James R., Skinwalker, and Cris are all atheists. Although I will not claim any of them are biased because of this stance, is it not peculiar that a religion sub-forum should be moderated purely by those which reject the claims of all religions? Indeed, does this not often lead the way to an unfairness in moderation?

Accordingly, I suggest/nominate that LightGigantic or TheoryOfRelativity (if she returns) should be made a moderator of the religion sub-forum.

The reasons for such are simple: LightGigantic is openly theistic and TheoryOfRelativity is at least theistic leaning.

I'd also include SamCDKey, as an Islamic woman, but she has recently been promoted in other areas and so I thought it best not to include her.

I agree. I also recommend that the domain name is changed to Godforums.com

it isnt the atheist moderators that are the problem..the problem is that the atheist moderators promote an atmosphere of intolerance there.

James R., Skinwalker, and Cris are all atheists.

Am I?

Regardless, what makes you think an atheist is necessarily a bad moderator?

I agree. I also recommend that the domain name is changed to Godforums.com

Why would we do that?

Am I?

Regardless, what makes you think an atheist is necessarily a bad moderator?

it would kind of be like asking a creationist to moderate the genetics subforum, and allowing them to transform it into an "only if the bible says so" kind of place....

you are really quiet there, though....the main problem comes from the other 2, in my experience.

Why would we do that?
Erm..

Can I get back to you?

No problem.

i bet spurious feels a little better.

why stop at james, skin, and cris?
let's pick on bells, sam, absane, vslayer, and all the rest.

HELP!. HELP!
the mods are squashing our rights and freedoms!
jackbooted nazis i say!

pseudo help us!
the mods are chasing us with flamethrowers!

I really don't think any mod is overdoing it at all.

seems to be the people whos arguments got owned are doing the bitching.

Regardless of his/her religious affiliation, a moderator should be able to spot useless comments and threads and do away with them. This does not require any special training except that innate sense to discriminate (people can always complain if they wish) and the current moderation is fine.

If religious affiliation does matter, however, I would propose the opposite and have an atheist moderate the Religion Sub-forum. LightGigantic will undoubtedly do away with "atheistic ad-hom attacks."

i dont see alot of overmoderation..mostly undermoderation.

i dont see alot of overmoderation..mostly undermoderation.
what!? are you crazy?
just the other day i caught james filing his teeth mumbling something about "those fucking posters".

what!? are you crazy?
just the other day i caught james filing his teeth mumbling something about "those fucking posters".

:) he should start using the filed teeth to chew the fat off of this site.

:) he should start using the filed teeth to chew the fat off of this site.

I'll have you know, I like all my jiggly bits.:mad:

I'll have you know, I like all my jiggly bits.:mad:
Oh dont remind me.

I had a horror moment the other day when I looked down while laughing and saw my pregnant belly bobbing up and down like a basketball.:eek:

I'm still recovering from that horror. I shall never laugh again until after junior #2 is born:( ..

I'll have you know, I like all my jiggly bits.:mad:

dont hang them out, then!!

James R.:

Correct me if I am wrong, but you are an atheist, are you not?

Also, it is not that Atheists are automatically bad moderators, but it seems absurd to have -three- Atheist moderators and no Theist moderators, in a forum about religion.

At least one Theistically inclined moderator could at least give a semblance of representation for that group.

James R.:

Correct me if I am wrong, but you are an atheist, are you not?

Also, it is not that Atheists are automatically bad moderators, but it seems absurd to have -three- Atheist moderators and no Theist moderators, in a forum about religion.

At least one Theistically inclined moderator could at least give a semblance of representation for that group.
"At least one Theistically inclined moderator could at least give a semblance of representation for that group."

Makes perfect sense to me. Why not? Or perhaps a compromise: *Medicine*Woman* lol

Oh dont remind me.

I had a horror moment the other day when I looked down while laughing and saw my pregnant belly bobbing up and down like a basketball.:eek:

I'm still recovering from that horror. I shall never laugh again until after junior #2 is born:( ..

I hate to break this to you Bells, but "you might look fine as you advance but have you seen your rear- er I mean yourself retreating?" :D

Correct me if I am wrong, but you are an atheist, are you not?

Do you know, I think you're the first person on sciforums ever to ask that direct question to me. I wondered how long it would take. About 6 years, it seems. :)

The answer is: I'm a weak atheist (I think that is the correct term for it). Until not too long ago, I would have said I was an agnostic, but my beliefs have shifted enough in the last few years that I think it's fair to say I'm no longer a true agnostic in the technical sense.

Also, it is not that Atheists are automatically bad moderators, but it seems absurd to have -three- Atheist moderators and no Theist moderators, in a forum about religion.

My experience of sciforums is that people of a particular religious belief tend to be quite one-sided in that belief. What we have here, under our atheistic moderation, is a forum where the Muslim, for example, is on equal footing with the Christian - something quite rare on internet forums discussing religion, I imagine.

I don't think all theists would necessarily be biased moderators, but I've seen many people on this site who I would have reservations about.

The only remaining question is whether there is a bias against religion itself. Speaking personally, I am quite happy if people want to discuss aspects of their beliefs. If people want to debate the meaning of Psalms 12:15, that's fine with me - that's part of what this forum is here for. But the funny thing is, people mostly never do that here. Instead, they want to play the "my religion is better than your religion" game, and more often than not they want to play the game as an atheists vs. theists game. Maybe it's actually because there is a higher-than-normal population of atheists on sciforums than on other religion forums. But then, that's a good thing, isn't it? Theists don't often get the chance to actually debate their faiths with non-believers; they tend to mix with other believers. A solid faith should surely be able to stand up to anything a mere atheist could throw against it?

I can't see the atheist moderators actually censoring any discussion here. Can you? If they did, that would be a problem which would need addressing. But other than that, I can't see any real problem with the moderators as things stand.

My policy here is fairly "hands off", especially since we have 2 other moderators who do an excellent job.

But maybe you have in mind examples where debate has been stifled?

I hate to break this to you Bells, but "you might look fine as you advance but have you seen your rear- er I mean yourself retreating?" :D
Yes I have. Thankfully it's not as bad as the stomach is at the moment..:p

----------------------------------------------------

As to the topic at hand..

I think it might make better sense to have someone who is an atheist moderating a religious sub-forum. Having a person who had theistic tendencies could result in bias for one particular belief system or against other belief systems.

Also, it is not that Atheists are automatically bad moderators, but it seems absurd to have -three- Atheist moderators and no Theist moderators, in a forum about religion.

i've often wondered the same thing. 3, count 'em, 3 mods for one forum, all atheist.
the question we need to ask is "what exactly is to be discussed in the religion forum".
this is, in essence, a science board therefor it's safe to assume the topics discussed in the religion forum will, or should, fall along those lines.
topics such as religion vs. evolution belongs there.
"preaching the bible" does not.

i can see why it would take 3 mods and why they are atheist.

i can see why it would take 3 mods and why they are atheist.

As to why it takes 3 moderators: first, 2 of them do most of the work. Second, people seem to have trouble controlling themselves.

The three topics you aren't meant to discuss in polite dinner-table conversation are: politics, religion and sex.

Which topics on sciforums see the most heated debates? Three guesses.

James R.:

Do you know, I think you're the first person on sciforums ever to ask that direct question to me. I wondered how long it would take. About 6 years, it seems.

I'm quite honoured, then! Very amusing and interesting that no one has out and out asked your religious affiliation in that time, though.

The answer is: I'm a weak atheist (I think that is the correct term for it). Until not too long ago, I would have said I was an agnostic, but my beliefs have shifted enough in the last few years that I think it's fair to say I'm no longer a true agnostic in the technical sense.

Would you mind elaborating? Would you say you are rather like, say, Bertrand Russel rather than a Daniel Dennet or Richard Dawkin?

My experience of sciforums is that people of a particular religious belief tend to be quite one-sided in that belief. What we have here, under our atheistic moderation, is a forum where the Muslim, for example, is on equal footing with the Christian - something quite rare on internet forums discussing religion, I imagine.

This is a good point. However, can you not also see a situation where both Moslem and Christian are held to be inferior to the Atheists? Although I am not willing out right say that Atheists are immune to moderation on the religion board, it would seem that some users are indeed given a hard time by other members, when if the tables were turned, such would not occur.

Again, perhaps not systematic bias, but I think this could be rectified by giving -one- theist - specifically good, non-partisan theists - a chance. LightGigantic is hardly going to attack a Christian for not being a Hindu, nor TheoryOfRelativity a Buddhist for not being her "general Theism".

I don't think all theists would necessarily be biased moderators, but I've seen many people on this site who I would have reservations about.

I am not suggesting an Adstar or Lixluke, mind you.

A solid faith should surely be able to stand up to anything a mere atheist could throw against it?

I agree totally, but Theists should have at least -one- representative out of three to make sure they are being treated failure.

I can't see the atheist moderators actually censoring any discussion here. Can you? If they did, that would be a problem which would need addressing. But other than that, I can't see any real problem with the moderators as things stand.

I'd say they are sometimes hostile to some Theists through omission. LightGigantic is ragged upon horribly and no one does anything. Others get away with similar behaviours.

Would you mind elaborating? Would you say you are rather like, say, Bertrand Russel rather than a Daniel Dennet or Richard Dawkin?

I'm not sure of the nuances of the views of Dennett or Russell. I'm fairly conversant with Dawkins, and while I agree with him on many issues I disagree with his view that religion has no redeeming features of any kind. In general, though, I think both Dennett and Dawkins are on the side of Right and Good. They aren't out to lynch people who disagree with them. They want to provoke discussion.

