The Religion subforum.

[Jaster Mereel]

In order that the conflict in the Religion subforum between those who wish to engage in religious discussion in the context of religion, and those who feel that the discussion of religion in the context of religion has no place on a science message board, be ended, I propose that the Religion subforum be removed from the message board.

My reasons for this are simple. In numerous threads, begun by numerous members of this message board for the purpose of discussing their religion with others of like mind, the discussion has been repeatedly, and in a deliberate and concerted fashion, derailed by intolerant and intellectually immature members who believe that subjects which they give little or no credence to should not be discussed at all. As a result of this, the Religion subforum has been transformed from a center of religious debate, to a battlefield where those who don't believe continually ridicule and lambaste those who do, where such commentary was uncalled for and irrelevant to the discussion at hand, and where the moderators (often times being directly involved as participants, and most often among those performing the ridicule) do nothing to end the conflict.

I'm sure this proposal will be met with equal scorn and reprimand by those whom I have cited, as well as those who obect to the proposal, but I feel it necessary that someone of the administration weigh in on the subject, which I'm sure has been brought up many times previously.

 

[Woody]

Amen to that. This place is a circus. My ignore list is so full of names that I hardly read posts anymore. If you want to learn about other religions I suggest going elsewhere. I personally would like to have a better understanding of other world religions. Do you have any suggestions on where to go for enlightenment?

Peace be with you.

 

[hug-a-tree]

Ah, no! We can handle it. I mean I don't read something offensive about my religion and go cry about it.
Some of the posts are very interesting as well.

 

[Prince_James]

Considering many of the other forums are not based on science, it stands to reason that religion - which has many fruitful conversations, actually - should continue to be allowed to remain.

 

[Mosheh Thezion]

DONT TRY TO LIMIT MY RANGE OF OPTIONS... simply because you dont like it when people argue and critisize things you or anyone says.. or believes..

if you cant take the rebuttle, dont say anything to begin with.

although... science is my religion, so to me they are the same.

-MT

 

[Cris]

For a long time the religion forum was by far the most dominant forum on this site. It has a long history and contains a great deal of good debate, and of course much that is not so good. The ratio of proponents vs skeptics has varied considerably during its life where currently there is a 2:1 ratio in favor of skeptics, so knowing that we should expect the skeptics position to dominate for now. That has not always been the case and for most of its history there has been an almost equal split.

The ratio tends to auto-adjust since without opposition there tends to be no debates.

For many the battle between belief and non-belief is very stimulating and forces many to think through their arguments carefully and others do take considerable time to research their arguments.

I see no good reason to terminate or move this arena of healthy debate.

 

[The Devil Inside]

that, and you are the mod there.

 

[Woody]

For a long time the religion forum was by far the most dominant forum on this site. It has a long history and contains a great deal of good debate, and of course much that is not so good. The ratio of proponents vs skeptics has varied considerably during its life where currently there is a 2:1 ratio in favor of skeptics, so knowing that we should expect the skeptics position to dominate for now. That has not always been the case and for most of its history there has been an almost equal split.

The ratio tends to auto-adjust since without opposition there tends to be no debates.

For many the battle between belief and non-belief is very stimulating and forces many to think through their arguments carefully and others do take considerable time to research their arguments.

I see no good reason to terminate or move this arena of healthy debate.

So in your opinion, SF is more for debate than for information sharing. Personally, I don't find the debate format a very efficient way to get educated. However, I'd say it's a pretty good way to get a hypothesis through the wringer to iron out all the bugs.

I'd also say the sciforums population is quite skewed toward liberal secular humanism and it's here to teach people that world view of god and humanity. SKin Walker and Snake Lord are some of the most knowledgeable people I've met at Sciforums, but SW thinks the religion forum should be a place to railroad religious "re-orientation."

I don't understand what someone expects in a "science of religion" discussion. The Bible, Koran, and other "sacred" texts are the data. It is all dogmatic, and a matter of faith. If one is right then the others are wrong, but again, that is a matter of faith.

Faith is for introspection in the areas of spirituality, character, and personal development. Right from the start there is no common ground for a healthy dialogue with atheists. They want proof through external means (such as science).

