Ban the Religion Thread

It's ironic that you're calling for a censorship policy that would have told Isaac Newton that he wasn't scientific enough for Sciforums and that he needed to move on.

(Luckily the Royal Society wasn't quite so fastidious.)

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Not a problem, in fact, good thread. The religious posters become aware that they as much the prey as they are the predator. They may not of understood that concept, before your timely thread. We will observe how this affects their behavior over time. Or if they bolt and run. Then we will have to wait to replenish the subject numbers. From many sects and denoms would be preferable.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

How do you figure? Newton was a religious man and a mason, allegedly, but he did good science. I am not condemning anyone to any degree of scientific-ness. Firstly, it's not in my power, and secondly it is no matter of degree. God botherers are not scientific at all because if they had a gram of scientific honesty they would know that there are no gods.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Oh the irony.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Yazata,
It's not censorship. That's a word being misused a lot here.

Newton believing in God is irrelevant because Newton did not walk into a building and preach about God's Gravity.

He left God at the door when he presented his classical Mechanics Theory of Gravity.

 

cool

this is where i would start to disagree..(but i won't push it..)

no..its how I cherry pick..(but there is a logic in how i cherry pick..)

there is no OBJECTIVE evidence..there is all sorts of subjective evidence based on ones own experiences..

I validate my beliefs by how well they apply to my life.

you mean subjective?

Critical thinking ,rational thought and reason IS why i don't believe as others believe.

I do value my beliefs just as you value yours..

Pay attention..this is a preconceived notion on your part about me,
i will call your attention to the current thread about knowing your own future,yes i have said a couple things, but for the most part i have been staying out of that conversation..
usually when the conversation gets too thick, i tend to stay out of them...
and there are certain topics i tend to stay away from..

the conversations i tend to get involved with are the ones where a person starts with 'ALL theist'..
or topics that have no real answers, where i just input my two cents then have to go on and explain what i mean..or get attacked just because i am a believer and i have to defend myself against their preconceived notions..

 

I am agnostic and rarely partake of theological discussion here. But when you propose that a certain niche (theists) be censored, ostracized, and exiled... then I have to speak up. Plug any other niche into your proposal - blacks, Jews, conservatives, homosexuals, etc. - and the ugliness imbued in such a program becomes painfully obvious and transparant.

Indeed. This is a private board. Ultimately, board integrity and parameter are the purview of the owner and management. Thankfully however, the majority of voting members have rejected treading this very slippery slope.

 

So claims everyone that does it. It's called, "Rationalizing."

i.e. Cherry picking...

It's been a couple of years or a little less... since I was familiar with the forum.

But that statement wasn't necessarily directed at you nor directed at you as an accusation.

Let me pull the ol' switcharoo...

Someone enters a topic with "all theists do or say this" and you get involved. Well... that seems proper. It's a logical fallacy right off the bat for someone to start a sentence that way, unless the sentence is stating "... are human beings."
You will react if you see hogwash spouting, whipping out your duct tape and a cork.

It's the same for the scientific side. If, during a scientific discussion, someone jumps in with the power of crystals, homeopathy, ghosts, alien visitation, moon landing hoax, spiritualistic claims or 'Sasquatch viewed by space satellite meeting Larry Craig at Yellowstone Outhouse'...
They are liable to receive the same treatment you would give to others.
Mainly duct tape and a cork (I soak my corks overnight in Tabasco...)

 

I won't argue that there are not any theist who do this..
I will argue when you say ALL theist do this..
I will argue that since i have been here most of the threads in the religious forum have been started by atheist (see FSM thread..) trying to bait theists.
i cannot argue that there have been NO threads started by the type of theist that you are afraid of..(see Chi)

In fact if we were to have an actual intelligent conversation, you would pry find out that i would agree with you on certain points about certain theists..

I do have an attitude about religion in general that would pry line up with yours, but again i will argue when you say 'ALL', and this
IS a scientific premise..you have not met ALL theist, nor have you been to ALL churches..but let me back up a moment and ask you what your church history is..have you ever attended church? If not then what is your attitude based on? personal experience or hearsay?

 

fair enough..but thats not a bad thing.

just because you devalue it, doesn't make it worthless.

cool..i'll accept that..

ok..don't see how it is a switcharoo..but..dependent on what is said..true enough...

If i ever were to say something like "there is no such thing as electricity, God put stuff there to make the lights work"
I would expect to get reamed..but i have never said such and have never tried to invalidate science in favor of God as an excuse.

let me rephrase that slightly..

I have NEVER tried to invalidate science.

 

Make up your mind.

 

huh??

how do they conflict??

 

Being black or homosexual is not a belief system. To quote Lady Gaga: they were born that way. And they don't come onto this forum and suggests that others are wrong not to be black or homosexual. Conservatives are entitled to their opinions, but where is their room for opinion in matters of science? Do they have some specifically right-wing hypothesis on the origin of man, or how gravity works perhaps? And if the are expressing a conservative opinion in the political section, that's fine if there is some modicum of reason and logic in their view.