This is a good point. However, can you not also see a situation where both Moslem and Christian are held to be inferior to the Atheists?

Yes, certainly. I've seen it happen right here, where a bunch of self-described atheists attack theists for being inferior. Usually, those kinds of atheists don't actually have good reasons for their atheism. They tend to be teenagers who see atheism as part of their general rebellion against the authority of their parents and others who are older and wiser than they are.

Although I am not willing out right say that Atheists are immune to moderation on the religion board, it would seem that some users are indeed given a hard time by other members, when if the tables were turned, such would not occur.

I'm not so sure. I've also seen some lively discussions in which atheists have been strongly attacked by massed groups of theists.

I'd say they are sometimes hostile to some Theists through omission. LightGigantic is ragged upon horribly and no one does anything. Others get away with similar behaviours.

I think it goes both ways, and I think a certain amount of it is both unavoidable and tolerable on a religion forum like this one.

If things get out of hand, I urge anybody who is really offended to hit the "report" button. Or, as things stand, you can actually hand out infraction points to misbehaving members who break the rules.

"If things get out of hand, I urge anybody who is really offended to hit the "report" button. Or, as things stand, you can actually hand out infraction points to misbehaving members who break the rules."

Glad you brought that up. I don't seem to be able to find any records entailing the tallies. Is it confidential information until we're hit on the head with an infraction, like, pre-banned??

James R.:

I'm not sure of the nuances of the views of Dennett or Russell. I'm fairly conversant with Dawkins, and while I agree with him on many issues I disagree with his view that religion has no redeeming features of any kind. In general, though, I think both Dennett and Dawkins are on the side of Right and Good. They aren't out to lynch people who disagree with them. They want to provoke discussion.

Well put.

Yes, certainly. I've seen it happen right here, where a bunch of self-described atheists attack theists for being inferior. Usually, those kinds of atheists don't actually have good reasons for their atheism. They tend to be teenagers who see atheism as part of their general rebellion against the authority of their parents and others who are older and wiser than they are.

Agreed. It is a mark of immaturity and insufficient reason when an Atheist is completely vicious to Theists. However, I worry if some of that viciousness displayed, at times, to religious posters is not tolerated a bit more.

I'm not so sure. I've also seen some lively discussions in which atheists have been strongly attacked by massed groups of theists.

Here on Sci?

I think it goes both ways, and I think a certain amount of it is both unavoidable and tolerable on a religion forum like this one.

If things get out of hand, I urge anybody who is really offended to hit the "report" button. Or, as things stand, you can actually hand out infraction points to misbehaving members who break the rules.

I shall certainly be judiciously employing such, however, I still maintain that the presence of at least one theistic moderator would do more to assure these things are not usual.

Glad you brought that up. I don't seem to be able to find any records entailing the tallies. Is it confidential information until we're hit on the head with an infraction, like, pre-banned??

Click on the user's name and you should be able to see their list of infractions in their profile (unless only moderators can see them...)

Also, it is not that Atheists are automatically bad moderators, but it seems absurd to have -three- Atheist moderators and no Theist moderators, in a forum about religion.

At least one Theistically inclined moderator could at least give a semblance of representation for that group.

Moderation is not about 'equal representation'. Either you assess the moderator's actions based on what he/she is expected to do or you leave them alone. Your argument is as logically defective as a person who insists a president who has lived all their life in the country is the only one who knows whats best for the country. If you have examples of where the moderators have failed, present them. If they are arguing from their own personal beliefs but have not shown any predilection for closing down theist's threads then I see no problem.

And no, meanwhile, MW is NOT the moderator to look for...

Oh, and there was a time back in the day when not only were there a lot more theists active in the Religion forum, but discussion was actually 'delightful', if not pleasant. I remember the good old days when Proud Muslim used to be active on the boards. That was the heyday of the Religion forum.. Now no one worthwhile bothers to post because we have threads derailed in the first 2 responses by imbeciles like Baron Max and sderenzi.

Do you know, I think you're the first person on sciforums ever to ask that direct question to me. I wondered how long it would take. About 6 years, it seems.

I remember you saying elsewhere on the board that you were agnostic.

"If things get out of hand, I urge anybody who is really offended to hit the "report" button. Or, as things stand, you can actually hand out infraction points to misbehaving members who break the rules."

Glad you brought that up. I don't seem to be able to find any records entailing the tallies. Is it confidential information until we're hit on the head with an infraction, like, pre-banned??
the problem is that scoring infractions and replying abuses of persons who are mods is completely fruitless

Moderation is not about 'equal representation'. Either you assess the moderator's actions based on what he/she is expected to do or you leave them alone. Your argument is as logically defective as a person who insists a president who has lived all their life in the country is the only one who knows whats best for the country. If you have examples of where the moderators have failed, present them. If they are arguing from their own personal beliefs but have not shown any predilection for closing down theist's threads then I see no problem.
while I do agree that the ability to moderate should not be determined by one's predilection, its obvious that having a team of atheists as mods could lead to an 'inherant' blindness in following up on transgressions of ettiquette for intelligent discusion - for instance there are numerous atheists who are capable of intelligent discussion (if they weren't they wouldn't be able to get books on the shelves of academic circles by labelling theism as "Bullshit" etc), but when that gets sold out to mod endorsed and even mod emmanating ad homs, the discussion gets derailed

Or to speak very frankly, why do I have to deal with skinwalker moaning about "poppy cock/bullshit/plagurizing" on every thread? What would happen to me if I hung off every thread of someone else and labelled them in such nasty terms, regardless of the thread topic and what was posted?
And why was satyr able to get away with doing that to me unchecked?
And why does skinwalker do the same to a lesser degree?

personally this is my perception of the mods

JamesR - impartial and equipoised, but not really present in the forum - seems like he is more into hitting on to sock puppets and advertising spammers

Cris - not impartial, but capable of coming close to it by dint of his intelligence and reasoning - also a bit absent on the field - he has to be really pushed to bring notice to someone who is off the wall (seems like he usually locks nutcase theistic threads and thats about it)

Skinwalker - not impartial - has a personal vendetta against the intelligent discussion of religion (unless of course it falls within his personal tastes of what he considers to be truth) - has a very open ear to the claims of atheists - and in fact canvases for it, but remains totally deaf to any complaint from a theist on the same grounds

If it was possible to add skinwalker to the ignore list, perhaps it would be more tolerable. The religious thread was not so bad before skinwalker came on as a mod - I would like to see him lose his status as a mod, but of course that will never happen

It would be good if there was a theistic mod on board - my personal vote goes to sam since she seems capable of handling a scene of unanimous animosity with intelligence and reason.

even this might disturb the status quo of the ruling atheists so perhaps it could be better to bring on a more reasoned atheist such as Prince James (although it might get a bit confusing with two mods named james)

The religious thread was not so bad before skinwalker came on as a mod - I would like to see him lose his status as a mod, but of course that will never happen

The question is is he using his position and powers as a mod to disrupt discussion? Or is he just a moderator with an opinion?

If the former, then you have a right to bitch.
If the latter, then you should get over it.

Skinwalker's always been there in the religious forum bashing the religious. You'll find him in pseudoscience and parapsychology as well.
It's his hobby.

Just because he's now a mod doesn't mean that he should give up his hobby, now does it?

"If things get out of hand, I urge anybody who is really offended to hit the "report" button. Or, as things stand, you can actually hand out infraction points to misbehaving members who break the rules."

Glad you brought that up. I don't seem to be able to find any records entailing the tallies. Is it confidential information until we're hit on the head with an infraction, like, pre-banned??

The question is is he using his position and powers as a mod to disrupt discussion? Or is he just a moderator with an opinion?

If the former, then you have a right to bitch.
If the latter, then you should get over it.

Skinwalker's always been there in the religious forum bashing the religious. You'll find him in pseudoscience and parapsychology as well.
It's his hobby.

Just because he's now a mod doesn't mean that he should give up his hobby, now does it?

no -thats why i think the solution is to bring in someone else as a mod - when someone is on the rampage with their value system that is ok - when they become doubley haughty from the pearly towers of mod ship by doctoring posts to suit their needs interests and concerns and are immune to infringements and ignore listing it makes minesweeper intriguing

by doctoring posts to suit their needs interests and concerns

You're accusing Skinwalker of editing the posts of those he is debating in order to gain an unfair advantage over them?

You're accusing Skinwalker of editing the posts of those he is debating in order to gain an unfair advantage over them?

nothing quite so direct - I mean he doesn't edit the content (although he has canvassed for atheists to give him a vote of confidence to send a thread I was participating in to the cess pool - http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1244387&postcount=59)- its more like he will go on with a diatribe of antagonism within a thread and if after responding abusively to refined requests for clarity and examination of the thread issue at hand, one responds by suggesting he is slightly silly, he deletes one's post to the effect of "don't you know its against the rules to ad hom" - its more an issue of haughty hypocrisy - it seeems like he would prefer to discuss religion in the assembly of atheists, or more correctly have an assembly of whimpering theists to bow down before him while he slaps the backs of his atheist chums

Its kind of like modship transforms run of the mill ad homming into over the top ad homming that disregards any pretense of civility.

You're accusing Skinwalker of editing the posts of those he is debating in order to gain an unfair advantage over them?

he specifically deleted posts of mine in the history forum...documented, referenced posts....for no particular reason, as far as i can see.

