How to discuss religion in a science forum.

Discussion in 'Site Feedback' started by lixluke, Jun 2, 2006.

?

How should religion be discussed in a science forum?

  1. Freely the same way any topic is discussed.

    20 vote(s)
    69.0%
  2. Subject to rigid criticism on the verge of extreme.

    9 vote(s)
    31.0%
  1. lixluke Refined Reinvention Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,072
    Because this is not a religious topic, and more of a topic about the religion forum, I decided not to post it in the religion section.
    Atheists that pursue intellectual discussion do not abide by any bigoted dogma or fanatical extremist domineering.
    Atheists that are bigots impose their dogma by regurgitating bigoted comments such as:

    “If you want an answer to your religious question, I suggest you go to a religious forum. This is a science forum, and it will save you great grief not to approach religion here in the same way you would in theist forum.”

    “Theists must beware that religion will be picked apart with scientific scrutiny. Religion in a science community will be discussed in purely scientific terms such as how religion afflicts society.”

    “This thread is in a sub-section of a science forum and claims are going to be scrutinized and in many cases falsified. Conjecture in the presence of known contradictory knowledge is not immune to criticism either.”

    “This is a religion sub in a science forum. A scientific perspective will undoubtedly be brought to any religious discussion here.”

    “Because this is a science forum, discussions of religion here will be held up to scientific scrutiny. We are saving theists much grief by letting them know this up front.”


    Bigots repeatedly yell out such comments in their efforts to domineer others into abiding by such nonsense.

    The following topic was posted in the Religion Section by griefers: Saving Theists a Ton of Grief. Not sure why it has not been deleted, but it remains a prime example of fanatical bigotry in the religion forum.


    Fanatics want to make the Religion section similar to the Physics section. The Physics section has already been criticized for their overly dominating bigotry dictating what is physics and what is not physics. There is nothing wrong with a physics forum that wishes to abide by physics only, but overly rigid extremists do not make for open discussion. Using such overly domineering attitudes of the physics forum as an example of how a religion forum should be approached shows clearly that these fanatics are not in the least bit open for objective intellectual discussion, but are bigots that want to dictate others..


    Why would somebody believe such domineering extremism is a good thing?
    IF YOU COME HERE YOU WILL BE GRIEFED
    This is not a threat this is a warning. So says the self-righteous fanatic. Of course, they never say “If you come here I will grief you.”
    Perhaps they should say: “Theists should know better than to post productive religious discussion in a religion forum because we will grief them for it.”

    Bigots contribute to griefing, warn people that they will be griefed in advance, and believe there is nothing in the least bit wrong with this. This is because they do not consider their domineering fanaticism to be griefing.

    The self-righteous delusion. Many Atheists consider theism irrational for their extremism and devout fanaticism. Unfortunately, these self-righteous bigots suffer from the same extremist devout afflictions if not more so. They consider their griefing to be productive scientific scrutiny. Unfortunately, their extremist actions are not in the least bit objective scientific scrutiny. They are subjective bigoted fanaticism. Griefing to say the least.


    Anything that is not verified in physics belongs in the Pseudoscience forum. Of course, people often post about their UFOs, monsters, and ghosts. Other participants provide input on how absurd certain ideas are. The topics are often debated. Some of them productive, and some of them unproductive. Fortunately, nobody tries to domineer the pseudoscience forum, and impose overly rigid scrutinization on others.

    Many Atheists view religion as pseudoscience. Atheists that are not bigoted fanatics approach religion as pseudoscience. They approach the pseudoscience forum and the religion forum alike from a sheer speculative perspective while continuing to maintain their Atheist position. They do not try to dominate others and impose extremist views on how religion should be discussed on a science forum. Religion should be discussed in the same way any topic is discussed in any section. Freely and openly without harassment from fanatical greifers. When people approach the pseudoscience thread, they know it is pseudoscience, and do not try to dominate others into rigid scrutiny. They do not have attitudes such as “This is a subsection in the science forum, and anybody posting here will be subject to extremist scrutiny.”


