Some religions actively seek to convert others. In order to do so, they must first engage people.
For that reason I consider some of the communications to be 'bait', to draw one into a discussion.
Ban the Religion Thread
- Thread starter Epictetus
- Start date
Some religions actively seek to convert others. In order to do so, they must first engage people.
For that reason I consider some of the communications to be 'bait', to draw one into a discussion.
Yazata
Valued Senior Member
You mean forum, right?
I voted 'no'.
Or maybe not. Hundreds of millions of people in Asia seem to relate to Buddhism in the ways that people relate to religions.
It often isn't clear where the dividing line between religion and philosophy actually lies. What was Stoicism, for example? What about 19'th century Absolute Idealism?
I've been here a year, and I've rarely seen that happen.
And for every time it does, I could point to another instance when it's self-styled atheists that are are strutting around like mindless little roosters, filled to the point of exploding with unsubstantiated assumptions of their own intellectual superiority.
Then nobody would be talking about anything, would they? (Can you prove that the universe conforms to logic, without your proof being circular?)
I didn't pay much attention to that thread myself. But the thread title does suggest a legitimate epistemological question -- How can people come to know something like that?
The same thing could be said about this thread.
Look atheists -- Here's the deal:
You may indeed be the intellectual superiors. I certainly don't think so, not for a moment. But hell, it's possible that you are. The thing is, intellectual superiority isn't something that you can just boast about. It's something that you are going to have to get down and actually do. It's something that you are going to have to display, with truly superior intellectual prowess against real-life opponents.
So you atheists need the theists. They are your foils, the pop-up video game enemies that you have to blast in order to get intellectual points. They are the ones who keep things interesting around here, the human speed-bumps placed in the way of atheists turning themselves into empty-headed little adolescent roosters exploding with ignorance and testosterone.
and you are being nice about it..since most of the threads i have seen started were atheist trying to bait the theist..
lol..yea..how far would a thread get that was titled ' i can prove that 2+2=4'
as so far the conversation has been fairly civil..
that is so true that the opposite also is true..(switch the term atheist and theist)
??
Why worry about baits and people trying to convert you?
Aren't you superior, and this is the reason you're an atheist?
whats the current rate of exchange to convert atheist to theist?
(may be too subtle a joke..think money..)
Carcano
Valued Senior Member
Religion is defined by WORSHIP.
When a monk start worshipping his Buddhist teachers, living or dead...he has crossed the line into religion.
The Zen master Dogen used to caution his students about the difference between 'respect' for the great spiritual luminaries of the past...and servile idolatry.
Indeed, I've seen some atheist forums become boring or dry-up in terms of activity when theists intermittently disappeared, as if the applicable residents had nothing else to be interested in (which is not comparable to a multi-forum like this centering around science enthusiasm). The origin and value of atheism dependent upon a substrate of theism or contrasting reactionary response to it. Just as the combining forms constituting the term indicate, it would be a meaningless utterance minus theism being meaningful, with the latter at least having to acquire such via referring to the existence of its practitioners.
Query to passerby on street - "What do you consider yourself to be?"
Response - "I'm an alaubgefraubist. I lack belief in what a laubgefraubist believes."
Apologies for the slight change of context: laubgefraub
lets be about free speach here
the religious thread doesn't threaten me with conversion
what bothers me about this thread is its intolerance to religious thinking and why ?
while I'm an athiest , I always want to know what the other side is thinking and why
because otherwise I become an ignorant person really
the religious thread doesn't threaten me with conversion
what bothers me about this thread is its intolerance to religious thinking and why ?
while I'm an athiest , I always want to know what the other side is thinking and why
because otherwise I become an ignorant person really
Your assumptions are inaccurate.
he was being sarcastic..
Firstly, I want to remind everyone that the poll is open for 365 more days. I made it so to get the long view and to be entirely fair. I can only hope the evangelistas won't pack the house.
I mostly agree with those of you who said we need the Religion Forum (correction: not thread) to have a place to send the zealots to so as not to infect the science. Very well then, I liked the suggestion of a god-seeking sub-forum although I personally think it would be nonsense, but why antagonize people?
Those of you who suggested that I or atheists in general like to strut or show off their atheism, I don't think that is accurate. In my case, all I have done is set up a fair poll. I appreciate the fact that it is not my decision to ban anyone from these forums. In the case of others: I think it is only that some atheists have taken the bait, and if SciForum were to 'disallow' discussion of sky fairies, or placed them in the section with UFOs and para psychological phenomena the trolls for Jesus might get the point and leave us all be.
I have said I mostly do ignore religious threads that are obviously just the Christians calling us out. We don't go to their forums and express our lack of belief, so what are they doing here?
And I don't agree that theism defines atheism as CC (who I much admire -usually-) states. This Science forum should be about scientific matters, not sky fairies. Someone said nothing is provable and if it were there would be no point to us talking at all (or words to such effect). I take your point, but again my opinion is that this forum is about scientific matters not Santa and his elves.
As for Free Speech, yes, that's what the Internet is all about, but it doesn't mean god bothering trolls can intrude on serious discussion.
In many of my posts I am just trying to be amusing, but I never ask anyone to believe in the unbelievable. Most of my posts are serious questions about matters I know little about, and I seek knowledge from those of you who are kind enough to share yours.
So yeah, maybe we should divide the General Philosophy Forum int o Eastern, Western and Ethics, and move Religion, Abrahamism, especially Christianity (it's most aggressively virulent form) into the inexplicable phenomena section with UFOs and frog storms over Nebraska, not even letting it show it's annoying face in Free thought. That's what I think...