 

[The Devil Inside]

that is one of the most intelligent dissections i have ever read on this forum.

 

[S.A.M.]

So in your opinion, SF is more for debate than for information sharing. Personally, I don't find the debate format a very efficient way to get educated. However, I'd say it's a pretty good way to get a hypothesis through the wringer to iron out all the bugs.

I'd also say the sciforums population is quite skewed toward liberal secular humanism and it's here to teach people that world view of god and humanity. SKin Walker and Snake Lord are some of the most knowledgeable people I've met at Sciforums, but SW thinks the religion forum should be a place to railroad religious "re-orientation."

I don't understand what someone expects in a "science of religion" discussion. The Bible, Koran, and other "sacred" texts are the data. It is all dogmatic, and a matter of faith. If one is right then the others are wrong, but again, that is a matter of faith.

Faith is for introspection in the areas of spirituality, character, and personal development. Right from the start there is no common ground for a healthy dialogue with atheists. They want proof through external means (such as science).

that is one of the most intelligent dissections i have ever read on this forum.

Amen to that

 

[Creeping Death]

The Light Has Blinded The Eyes Of The People. Let The Darkness Make You See Again.

 

[Vega]

The Light Has Blinded The Eyes Of The People. Let The Darkness Make You See Again.

Hey dr.death, whats the forecast for doomsday?

 

[Cris]

Woody,

So in your opinion, SF is more for debate than for information sharing.

Of course. If I want information I can search the web or go to a library. The fun at SF is social discussion and debate with others.

Personally, I don't find the debate format a very efficient way to get educated.

OK, personally I’ve learnt a great deal from many of the better informed members here over the past 6 years.

I'd also say the sciforums population is quite skewed toward liberal secular humanism and it's here to teach people that world view of god and humanity.

SF has no hidden agenda or intent. Its name and large content imply a science orientation and it is that that tends to attract science minded people and critical thinkers more than others. That those skills and perspectives also tend towards liberal attitudes is understandable.

SKin Walker and Snake Lord are some of the most knowledgeable people I've met at Sciforums, but SW thinks the religion forum should be a place to railroad religious "re-orientation."

Since attempts at religious re-orientation are against the rules then his approach seems warranted.

I don't understand what someone expects in a "science of religion" discussion.

Perhaps reasonable standards of justification for proposals and assertions.

The Bible, Koran, and other "sacred" texts are the data. It is all dogmatic, and a matter of faith. If one is right then the others are wrong, but again, that is a matter of faith.

Not really, there is far more than just the scribblings found in a couple of ancient texts. So what’s your point? In no field is faith a valid method for justifying a given position, why should religion be any different? Why should religionists be given special consideration for their inability to appropriately justify their assertions?

Faith is for introspection in the areas of spirituality, character, and personal development.

Faith is the blind acceptance that something is true without a factual basis. It is not a productive approach to reasoned debates.

Right from the start there is no common ground for a healthy dialogue with atheists. They want proof through external means (such as science).

And why is that wrong? If you cannot support your assertions through recognized methods of reasoned debate then the difficulty is yours not the atheists.

 

[(Q)]

The Light Has Blinded The Eyes Of The People. Let The Darkness Make You See Again.

If you inadvertenly miss the shift key, do you go back and Capitalize on your mistake?

 

[Woody]

Woody,

Of course. If I want information I can search the web or go to a library. The fun at SF is social discussion and debate with others.

I can google too, but I have specific questions that can't always be answered that way.

OK, personally I’ve learnt a great deal from many of the better informed members here over the past 6 years.

OK, that seems to agree with what I'm saying. Obviously the library, etc., aren't the only place you get information from.

SF has no hidden agenda or intent. Its name and large content imply a science orientation and it is that that tends to attract science minded people and critical thinkers more than others. That those skills and perspectives also tend towards liberal attitudes is understandable.

As an "outsider" I'd say the conversation here is more emotional than it is rational. Respect for the indiviual is nil, and conversation uncivil, myself included.

Since attempts at religious re-orientation are against the rules then his approach seems warranted.

Cris, I think you misunderstood the statement. I said Skin Walker said that the religion forum should be used to indoctrinate people with humanistic atheism. No other view should be allowed according to him. Are you agreeing with that approach?