But what of these Abrahamists? There is no evidence whatsoever that their 'god' exists, or even if it did that it conforms to Abrahamistic views of such a one, and yet they insist on being taken seriously as having alternative opinions. Why not just come onto this forum and insist on the Easter Bunny and that the rest of us should believe so too, or at least respect it? Respect it!? And then they refuse to entertain a scientific view of the Easter Bunny question - with nothing but their feelings and millennia of historical (wrong) belief to support them. :yawn:

Theists want to be taken seriously and such a position is untenable on a science forum. What else is there to say?

 

Neither of course! It's based on reason and the scientific method of discovery. I have no attitude concerning gods and their worship. I just know they are patently false. I wish I didn't need to repeat that I find the whole business tiresome and nonsensical, and hence my establishing a poll to see if others agreed with me that the whole rigamarole belongs in the Pseudoscience or Alternative Theories Forums, and in fact, if you look 'creationism' is one of the subheadings there. So why not confine all your posts on religious questions to that sub-forum, friend squirrel?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I said,:

You said,

This statement doesn't seem accepting...

Moving on Topic...

If a golf forum didn't have a subforum on Gynecology, should specialists claim they've been ostracized, exiled and censored from joining that forum and talking about their experiences delving into others nethers?

If an automotive forum doesn't have a subforum on Grandmas Favorite Recipes, should we grab our rolling pins and let them have a sound baking?

Censorship is done by a government- not a privately owned forum.

Censorship is when an outside party monitors what you say in order to black out, modify or alter its contents.

The current rules disallow the posting of pornographic images. Are perverts being exiled, ostracized and censored?

What Epictitties asked was if Religion is an inappropriate subforum for a Science Board. He set it up as a poll, not a demand. He didn't take hostages.
Several posters have given valid reasons as to why the subforum should be there.

 

Thank you Friend NeverFly for your statements above. I especially like:

But it's all good!

May I remind once again that I have set this poll for 366 days, two or three of which only have passed. This way once all the flash in a pan furor fades, the moderators may be able to have a clear view of how past and present members feel.

For myself I really have been endeavoring to just keep out of theistic discussions, but TMSquirrel has been so insistent that it just seemed rude to go on ignoring him. I am not planning on a vow of silence, but, Godboys, try to imagine how dull I find your arguments and queries. In my last post above I used the word rigmarole, which I chose carefully. Dictionary.com defines it thus:
noun
1.
an elaborate or complicated procedure: to go through the rigmarole of a formal dinner.
2.
confused, incoherent, foolish, or meaningless talk.
I meant the second definition, but the first applies too. Get the picture?

 

When I used to live and work in southern USA, in the heart of the bible belt, I used to get into discussions with religious people about religion. I was agnostic. I learned about various religions but approached this as an individual seeking truth in the context of what is common to all.

These bible discussions were different from what occurs in this forum, because to let me argue with them, they expected me to demonstrate some knowledge of the bible rather than just spout biased garbage along party lines. The latter is something any small brain can do. The former required I prepare with research.

They way it worked, I needed to provide at least one bible quote, anywhere in the bible, to support my global position. If I could supply a bible quote, that was considered a valid point for discussion. They would then counter with their own quotes. It was a fun discussion because so much was appropriate to the times. It was not about mythology, but about practical wisdom. You would not even know that was there based on atheist propaganda and smoke screening.

The atheist trolls who control the religion area, in all due respect, make it less than informative. It always degenerates to emotional ranting. This is why some have suggested we get rid of it. It could be made more interesting if we made use bible text and then argue in that context. You can support almost any point that way. But I am not sure if the atheists would melt or be banished if they touched reality and read what the bible has to say beyond the propaganda.

 

Absence of Evidence is Not Evidence of Absence.
Is dark matter/energy proven?
science does not hold ALL the answers..
there is a place for God.
(will stop here,we can discuss this as suggested below )

responding mainly to your next post about not being able to ignore me..

I would ask that you start a thread in the religious forum (i ask that you do, so it assures your participation) to scrutinize MY beliefs..i would like the opportunity to show you that not all theist think alike..that theist are just as human as everyone else, and to challenge your preconceptions/misconceptions as to who/what a theist is.

My goal is NOT to convince you that God exists..(this is between you and him)
nor is it to convince you of any 'God did it' type of stances.
nor is it to invalidate any scientific premise if favor of God.


to answer your question directly..
because i have noticed you do a good job of ignoring..

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I wrote:

Epictetus says:

That doesn't make a whole lot of sense. For one thing, the last sentence seems to contradict what was said immediately above it.

Meaning that Isaac Newton couldn't have had "a gram of scientific honesty" in your opinion, because he most definitely did think that there was a God.

That was my point.

I'm curious: You apparently believe that science has established that there are no gods. So how did they accomplish that feat? Can you point me to the scientific literature on the non-existence of gods? Can you cite some of the experiments that supposedly led science to that conclusion?

Why don't university science courses teach any of this?

 

What else is there to say?

That you do not have an outlook on "life, the Universe, and everything" that could comfortably accomodate everything that exists and happens.

It's your outlook that is lacking.