What is evident above, with regard to LG, is that he is upset that someone with an opinion that summarily rejects his silliness as valid arguments has found status as a moderator. At no time have I ever used my position as a moderator to further "my side" of the argument. Indeed, I've used my position on several occasions to ensure that he is not insulted or berated by other atheists who have used terms such as "moron," "idiot," and the like.

LG is upset because I deleted several of his off-topic posts, as I did with others, including those of atheists. One of his off-topic posts were clearly baiting and trolling. Instead of issuing an infraction, I deleted it, which ensured that some other member doesn't use this as an excuse to issue one.

Finally, LG mentioned above that I "canvassed for atheists to give [me] a vote of confidence to send a thread I [he was] participating in to the cess pool." Surely LG isn't daft. Anyone who looks at the post in context with his prior to that can see that I was answering his thinly veiled insult (which I did not give an unseemly infraction for) challenging me to move to the cesspool.

What is clearly occurring here is that LG has his/her panties in a wad because I'm opinionated and also a mod. Tough shit. He/she can get over it or keep crying. My money is not on the former.

What is evident above, with regard to LG, is that he is upset that someone with an opinion that summarily rejects his silliness as valid arguments has found status as a moderator. At no time have I ever used my position as a moderator to further "my side" of the argument. Indeed, I've used my position on several occasions to ensure that he is not insulted or berated by other atheists who have used terms such as "moron," "idiot," and the like.

LG is upset because I deleted several of his off-topic posts, as I did with others, including those of atheists. One of his off-topic posts were clearly baiting and trolling. Instead of issuing an infraction, I deleted it, which ensured that some other member doesn't use this as an excuse to issue one.

Finally, LG mentioned above that I "canvassed for atheists to give [me] a vote of confidence to send a thread I [he was] participating in to the cess pool." Surely LG isn't daft. Anyone who looks at the post in context with his prior to that can see that I was answering his thinly veiled insult (which I did not give an unseemly infraction for) challenging me to move to the cesspool.

What is clearly occurring here is that LG has his/her panties in a wad because I'm opinionated and also a mod. Tough shit. He/she can get over it or keep crying. My money is not on the former.

The result of having to face an on slaught of mod endorsed ad homs is not one of being distraught - it is one of boredom - if, as a moderator, you are actually interested in getting a variety of views to participate in a discussion, you should think about adopting policies similar to your counterparts (cris and jamesR) and display the ability to refrain from trolling - its not that you are am opinionated mod - it is that you are an arrogant mod who feels free they can drop in with insults any time they want , such as this

LG will just say something like he can "conceptualize" it therefore it exists. Or some bullshit mumbo jumbo about how "disciplic succession" exists among those that truly believe. In other words, LG seems to think that people can simply self-profess and become experts in the supernatural by believing hard enough.

couple this with your extreme reluctance to discuss the philosophical premises behind your assertions

I'm not in the spirit of discussing bullshit. I *am* in the spirit of pointing out bullshit. Your spouting bullshit and calling it philosophical discussion. LG has spoken. Anyone 2nd the motion or object?

and wouldn't you expect an insult to be delivered?

It must be noted that LightGigantic does not even -deserve- ad hominem attacks. He is not unreasonable and he is well versed in his religion and philosophy and a competant and intriguing debater. In fact, he is the most rational Theist proponent on SciForums. If he was a lunatic like some of our whacky Christians, this would be different.

Can we not have some fairness? Can we not have professionalism? Must we flame people?

Science stems from "knowledge". As we're supposed to be scientists after a fashion, why then are we acting like ignorant bastards that must resort to insults?

Could "whacky" be a subjective quality? I'll commit to reducing my "ad hom" (as LG calls it) tendency if LG will decrease his intellectual dishonesty.

Where do you find him intellectually dishonest?

Only one person is truly complaining about you Skinwalker.
Maybe you should just let him be and go with the flow until he truly does something against the forum rules (spam, insults, etc.)?

Where do you find him intellectually dishonest?


Theism is intellectually dishonest.

Phlogistician:

How so?

Theism is intellectually dishonest.



How so?

like so:

If you don't know the answer to a question you can look it up in the bible. If you do know the answer you can check the bible if you are correct.

Phlogistician:

How so?

1. Because it relies on faith.
2. Because a belief in a creator god has to excuse itself the question of this supposed god's origins, and therefore does not satisfy the original question 'where did the Universe come from', this is dishonest.
3. Because largely belief in 'god' implies there is only one, and it is the christian god, and there is no reason to suspect this.
4. Because largely people come to the conclusion that it's unlikely that conditions on Earth are 'exactly right' to support life as we know it. This is absurd, if the Earth were different, life would be different. Take deep sea creatures around 'black smokers', surviving intense pressure and heat. Different conditions, different life forms.

I'm sure others will add more reasons.

Spuriousmonkey:

That is Christianity, not theism. There is a difference. For instance, our friend LightGigantic is a Hindu.

Phlogistician:

1. Because it relies on faith.

Theism is a philosophical proposition at heart. One needn't have faith in it. However, most people who bleieve in God do have faith.

2. Because a belief in a creator god has to excuse itself the question of this supposed god's origins, and therefore does not satisfy the original question 'where did the Universe come from', this is dishonest.

Actually, most arguments centre on God being necessary.

3. Because largely belief in 'god' implies there is only one, and it is the christian god, and there is no reason to suspect this.

The greater part of 4 billion people disagree. Theism is not Christianity. One billion Moslems, 700 million Hindus, a billion or so Buddhists, 15 million Jews, all do not affirm this at all.

4. Because largely people come to the conclusion that it's unlikely that conditions on Earth are 'exactly right' to support life as we know it. This is absurd, if the Earth were different, life would be different. Take deep sea creatures around 'black smokers', surviving intense pressure and heat. Different conditions, different life forms.

This is an argument that has developed, maybe, in the last 50 years.

1. Because it relies on faith.
2. Because a belief in a creator god has to excuse itself the question of this supposed god's origins, and therefore does not satisfy the original question 'where did the Universe come from', this is dishonest.
3. Because largely belief in 'god' implies there is only one, and it is the christian god, and there is no reason to suspect this.
4. Because largely people come to the conclusion that it's unlikely that conditions on Earth are 'exactly right' to support life as we know it. This is absurd, if the Earth were different, life would be different. Take deep sea creatures around 'black smokers', surviving intense pressure and heat. Different conditions, different life forms.

I'm sure others will add more reasons.

There's nothing dishonest nor intellectual about their honest beliefs, is there?

1) Is faith an intellectualism?
2) The excused question about God's origin does not quite originate from their own quarters, no?
3) It would be rather difficult for them to contradict the notion of a single God, no?

Spuriousmonkey:

That is Christianity, not theism. There is a difference. For instance, our friend LightGigantic is a Hindu.


Cool...so you are saying you can make up any answer in Hinduism? There is no dogma to follow?

Cool...so you are saying you can make up any answer in Hinduism? There is no dogma to follow?

actually I only engage in down the line scriptural arguments with persons who accept the scriptures as authoratative - on the other side, I mostly utilize the philsoophical elements of the vedas in dealing with atheists.

4. Because largely people come to the conclusion that it's unlikely that conditions on Earth are 'exactly right' to support life as we know it. This is absurd, if the Earth were different, life would be different. Take deep sea creatures around 'black smokers', surviving intense pressure and heat. Different conditions, different life forms.

.

Now this is an eg of intellectual dishonesty - its just another guess at the nature of abiogenesis that is yet to be established (like all other abiogenetic claims) yet it is called upon as a resource as if it was credible

Arguing the intellectual dishonesty of theists is not the purpose of this thread.

SkinWalker is a decent moderator and does not need to leave.
Only one person adamantly holds a grudge against him, and it is hardly a majority to remove SkinWalker.

Can we have a vote and get this over with?

actually I only engage in down the line scriptural arguments with persons who accept the scriptures as authoratative - on the other side, I mostly utilize the philsoophical elements of the vedas in dealing with atheists.

And this somehow doesn't entail specific answers? Answers that arise from hinduism? Or are you trying to pull my nose here and state that you invented hinduism? That you argue based on your own philosophy? One that isn't handed down to you on a golden platter by the dogmas of hinduism?

Let me guess what you are going to answer. You are going to evade to question by pointing out that atheists don't have original thoughts. That all is taught. My friend, that's ok for atheists. They can just switch between ideas. You can't really can you? That Could end your existence as a theist.

You are going to evade to question by pointing out that atheists don't have original thoughts. That all is taught. My friend, that's ok for atheists. They can just switch between ideas. You can't really can you?Atheists are also stringent and must keep on track: anything that is not religion with a capital R and not atheistic, is unceremoniously relegated to a pseudo quote unquote science category.

For the most part, LightGigantic doesn't quote scripture as his proofs, but rather to elaborate on concepts. Although it can be frustrating at times when he takes on a position I find inviable, it is nonetheless a fruitful discourse that if one were willing to take on, would be worth your time.

Anyway, I have no desire to see any of the mods leave in religion, only for a Theist to be represented. I say LG as he is active and a known Theist.

spurious monkey
“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
actually I only engage in down the line scriptural arguments with persons who accept the scriptures as authoratative - on the other side, I mostly utilize the philsoophical elements of the vedas in dealing with atheists.
”
And this somehow doesn't entail specific answers? Answers that arise from hinduism? Or are you trying to pull my nose here and state that you invented hinduism? That you argue based on your own philosophy? One that isn't handed down to you on a golden platter by the dogmas of hinduism?
wrong on all counts - here is an eg of what I mean

PRAMANA - (Sanskrit: “measure”), in Indian philosophy, the means by which one obtains accurate and valid knowledge (prama, pramiti) about the world. The accepted number of pramana varies, according to the philosophical system or school; the exegetic system of Mimamsa accepts five, whereas Vedanta as a whole proposes three.

