The Religion forum

[Kittamaru]

Yes, I can ask the mods to look at a post and make a judgement about it.
Because it's a science forum and not a religion forum.
I have no intention of clearing off.
This is a thread about the organisation of the site, not a discussion thread about religious dogma or attitudies.
I'll go wherever I want to go.

What are doing here? You have 5,000 posts on a science forum when you don't even accept basic scientific premises. Get lost.

I can already tell that myself and many of the other moderation staff are not likely to take your "reports" seriously... especially with an attitude like that.

And "asking a mod to look at a post" and "having someone modded" implies two VERY different threats... do keep that in mind.

As for it being a science forum... yes, yes it is. And, what a shock, Theological Study is a thing! Even if it weren't... you aren't the owner of, nor an admin or moderator on, this forum, so deciding that a religion sub-forum doesn't belong here isnt' up to you.

Anyone get the feeling this jokers tenure here is going to be incredibly short lived?

 

[wynn]

The more you insist on discussing religious topics, the more will end up discussing religious topics.
:shrug:

+1

:shrug:

 

[Bells]

Mod Note

Yes, I can ask the mods to look at a post and make a judgement about it.
Because it's a science forum and not a religion forum.
I have no intention of clearing off.
This is a thread about the organisation of the site, not a discussion thread about religious dogma or attitudies.
I'll go wherever I want to go.

What are doing here? You have 5,000 posts on a science forum when you don't even accept basic scientific premises. Get lost.

Hello Sorcerer

Welcome to Sciforums.

We are a very mixed bunch and we all have different belief systems, from strong beliefs in a deity of their choice to strong atheism.

Over the years, many from the newly joined to seasoned members to moderators have discussed the very issue that concerns you.

Should we have a religion forum?

This is a science forum after all and religion has no place in science. The two, especially in the current political climate in many countries of the world, many would feel that religion has perverted science and restricted its benefits to society in general. Having said that, we cannot always focus on all of the bad of 'religion'. It has given us amazing architecture for one and incredible works of art for the other. A lot of the scientific concepts we take for granted were from religious people. Whether we like it or not, religion is a part of our society and it has its place in history. Is it sometimes harmful? Yes. Is it sometimes helpful? Also yes. But nothing is perfect. Most importantly, the religion sub-forum can be used as a teaching tool. If someone is discussing about the evil's of contraception, for example, it is ample opportunity to show how and why it is often necessary and sometimes life saving. In other words, you can apply scientific principles to educate and promote many of the positives that science has given us.

I do think that if we were to get rid of religion because this is a science forum, then we should also get rid of the political and world events forums, the ethics, morality and justice forum, not to mention the philosophy sub-forums. As well as those dealing with the arts and business and economics. I could go on. In other words, if we were to get rid of one for not being scientific, then many would be culled for the same reason. And it would become somewhat dull. Many members would simply go elsewhere to be able to discuss the things that interest them.

People post here because we do offer a wide array of sub-forums to interest members.

If you do not like the religion forum, then you can ignore it altogether and instead, focus on the sub-sections that you do enjoy posting in.

 

[leopold]

question:
how has religion perverted science?

 

[Stryder]

question:
how has religion perverted science?

Science was seen of the practice of something that isn't religion and therefore
Heresy, which resulted in a number of rather negative methods of dealing with proto-scientist's due to religious belief systems. It could therefore be stipulated that it perverted early science by with holding scientific information under the guise that it would otherwise water down religious convictions and increase "satanist's" (At least as far as Christianity)

 

[Captain Kremmen]

God turned Lot's wife into a pillar of salt.
That's scientific.
Chemistry.

 

[wynn]

If you do not like the religion forum, then you can ignore it altogether and instead, focus on the sub-sections that you do enjoy posting in.

No no no.
Hic Rhodos, his salta!
Sorcerer ought to show his worth first.

If anyone thinks they are in fact superior to religionists: then that person should prove so. If they are indeed superior, they will come out on top. And they will do so by virtue of their own supremacy, not by requesting others to step aside.

