Christianity is a religion of ... Islam is a religion of ...

I have recently seen statements or debates along the lines of:
Islam is a religion of peace (or not).
What does it mean to say something about a religion, when it is well known that the adherent of any large religion have a wide diversity of beliefs or views.
Can anything be said about Christianity in the format: Christianity is a religion of ...?
Would you be talking about/for all Christians when you made the statement? The majority? Your own group?

Originally posted by twhitehead
I have recently seen statements or debates along the lines of:
Islam is a religion of peace (or not).
What does it mean to say something about a religion, when it is well known that the adherent of any large religion have a wide diversity of beliefs or views.
Can anything be said about Christianity in the format: Christianity is a religion of ...?
Wou ...[text shortened]... u be talking about/for all Christians when you made the statement? The majority? Your own group?

While you are waiting for those/whoever made that/those statements to respond, shall we discuss how scientific development has contributed to the weaponisation of civilisation?

Originally posted by divegeester
While you are waiting for those/whoever made that/those statements to respond, shall we discuss how scientific development has contributed to the weaponisation of civilisation?

Sure, as long as we also talk about the MASSIVE reduction in death rates from science
and technology in the form of medicine and shelter and nutrition and communication
and quality of life improvements.

And then we can talk about all the ways religions have got in the way of those developments.

And then we can talk about the way that religions have no upsides to counter their downsides.

Or you could realise that we ALWAYS win this argument and not bother.

EDIT: Particularly as this argument is off topic for the thread you have posted it in.
If you want your ass whooped feel free to create your own thread on the topic.

Originally posted by divegeester
While you are waiting for those/whoever made that/those statements to respond, shall we discuss how scientific development has contributed to the weaponisation of civilisation?

Can I take it that you have no opinion on the matter simply because you didn't make any such statement? Not even a negative opinion?

Sure we can discuss the contributions of scientific development to weaponisation. Although I am not sure what to say about it as the facts are fairly obvious to all and not in dispute. I think we are remarkably lucky that it takes more than just science to build a nuclear bomb.
I also think that modern warfare has almost nothing to do with science and everything to do with money. After all, science is a commodity that can be bought and so are weapons. The reason why terrorists must strap on suicide vests and go blow themselves up is because they lack the money to buy missiles - not because they lack the scientific know-how.

Similarly, although the development of guns had a massive impact on the history of war, current gun problems are all about culture and nothing whatsoever to do with science.

Are you perhaps anti-science? That would be interesting given that we are discussing this over the internet.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Can I take it that you have no opinion on the matter simply because you didn't make any such statement? Not even a negative opinion?

Sure we can discuss the contributions of scientific development to weaponisation. Although I am not sure what to say about it as the facts are fairly obvious to all and not in dispute. I think we are remarkably lucky that ...[text shortened]... aps anti-science? That would be interesting given that we are discussing this over the internet.

No, I'm not anti-science in the slightest. In fact I work for a science based company. My original post was trying to point out that your OP is an excercise in futility. Like my post claiming that science is responsible for building nuclear bombs and therefore science is bad.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Sure, as long as we also talk about the MASSIVE reduction in death rates from science
and technology in the form of medicine and shelter and nutrition and communication
and quality of life improvements.

And then we can talk about all the ways religions have got in the way of those developments.

And then we can talk about the way that religions ...[text shortened]... ve posted it in.
If you want your ass whooped feel free to create your own thread on the topic.

Calm down, you're drooling with excitement.

Originally posted by divegeester
No, I'm not anti-science in the slightest. In fact I work for a science based company. My original post was trying to point out that your OP is an excercise in futility. Like my post claiming that science is responsible for building nuclear bombs and therefore science is bad.

I don't get it. In what way is my post 'an exercise in futility'? Can you be more specific rather than giving vague analogies?

Originally posted by twhitehead
I don't get it. In what way is my post 'an exercise in futility'? Can you be more specific rather than giving vague analogies?

It's not that the question you are asking is wrong per se, it's that it is impossible to classify a religion as a this or a that. If a Muslim claims Islam is a religion peace and he/she lives peacefully because of that religion, this it is a religion of peace to him. Same with Christianity. Same with science.

Originally posted by divegeester
Calm down, you're drooling with excitement.

Quite the opposite infact.

Originally posted by divegeester
It's not that the question you are asking is wrong per se, it's that it is impossible to classify a religion as a this or a that. If a Muslim claims Islam is a religion peace and he/she lives peacefully because of that religion, this it is a religion of peace to him. Same with Christianity. Same with science.

It seems to me that you agreed with my point but didn't really want to say so directly.

Originally posted by twhitehead
It seems to me that you agreed with my point but didn't really want to say so directly.

Not so, although I can see why you may think that just looking at these few posts. To be clear; despite us clashing on occasion I frequently do agree with your points and I have no issue saying so. And to be even clearer; I think science has brought far more benefit to mankind than "religion" has.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Quite the opposite infact.

It's easy to be misunderstood isn't it 🙂

Originally posted by twhitehead
I have recently seen statements or debates along the lines of:
Islam is a religion of peace (or not).
What does it mean to say something about a religion, when it is well known that the adherent of any large religion have a wide diversity of beliefs or views.
Can anything be said about Christianity in the format: Christianity is a religion of ...?
Wou ...[text shortened]... u be talking about/for all Christians when you made the statement? The majority? Your own group?

I agree in so far that I'm skeptical about the formulation "<insert religion here> is a religion of peace", because I doubt that anyone can name a religion of war.

Originally posted by divegeester
While you are waiting for those/whoever made that/those statements to respond, shall we discuss how scientific development has contributed to the weaponisation of civilisation?

Can the weapon making activities of homo erectus be classified as science? If not then weaponisation predates science. If it can then both science and weaponisation predate civilisation by a pretty large margin.

Originally posted by DeepThought
Can the weapon making activities of homo erectus be classified as science? If not then weaponisation predates science. If it can then both science and weaponisation predate civilisation by a pretty large margin.

Can fixing a rock to a stick and bashing someone over the head with it be classed as science? What about the bow and arrow, or gunpowder? Can that same group of homo erectus chaps looking at the the sunrise every morning in ignorant fearful wonderment and hope, constitute "religion"?