The three principal means of knowledge are (1) perception, (2) inference, and (3) word. Perception (pratyaksa) is of two kinds, direct sensory perception (anubhava) and such perception remembered (smrti). Inference (anumana) is based on perception but is able to conclude something that may not be open to perception. The word (sabda) is, in the first place, the Veda, the validity of which is self-authenticated. Some philosophers broaden the concept of sabda to include the statement of a reliable person (apta-vakya). To these, two additional means of knowledge have been added: (4) analogy (upamana), which enables one to grasp the meaning of a word by analogy of the meaning of a similar word, and (5) circumstantial implication (arthapatti), which appeals to common sense (e.g., one does not see the sun move from minute to minute, but, as it is in a different place at different times of day, one must conclude that it has moved

http://www.britannica.com/ebc/article-9061193

Let me guess what you are going to answer. You are going to evade to question by pointing out that atheists don't have original thoughts.
actually I didn't think to bring it up but the thought has occurred to me more than once that there are only about half a dozen different atheistic arguments ventured here (with about two common ones - namely the 'religion as socially constructed' eg or 'its all in your head' eg) - you can find more variety of atheistic arguments ventured in the vedas

That all is taught. My friend, that's ok for atheists. They can just switch between ideas. You can't really can you? That Could end your existence as a theist.
Actually I have encountered great resistence from atheists when I presentthe idea that everything is taught - they seem to strongly be convinced that evidence is somehow self evident (which hopefully the encyclopedia brittanica excerpt might establish the foolishness of - of course such foolishness can be exposed by many standard forms of philosophy found in and outside of religion everywhere)

Theism is intellectually dishonest.

Unfortunately, if Skinwalker would answer the same as you, then he would be saying that he would lesson his ad homs if light gigantic would stop being so much of a theist.

Calling theists intellectually dishonest in this light is ridiculous and useless.

That is, of course, unless the purpose of the religious forum here is to cure the theists of their lunacy.
Personally, I've seen the forum as more of a place that bible-bashers can sharpen their knives.

Of course, don't get me wrong. The bible-kissers know this as well (or soon come to learn it) and stick around. They enjoy the conflict as much as the other side.
Interesting to watch. Well, no, not really. I rarely watch. Quite boring, actually.

But, regardless, both sides like kicking the other side in the nuts. Good friendly violent fun in store for all.
In text.

Unfortunately, if Skinwalker would answer the same as you, then he would be saying that he would lesson his ad homs if light gigantic would stop being so much of a theist.

Calling theists intellectually dishonest in this light is ridiculous and useless.

That is, of course, unless the purpose of the religious forum here is to cure the theists of their lunacy.
Personally, I've seen the forum as more of a place that bible-bashers can sharpen their knives.

Of course, don't get me wrong. The bible-kissers know this as well (or soon come to learn it) and stick around. They enjoy the conflict as much as the other side.
Interesting to watch. Well, no, not really. I rarely watch. Quite boring, actually.

But, regardless, both sides like kicking the other side in the nuts. Good friendly violent fun in store for all.
In text.


Its the nature of debate (oops that right - its a discussion forum) to have two opposing sides and, regardless of your perception of the boredom of it, slipping into ad homming kind of makes it pathetic
eg

"am not"
"are so!"
"am not!!"
"are so!!!"
"am not!!!!"
"are so!!!!!"

at least in real life you might have the delight of actually seeing someone writhing on the pavement clutching their groin, but on the net, ad hom competitions are down there amongst the fungal growths on the backsides of deep sea lobsters

Phlogistician:

Theism is a philosophical proposition at heart. One needn't have faith in it. However, most people who bleieve in God do have faith.

No, Theism is the belief in god or gods, so faith and belief are inherent. If you are to debate, make sure you apply the terminology correctly.

Actually, most arguments centre on God being necessary.

What sort of excuse is that? People arrive at 'God' being the answer when they question their own origins. They do then then apply the same question to 'God'. How dishonest is that? Stopping asking questions when the answers appear to be invonvenient?

The greater part of 4 billion people disagree. Theism is not Christianity. One billion Moslems, 700 million Hindus, a billion or so Buddhists, 15 million Jews, all do not affirm this at all.

I didn't say Theism was Christianity, but largely that the god in question was the christian one, who may I remind you, is the very same god that jews believe in. As Allah is the 'one god' too, he must be the veryt same. You must separate the issues dear boy. Religios schizms are based on the same mythologies. But why if there is one fundamental 'truth' are their schizms?

Now this is an eg of intellectual dishonesty - its just another guess at the nature of abiogenesis that is yet to be established (like all other abiogenetic claims) yet it is called upon as a resource as if it was credible

OK, so, when you think of life, do you think about _all_ life on Earth? Not just that which you can see daily, but that which is still being discovered?

Until recently, nobody would have thought it possible that anything could live at great pressure and temperature, but life, animal life, has been found around 'black smokers' on the sea bed. 400degC, 2100m depth, and acidic conditions, not what we think of as suitable for life, but there it is! Life utilises abundant elements in the Earth's crust, Iron, Carbon, and Oxygen, does that not seem a little more dependant on chemistry, rather than theism? Life also uses copper instead of iron in blood, in some crustaceans. Seems life will occur in many and various ways. The world it seems, was not created to support life, but life has occurred using whatever is to hand.

When you talk of guessing, abiogenesis is no more a guess than any theistic premise, except in very short laboratory experiments amino acids, the building blocks of life itself, have been created! Given longer, and wider sets of parameters, we may be able to demonstrate abiogenesis. The Earth has had an experiment running for over 4 billion years, give the guys in white coats a chance, eh?

There's nothing dishonest nor intellectual about their honest beliefs, is there?

Missing the point entirely, my point is that there is no such thing as an 'honest' belief. If you tell someone something that you don't know is true yourself, as a truth, that is lying. This is how the myth if theism is propagated.

1) Is faith an intellectualism?

Certainly not! We see the fruits of 'faith', subjugation, empty ritual, war, persecution, are those intellectual responses?

2) The excused question about God's origin does not quite originate from their own quarters, no?

What is the theists answer about God's origin then? He was always there? Please, that is in no way satisfactory. If he was always there, how long did he wait before creating the Earth, and why did he wait? What else was he doing? It just begs more questions!

3) It would be rather difficult for them to contradict the notion of a single God, no?

Why? Solely because you can't understand how more than one could exist?

phlogistician
“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
Now this is an eg of intellectual dishonesty - its just another guess at the nature of abiogenesis that is yet to be established (like all other abiogenetic claims) yet it is called upon as a resource as if it was credible
”
OK, so, when you think of life, do you think about _all_ life on Earth?
that and a whole lot more



Not just that which you can see daily, but that which is still being discovered?
you mean like this from the padma purana

jalajä nava-lakñäëi
sthävarä lakña-viàçati
kåmayo rudra-saìkhyakäù
pakñiëäà daça-lakñaëam
triàçal-lakñäëi paçavaù
catur-lakñäëi mänuñäù

There are 900,000 species living in the water. There are 2,000,000 nonmoving living entities such as trees and plants. There are 1,100,000 species of insects and reptiles, and 1,000,000 species of birds. As far as quadrupeds are concerned, there are 3,000,000 varieties, and there are 400,000 human species.

how many more specie sof humans do empiricists have to discover before they have found them all?

Until recently, nobody would have thought it possible that anything could live at great pressure and temperature,
old news I'm afraid - its already mentioned in bhagavad-gita, giving a few clues where empiricists are likely to encounter more life

BG 2.23: The soul can never be cut to pieces by any weapon, nor burned by fire, nor moistened by water, nor withered by the wind.




but life, animal life, has been found around 'black smokers' on the sea bed. 400degC, 2100m depth, and acidic conditions, not what we think of as suitable for life, but there it is!
Its hardly surprising that empricists are redefining their views

Life utilises abundant elements in the Earth's crust, Iron, Carbon, and Oxygen, does that not seem a little more dependant on chemistry, rather than theism?
quite frankly, no

Life also uses copper instead of iron in blood, in some crustaceans. Seems life will occur in many and various ways. The world it seems, was not created to support life, but life has occurred using whatever is to hand.
"it seems" "perhaps" and "maybe" are integral to empirical fact

When you talk of guessing, abiogenesis is no more a guess than any theistic premise, except in very short laboratory experiments amino acids, the building blocks of life itself, have been created!
which is as an effective break through as Wohler's synthesis of urea in the 1820's - synthesizing the chemicals life utilizes is a far shot from synthesizing life (175 years and still no progress)

Given longer, and wider sets of parameters, we may be able to demonstrate abiogenesis.
perhaps you are right

The Earth has had an experiment running for over 4 billion years, give the guys in white coats a chance, eh?
perhaps it is older than 4 billion years old and perhaps its not an experiment

Ah, lightgigantic, I see why others get frustrated with your lack of actual statement. Being vague isn't spiritual, it's annoying in a debate.

Can you stick to facts?

Missing the point entirely, my point is that there is no such thing as an 'honest' belief. If you tell someone something that you don't know is true yourself, as a truth, that is lying. This is how the myth of theism is propagated.No, I meant their honesty is candid enough as far as they are incapable of perceiving contradictions. Unfortunately though, 'R'eligions make sure viable contradictions are kept afield away from their flock.