    Fanatics tend to use the excuse “This is a section in a science forum, therefore. . .” followed by imposing their bigoted ideas about how religion should be treated in a science forum. These bigots have no tolerance for anybody that does not abide by their view on how religion should be treated in a science forum. Unfortunately, there is no specific way religion should be treated on a science forum. Regardless, any section in a science forum should not be treated with such extreme fanaticism that turns out to be nothing more than griefing. A religion section is simply for discussing religion. Discussion is no different from other forums. People might agree, and people might disagree. There is no need to give people any advance warning about how things should be discussed in any other forum. There is no need to do so in a religion forum.

    There are various forums for open discussion including philosophy, eastern philosophy, ethics, pseudoscience, and religion. Nobody in these forums regurgitate the nonsense that “This is a science forum, and will be subject to blah blah blah.” There is no need to impose this dictatorial nonsense in other sections. There is no need to impose it in the religion section.

    Perhaps this would be a better warning. To save fanatical bigots much grief, they best be forewarned. This is a religious section in a science forum. Any topic in the religious section is open for any sort of discussion. Nobody cares about your fanatical griefing that you self-righteously consider to be oh so scientific scrutiny. It’s not. Get over it, and move on.

    Do Atheists consider their domineering attitude towards the religion forum the least bit extremist and fanatical?
    Of course not.
    A domineering attitude is one in which a bigot imposes their ways on others, and griefs others into abiding by their views about how religion should be discussed in a science forum. They are self-righteous because they do not consider their actions to be griefing at all. They water their fanatical actions down as “scientific criticism” or “normal scientific scrutiny”. They do not believe they are bigots at all. They delude themselves into believing that they treat discussions in the religion forum the same way they do in other forums.

    Atheists that are not bigoted fanatics approach pseudoscience and religious communities openly without such domineering criticism, and the same time maintain their position that religion is man made mythology. Bigoted Atheists grief others, water down their actions by calling it “criticism or scrutiny”, use the term “scientific” as a scapegoat for their fanaticism, domineer others by imposing on them their attitude that a scientific forum should not make room for religious discussion, and justify it all with their self-righteous perspective that they are not acting like extremist fanatical dictators.


    I simply believe that the religion section in an intelligent community is intended for religious discussion in the same way the pseudoscience forum is intended for pseudoscience discussion. And in the same way any other section is intended for any sort of discussion. Anybody that treats the religion section different from other forums is no doubt acting in blind fanaticism.
     
  2. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. The Devil Inside Banned Banned

    Messages:
    8,213
    i completely agree.

    sorry, not a very interesting response...but its true.
     
  4. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    uh cool skill you don't discuss religion on a science forum unless of course you are a glutton for punishment.
    you discuss religion in the religion subforum and you discuss it freely.
     
  6. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Silkworm Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    50
    I find it odd that you feel justified in calling a group of people, atheists, a bigoted group of people, and I also find it ironic.

    First of all, you're lumping scientists in a mislabled group as "atheists," and making generalized statements about what "atheists" say in an effort to demonize this group and give your own group power over these "atheists." That is an act of bigotry.

    Second of all, you can't call atheists , if you really mean atheists, bigots because you're misunderstanding what atheism is. Atheism is lack of religion, not a religion, and thus are not a group of people other just a term for individuals with no religion. There is no group in atheism, and there is no religion. You can't say that atheists are partial to their own group, because there isn't one (outside of the one you create).

    Furthermore, religion and science are entirely different things. Science studies nature, religion requires belief in a supernatural being. Science tests things, religion believes things. Science will change when a better model is produced, religion is dogmatic.

    Also, it should be noted that science does not have a religion. It is not atheistic, meaning it does not say God does not exist because it simply can not test for it, and so it simply does not have religion, nor can it possibly consider the existence of a supernatural being. Just like how baseball doesn't have a religion, or sewing, etc. etc. etc. The reason why religion does not belong in science or a science forum is due to the limits of science, nature, and its methods, testing and refining.

    Scientists who they are at home, many scientists are religious. But science has no religion, has no position on religion, and is incapable of having one - so scientists who understand science leave their religion out of their work and out of scientific discussions.

    Mixing the two does a great disservice to both science and religion, and you'd be wise not to do so.
     