If atheism would indeed be superior to theism, then theism would not even exist.
If atheism would indeed be superior to theism, then there would be no theists. Ever.

 

[wynn]

question:
how has religion perverted science?

By science not being the supreme power some suppose it to be.

 

[(Q)]

If atheism would indeed be superior to theism, then theism would not even exist.
If atheism would indeed be superior to theism, then there would be no theists. Ever.

It's not about one being superior to the other, it's about evolving from ignorance to understanding, and unfortunately, we are all in the middle of evolving from societies built on myths and superstitions to societies built on reason and understanding. The ignorant don't seem to want to let go of their ignorance, they prefer it over thinking and understanding because it's easy and lazy.

 

[wynn]

It's not about one being superior to the other, it's about evolving from ignorance to understanding, and unfortunately, we are all in the middle of evolving from societies built on myths and superstitions to societies built on reason and understanding.

The ignorant don't seem to want to let go of their ignorance, they prefer it over thinking and understanding because it's easy and lazy.

And you are their spokesperson?

 

[(Q)]

And you are their spokesperson?

Sorry, but where do you get that from? Is there some reason why you would say such a stupid thing in light of trying to respond with something intelligent? Or, are you just trying to make my point for me?

 

[leopold]

Science was seen of the practice of something that isn't religion and therefore
Heresy, which resulted in a number of rather negative methods of dealing with proto-scientist's due to religious belief systems. It could therefore be stipulated that it perverted early science by with holding scientific information under the guise that it would otherwise water down religious convictions and increase "satanist's" (At least as far as Christianity)

actually i was asking about todays science.

 

[Stryder]

actually i was asking about todays science.

In that case how about Creationalist Museums? Where fiction is peddled as fact.

 

[leopold]

In that case how about Creationalist Museums? Where fiction is peddled as fact.

what does this have to do with professional science?
on the other hand, a family bible can be 4 inches thick, i presume a substantial number of facts can be found inside.

i think you are confusing the issue.
the debate on the historical and social effects of religion is an entirely different animal than the debate on is there a god.

 

[spidergoat]

...

If atheism would indeed be superior to theism, then theism would not even exist.
If atheism would indeed be superior to theism, then there would be no theists. Ever.

If sobriety were superior to taking drugs, drugs would not exist? If peace were superior to war, war would not exist?

 

[wynn]

If sobriety were superior to taking drugs, drugs would not exist? If peace were superior to war, war would not exist?

Depends on what you mean by "sobriety" and "peace."

 

[(Q)]

Depends on what you mean by "sobriety" and "peace."

Another stellar non-intelligent response. Do you actually not know the meaning of those words? Seriously.

 

[wynn]

If by "sobriety" one means simply the lack of, say, alcohol in one's body, while everything else - all the person's intentions, desires and habits - remains the same, then that kind of sobriety is not superior to taking drugs.

If by "peace" one means simply absence of gunfights on a major scale, while everything else - all the people's intentions, desires and habits - remains the same, then that kind of peace is powerless against war, inferior to it.

 

[(Q)]

If by "sobriety" one means simply the lack of, say, alcohol in one's body, while everything else - all the person's intentions, desires and habits - remains the same, then that kind of sobriety is not superior to taking drugs.

If by "peace" one means simply absence of gunfights on a major scale, while everything else - all the people's intentions, desires and habits - remains the same, then that kind of peace is powerless against war, inferior to it.

Nice word salad. lol

 

[Baldeee]

And now Syne has closed a thread for seeming to be "an excuse for religion-bashing", even though it was a thread starting with a parody of an atheist list of so-called "300 proofs of God" that theists supposedly use, and with no hint of anything other than a civilised conversation going on within.

It continues to be frustrating that this moderator closes threads for no apparent reason other than his own personal dislike, without making effort to keep the thread open, without any opportunity to address the issue he clearly has with them, and when clearly not appreciating the actual conversation that is going on within them.

Please can someone help this moderator exercise some common-sense in his duties, and help him from not exercising his powers through what seems purely personal reasons.