But what happens when the flock congregates en masse? Just as in any other arena, the collective spirit of their unison will chant, vibrate, and swell. Perhaps that is why a public forum for discourse is not the best place to introduce quiet and sensible "contradictions". The religion forum serves only to aggravate confrontation and keep either side at bay.

Perhaps we need a new forum not christened "religion" -- a sort of half-way place, like flying abroad via Greenland.

Phlogistician:

No, Theism is the belief in god or gods, so faith and belief are inherent. If you are to debate, make sure you apply the terminology correctly.

God is a topic of philosophical invesitgation as much as an object of worship and faith. If you assert that God is not such, you also put Atheism on the level of belief and faith, and therefore you discredit that which you yourself affirm.

What sort of excuse is that? People arrive at 'God' being the answer when they question their own origins. They do then then apply the same question to 'God'. How dishonest is that? Stopping asking questions when the answers appear to be invonvenient?

Some people might give God as the answer of their own origins, but many do not. In fact, it is not necessary to believe God is a creator, even if he exists.

I didn't say Theism was Christianity, but largely that the god in question was the christian one, who may I remind you, is the very same god that jews believe in. As Allah is the 'one god' too, he must be the veryt same. You must separate the issues dear boy. Religios schizms are based on the same mythologies. But why if there is one fundamental 'truth' are their schizms?

Why do people get the value of x wrong in 4353x (42^231 - 2131)/42452.42242 * 2x^2 (4321/1323141) if there is one answer?

The topic is complicated. If God does exist, it is a deficiency of human reasoning that has not revealed a true path to understanding him.

That is the beauty of Jesus, He came to Earth so humans could see how God operates, Immanuel, God with Us. He came to Earth to die for our sins, so that those who accept His sacrifice for them will have everlasting life with Him, what a novel concept, plainly unlike any other religion.

Phlogistician:

God is a topic of philosophical invesitgation as much as an object of worship and faith.

Philosophically entertaining the idea of God would not require belief or faith, granted. But we are not talking about that, but 'Theism' which implies belief.

If you assert that God is not such, you also put Atheism on the level of belief and faith, and therefore you discredit that which you yourself affirm.

Have to pull you up on your terminology here again. Atheism can NEVER be on the level of belief and faith, that's the whole point of 'A', it's about NOT believing. We keep treading over the same ground on this forum, but Atheism is NOT a belief system, it is not a belief there is no God, but a lack of belief. You would be describing 'antitheism', which isn't used as a term, but should be, people stretch the term 'Atheism' to 'strong Atheism' which in my book, is a semantic travesty.

Some people might give God as the answer of their own origins, but many do not. In fact, it is not necessary to believe God is a creator, even if he exists.

Terminology violation there again I'm afraid. If you are going to use the term 'God' and as a proper name, it implies that exactly. If you just state 'a god' then I could perhaps agree, philosophically.

Phlogistican:

Philosophically entertaining the idea of God would not require belief or faith, granted. But we are not talking about that, but 'Theism' which implies belief.

Belief can be justified. A justified belief is the essence of philosophy.

Have to pull you up on your terminology here again. Atheism can NEVER be on the level of belief and faith, that's the whole point of 'A', it's about NOT believing. We keep treading over the same ground on this forum, but Atheism is NOT a belief system, it is not a belief there is no God, but a lack of belief. You would be describing 'antitheism', which isn't used as a term, but should be, people stretch the term 'Atheism' to 'strong Atheism' which in my book, is a semantic travesty.

To not believe in God affirms a faith in God's non-existence. How do you know that God does not exist? Do you know it through reason? If not, how can you affirm that there is no God?

If something is not validated by reason or empirical analysis, then it is faith based.

Terminology violation there again I'm afraid. If you are going to use the term 'God' and as a proper name, it implies that exactly. If you just state 'a god' then I could perhaps agree, philosophically.

There is nothing in the word God that implies creator. Unless we're talking about Jehova or Allah, which I do not remember referencing.

Phlogistican:

Belief can be justified. A justified belief is the essence of philosophy.

People can justify murdering people. Doesn't mean it's correct! Piling logic on logic in a circular manner, as theists do, it not proof. You need to understand the difference between justification, which in this case is only in the mind of the believer, and proof, which would be Universal.

Selling an idea to someone, that you an justify in your own mind, does not make it honest. You do not know if you are correct, so it should come with caveats, and error margins, and the opening premise defined. This is what science does, and belief fails to do.


To not believe in God affirms a faith in God's non-existence.

Oh boy, you need to go look at set theory, and sharpen your logic. You are seeing things and inferring things that just aren't there. Not believing in something is not the same as believing it doesn't exist. You obviously don't grasp the difference between 'A' and 'Anti'

How do you know that God does not exist?

I never said I knew that. I just said I didn't have a pro position, I never adopted the con.

Do you know it through reason?

I merely have no reason to believe.

If not, how can you affirm that there is no God?

That's not my responsibility, it is for those that make the claim to provide the evidence for, or I'll have to debunk faeries, the Loch Ness Monster, and the Abominable snowman amongst others too!

If something is not validated by reason or empirical analysis, then it is faith based.

Only the latter, evidence counts. Reason alone often fails to get to the right answer.

There is nothing in the word God that implies creator. Unless we're talking about Jehova or Allah, which I do not remember referencing.

You capitalise that 'G', and we are talking about the creator God of the Christian faith. They don't use YHWH or Allah, so the creator baggage comes with the PROPER NOUN you infer when you capitalise. If you don't mean 'God' as a name, use the term 'a god', it's very simple.

Ah, lightgigantic, I see why others get frustrated with your lack of actual statement. Being vague isn't spiritual, it's annoying in a debate.

Can you stick to facts?
standard response from an atheist (the unphilosophical variety of course)

"that is not real"

(along with a complete absence and in fact a stead fast defense to even express the general principles advocated for determining what falls within the folds of reality and what falls outside of it)

as such, what else can atheism be (the variety that leaves the safety of the bunkers of agnosticism to venture statements like "Can you stick to facts") except a type of faith

What the hell people?
This thread is about the religion sub-forum, not theism, and you both know its useless to argue it.

So, all in favor of keeping the moderation the same?

Missing the point entirely, my point is that there is no such thing as an 'honest' belief. If you tell someone something that you don't know is true yourself, as a truth, that is lying. This is how the myth if theism is propagated.



Certainly not! We see the fruits of 'faith', subjugation, empty ritual, war, persecution, are those intellectual responses?



What is the theists answer about God's origin then? He was always there? Please, that is in no way satisfactory. If he was always there, how long did he wait before creating the Earth, and why did he wait? What else was he doing? It just begs more questions!



Why? Solely because you can't understand how more than one could exist?

Why thankyou, I'm glad to see, instead of not being able to back yourself, you know exactly what your talking about. I don't know where this site was hiding but i'm glad i've found it and i'm glad people like you are affiliated with it.

Why thankyou, I'm glad to see, instead of not being able to back yourself, you know exactly what your talking about. I don't know where this site was hiding but i'm glad i've found it and i'm glad people like you are affiliated with it.

If you're a crazyassnaziatheist or just a normal atheist, this is the place to be on the Internet.
If atheism were a disease, it would spread from here.

What the hell people?
This thread is about the religion sub-forum, not theism, and you both know its useless to argue it.

So, all in favor of keeping the moderation the same?

Soooo.

:handsinpocket:

Any deists on board?

I'd also include SamCDKey, as an Islamic woman, but she has recently been promoted in other areas and so I thought it best not to include her.

SamCDKey referred to wiping herself with toilet paper and I got a rather nasty vision of it too (an intrusion into my private space). Vulgar person. She's religious????

To not believe in God affirms a faith in God's non-existence. How do you know that God does not exist? Do you know it through reason? If not, how can you affirm that there is no God?I suggest you look up "weak atheism" and compare it to the "strong atheism" brush you seem to be tarring everyone with. :)

I am an atheist - I have no belief in the existence of god.
But I do not go as far as to have a belief that god does not exist.
I choose not to have a belief either way with respect to god.

But anyhoo - I think the forums are moderated just dandily - and it makes not one iota of difference if the moderator is Hindu, Christian, Jewish, atheist, undecided on everything, or has no religious interest at all - as long as the moderation is fair.

Originally Posted by Prince_James
To not believe in God affirms a faith in God's non-existence. How do you know that God does not exist?
No it doesnt at all! It just affirms the scientific practice of only giving something evidential a probability, anything that is a pure construct of the human imagination and zero evidence has subsiquently been produced as fantasy.

Do you know it through reason? If not, how can you affirm that there is no God?
Yes through reason and also knowledge we can derive that god is a fantasy. Only if you depart from reason does god become anything more than the wildest shot in the dark brought about by the intellectually and comfort needy.

But anyhoo - I think the forums are moderated just dandily - and it makes not one iota of difference if the moderator is Hindu, Christian, Jewish, atheist, undecided on everything, or has no religious interest at all - as long as the moderation is fair.
I think thats the issue - it isn't

I think thats the issue - it isn't

lightgigantic -

You are one person.
No one else complained, so please tell me what requires change? Surely, you cannot expect the Administration to bow before your every whim.

lightgigantic -

You are one person.
No one else complained, so please tell me what requires change? Surely, you cannot expect the Administration to bow before your every whim.
as someone expressed earlier, having atheistic mods on a religious forum is like having a pentecoastal theist mod on a genetics forum ("Complete and utter BS!! How can you prove that since its not in the bible!!")

given that there are many complex issues that could be discussed in theism, its a bit tiring to have to deal with mod endorsed anti-theist ad homs/confidence statements/tentative disclaimers/ etc every step of the way

as someone expressed earlier, having atheistic mods on a religious forum is like having a pentecoastal theist mod on a genetics forum ("Complete and utter BS!! How can you prove that since its not in the bible!!")Do not confuse the Moderator's posts as part of the thread with their role as moderator (which is what your example above demonstrates).