  8. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    then why are scientists reluctant to acknowledge a god? or better yet the supernatural?

    science has absolutly no proof that inanimate objects become alive but yet they swear that it happened naturaly
    in my opinion a scientist isn't worth two hoots in hell that doesn't acknowledge a possibility simply because it goes against the grain
     
  9. Silkworm Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    50
    See, that's also bigoted. You're using "scientist" and "atheist" interchangeably.

    Many scientists acknowledge the existence of God because many scientists are religious. Scientists are people, just like you.

    SCIENCE does not acknowledge the existence of God because it can not test for God, and it does not consider the existence of God because it can not control for the actions of God.

    It also should be noted that scientific explainations for the origin of life are based on scientific principles and methodology and do not comment on whether or not God exists. That commentary is done by people who wish to interpret the explaination for their own purpose. The scientific explainations, that must be composed entirely of explainations based in the natural world, are meant for scientific discussions and considerations, not for religious ones.

    I would also like to point out that if you consider molecules to be inanimate objects (I'm a chemistry student and I do), you yourself are the sum of many inanimate objects in the natural world, which is studied by science. Science can not study your soul, which I assume you consider yourself as having one, because it is apparently supernatural and can not be found in the natural world. But what we can study is composed of inanimate objects.

    And I have to ask to either please study or reexamine this scientific proof before attempting to comment on it.
     
    Last edited: Jun 3, 2006
  10. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    how have i used scientist and atheist interchangably?

    and i have looked for the proof that life came from non life and there is none to be found


    It is a fact that all living forms come from previous living forms.
    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html
     
  11. Silkworm Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    50
    Leopold, you said that scientists are reluctant to acknowledge a God, meaning they are atheists, when scientists and atheists are two entirely different things (as are science and atheism).

    Also, you're apparently looking for the proof in the wrong place. The origin of life on this planet is not the concern of biological evolution.

    "evolution" from dictionary.com:
    3. Biology.
    1. Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.
    2. The historical development of a related group of organisms; phylogeny.

    As you can see, biological evolution concerns intself only with already living things, not how life began.
     
  12. Silkworm Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    50
    Also, I just noticed the poll at the top, and it should be noted as well that EVERYTHING in science is up for criticism. Science criticizes everything and is even self critical to keep things honest, that's how scientific progress is made. If you bring religion into a scientific discussion, you are asking it to be criticized, as is everything else.

    It is best to keep them seperate.
     
  13. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    who said anything about evolution?

    and speaking of that, if you follow evolution to its begining you will come to the elements.
    or does it mysteriously stop somewhere before that.

    but like i said i have been scouring the net looking for proof of how life arose and there isn't any.
    but yet you mention intelligent design or a creator and you are met with all kinds of derisions.
    yes it is unfair of me to lump all scientists into the atheist mold but you must agree that they are toally unyeilding when it comes to the possible mechanisms of how life arose

    oh, welcome to sciforums man
    i hope our debates are good ones
     
  14. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    this is a poor choice of words on my part.
    maybe i should have said reluctant to consider any possibility other than what we know about nature.

    i will be honest i have a great deal of trouble with believing in ghosts and spirits.
    but on the other hand given all we know about the makeup of cells and our ability to compress time with computer simulations that we still cannot explain life on this planet

    when was the miller-urey experiment? '53 or so? that was 50 count 'em 50 years ago and we are no closer to explaining life than we were then.

    the only thing i can say for certain about how life came to be is we simply do not know.
     
  15. Silkworm Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    50
    We're not having a debate, I'm making a plea. Please stop saying atheists and scientists are the same thing because they're not.

    Also, the link that you have given have given me was about evolution, not about the origin of life. You mentioned evolution. That's who said it. And since you ask, if you travel from the most SCIENTIFICally supported idea about the beginning of life and deconstruct into the past you'll eventually end up at the Big Bang, the most SCIENTIFICaly supported idea about the origin of the universe. Notice that neither one of them are theological.

    Again you're getting a scientist and science confused. Science will be happy to change when there is support for change. Many scientists right now are working on finding that support, not only for already established theories on the origin of life, but their own different ones. No scientific idea has anything without scientific support, the more the better, and needs a bunch before becoming a theory.

    A scientist is an individual who must do his/her best to be objective when conducting science, who they are theologically is their own business.