Perhaps reasonable standards of justification for proposals and assertions.

As I already said, religion is dogmatic. The standard and proposals are justified by the book it comes from. This is true of any religion. I do not have to agree with them to understand this concept.

It's fair to discuss what the book or books say. When you compare religion to science you compare apples and oranges. Likewise with a lot of philosophy compared to science, or culture compared to science. They all came before science came. I just see no reasonable way to make any headway on this with you. We can agree to disagree, and since you are the moderator, I can go elsewhere.

Not really, there is far more than just the scribblings found in a couple of ancient texts. So what’s your point? In no field is faith a valid method for justifying a given position, why should religion be any different? Why should religionists be given special consideration for their inability to appropriately justify their assertions?

I do not believe in Islam, but I respect a Muslim that can accurately state what his data says in the Koran. I'd really like to know, and the debate format immediately puts that person on the defensive. I know because I've tried it here several times before. I don't want a roast from other members, I just want information so I can understand his religion/culture through his eyes instead of my own.

Faith is the blind acceptance that something is true without a factual basis. It is not a productive approach to reasoned debates.

As I already said, faith is not for argument, it's for spiritual growth.

And why is that wrong? If you cannot support your assertions through recognized methods of reasoned debate then the difficulty is yours not the atheists.

OK, there are other places to get what I want without all the ugliness.

 

[Cris]

Woody,

As an "outsider" I'd say the conversation here is more emotional than it is rational. Respect for the indiviual is nil, and conversation uncivil, myself included.

Then why not attempt to be more civil. I find people respond in a like manner. While there are a few unruly types my experiences and the debates I have had tend to be inoffensive and productive. Perhaps it is your approach that needs adjustment.

But I have visited many other forums, some intensely religious, and I find the same mix of politeness and rudeness, SF doesn’t seem exceptional in any particular way. This seems to reflect the anonymous identity style of online forums. I strongly suspect that the rudeness would unlikely appear in real face to face scenarios.

Cris, I think you misunderstood the statement. I said Skin Walker said that the religion forum should be used to indoctrinate people with humanistic atheism. No other view should be allowed according to him. Are you agreeing with that approach?

I don’t remember seeing such an assertion. Please provide a reference.

As I already said, religion is dogmatic. The standard and proposals are justified by the book it comes from. This is true of any religion. I do not have to agree with them to understand this concept.

And so what is your point? It is these very limitations that are the subject of many debates within the religion forum.

It's fair to discuss what the book or books say.

Which we often do.

When you compare religion to science you compare apples and oranges.

No not at all. Their approaches are very different but religions claim to KNOW whereas science has proven methods for establishing actual KNOWledge. Ultimately they attempt to do the same thing. Intense discussions within the religion forum about these key issues seem like very valid topics for religious debate.

Your attempt to assert that religion is somehow special and needs to be considered differently is exactly the type of valid debate that is often addressed within the religion forum.

Likewise with a lot of philosophy compared to science, or culture compared to science. They all came before science came.

And so?

I just see no reasonable way to make any headway on this with you. We can agree to disagree, and since you are the moderator, I can go elsewhere.

I’d prefer you stayed and spent more time understanding alternate perspectives. I think you still have much to learn.

I do not believe in Islam, but I respect a Muslim that can accurately state what his data says in the Koran. I'd really like to know, and the debate format immediately puts that person on the defensive. I know because I've tried it here several times before. I don't want a roast from other members, I just want information so I can understand his religion/culture through his eyes instead of my own.

There are two approaches to this type of issue. (1) The texts are presented in an objective manner in an attempt to understand what the authors intended, or similar. I have found these types of discussion are often polite and productive. (2) The proponent asserts that a particular text is truth and proceeds from that assumption. That usually meets with justifiable opposition. Neither approach is entirely free from those that simply want to criticize, but in the first approach those irritants can usually be ignored.

As I already said, faith is not for argument, it's for spiritual growth.

Unfortunately you continue to assert your perspective and opinion even here as if it absolute whereas this is one of those key areas that are the subject of intense debate. Like I said, you will unlikely make any progress in real debate until you learn to understand and appreciate alternate views. Really consider the possibility that you could be wrong and from that position of humility you will earn and gain respect from others.