The Mod is entirely justified in posting on the thread as long as they abide by the same rules they put in place for others.

lol I just had a vision of what the religous section may be like with a theist mod- feet and feet of posting by LG with an inch left unremoved that was posted by the rest of us.

Can we just end this democratically?

All in favor of keeping the current moderation say "Aye".

Aye.

Do not confuse the Moderator's posts as part of the thread with their role as moderator (which is what your example above demonstrates).

The Mod is entirely justified in posting on the thread as long as they abide by the same rules they put in place for others.

given that ad homming/trolling/flaming is against the rules it becomes an issue when the mods endorse it on one side and ignore it on an another

standard response from an atheist (the unphilosophical variety of course)

"that is not real"



A rather dishonest 'quote' there, as I didn't say that, ...

(along with a complete absence and in fact a stead fast defense to even express the general principles advocated for determining what falls within the folds of reality and what falls outside of it)

Reality? Everything is real.

as such, what else can atheism be (the variety that leaves the safety of the bunkers of agnosticism to venture statements like "Can you stick to facts") except a type of faith

Yet another who fails to grasp the terms of the debate. Atheism is not faith proposition. It is a lack of faith. Until you grasp this very simple idea, you cannot understand the argument.

A rather dishonest 'quote' there, as I didn't say that, ...

what did you mean by the part in bold

Ah, lightgigantic, I see why others get frustrated with your lack of actual statement. Being vague isn't spiritual, it's annoying in a debate.

Can you stick to facts?


Reality? Everything is real.
Everything?
:eek:




Yet another who fails to grasp the terms of the debate. Atheism is not faith proposition. It is a lack of faith. Until you grasp this very simple idea, you cannot understand the argument.
(sigh)
I guess you will stay there in the bunkers of agnosticsim until you feel inebriated enough again to make another positive statement reagrding god's nonexistence

is this still about the moderation?:confused:

Or just discussion on religion outside the religion forum and away from the religion moderators? :m: ;)

what did you mean by the part in bold

If you are going to put something in quotes, quote something I have actually said, not a meta-interpretation of it! You show your intellectual dishonesty else.

Everything?

Yes. It's simple, things that exist, are in the set 'everything', things that don't, aren't, because they don't exist.

(sigh)I guess you will stay there in the bunkers of agnosticsim until you feel inebriated enough again to make another positive statement reagrding god's nonexistence

I'm not an agnostic, I'm an atheist. I haven't made a statement about god's (sic) nonexistence. Again, here you are challenging me on things I haven't said. Can you debate honestly?

is this still about the moderation?:confused:

Or just discussion on religion outside the religion forum and away from the religion moderators? :m: ;)


Ok to get it back on track

Is having an assembly of athiestic mods (perhaps even antagonistic atheistic mods) on a thread that deals exclusively with religion bear the same conscequence of having a adamant biblical creationist as a mod on an ancient history or genetics thread?

would such a mod be justified in constantlt reiterating "complete and utter Bullshit!!!" constantly to persons discussing issues?

Don't know. I'm guilty as hell. I tried to keep the biology forum scientific. It's similar to what you are saying is happening in the religion forum.

In the end it probably won't work.

I purposely created an HIV/AIDS thread in a forum I don't have control over to help the other party get their voice out without the need to focus on me as a moderator.

would such a mod be justified in constantlt reiterating "complete and utter Bullshit!!!" constantly to persons discussing issues?

He would if you constantly used complete and utter bullshit as part of your arguments. You are clearly free to refute the claim that your claims are bullshit. I see, however, that you've been unable to.

Get over yourself and your petty ego trip, LG. This is the religion subforum of a science board. If you want pats on the back and uncriticizing nods of appreciation for your relentless tirades of postmodernist mumbo-jumbo, visit a spiritual board or religion board. Why shouldn't one expect the religion subforum of a science board to be where the intersection of religion and science is discussed? A place where religion is discussed from a scientific standpoint? Moreover, your criticisms of my moderation have been unfounded and come across as cry-baby nonsense. If you want to post there and you post the same pseudo-intellectual, postmodernist drivel, expect me to criticize it from time to time. And if I call it "bullshit," then I mean it in the classic Penn and Teller style: you offering up pseudo-intellectual drivel and trying to pass it off as genuine.

When I read your posts, I'm reminded of the carpet bagger on Outlaw Josey Wales who keeps peddling the snake oil as a product that will remove stains, cure anything, prevent anything, make you younger,... And like Chief Dan George said in the film, "you drink it."

Is having an assembly of athiestic mods (perhaps even antagonistic atheistic mods) on a thread that deals exclusively with religion bear the same conscequence of having a adamant biblical creationist as a mod on an ancient history or genetics thread?

Without atheists to check, religious nuts of your type would turn the forum into an asylum.

would such a mod be justified in constantlt reiterating "complete and utter Bullshit!!!" constantly to persons discussing issues?

If something is complete and utter bullshit they have the right to call it so.

James R., Skinwalker, and Cris are all atheists. Although I will not claim any of them are biased because of this stance, is it not peculiar that a religion sub-forum should be moderated purely by those which reject the claims of all religions? Indeed, does this not often lead the way to an unfairness in moderation?

Accordingly, I suggest/nominate that LightGigantic or TheoryOfRelativity (if she returns) should be made a moderator of the religion sub-forum.

The reasons for such are simple: LightGigantic is openly theistic and TheoryOfRelativity is at least theistic leaning.

I'd also include SamCDKey, as an Islamic woman, but she has recently been promoted in other areas and so I thought it best not to include her.

I understand where you're coming from, but I believe a user's merits, rather than their beliefs and opinions, have more weight when it comes to being a moderator. As such, I don't think we should give mod privileges to a theist for the sake of having a theistic mod.

By the way: ToR is permabanned for evading a ban, I think.

Can we just end this democratically?

All in favor of keeping the current moderation say "Aye".

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Nicely done, my friend.
If only the others would step out of their religious dribble they call debates and end the stupidity of atheism versus theism.

Nay.

A Theist moderator is in the interest of fairness. Or at the very least, an open-minded agnostic.

I think everything's fair as it is. I don't see any atheistic mods censoring any theistic users, or anything remotely similar. Furthermore, preferring a theist over an atheist for modship, for the sake of having a theistic mod, is only fair if the theist is more qualified anyway.

As a theist, I will say that there is a tendency for mods to ignore complaints of harassment made by theists. Its especially exasperating when its a mod who's harassing you and you cannot put him on ignore. In the words of Ms Austen however, "my courage always rises with every attempt to intimidate me", but others might feel ambushed and hunted.

So I say Nay and suggest that a theist mod might help where an atheist will not.

As a theist, I will say that there is a tendency for mods to ignore complaints of harassment made by theists. Its especially exasperating when its a mod who's harassing you and you cannot put him on ignore. In the words of Ms Austen however, "my courage always rises with every attempt to intimidate me", but others might feel ambushed and hunted.

So I say Nay and suggest that a theist mod might help where an atheist will not.


That's ok. Theists already have god in their corner. Having a mod also would be an unfair advantage. ;)

Mods should remain objective but this is a science forum and any bias should be towards the empirically gathered IMO.

That's ok. Theists already have god in their corner. Having a mod also would be an unfair advantage. ;)

Mods should remain objective but this is a science forum and any bias should be towards the empirically gathered IMO.

Bah!:mad:

He would if you constantly used complete and utter bullshit as part of your arguments.
have you ever encountered a theistic post that you didn't consider bullshit or even felt reservation in expressing that consideration?

You are clearly free to refute the claim that your claims are bullshit. I see, however, that you've been unable to.
thats ok - but when you feel you have a license to ad hom and are free to issue it to your atheist chums as well it makes for the OP of threads like this

Get over yourself and your petty ego trip, LG. This is the religion subforum of a science board.
or do you mean it is a gathering site for atheists to ad hom theists?

If you want pats on the back and uncriticizing nods of appreciation for your relentless tirades of postmodernist mumbo-jumbo, visit a spiritual board or religion board.
I don't want any of those things - but civilized discission would be nice for a change
;)

Why shouldn't one expect the religion subforum of a science board to be where the intersection of religion and science is discussed?
that's the point - it is not discussed - or at least it is not discussed amongst persons like yourself, much like nothing is discussed amongst a person who constantly ad homs and is subject to coarse derogatory language

A place where religion is discussed from a scientific standpoint?
flaming is scientific?

Moreover, your criticisms of my moderation have been unfounded and come across as cry-baby nonsense.
just have to count the times "utter bullshit" arise along with a stead fast refusal to discuss the general principles you utilize to come to such conclusions

If you want to post there and you post the same pseudo-intellectual, postmodernist drivel, expect me to criticize it from time to time.
then I suggest you attend some classes on giving a critique because at the moment you seem to rant like a football hooligan at the mere mention of the word "god"

And if I call it "bullshit," then I mean it in the classic Penn and Teller style: you offering up pseudo-intellectual drivel and trying to pass it off as genuine.
congratulations - you have an opinion
Now if you want an intelligent discussion you move on to part two - "why?"

