults do their best to make sure that the indoctrinated get little or no exposure to other ways of thinking. This allows them to brainwash their people into believing their version of the truth without question far more easily. With the advent of the internet and the information age, it is easier for more people to see more views, which stimulates people to think more for themselves.

I think that was my point, Elizabeth. Unidian has said that all too often we are not exposed to the antithesis. It sounded like he meant here and now, as opposed to another place and time. I think rather that here and now John Q. Public has the best opportunity to consider more points of view than that offered by the "Establishment," certainly better than ever before.