I mostly agree with those of you who said we need the Religion Forum (correction: not thread) to have a place to send the zealots to so as not to infect the science. Very well then, I liked the suggestion of a god-seeking sub-forum although I personally think it would be nonsense, but why antagonize people?
Those of you who suggested that I or atheists in general like to strut or show off their atheism, I don't think that is accurate. In my case, all I have done is set up a fair poll. I appreciate the fact that it is not my decision to ban anyone from these forums. In the case of others: I think it is only that some atheists have taken the bait, and if SciForum were to 'disallow' discussion of sky fairies, or placed them in the section with UFOs and para psychological phenomena the trolls for Jesus might get the point and leave us all be.
I have said I mostly do ignore religious threads that are obviously just the Christians calling us out. We don't go to their forums and express our lack of belief, so what are they doing here?
And I don't agree that theism defines atheism as CC (who I much admire -usually-) states. This Science forum should be about scientific matters, not sky fairies. Someone said nothing is provable and if it were there would be no point to us talking at all (or words to such effect). I take your point, but again my opinion is that this forum is about scientific matters not Santa and his elves.
As for Free Speech, yes, that's what the Internet is all about, but it doesn't mean god bothering trolls can intrude on serious discussion.
In many of my posts I am just trying to be amusing, but I never ask anyone to believe in the unbelievable. Most of my posts are serious questions about matters I know little about, and I seek knowledge from those of you who are kind enough to share yours.
So yeah, maybe we should divide the General Philosophy Forum int o Eastern, Western and Ethics, and move Religion, Abrahamism, especially Christianity (it's most aggressively virulent form) into the inexplicable phenomena section with UFOs and frog storms over Nebraska, not even letting it show it's annoying face in Free thought. That's what I think...
spidergoat
Valued Senior Member
Religion has everything to do with our attitudes towards the world and even science, so it's important to keep it.
How so?
Do you mean from a scientific point of view?
I live my life without religion just fine. If it's everything- I must be missing something making that fine- not fine. And maybe I'm not noticing that I'm not fine because I'm missing it.
yes because we need more unprejudiced,unbigoted, undiscriminatory, unbiased, non-agenda pushing ppl like you on this board..
(can you see the sarcasm?)
<edit>
I too call for a vote..
should we just delete this thread ?
(user ban to be determined later)
isn't this thread against Sciforum policies?
specifically:
7. Sciforums specifically invites discussion of religion, politics and (to some extent) sex. Members should be aware of the potential for these topics, in particular, to become inflammatory and combative. Engage in such discussions with care!
Hate speech and stereotyping
6. Hate speech, defined as the vilification of a group of people based on their race, religion, country of origin, sex, sexual orientation, political affiliation etc. is not tolerated on sciforums.
7. Stereotyping a member based on his or her membership of a group (e.g. his or her race, religion, country of origin, sex, sexual orientation, political affiliation) is unlikely to be conducive to civil discussion and will usually attract moderator attention. It is acceptable to point out similarities and differences among groups, but only as long as this is supported by argument or evidence.
8. The use of vulgar or demeaning words to describe a group of people – particularly a group that includes a member whom you are addressing – is unacceptable.
21. Propaganda is loosely defined here as posts that have no aim other than to proclaim the superiority of one belief over another, particularly where the belief in question is the subject of controversy or argument. Examples include preaching one’s own religion as the only true religion, proclaiming that one’s favoured political party is superior to the opposing party, or proclaiming that one group is morally superior to another. The signature of propaganda is that it consists largely of a member expressing strongly held personal beliefs about things that can’t be proven, supposedly in the interests of achieving some important aim (e.g. world peace, governing the nation effectively, ensuring that people act morally).
(sorry guys for the cut and paste, but it is apparent he hasn't read the rules..)
as far as the user, I do understand in fairness since Sciforums tends to give theist (like Chi) the opportunity to 'change their tone', so it is only fair to give him the same opportunity, but if he keeps this up I am in favor of suggesting a ban for this guy for his Inflammatory, prejudiced, discriminatory,biased agenda pushing, ways..
he is like the very opposite of Master of Chi..
(in case you don't know Epic, Chi IS the type of theist you are against, and he was banned.)
so then you should have no reason to want it banned.
Prove it..
(this requires you knowing who is a theist on this board and who is not..its not always that easy to tell..)
have you ever been on a christian board?
some of us theist like to scrutinize our own beliefs..
what better place to do it than a science board.
also i have looked for christian boards to post on..%99 of them are way too thick with the Christian 'script' to have an intelligent conversation..
beside there are plenty of science boards out there that do not have a religious forum..
don't push your agenda here..
(talk about the pot calling the kettle black..)
You have no right to call for a ban..you have not been here long enough to see the value of the religious threads here, all you have is your own personal attitude against religion.(204 posts..really?)
there is no place here for a God hating troll..
Last edited:
Squirrel, calm down...
He's expressed a different opinion, yes. All you need say is how you feel the forum benefits the readers.
Some people feel it doesn't belong because it incites the type of flaming that just happened.
But that doesn't make him a "God hating Troll." It makes him a person that has his own viewpoint - a viewpoint that may not be set in stone.
Remember that speech you gave me about not being harsh- about being positive and finding a better way to communicate?
He's expressed a different opinion, yes. All you need say is how you feel the forum benefits the readers.
Some people feel it doesn't belong because it incites the type of flaming that just happened.
But that doesn't make him a "God hating Troll." It makes him a person that has his own viewpoint - a viewpoint that may not be set in stone.
Remember that speech you gave me about not being harsh- about being positive and finding a better way to communicate?