When I read your posts, I'm reminded of the carpet bagger on Outlaw Josey Wales who keeps peddling the snake oil as a product that will remove stains, cure anything, prevent anything, make you younger,... And like Chief Dan George said in the film, "you drink it."
This is the problem - the extent of your answering the "why" is "because I think so", mixed in with the token flaming/ad hom etc

Like for instance I could saythat your posts remind me of a number of absurd, repulsive. infantile, nasty, malicious, stagnant things, but until I move onto 'why", I am just using your posts as a canvas to paint with colourful terminology

Bah!:mad:

Fah!:mad:

flaming is scientific?

Indeed it is. There is a rich history of flaming wars going on in science. Up to a point that data didn't matter anymore, just opinion.

The great debate between Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire and Cuvier comes to mind.

Or the greatest flame master of them all, Louis Pasteur. He bullshitted himself through many a meeting flaming all opposition into submission.

And of course, a great deal of time is nowadays still spend finetuning the flaming skills of scientists.

Indeed it is. There is a rich history of flaming wars going on in science. Up to a point that data didn't matter anymore, just opinion.

The great debate between Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire and Cuvier comes to mind.

Or the greatest flame master of them all, Louis Pasteur. He bullshitted himself through many a meeting flaming all opposition into submission.

And of course, a great deal of time is nowadays still spend finetuning the flaming skills of scientists.

then why is flaming against the ground rules here with repeat offenders liable to receive infractions and possibly banning?

then why is flaming against the ground rules here with repeat offenders liable to receive infractions and possibly banning?

This is not science. This is a forum.

This is not science. This is a forum.

I guess that means if you want to flame someone here you have to be scientific about it
;)

I guess that means if you want to flame someone here you have to be scientific about it
;)

No, you have to play the game. In this case being scientific makes it easier to flame. On another forum being religious (of the proper religion) makes it easier to flame.

There are many parameters that influence how far you can take the flame. There is no fixed recipe. I've taken it further in the past than most without receiving a ban or warning. That's because certain parameters were acting in my favour at the right time.

It's a game. And you have to play it well. And you can play it best by pushing the opponent over the edge without crossing the edge yourself.

That said constant flaming will earn nobody any favours. Your perceived value to the community will drop, which is one of the parameters to keep in mind. A major parameter is of course the local mod or the general admin. In your case this seems to be the biggest problem. The mod is not behind your case. And you will therefore be required to put extra effort in your posting. I'm now not making a judgment on this being wrong or right. It is just how it is.

You have options though. You can adjust your style of posting in that particular subforum. You can play the political game and try to get an extra moderator that is more favourable towards the theists case.

You can also adopt the strategy of being above the flaming. This will earn respect of many people, even those that oppose you, and you can subsequently build on that.

And then there is a whole shitlist of other options.


In any case, I cannot really sympathize with your case since I don't really value the opinion of a theist very much. :p ;)

have you ever encountered a theistic post that you didn't consider bullshit or even felt reservation in expressing that consideration?

How could he, when there is no honesty in the theistic viewpoint?

Also, you seem to think that a religious subforum on a scientifc board will not have some leanings towards the scientific viewpoint.

That is absurd, just look at what 'Creation Science' does to real science! it perverts science by ignoring data, at least nobody is perverting your religions, by reinterpreting your scriptures!

have you ever encountered a theistic post that you didn't consider bullshit or even felt reservation in expressing that consideration?LG - if you think that a mod is being unfair - in that he is contravening the very rules that he makes others abide by (e.g. flaming, ad homming etc) then - and this is where the science bit comes in - collect the EVIDENCE and present it to the Administrator (or whoever it is who decides who moderates) and let them be judge / jury / executioner etc.

Your actual greivance is with the Mod(s) - not with the fact that he/they might be theist or atheist.
Having a theist Mod will therefore NOT resolve the issues you feel you are having with the Mod(s) in question.

Go forth and collecteth the evidence, says the Sarkus.
On that alone should a Mod be judged.

LG - if you think that a mod is being unfair - in that he is contravening the very rules that he makes others abide by (e.g. flaming, ad homming etc) then - and this is where the science bit comes in - collect the EVIDENCE and present it to the Administrator (or whoever it is who decides who moderates) and let them be judge / jury / executioner etc.

Your actual greivance is with the Mod(s) - not with the fact that he/they might be theist or atheist.
Having a theist Mod will therefore NOT resolve the issues you feel you are having with the Mod(s) in question.

Go forth and collecteth the evidence, says the Sarkus.
On that alone should a Mod be judged.
Obviously if the people doing the judging are biased, the whole ordeal is fruitless
:rolleyes:

samcdkey - What the hell is that kitty doing in your avatar?

Aye - 2 (Ayodhya, Athelwulf)
Naye - 2 (Prince James, samcdkey)

samcdkey - What the hell is that kitty doing in your avatar?

Aye - 2 (Ayodhya, Athelwulf)
Naye - 2 (Prince James, samcdkey)

Its a mouse dancing on a kitty's belly, i.e. belly dancer. :)

http://www.joe-ks.com/archives_nov2003/BellyDancer.gif

How could he, when there is no honesty in the theistic viewpoint?
another "you are wrong because you are wrong" argument - anyway take it to the religious forum if you think it is valuable

Also, you seem to think that a religious subforum on a scientifc board will not have some leanings towards the scientific viewpoint.
no
But I would have hoped that it would have a leaning towards civilized discussion and the coherant presentation of ideas

That is absurd, just look at what 'Creation Science' does to real science! it perverts science by ignoring data, at least nobody is perverting your religions, by reinterpreting your scriptures!

so you assume that a theist who is a scientist has an intrinsic conflict of interest/
Just see your bias ....

Obviously if the people doing the judging are biased, the whole ordeal is fruitless
:rolleyes:I do not know who the administrators are - so can not answer that allegation - but surely if you pick up a Mod on his bad "Modding" rather than anything else then there can be no cause for bias.

Do you have evidence of bias toward assessment of moderating, by the Administrator(s) or by other Moderators?

Or is this merely bias on your part?

Do you have evidence of bias toward assessment of moderating, by the Administrator(s) or by other Moderators?


Yes, he has my testimony.

I'm definitely biased. I'm not assigning the same weight to pseudoscience as I do to science, nor do I favour conspiracy theories very much. Members who try to push a political agenda based on pseudoscience or try to push conspiracy propaganda might have a harder time at the forum I moderate then people who have a genuine interest in science.

Thats not really comparable.

Biology and genetics is a peer reviewed field based on objective analysis of repeatable experiments.

Religion by definition is based on faith. Art and Culture by definition is subjective.

Apples and oranges.

another "you are wrong because you are wrong" argument - anyway take it to the religious forum if you think it is valuable

I won't go as far as sayng you are wrong, just that theists have yet to present anything right.


no
But I would have hoped that it would have a leaning towards civilized discussion and the coherant presentation of ideas

OK, you start with the coherent presentation of ideas. No rambling cut and paste jobs from scripture, establish your point, from first principles please.

so you assume that a theist who is a scientist has an intrinsic conflict of interest/
Just see your bias ....

Riiiight, you obviously aren't up to speed with your reading. Check out 'Creation Science' and see that these people indeed DO have a bias. They discard anything that conflicts with their foregone conclusion that the bible is correct. Not all theist scientists are 'creation scientists' but that is the example I used, so argue within that.

Its especially exasperating when its a mod who's harassing you and you cannot put him on ignore.

I have a mod on my ignore. He had been on there since before he became one, though — but I'm fairly sure he was still there in the time just before I accepted my modship. So was this fixed or what?

Fah!:mad:

Jah!:mad:

I wonder: What kind of theist should we appoint?

We could go for a monotheist. How about a plain-vanilla Christian? Oh, but what about the Jews and Muslims? A Christian mod could ignore the complaints brought to them by a Jew or a Muslim as easily as an atheist. So let's have a Jew and a Muslim too. But which kind of Muslim? Aren't there a lot of sects in Islam? Maybe we should just get the most active member from each of those sects, so it's all fair.

Uh oh, the Catholics and Mormons are complaining that their brand of Christianity is underrepresented because our Christian mod is Protestant. We should appoint them too. And oh yeah, the followers of the Flying Spaghetti Monster want to be represented too, so we should let them know our forums are touched by his noodley appendage by making one of those people a mod too.

Phew. I think that's about it.

Wait a minute... Shit! Polytheists still aren't represented. Let's get them in there too. And...

And...

*Throws up*

If the spaghetti monsters get a mod I want one for my vegetable garden fairies? I demand my sacred toilet paper be represented!

I wish the moderators would sanction a vote and end this bile.

If the spaghetti monsters get a mod I want one for my vegetable garden fairies? I demand my sacred toilet paper be represented!
I think that there should be a new law of discussion similiar to Godwin's Law where if the Flying Spaghetti Monster or Invisible Pink Unicorn or Invisible Dragon in My Garage should ever be brought up then the argument is decided in the favor of the theist.

I'm seriously sick to the gills of hearing about this meme.
It was funny for a minute, but pales over time.

I think that there should be a new law of discussion similiar to Godwin's Law where if the Flying Spaghetti Monster or Invisible Pink Unicorn or Invisible Dragon in My Garage should ever be brought up then the argument is decided in the favor of the theist.

I'm seriously sick to the gills of hearing about this meme.
It was funny for a minute, but pales over time.

I disagree. (Q) would be devastated if he could not evangelise about the pink unicorn (invisible) in his attack, I mean attic .:p

Did I err in naming the unicorn? I was thinking that perhaps I did when I wrote of the next meme in the list (the original meme from which the others spawned, the Great Invisible Dragon in my Garage, created by the Late, Great Carl Sagan, pbuh. (Heh. I'm sure that he'd cringe at how so many people have gulped his words down whole. Completely contrary to his point....))