OK, there are other places to get what I want without all the ugliness.

Why is having to justify an assertion ugly?

 

[Theoryofrelativity]

I think if you want to eradicate the thread corruptors from the argument, agree amongst yourselves who they are (in pm if necc) then further agree to ignore them, they will eventually get bored and stop doing it.

Additionally if you don't like the way the debates go, stop yourself participating, join a forum else where.

DO NOT presume to request to close the forum down due to your lack of ability to do either of the above.

 

[Woody]

Woody,

Then why not attempt to be more civil. I find people respond in a like manner. While there are a few unruly types my experiences and the debates I have had tend to be inoffensive and productive.

Actually it is my belief system that is offensive to most people here. I've noticed the same thing of other christians on this forum. We're expected to have more etiquite than others, hence we get a lot of cheap shots, sock puppets, and trolls.

Perhaps it is your approach that needs adjustment.

See what I mean. Honesty buys me nothing.

Why does a praise report for likeminded people get flooded with negative comments by atheists, and schemers?

I strongly suspect that the rudeness would unlikely appear in real face to face scenarios.

Probably so.

I don’t remember seeing such an assertion. Please provide a reference.

Just ask Skin Walker. He is the reference.

And so what is your point? It is these very limitations that are the subject of many debates within the religion forum.

It is these very limitations of the sciforums website that shut down a useful dialogue to learn what someone else really thinks, feels, and believes. Instead it becomes like a political debate on the Rikki Lake show.

Which we often do.

Yes, and most of the time it is quite inaccurate (yet proudly assumed to be right), which doesn't help a dialogue.

No not at all. Their approaches are very different but religions claim to KNOW whereas science has proven methods for establishing actual KNOWledge. Ultimately they attempt to do the same thing. Intense discussions within the religion forum about these key issues seem like very valid topics for religious debate.

Science explains the physical world.
Religion explains the spiritual world.

To a person of faith the spiritual world is just as real as the physical world. There are many brilliant men of science who were also spiritualists including, Newton, Faraday, Kelvin, and Edison. So this is not an issue of greater versus lesser intellect. It is not an issue of science versus religion. It is not an issue of mental health. Yet all these tactics are used liberally to jam anything said by a person of faith. It really does nothing to increase understanding -- really.

Your attempt to assert that religion is somehow special and needs to be considered differently is exactly the type of valid debate that is often addressed within the religion forum.

If you want to consider faith within science there is really nothing to talk about at all.

And so?

And so talking about art within a science framework is kind of a misfit.

I’d prefer you stayed and spent more time understanding alternate perspectives. I think you still have much to learn.

Yeah, if people only answered questions when they were asked, and they were honest about it. How helpful that would have been.

There are two approaches to this type of issue. (1) The texts are presented in an objective manner in an attempt to understand what the authors intended, or similar. I have found these types of discussion are often polite and productive. (2) The proponent asserts that a particular text is truth and proceeds from that assumption. That usually meets with justifiable opposition. Neither approach is entirely free from those that simply want to criticize, but in the first approach those irritants can usually be ignored.

Yeah, the irritants have to be ignored. They should have started their own threads anyway. I won't be responding to them -- I promise.

Unfortunately you continue to assert your perspective and opinion even here as if it absolute whereas this is one of those key areas that are the subject of intense debate. Like I said, you will unlikely make any progress in real debate until you learn to understand and appreciate alternate views. Really consider the possibility that you could be wrong and from that position of humility you will earn and gain respect from others.

Yes, there are times I have been wrong, but I'll admit it. I've never heard anyone else here admit it when they knew they are wrong. As a result I've lost respect for those. They are proud of themselves, but I'm not.

Why is having to justify an assertion ugly?

It wasn't your assertion that was ugly. It's the debate process that get's to be ugly at times. I personally enjoy an environment that finds truth through edification.

 

[leopold]

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=47143

i wonder what some of the posters in that thread think about the placebo effect.

 

[Woody]

i wonder what some of the posters in that thread think about the placebo effect.

I deleted it from my post.