    Please stop this mislabeling of scientists and misuse of science. And please research the science you are criticizing, and please refrain from doing so until your research is complete. I don't know how much science that you have, but if it's none I'd suggest a few basic university courses before tackling scientific journals. Don't trust any media outside of a scientific journal or an accredited university textbook for scientific information.

    Thanks for the welcome. I'll see you on the forum, but I don't debate unless it concerns policy. I really only discuss, and I only discuss science when valid science is presented and scientific terms used correctly.
     
  16. Silkworm Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    50
    Scientists are their own people. Science is the use of natural explainations for phenomena. It is limited by the natural world. It does not have a religion, because it is not a person.

    I'd look at the Miller experiment again, and I'd look at it via scientific information and not other sources. It's actually pretty fascinating and insightful.

    And although your statement that, "that was 50 count 'em 50 years ago and we are no closer to explaining life than we were then" is unqualified, by saying it you apparently don't know that point is moot even if it were true.

    Science attempts to explain things, and sometimes complex problems, such as the origin of life, take some time. You can't just give up on the science and assume that God did it, that's not scientific, that's theological. Science doesn't give default answers, only those supported by natural explainations.
     
  17. The Devil Inside Banned Banned

    Messages:
    8,213
    the point of this thread is: how can religion be discussed on this forum without the discussion being hijacked by atheists immediately? it is a very frequent occurance, and is the reason i stopped posting on the religion subforum. for every 2 people trying to discuss religion in the RELIGION subforum, there are five members calling both of them stupid, or just in general being rude.

    i cant count how many times 2 people have been discussing the validity of one scripture against the validity of another, opposing scripture..only to have someone come by and say something to the effect of "you are both idiots. god doesnt exist."

    it is rude, is pretty much all i am saying. just because someone doesnt understand something, there is no reason to be rude to people that are TRYING to understand.
    there are a few atheist type people on this forum that arent asses though.
    crunchy cat comes to mind, as do a couple others.
     
  18. Silkworm Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    50
    I see that as not only rude, but also pointless. Theology does not concern me so I stay out of the religion subforum, and I stay out of religious conversations in general.

    Do you think though that an atheist can participate in the religion subforum, arguing from a theological standpoint that God does not exist, if he/she wishes to do so if he/she uses theology to do it other than simply saying, "You're an idiot, God does not exist"?
     
  19. The Devil Inside Banned Banned

    Messages:
    8,213
    yup.

    well, i think that the most important thing to understand about a subject like religion...is that it is an intangible subject. so, science really (at this point in our history) doesnt really have a say on the subject. i think that this frustrates many of the members on the subject, as they see themselves as "scientific", when in fact they are nothing of the sort. when you have an ABSOLUTE predisposition toward a subject (as the word "atheist" implies), you are travelling away from the realm of scientific thought, as science will never rule out a possibility. to do so would be to remove that "self criticism" that you spoke of earlier.

    now, that is not to say that science and atheism are even remotely related, just so we are clear on what is being discussed.

    i am a deeply spiritual person. that does not mean that i see no merit to scientific scrutiny on topics that should be investigated. i am a big fan of science, and scientific thought. the main issue to me, is extremism.
    i am more of a "diet coke" kind of religious person, as Crunchy Cat once put so eloquently.
     
  20. lixluke Refined Reinvention Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,072
    Not everybody has this fanatical belief.
    Many in fact, believe religion very much belongs obn a science forum.
    The bigots are those who intend to impose on others their idea that religion does not belong on a science forum.
     
  21. lixluke Refined Reinvention Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,072
    I agree.
    There is nothing atheistic about science.
    There is nothing scientific about atheism.

    Saying that science should only be looked from an atheist perspective only is the same thing as saying religion does not belong in a science forum.
    It is bigoted.

    It is no different from saying science should only be looked at from a christian perspective, and that only christianity belongs on a science forum.
     
  22. spuriousmonkey Banned Banned

    Messages:
    24,066

    Go to church, you theist freak, instead of wasting your time with satan's servants. Have a religious discussion with your buddies at bible club on sunday so you can all feel good about yourself and your selfrighteous bullshit mental crutch.

    need I say more?
     
  23. The Devil Inside Banned Banned

    Messages:
    8,213
    christ...calm down, spuriousmonkey!!
     

Share This Page