Anyway.
The Pink Unicorn is invisible, yes? But invisible is not part of its name?
Is that it?

Who cares what you call the analogy? Whats important is you show up the concept of religion for what it is.

Did I err in naming the unicorn? I was thinking that perhaps I did when I wrote of the next meme in the list (the original meme from which the others spawned, the Great Invisible Dragon in my Garage, created by the Late, Great Carl Sagan, pbuh. (Heh. I'm sure that he'd cringe at how so many people have gulped his words down whole. Completely contrary to his point....))

Anyway.
The Pink Unicorn is invisible, yes? But invisible is not part of its name?
Is that it?

You'd have to ask (Q). Its his unicorn.:p

Who cares what you call the analogy?

The analogy is fine. It's the endless parroting of the meme that I find annoying.

At least you introduced a new twist (even if still a pale imitation of Sagan's intent) with your sacred toilet paper, however you probably stole it from someone else, too.

It's annoying to see how easily the human mind is infected. And ironic to see the infection take hold so strongly in the group that believes it is fighting against such things.

Whats important is you show up the concept of religion for what it is.

Yes!
Follow your crowd!
It is good to follow the crowd!

It's annoying to see how easily the human mind is infected. And ironic to see the infection take hold so strongly in the group that believes it is fighting against such things.

Memes are the new religion ;)

At least you introduced a new twist (even if still a pale imitation of Sagan's intent) with your sacred toilet paper, however you probably stole it from someone else, too.!
I didnt actually! believe it or not(I dont think most famous athiests are that harsh:o ), I started using oN THE SPUR OF THE MOMENT a couple of years back in an argument about the koraan . I expect someone has used it or something similar before, BUT Im not aware of them.


It's annoying to see how easily the human mind is infected. And ironic to see the infection take hold so strongly in the group that believes it is fighting against such things.



Yes!
Follow your crowd!
It is good to follow the crowd!

Yes it often is!

Sadly, this thread will result in nothing happening.

Which is, of course, the entire problem with the Religion forum: there's no point to having a Moderator, given that there's little moderation occurring in any case.

Yes!
Follow your crowd!
It is good to follow the crowd!

Well it does communicate the idea so effectively...

But I see what you mean. Variety would be nice.

I propose, "Invisible Sadist Dark Darling"

I didnt actually! believe it or not(I dont think most famous athiests are that harsh:o ), I started using oN THE SPUR OF THE MOMENT a couple of years back in an argument about the koraan . I expect someone has used it or something similar before, BUT Im not aware of them.



Yes it often is!

Actually it is not the pink invisible unicorn (or his counterpart the invisible hairy leprechaun), the FSM, what to speak of the newly arrived invisible fairy and toilet roll scriptures, that is the original prototype - it is Bertrand Russel's celestial teapot
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot


Russell's teapot, sometimes called the Celestial Teapot, was an analogy first coined by the philosopher Bertrand Russell, intended to refute the idea that the burden of proof lies upon the sceptic to disprove unfalsifiable claims of religions.

Riiiight, you obviously aren't up to speed with your reading. Check out 'Creation Science' and see that these people indeed DO have a bias. They discard anything that conflicts with their foregone conclusion that the bible is correct. Not all theist scientists are 'creation scientists' but that is the example I used, so argue within that.
therefore its not unusual to encounter problems if one judges a genre by its extreme or worst stereotype

I do not know who the administrators are - so can not answer that allegation - but surely if you pick up a Mod on his bad "Modding" rather than anything else then there can be no cause for bias.

Do you have evidence of bias toward assessment of moderating, by the Administrator(s) or by other Moderators?

Or is this merely bias on your part?

even though spurious is biased at least he is not intellectually dishonest

Sadly, this thread will result in nothing happening.


has there ever been a thread on sciforums that resulted in anything?
(apart from animosity, bewilderment etc)

even though spurious is biased at least he is not intellectually dishonest

Translation: Although SPURIOUS is biased he hasnt actually challenged my irrational nonsense.

Actually it is not the pink invisible unicorn (or his counterpart the invisible hairy leprechaun), the FSM, what to speak of the newly arrived invisible fairy and toilet roll scriptures, that is the original prototype - it is Bertrand Russel's celestial teapot
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot


Russell's teapot, sometimes called the Celestial Teapot, was an analogy first coined by the philosopher Bertrand Russell, intended to refute the idea that the burden of proof lies upon the sceptic to disprove unfalsifiable claims of religions.

I never said mine was the prototype, just that the toilet roll scriptures was a spontaneous analogy, not copied! Although its such a intuative progression that I wouldnt be surprised that many, many other people across the world have made it.

Translation: Although SPURIOUS is biased he hasnt actually challenged my irrational nonsense.

It obvious that bias (ie values) are unavoidable, particularly for one participating in a debate or heated discussion (not too many people seem to discuss the weather here, unless it is to assert that someone is "a dumb jackass" or "full of blathering BS")

this only becomes a problem when one cannot perceive it (in other words they assume ther stance is the platform of absolute neutrality)

The result of such a misconception is the inability to assert one's general principles ("hey there's nothing to assert, after all I am neutral") which often leads to coarse language and the like

LG"The result of such a misconception is the inability to assert one's general principles"

Maybe if I beat you about the head and threaten you with eternal hell you will get my general principles.:rolleyes:

Thats not really comparable.

Biology and genetics is a peer reviewed field based on objective analysis of repeatable experiments.

Religion by definition is based on faith. Art and Culture by definition is subjective.

Apples and oranges.

It obvious that bias (ie values) are unavoidable, particularly for one participating in a debate or heated discussion (not too many people seem to discuss the weather here, unless it is to assert that someone is "a dumb jackass" or "full of blathering BS")

this only becomes a problem when one cannot perceive it (in other words they assume ther stance is the platform of absolute neutrality)

The result of such a misconception is the inability to assert one's general principles ("hey there's nothing to assert, after all I am neutral") which often leads to coarse language and the like

I was going to respond to Sam's post at one point but then I thought it would be pointless. However, I cannot really disagree with LG in the above post and I shall explain why.


Science is not objective. It never has been and it never will be. That is because it is a human endeavour. I've done a bit in the history of science at one point of my career and the unavoidable conclusion that you reach in this field is that science is not the objective pursuit of truth as you may sometimes find it described in textbooks, but a messy human practice influenced by human thinking, culture, history, religion, memes, etc.

Whether or not the scientific method is supposed to be objective is irrelevant. Science is not objective in any way. As in all human endevours it is very much subjective.

Art and culture are no different in this respect from science. All cultural phenomeno. The goal of science is different than art though. The goal of science is to understand nature. In the old days scientists investigated nature to prove the existence of god. Nowadays scientists investigate nature for many different reasons, none of which are usually focussed on proving the existence of god.

I have no illusions about being unbiased or subjective as a scientist. I am very much biased and subjective and similarly as a mod I am biased and subjective. That's why I prefer scientific logic over religious logic. And that's how i judge the merit of a post. Extremely biased. That's what many others also do in the religion and other subforums. The asses post based on bias. That's why it says 'sci'-forums on top instead of forums.

Indeed this is not a neutral position as LG has pointed out.

That said I don't think we need to be neutral. Nor do we need to pretend to be neutral.

Translation: Although SPURIOUS is biased he hasnt actually challenged my irrational nonsense.

Time is limited. I have to pick my fights. With bias.
Kill a chicken before a monkey

I was going to respond to Sam's post at one point but then I thought it would be pointless. However, I cannot really disagree with LG in the above post and I shall explain why.


Science is not objective. It never has been and it never will be. That is because it is a human endeavour. I've done a bit in the history of science at one point of my career and the unavoidable conclusion that you reach in this field is that science is not the objective pursuit of truth as you may sometimes find it described in textbooks, but a messy human practice influenced by human thinking, culture, history, religion, memes, etc.

Whether or not the scientific method is supposed to be objective is irrelevant. Science is not objective in any way. As in all human endevours it is very much subjective.

Art and culture are no different in this respect from science. All cultural phenomeno. The goal of science is different than art though. The goal of science is to understand nature. In the old days scientists investigated nature to prove the existence of god. Nowadays scientists investigate nature for many different reasons, none of which are usually focussed on proving the existence of god.

I have no illusions about being unbiased or subjective as a scientist. I am very much biased and subjective and similarly as a mod I am biased and subjective. That's why I prefer scientific logic over religious logic. And that's how i judge the merit of a post. Extremely biased. That's what many others also do in the religion and other subforums. The asses post based on bias. That's why it says 'sci'-forums on top instead of forums.

Indeed this is not a neutral position as LG has pointed out.

That said I don't think we need to be neutral. Nor do we need to pretend to be neutral.



Time is limited. I have to pick my fights. With bias.
Kill a chicken before a monkey
Jesus!
I disagree! Many scientists have gone against the cultural trends and even risked their lives to find the objective truth. Many scientists have gone against their personal religous faith to disclose what is evidential!
The current cultural climate is still drowning in religous faith(or religous type behaviour) and it is a triumph for objectiveness that the measured as opposed to desired truth(or science if you prefer) goes on so strong in this day and age

Jesus!
I disagree! Many scientists have gone against the cultural trends and even riskedtheir liveso find the objective truth. Many scientists have gone against their personal religous faith to disclose what is evidential!

Like Newton?