Religion Sub-Forum Moderation

Discussion in 'SF Open Government' started by Prince_James, Dec 28, 2006.

  1. spuriousmonkey Banned Banned

    Messages:
    24,066
    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
     
  2. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. imaplanck. Banned Banned

    Messages:
    2,237
    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
     
    Last edited: Jan 11, 2007
  4. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. spuriousmonkey Banned Banned

    Messages:
    24,066
    Like Newton?
     
  6. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. imaplanck. Banned Banned

    Messages:
    2,237
    Well others more so, but he did go against the cultural trend of not standing under apple trees at harvest time.
     
  8. spuriousmonkey Banned Banned

    Messages:
    24,066
    galilei then?
     
  9. imaplanck. Banned Banned

    Messages:
    2,237
    Yes he was one of the pioneer .

    (I feel like a chicken getting baited into a monkey trap for some reason)
     
  10. spuriousmonkey Banned Banned

    Messages:
    24,066
    You were being baited.

    Depends on which historian you ask.

    I can't be bothered actually. Too much work.
     
  11. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,778
    But are you bias in your moderating or merely with your posts?

    There is nout wrong with being bias and arguing from that bias - but it is your actual moderating of the forum that presumably is in question?

    Are you admitting that you perform your moderator duties differently for theists - or just that you make posts that annoy the theists?
     
  12. spuriousmonkey Banned Banned

    Messages:
    24,066
    Of course I am biased in moderating. Otherwise I wouldn't be moderating.

    A theist discourse in the biology & genetics subforum is not really as welcome as a discourse on the behaviour of the Icelandic snow ant.
     
  13. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    as an indication of your bias, I don't recall ever suggesting such things (I would have suggested that there is no question of you going to hell, since you have already arrived - its only due to illusion that you think its delightful - BTW its not eternal either)

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Hope that cleared up a few things

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  14. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    Perhaps it is akin to an atheists modship over a religion forum that results in skin blistering explosions at the mere mention of the word "god"

    I
     
  15. Athelwulf Rest in peace Kurt... Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,060
    Perhaps I'll start one.

    No, I!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  16. imaplanck. Banned Banned

    Messages:
    2,237
    What? Cant you comprehend anything? I never said you suggested this , I merely put it to you that this is the only reason that you accept your bible over my identical in methodology ''toilet paper scriptures".
    :bugeye: What? did you slip in while I was at work and unblock my crapper for me? Thank you very much.
     
  17. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,966
    goatonapole!
     
  18. Athelwulf Rest in peace Kurt... Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,060
    I retract this statement. I believe that most SciForumers, including the site's mods, don't have a problem with the moderation staff for the Religion forum, so I think making a poll myself to settle the issue would be pointless. Y'all are free to make one yourself, however.
     
  19. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    actually the reason I don't accept your methodology is because you haven't given a clue what your methodology is (except the confidence statement "its the same as yours")
     
  20. imaplanck. Banned Banned

    Messages:
    2,237
    Jesus Christ! *bangs head against wall*
     
  21. Athelwulf Rest in peace Kurt... Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,060
    I reacted the same way. I was all "Buh?! :bugeye:"
     
  22. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    if a person wearing a green T-shirt says "I like green T-shirts" but when asked to stand next to a green car stands next to a red one, then it raises questions whether they actually know what 'green' is.

    Similarly, if you just keep saying "Its just the same as yours" without giving any explanation of specific similarity, then it is apparent that you don't know what is 'mine'
     
  23. imaplanck. Banned Banned

    Messages:
    2,237
    Ah but I've given you plenty of specifics on the similarity, where as you have dodged and weaved giving me one specific on the difference. All you keep forwarding is ill concieved buzzwords.
     

Share This Page